Breaking News - Major Terrorist Attack In Oslo, Norway

[Tamas]

Now, there's the caricature of multiculturalism going as well - the one so many people are against - is the one where you can't stop honour killings or clitorectomies and so on.

The thing is, the line is not as clearly drawn as you claim. The slaughter of animals thread proves that there is quite a division as to what people perceive to be "harmless" and "harmful" expression of different cultures. There is also an issue of circumcision of boys for example. Or arranged marriages. Or polygamy. A lot of cultural issues like this are in a grey area, and this creates conflicts.

I am not saying that your approach is wrong, just that you seem to draw this rosy, optimistic picture of these issues being a no brainer, but they aren't.

well it should be fairly easy: everything goes as long as it does not go against the will of an other involved individual (with the added protection of minors)

[Martinus]

When multiculturalism means you can't say things like what Grallon and Slargos say, it's gone too far.  You (Europe, not you, Jacob) ironically make their point for them: by eroding the freedom to say reprehensible things, you make the statement that freedom is only for things you like.

And when only the freedom to do things someone in power likes are allowed, sooner or later someone will come to power you do not like, and who does not like you, and freedom that has value to you will be trampled.

Eloquently put

Only that it's a strawman, or at least it is not relevant to the case at hand. As was already said, the guy was spouting his bullshit for a while now and at no point was he in any way prosecuted or persecuted for his views. His complaint is that newspapers wouldn't print his letters.

[Martinus]

To elaborate on Jacob said, I think the sane multiculturalism is essentially eudaimonics applied to people of different cultures. It is the same argument as allowing gays to marry - as long as it makes people happier and does not harm anyone, why shouldn't the state allow it?

for sure, altough in that specific example, it is only true while we are talking about the legal aspect of marriage. The state should have no reason to deny same-sex people to be legally considered married.

However, the state also should have no say in forcing gay couples down the throat of churches - if people have in their backward instruction manual for life that "ghey sex is teh evöl", they should be left free to deny church weddings to gays.

Indeed. Which is about freedom of religion point Jacob made.

[Martinus]

Now, there's the caricature of multiculturalism going as well - the one so many people are against - is the one where you can't stop honour killings or clitorectomies and so on.

The thing is, the line is not as clearly drawn as you claim. The slaughter of animals thread proves that there is quite a division as to what people perceive to be "harmless" and "harmful" expression of different cultures. There is also an issue of circumcision of boys for example. Or arranged marriages. Or polygamy. A lot of cultural issues like this are in a grey area, and this creates conflicts.

I am not saying that your approach is wrong, just that you seem to draw this rosy, optimistic picture of these issues being a no brainer, but they aren't.

well it should be fairly easy: everything goes as long as it does not go against the will of an other involved individual (with the added protection of minors)

What about animals? Or environment? If I want to worship Quitzipotli by boiling a thousand dogs alive in molten lead and dump the proceeds to a nearby river, should I be allowed to do it?

[Ideologue]

When multiculturalism means you can't say things like what Grallon and Slargos say, it's gone too far.  You (Europe, not you, Jacob) ironically make their point for them: by eroding the freedom to say reprehensible things, you make the statement that freedom is only for things you like.

Which things that Grallon and Slargos say? That 'the other people' should all be killed because otherwise they'll destroy us?

Yes!

Isn't that the point of democracy? For people to bend it to their own ends?

Yes, but when you have an organized group of a substantial size (such as a religious sect) they are capable of exerting far more power than their numbers alone would warrant.  I suppose this is the danger of any organized group, and the major vulnerability of a democracy.  However, as susceptible as the United States is to such organization, with European democracies, with their far less entrenched notion of invioable rights, it suggests an even higher degree of vulnerability.

And I don't mean that as a slam on Europe or anything.*  But the United States, with the possible exception of the United Kingdom, does have a longer history of democracy, and a more "sacred" approach to rights than any European country, specifically freedom of speech and freedom of (and from) religion.  I have had a thousand arguments with Europeans on the subject, and most of them don't even seem to understand how their current speech regime undermine their own rights.

