QuoteFrance bars citizenship over veil
The French government has refused to grant citizenship to a foreign national on the grounds that he forced his wife to wear the full Islamic veil.
The man, whose current nationality was not given, needed citizenship to settle in the country with his French wife.
But Immigration Minister Eric Besson said this was being refused because he was depriving his wife of the liberty to come and go with her face uncovered.
Last week, a parliamentary committee proposed a partial ban on full veils.
It also recommended that anyone showing visible signs of "radical religious practice" be refused residence permits and citizenship.
'Integration'
In a statement, Mr Besson said he had signed a decree on Tuesday rejecting a man's citizenship application after it emerged that he had ordered his wife to cover herself with a head-to-toe veil.
"It became apparent during the regulation investigation and the prior interview that this person was compelling his wife to wear the all-covering veil, depriving her of the freedom to come and go with her face uncovered, and rejected the principles of secularism and equality between men and women," he said.
Later, the minister stressed that French law required anyone seeking naturalisation to demonstrate their desire for integration.
Mr Besson's decree has now been sent to Prime Minister Francois Fillon for approval.
The interior ministry says only 1,900 women wear full veils in France, home to Europe's biggest Muslim minority.
In 2008, a French court denied citizenship to a Moroccan woman on the grounds that her "radical" practice of Islam was incompatible with French values.
:cheers:
:yeah:
Incidentally, I find the title of this (BBC) article to be misleading.
While I don't respect religion in any way whatsoever, I don't consider this to be a reason to bar citizenship. The French get to be religious freaks as well.
:yeah:
We are pleased. ^_^
G.
Bon débarras. :frog:
Now if we could only decide to really solve the problem permanently and expell the lot of them! <_<
G.
Quote from: Grallon on February 03, 2010, 09:44:55 AM
Now if we could only decide to really solve the problem permanently and expell the lot of them! <_<
G.
Have some soap:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_oG2ffHT1kXk%2FSjlSnLJwuII%2FAAAAAAAAE_Y%2FLe38KRw5Kp4%2Fs400%2Fknow.nothing.jpg&hash=f82695bd51ea580551445226860ccb794ebd76d4)
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: simply require them to sign and/or swear a statement saying that they acknowledge that they renounce the idea that any compulsion to attempt to get a person to adopt or retain any belief or belief system is and should be illegal and immoral. The real nutbars believe that conversion from Islam should be punished with death, while non-nutbar Muslims realize that people have to be free to choose and even reject Islam. It is surely a central tenet of French belief that people should have freedom of belief (not just religious belief) so this test is not a religious one, yet no nutbar would take such an oath/sign such a statement.
The US could do the same, incidentally.
It would take this case (surely justified) and make it into a more general rule that doesn't require overt actions on the part of the nutbars.
I heart teh French :)
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2010, 09:51:27 AM
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: simply require them to sign and/or swear a statement saying that they acknowledge that they renounce the idea that any compulsion to attempt to get a person to adopt or retain any belief or belief system is and should be illegal and immoral. The real nutbars believe that conversion from Islam should be punished with death, while non-nutbar Muslims realize that people have to be free to choose and even reject Islam. It is surely a central tenet of French belief that people should have freedom of belief (not just religious belief) so this test is not a religious one, yet no nutbar would take such an oath/sign such a statement.
The US could do the same, incidentally.
It would take this case (surely justified) and make it into a more general rule that doesn't require overt actions on the part of the nutbars.
It's a good idea.
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2010, 09:51:27 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2010, 09:51:27 AM
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: simply require them to sign and/or swear a statement saying that they acknowledge that they renounce the idea that any compulsion to attempt to get a person to adopt or retain any belief or belief system is and should be illegal and immoral. The real nutbars believe that conversion from Islam should be punished with death, while non-nutbar Muslims realize that people have to be free to choose and even reject Islam. It is surely a central tenet of French belief that people should have freedom of belief (not just religious belief) so this test is not a religious one, yet no nutbar would take such an oath/sign such a statement.
The US could do the same, incidentally.
It would take this case (surely justified) and make it into a more general rule that doesn't require overt actions on the part of the nutbars.
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 :lol:
Quote from: Viking on February 03, 2010, 08:59:05 AM
While I don't respect religion in any way whatsoever, I don't consider this to be a reason to bar citizenship. The French get to be religious freaks as well.
I don't see why they should be required to make anybody a citizen. They can reject somebody for citizenship anyway they want. They could demand no left handed people are allowed to become citizens if it moves them to do so.
Quote from: Grallon on February 03, 2010, 10:21:39 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2010, 09:51:27 AM
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?
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2010, 11:04:25 AM
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 :lol:
:lol: What the fuck does abstinence have to do with this? Or rings?
Kids say the silliest things!
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 03, 2010, 11:14:57 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Solmyr on February 03, 2010, 11:45:30 AM
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.
