Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.
France to Woman: You're 'Too Muslim' to Become a Citizen
time.com — France's adhesion to secularity seems to generate the same prejudice it's supposed to prevent. The nation's highest administrative authority has denied a woman's naturalization application on the grounds that she's effectively too Muslim. The legal ruling is the first time a applicant had been rejected by France due to their religious practices.
MakiMaki- 1022 diggs
- digg it
- Stevanoski, on 07/12/2008, -92/+33Since France is the country (outside of Cuba or Venezuela) that the Left worships I'm sure they will want to bring their common sense approach to the States.
- Rotzooi, on 07/13/2008, -17/+73You're just mad because France was one of the countries that tried to prevent your Republican masters from starting an illegal war.
- Monk22, on 07/14/2008, -2/+1lol becuase they were in a corrupt deal and protecting their ass from getting caught. how noble of them.
- andj, on 07/13/2008, -8/+28your right wing neocon govt has squandered americas power. Its no longer The superpower - thanks to policies and strategic decisions from the selfserving fascists in the white house.
and you Stevanosk- and people like you are simply their "usefull idiot"- alaskanassassin, on 07/14/2008, -8/+4just keep telling yourself that.
- RRJackson, on 07/14/2008, -8/+3I dunno. We crushed the third-largest military power in the world in the span of a month. Iran is #16 and Syria is #29. I'm pretty sure we can obliterate them both in a week with time left over to shoot 13 episodes of 'Rockin' Mahmoud's Crib, American-Style' on spec.
- zeabu, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1RRJackson : Your comment was very funny, but you forgot a sarcasm-tag. It could confuse people.
Iraq has never got/been the 3rd largest army.
We have the US, Isra'el, China, Russia, etc... with larger/better armies.
- artwithbyte, on 07/13/2008, -7/+27You're deeply irrational, Stevanoski. I would suggest you seek therapy, but you'd probably just consider therapy as part of "THE LEFTIST AGENDA", DUHN DUHN DUHN, to get you in touch with your feelings.
- JigoroKano, on 07/13/2008, -11/+8Wait a second, I thought the left was all about multiculturalism and embracing differences?
I thought it was the right side of me that didn't want to let fanatical religious nutters into my country.
I guess I am more left than I thought.- fuse13, on 07/14/2008, -6/+3You people are idiots. Its conservatives that seem to talk about France (or Cuba, Venezuela) all the time. And it is about as stupid as saying bush=hitler. Congratulations, Stevanoski and JigoroKano, you are the conservative equivalent!
Protip: Next time you want to make some snide sarcastic attack on the left, maybe try actually making observations that relate to the real left and not some imaginary one in your head that consists of masked marxist student protestors or soemthing. Then you wont appear like an ignorant hick.
Thanks! - tehbored, on 07/14/2008, -2/+3***** you for giving a ***** about left/right labels! ***** that. My views are my own and they may or may not fall in line with some stupid label someone made up for them.
- fuse13, on 07/14/2008, -6/+3You people are idiots. Its conservatives that seem to talk about France (or Cuba, Venezuela) all the time. And it is about as stupid as saying bush=hitler. Congratulations, Stevanoski and JigoroKano, you are the conservative equivalent!
- hambend, on 07/13/2008, -5/+18Anyone who harps on about left vs right wing politics like it's all some kind of sporting rivalry is a ***** ape.
Seriously, I can't be the only one who's sick to death of that *****.- ZenMojo, on 07/14/2008, -1/+7Exactly. If people stopped treating politics like a contest and instead like peoples' lives were at stake, maybe we wouldn't be in the situation that we're in.
- RRJackson, on 07/14/2008, -2/+1Hell, *I* want to bring their common-sense approach to the United States. ;-)
- Rotzooi, on 07/13/2008, -17/+73You're just mad because France was one of the countries that tried to prevent your Republican masters from starting an illegal war.
- FizixMan, on 07/12/2008, -50/+18I wonder if the husband is a citizen, and if so, would the French government consider revoking his citizenship on the same grounds?
Seriously, WTF France. I'm all for gender equality, but it sounds like this is a personal choice of hers and it's not adversely affecting any other French citizen, nor is it breaking any criminal laws.- fadeout, on 07/13/2008, -8/+59No one is forcing her to move to France, one of the few countries in Europe intergrating into the EU while strictly defending their cultural identity (something that the knee jerk conservatives seem to forget because Paris had the balls to say no to the war in Iraq).