... but that's hardly an immigration problem is it? I mean, those people are descended from immigrants, sure, but their immigrant ancestors were not members of the Christian Right, by and large, because no such thing existed when they immigrated.

No, it's not an immigration problem.  It is a problem with a highly disciplined, highly motivated, highly organized subculture that claims the loyalty or even the sympathy of comparatively few Americans but wields highly disproportionate political power.

I strongly dislike Islam, for example, and would never want to see Muslims gain the same ascendancy as Christians in the United States.  That is a ludicrous fear in America (and one exploited by far more dangerous Abrahamics); I do not know if it is a ludicrous fear in Europe.

It is.

I hope so, and I don't necessarily share that fear, although at a point in American history the rise of an actively theocratic political movement would not have been a rational fear either.  Just sayin'.

*It is, however, fun to turn the tables.  You hear all sorts of shit about "Old Europe" and how they've got history, etc.  But compared to us, Europe's present-day political landscape is actually the much younger brother.  Not counting fake countries like the Vatican, only the British, the Swedes and the Danes have continuous governments older than America.

[CountDeMoney]

But compared to us, Europe's present-day political landscape is actually the much younger brother.  Not counting fake countries like the Vatican, only the British, the Swedes and the Danes have continuous governments older than America.

Don't disse der Swisse.

[Ideologue]

When multiculturalism means you can't say things like what Grallon and Slargos say, it's gone too far.  You (Europe, not you, Jacob) ironically make their point for them: by eroding the freedom to say reprehensible things, you make the statement that freedom is only for things you like.

And when only the freedom to do things someone in power likes are allowed, sooner or later someone will come to power you do not like, and who does not like you, and freedom that has value to you will be trampled.

Eloquently put

Only that it's a strawman, or at least it is not relevant to the case at hand. As was already said, the guy was spouting his bullshit for a while now and at no point was he in any way prosecuted or persecuted for his views. His complaint is that newspapers wouldn't print his letters.

I may have misinterpreted something Jake said as advocating silencing such views through legal sanctions (which does happen, Mart, maybe not in Norway, but there are cases).  However, as I cannot find whatever it was that got me on that line, and it is tangential, I'll happily drop it.

The main point was that it is not patently insane to believe that specific groups of people, whose coreligionists have a demonstrably theocratic bent, may be a dangerous addition to a society, once its demographic weight reaches a certain point; however that it may be a largely misplaced fear in the present case of Islam and Europe.  It certainly is in the United States and Islam, but it is a present danger in the analogous case I illustrated.

[Tamas]

Regarding the fear of islamotards in Europe. Sure, it looks to be blown out of proportions and 95% of it is good old xenophobia, but based on what I have read and saw, assimilation does appear to be quite low.  This may be more the fault of the majority than the immigrants for all I know, but the fact is the same regardless of that, and blocking out any discussion on that as  verboten racist talk will only escalate the situation.

Because you end up like we with the gypsies. The cultural clash between hungarians and gypsies has been a reality for decades, ever since the gypsies were literally forced to abandon their lifestyle and was force-settled. Yet, no political side took up to discuss the issue. All acted like it doesn't exist. Except for the nazis of course, who, as a result, dominate it, and are on the verge of escalating it beyond any hope of repair

[Ideologue]

But compared to us, Europe's present-day political landscape is actually the much younger brother.  Not counting fake countries like the Vatican, only the British, the Swedes and the Danes have continuous governments older than America.

Don't disse der Swisse.

Well, I looked it up, and the Helvetic Republic lasted a far shorter time than I thought it did.  It may not still count as continuous, however.  Almost twenty years of foreign influence, and striking differences even after the restoration of the Swiss Confederation and their return to sovereignty in 1814.