I have no opinion on French rules for getting citizenship.
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2010, 11:18:04 AM
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2010, 11:04:25 AM
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 :lol:
:lol: 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.
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.
Quote from: Tamas on February 03, 2010, 01:36:30 PM
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".
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 03, 2010, 01:28:38 PM
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.
QuoteIf 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.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Tamas on February 03, 2010, 01:36:30 PM
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?
It all boils down to one question:
"How can we discriminate without appearing to be discriminating?" :nelson:
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.
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2010, 12:50:13 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2010, 01:52:20 PM
Quote from: Tamas on February 03, 2010, 01:36:30 PM
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?
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2010, 01:55:34 PM
How do you know this? You can't be this naive.
:rolleyes: Whatever.
Quote from: Tamas on February 03, 2010, 02:12:31 PM
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?
The kinds of people the French are trying to keep out are not the Muslim equivalents of Pascal, they are economic refugees who also happen to be religious bigots. They will ask their local religious leader if it is okay to take an oath to renounce a central tenet of their religion so they can get a better job in France, and the local imam will say "no."
I don't know whether the Koran has some story about how lying is a cool thing under some circumstances; I do know that Shi'ites (but not Sunnis) are allowed to lie about their faith to save their lives. If I had to guess, I'd guess that the story that "Mohamed backstabbed the jews with some peace treaty and how that was like the coolest thing to do" was the product of some anti-Muslim bigot.
Just for the record I will keep a close eye on where you start your grumbelism and I will leave this thread so you can claim victory :P
I am just saying because I am fully aware that you know history way too well than to don't know that no matter how zealous a person or society is, it will never overwrite their economic interests. There are always exceptions to that rule of course, and your suggestion could be implemented to keep those sorry-ass losers out, but otherwise, the rest will find a way.
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2010, 02:40:55 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2010, 01:55:34 PM
How do you know this? You can't be this naive.
:rolleyes: Whatever.
Seriously-- what makes you think the nutbars won't take the oath & then promptly ignore it, laughing at its irrelevance to their culture/religion?
I see no harm in requiring the oath-- I just don't see it helping much if at all. Now if you added penalties to violating the oath, like having your eyebrows shaved off or-- the ultimate punishment-- exposure to menstrual blood, then maybe we're getting somewhere :P
Quote from: Grallon on February 03, 2010, 01:55:08 PM
It all boils down to one question:
"How can we discriminate without appearing to be discriminating?" :nelson:
Yep. Just like instead of just outright denying voting rights to blacks, we'll require potential voters to pass a civics test in order to register. And if whites happen to get quetions like, "Who was the first President of the US" and blacks happen to get questions like, "Contrast and compare the ideals of the following Revolutions: American, French, and Russian", well, that's just the luck of the draw.
Le Pen is the answer.
I don't see how an oath will stop anyone. Being deeply religious doesn't make one any more honest, especially if one believes that God expressly permits lying to non-believers.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on February 03, 2010, 08:31:41 PM
I don't see how an oath will stop anyone. Being deeply religious doesn't make one any more honest, especially if one believes that God expressly permits lying to non-believers.
Who are you again? In any case, you should't swallow all grumbler spews - his rethoric often confuses him.
And anyway, as a rule one shouldn't trust a muslim - ever.
G.
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2010, 02:47:21 PM
I don't know whether the Koran has some story about how lying is a cool thing under some circumstances; I do know that Shi'ites (but not Sunnis) are allowed to lie about their faith to save their lives.
This is the concept of, I believe, taqiyya. It's only allowed in certain circumstances, to save their life or the lives of others and if someone else will lose their life because of the lie it's forbidden.
QuoteIf I had to guess, I'd guess that the story that "Mohamed backstabbed the jews with some peace treaty and how that was like the coolest thing to do" was the product of some anti-Muslim bigot.
I believe it's based on the story that the Hijra to Medina was based on a treaty between Mohamed and some Jewish tribes, it basically placed Mohamed as a jurist for inter-Jewish disputes and promised to work together. When the Meccans attacked Medina one of the tribes betrayed Mohamed because the Meccans promised them control over Medina and they were massacred. It's mentioned pretty briefly in the Quran the rest is histories and stories around it, so no-one's terribly sure what happened.
It's never to my knowledge been used within Islam as an example of it being okay to lie so you can take over a society. Some Sunni hadiths suggest that lying can be acceptable, however I believe that, as ever, there are rules on when you can lie and what you can lie about :)
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2010, 05:36:45 PM
Seriously-- what makes you think the nutbars won't take the oath & then promptly ignore it, laughing at its irrelevance to their culture/religion?
Seriously-- what makes you think a public renunciation of the policy of punishing apostasy is irrelevant to any particular Muslim culture? Most Muslims in the Western world, of course, recognize that such policies are neither Islamic nor tenable in a western society, but the Muslims France wants to keep out are not those kinds of Muslims.