If you'd actually read the article, in her immigration papers she made her personal views clear and they are 100% contrary to one of the principles on which their Republic was founded - which is gender equality. If you think this is rough, try Switzerland.- mr100percent, on 07/13/2008, -4/+10If that's true, they better throw out all the Catholics and Orthodox Jews. Gender equality isn't something universally accepted.
- JigoroKano, on 07/13/2008, -7/+2If that's true, they'd better not *let in* any more radical Catholics or Orthodox Jews.
- ShadowMerchant, on 07/14/2008, -4/+1Hear hear. Immigration is a privilege, not a right. Sovereign nations can and should turn away anyone who is unlikely to improve the peacefulness and well-being of society. That definitely includes Salafist Muslims. Not one more Salafi or Wahhabi or Deobandi piece of ***** should ever be allowed to set foot outside the Muslim world. Those who were foolishly allowed into Christendom should be rounded up at gunpoint and shipped home in cages on oil tanker decks.
- Elranzer, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1France is nearly 99% Catholic (not including the massive influx of Muslim immigrants), however they're pretty secular for Catholics. However they don't let radical religion interfere with any human rights, which is the way it should be.
- zeabu, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Elranzer. I'm also Catholic, because I'm baptized. My grandparents insisted on that. For the state that's enough. It's the reason why a church still gets ton of money, while noone goes to it.
I'm atheist, but not for the state.
- fadeout, on 07/13/2008, -8/+59No one is forcing her to move to France, one of the few countries in Europe intergrating into the EU while strictly defending their cultural identity (something that the knee jerk conservatives seem to forget because Paris had the balls to say no to the war in Iraq).
- Kanele, on 07/12/2008, -17/+150After reading both english and french article, this does not seem like her personal choice. She didn't wear the stuff before getting married, she was socialized. This woman is heavily influenced by her husband. She lives in complete isolation.
The refusal is based on these grounds.- source1984, on 07/13/2008, -28/+8"This woman is heavily influenced by her husband" So are lots of women! The problem here is she is being singled out because of her religion. There are French women that are violently controlled by drunk, wife-beating men -- why are they given citizenship?
- wolferz, on 07/13/2008, -4/+11So are lots of women? Ok... perhaps lots of women are "heavily influenced" by their husband. It would be more appropriate to say that she is essentially "owned" by her husband.
How many women are we down to now? Few enough for you to think it's inappropriate yet? - mijelh, on 07/13/2008, -3/+12because they're not brown???? You really know nothing about France. Equality laws are so stringent that the government cannot even collect data about citizen's race
- sirandrewofkay, on 07/14/2008, -3/+1yes, the government cannot collect data about this woman's race. the fact that she's from morocco would give absolutely no hint to those processing her citizenship.
and there is a bloc in france that is horrifyingly racist - their current president dismissed africans as never having entered into history, having known only the earth time of the rising and setting sun as they tended their fields or some such *****.
however high xenophobia may run in america, it is much worse in france. - zeabu, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Xenophobia's less hidden in Europe, because the political spectrum of Europe is on the very left side, when compared to the US. We speak more out against it. There's more discussion going on about it.
The president of France, is a moron, a *****, right-wing, not that educated you could expect from a president, I don't like him, but I have to admit he has never said that about Africans.
He once said that he would clean the suburbs of eg. Paris with a Kärcher, and that has been interprated as racist. There's "only foreign thug" living in the suburbs, but that has a lot to do with the fact that there's "only foreign people" living there.
- wolferz, on 07/13/2008, -4/+11So are lots of women? Ok... perhaps lots of women are "heavily influenced" by their husband. It would be more appropriate to say that she is essentially "owned" by her husband.
- sanman, on 07/14/2008, -9/+80I'm brown, and I feel France is totally right to deny this woman citizenship. Admission into a country is not a right, it's a privilege, so nobody should be demanding it. A nation is not a ***** hotel, for goodness' sakes. With rights come responsibilities, and among those is a responsibility to assimilate, and not demand that the society bend over backwards for you. Why are you demanding to be let into a country whose lifestyle and culture you reject in the first place?
"Hi, I dislike your culture, I dislike your values, I dislike your traditions. Now hurry and ***** let me in. It's my goddamn turn, and I demand it!"