I did count Danes and Norwegians, because the Nazi occupation was relatively brief... I guess if I'm counting Norway with its puppet government, it might not be fair to discount Switzerland.

[The Brain]

But compared to us, Europe's present-day political landscape is actually the much younger brother.  Not counting fake countries like the Vatican, only the British, the Swedes and the Danes have continuous governments older than America.

Don't disse der Swisse.

Well, I looked it up, and the Helvetic Republic lasted a far shorter time than I thought it did.  It may not still count as continuous, however.  Almost twenty years of foreign influence, and striking differences even after the restoration of the Swiss Confederation and their return to sovereignty in 1814.

I did count Danes and Norwegians, because the Nazi occupation was relatively brief... I guess if I'm counting Norway with its puppet government, it might not be fair to discount Switzerland.

You didn't count the Norwegians. I hope.

[CountDeMoney]

Well, I looked it up, and the Helvetic Republic lasted a far shorter time than I thought it did.  It may not still count as continuous, however.  Almost twenty years of foreign influence, and striking differences even after the restoration of the Swiss Confederation and their return to sovereignty in 1814.

I did count Danes and Norwegians, because the Nazi occupation was relatively brief... I guess if I'm counting Norway with its puppet government, it might not be fair to discount Switzerland.

A couple of hiccups here and there shouldn't knock someone off the leaderboard.

[Ideologue]

But compared to us, Europe's present-day political landscape is actually the much younger brother.  Not counting fake countries like the Vatican, only the British, the Swedes and the Danes have continuous governments older than America.

Don't disse der Swisse.

Well, I looked it up, and the Helvetic Republic lasted a far shorter time than I thought it did.  It may not still count as continuous, however.  Almost twenty years of foreign influence, and striking differences even after the restoration of the Swiss Confederation and their return to sovereignty in 1814.

I did count Danes and Norwegians, because the Nazi occupation was relatively brief... I guess if I'm counting Norway with its puppet government, it might not be fair to discount Switzerland.

You didn't count the Norwegians. I hope.

I meant just Danes, oops.

[jimmy olsen]

Now, there's the caricature of multiculturalism going as well - the one so many people are against - is the one where you can't stop honour killings or clitorectomies and so on.

The thing is, the line is not as clearly drawn as you claim. The slaughter of animals thread proves that there is quite a division as to what people perceive to be "harmless" and "harmful" expression of different cultures. There is also an issue of circumcision of boys for example. Or arranged marriages. Or polygamy. A lot of cultural issues like this are in a grey area, and this creates conflicts.

I am not saying that your approach is wrong, just that you seem to draw this rosy, optimistic picture of these issues being a no brainer, but they aren't.

well it should be fairly easy: everything goes as long as it does not go against the will of an other involved individual (with the added protection of minors)

What about animals? Or environment? If I want to worship Quitzipotli by boiling a thousand dogs alive in molten lead and dump the proceeds to a nearby river, should I be allowed to do it?

It's okay if you use cats instead and clean up the mess rather than dumping it in a river.

[grumbler]

I did count Danes and Norwegians, because the Nazi occupation was relatively brief... I guess if I'm counting Norway with its puppet government, it might not be fair to discount Switzerland.

The Norwegians kept a government in exile during the German occupation, so should count.  Likewise, the Danish government continued to exist during the war, though Parliament didn't meet between Aug '43 and May 1945 (a period of German martial law, though no replacement government).

[Martinus]

But the United States, with the possible exception of the United Kingdom, does have a longer history of democracy, and a more "sacred" approach to rights than any European country, specifically freedom of speech and freedom of (and from) religion.

You are quite wrong especially about the inviolable rights - in fact the UK is unique in that it does not have a written constitution where such rights are enshrined (and unlike the US, our constitutions are quite long and have many more rights enshrined in them than the US one for example). We do see freedom of speech and freedom of religion somewhat differently than you, but that's ignorant to believe this is because we do not have the concept of "sacred" rights.