The repeated unsubstantiated assertion that Muslims can lie to non-Muslims about Islam without qualms makes me wonder if languish has drained the critical thinking skills from the majority of its members.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on February 03, 2010, 08:31:41 PM
I don't see how an oath will stop anyone. Being deeply religious doesn't make one any more honest, especially if one believes that God expressly permits lying to non-believers.
:frusty:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 03, 2010, 08:49:09 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2010, 02:47:21 PM
I don't know whether the Koran has some story about how lying is a cool thing under some circumstances; I do know that Shi'ites (but not Sunnis) are allowed to lie about their faith to save their lives.
This is the concept of, I believe, taqiyya. It's only allowed in certain circumstances, to save their life or the lives of others and if someone else will lose their life because of the lie it's forbidden.
QuoteIf I had to guess, I'd guess that the story that "Mohamed backstabbed the jews with some peace treaty and how that was like the coolest thing to do" was the product of some anti-Muslim bigot.
I believe it's based on the story that the Hijra to Medina was based on a treaty between Mohamed and some Jewish tribes, it basically placed Mohamed as a jurist for inter-Jewish disputes and promised to work together. When the Meccans attacked Medina one of the tribes betrayed Mohamed because the Meccans promised them control over Medina and they were massacred. It's mentioned pretty briefly in the Quran the rest is histories and stories around it, so no-one's terribly sure what happened.
It's never to my knowledge been used within Islam as an example of it being okay to lie so you can take over a society. Some Sunni hadiths suggest that lying can be acceptable, however I believe that, as ever, there are rules on when you can lie and what you can lie about :)
I believe that you are wasting your breath. The meme has taken hold and I don't think mere facts will change anyone's mind.
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2010, 08:58:13 PM
I believe that you are wasting your breath. The meme has taken hold and I don't think mere facts will change anyone's mind.
I think you're probably right. This reminds me of when I read a book about the Jesuit missions to Elizabethan England and the fear that they were allowed to 'equivocate' and, effectively, lie to protect their mission.
Grumbler, there's theoretically nothing wrong with your assertion. The practical issue is that you and Sheilbh are boiling things down to 100% followers and 100% non-followers. As I've understood it, the typical problem with muslims already comes from followers of Islam who've perverted the "proper" practices.
That said, I do see some practicality to your suggestion, though probably not what you intended- while it probably wouldn't help the assimilation phase, it might make deportation of the wacky ones slightly easier after the fact.
Quote from: Grallon on February 03, 2010, 08:43:34 PM
Who are you again?
My name was Zagys in the old forum.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 03, 2010, 08:49:09 PM
This is the concept of, I believe, taqiyya. It's only allowed in certain circumstances, to save their life or the lives of others and if someone else will lose their life because of the lie it's forbidden.
I've heard of a fatwa that expanded this to something along the lines of it being okay to lie to non-muslims if it serves the purpose of a jihad.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on February 03, 2010, 10:26:59 PM
My name was Zagys in the old forum.
Was wondering where you'd gone. Between garbon off sick, Martinus pouting in a corner, Habsbourg forever absent and Faelin snubbing everyone I was hard pressed to maintain the homo brigade's presence.
Welcome back. :)
G.
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2010, 10:35:36 PM
I've heard of a fatwa that expanded this to something along the lines of it being okay to lie to non-muslims if it serves the purpose of a jihad.
I've heard this, but never seen any evidence. It would be very unusual. Taqiyya is a solely Shia thing and the Shia generally speaking aren't into what one Sunni radical cleric calls al-Qaeda's 'insane war on the world' or that sort of thing. From my understanding taqiyya has no standing whatsoever in Sunni jurisprudence and is very strictly circumscribed in Shia law.
The rules on taqiyya in its modern form were defined by Ayatollah Sistani - because it was relevant again in Saddam's Iraq. He's said nothing to do with jihad, generally speaking Shia Islam is less keen on it as a concept.
QuoteThe practical issue is that you and Sheilbh are boiling things down to 100% followers and 100% non-followers. As I've understood it, the typical problem with muslims already comes from followers of Islam who've perverted the "proper" practices.
The practical issue is seeing people who dislike Islam say mainstream Islam has this quaint, millenia old theological quirk when in fact a minority of the Muslim world has the idea at all. It would be like a secularist saying the problem with Catholicism is the filoque clause. It's just peculiar.
Quote from: Grallon on February 04, 2010, 08:09:32 AM
Was wondering where you'd gone. Between garbon off sick, Martinus pouting in a corner, Habsbourg forever absent and Faelin snubbing everyone I was hard pressed to maintain the homo brigade's presence.
Welcome back. :)
G.
TBR violation! :banned:
I agree with Grumbler's proposal, and I think it'd be important for reasons of symbolism alone.