***** off. Go find some other place to live.- scarecrow2k6, on 07/14/2008, -20/+1Are you an Indian sanman?
- popfrogs, on 07/14/2008, -1/+28I really don't blame them. France has had enormous problems with immigrants over the last few years and they're trying to identify factors that point to people becoming troublemakers and prevent their entry from the beginning. Good for them, I wish a few more countries learned to scrutinize carefully.
- Nitesmoke, on 07/14/2008, -1/+18I agree with you 100%, Sanman, but why is it that same rational doesn't apply to the US. Why is it ok for Mexican illegal immigrants to demand rights that don't apply to non-citizens. I'm not trying to be an *****, I just think it's interesting that when France does something like this, the Digg crowd seems to agree, but if the US did the same thing, they'd call us racists or xenophobes. Just noticing a bit of a double standard. But I still agree with you.
- sanman, on 07/14/2008, -1/+10Nitesmoke, I'm not making a France-specific argument. I am in support of politicians like Ron Paul asking that the US-Mexico border be respected, and I oppose immigration amnesty. To me, a nation has the right to reap the fruits of its own efforts and policies, without being infringed upon or intruded upon by interlopers.
One of my favorite stories from childhood is The Grasshopper and the Ant. If that story were re-told by today's PC standards, then the poor, oppressed grasshopper holds a press conference with the ACLU to demand that the heartless ant fork over the loot amassed from his insidious exploitation of the environment, to share it with the less privileged insects. - DarkStryke, on 07/14/2008, -4/+9I only wish Canada was this strict, as they let anyone become a citizen and it's turning our nationality into whatever the 'refugee' flavor of the day is (right now it's sikh and muslim, both religions with questionable hate fueling leadership at multiple levels)
- haikuFU, on 07/14/2008, -1/+11France has a culture they want to protect. Just like nearly every other country. I would have turned her away also.
If you're going to move to another country, please adopt their customs, and stop grouping together with others and try to pass laws that follow your beliefs. YOU MOVED, others did not. YOU are invading their territory. - kuzotz, on 07/14/2008, -6/+1so haiku you are all about people throwing away a culture and religion that they grew up with? That's a bit much seeing that europeans never did this.
- sirandrewofkay, on 07/14/2008, -2/+0@ popfrogs: so "scrutinizing carefully" is racial profiling?
- source1984, on 07/13/2008, -28/+8"This woman is heavily influenced by her husband" So are lots of women! The problem here is she is being singled out because of her religion. There are French women that are violently controlled by drunk, wife-beating men -- why are they given citizenship?
- sk11, on 07/13/2008, -11/+119Why is there a picture of a sith lord?
- hansk, on 07/14/2008, -0/+5it looks like a skeksie from The Dark Crystal.
- ronocdh, on 07/14/2008, -3/+2I am a sith lord, you insensitive clod!
- p3ngwin, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1Dugg for "clod"
i would have also accepted "clott"
- p3ngwin, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1Dugg for "clod"
- p3ngwin, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2@SK11
ha !
best comment of the day, well after all the constructive ones here anyway :)
have a Digg on me old chap.
- gfxlonghorn, on 07/13/2008, -71/+4This is no acceptable anywhere, however, if you going to deny somebody citizenship, you sure as hell better give a less controversial reason. Its utterly retarded to spark this kind of controversy over something, and now they are in for more trouble than it was worth.
- fadeout, on 07/13/2008, -4/+47If you don't like it, don't move to France.
- Disregard, on 07/13/2008, -2/+41I'd be interested to see how a fanatical Christian with a foot-long cross around his neck does immigrating to Morocco.
- zomglolcats, on 07/13/2008, -1/+31It's not the US. The world doesn't have to live by the US Constitution.
- Insolent, on 07/13/2008, -7/+22Neither does the US, apparently.
- UltraDavid, on 07/13/2008, -1/+19You have to understand France's history to know why they take this kind of position. *Dusts off year of college spent in Paris*
For hundreds of years the church controlled the country, and even after that the church was extremely important and powerful under the monarch. After the Revolution and starting with the third republic, they embarked on a program of extreme secularization, trying to separate the church from the state (and power generally) as much as possible, and the secularization is so strict that nobody is allowed to even wear religious symbols in schools and government offices, whether you're Catholic or Jewish or Muslim. And equality is so important and the French constitution guarantees equality so stringently that they're not even allowed to take data on the ethnicities of French citizens. Secularization and equality are extremely important in French culture; for them, there really aren't too many things that are _more_ worth this. - tehbored, on 07/14/2008, -2/+2Boo hoo. The big scary controversy monster is going to get me! I better watch what I do or say, it might offend someone!
- tenesmus, on 07/13/2008, -26/+221gfxlonghorn, no person has a right to obtain a citizenship of another country. It is *completely* at the discretion of the host country.
Unfortunately, fundamental Islamism and a free society are mutually exclusive. The sooner *all* free societies realize this, the better.- d17182, on 07/13/2008, -21/+47See this? It's a reply. I made it by clicking the Reply button. The sooner all repliers learn to use it, the better.
- eriksanerd, on 07/13/2008, -24/+15So you're effectively saying in order for a society to be free, it must forbid Islamic fundamentalism?
The problem with that is when a supposedly "free" society is allowed to say certain beliefs are forbidden, its not long before those in power get to choose these beliefs for any reason they wish.
Freedom comes with a few risks. Religions that attract crazies are one such risk. But making a blanket statement that such beliefs are forbidden, even when the person in question(this woman, for example) has never done anything that would be considered a crime, cause more damage than they prevent.
You're right that France has every right to do this legally(morally is another debate, but it's not my point here), but to claim that a country that allows people to practice fundamental Islam cannot be considered free is nonsense.- StoicHitman, on 07/13/2008, -14/+6hey i think she got off easy. They could have just taken her out back and beat the sh*t out of her. That's what i would have done
- badenglishihave, on 07/13/2008, -4/+22The problem is that fundamentalist Islam encourages degrading women and blowing yourself up for Allah. That's where it gets in the way of freedom.
- gcnaddict, on 07/13/2008, -11/+4Fundamentalist Islam does not encourage such insane *****. That's radical Islam.
- PompousPilots, on 07/13/2008, -0/+4interesting dilemma.
but there is no need to forbid islamic fundamentalism. i think maybe what tenesmus meant by "The sooner *all* free societies realize this, the better" is that countries can take a few measures to minimize its effect on the Western legal philosophy. Modifying immigration policy is one measure. Another measure is refusing to change our laws to accommodate sharia. (e.g. Laws regarding gender, laws restricting freedom of expression, such as depicting Mohammed, etc.) Some european countries have become quite accommodating.
anyway, you can still allow people to believe whatever they want, as long as they do not impose their will on anyone else. that's as free as it gets. - ruddy, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3@gcnaddict
What is a synonym for $500 please. - mijelh, on 07/14/2008, -1/+3The problems is that freedom *allways* haves limitations: Not killing people is maybe the most common. So:
a) Most islam's confessions agrees that apostates should be killed by the caliph.
b) In most countries, an organiszation which instigates their members to (eventually) kill other people is considered illegal.
a + b ??? - ZenMojo, on 07/14/2008, -3/+1Last time I checked, the Bible said you should stone homosexuals and adulterers. Yet, no one is out trying to stop that.
The majority of Muslims aren't violent or dangerous, otherwise they would destroy the world. All we have are singular instances of stupidity, specific terrorist organizations, and regional ethnic conflicts, not a worldwide threat to sovereignty.
There is no tide threatening to overwhelm the good free-thinking peoples, and I'm ashamed that it has come to this point. That clerics can angrily rage against terrorism but the ignorant and uninformed masses quietly wait for their daily allowance from the MSM to tell them what to think kind of pisses me off. - 0011002, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1@ZenMojo: I think you should check the bible again
Honestly I'm conflicted i can see both sides of the coin here. Basically fundamental Muslim causes a serious clash in the modern world. Women in the US fought for their rights but now these women feel the need to throw them away(i know this was not the US). I honestly believe fundamental Muslim cannot survive in the modern world or that the modern world will change to suit it. Most religions have evolved to cope yet this one hasn't. It's like reading the old testament with the way they live. Now also play into the fact that a lot of these believes do want the modern world to see their views and act in thier way I mean hell a cartoon sparked a riot and calls for death! In my humble opinion I think all religions are just for people who need to feel they will go somewhere after death. Anyway I still think it is slightly discriminatory but that is the lawful right of the nation to decide because you are not guaranteed admission into any country but the one you are born. - 140Suffolk, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1France has an absolute right to say who can be a citizen.
For whatever reason they chose.
- cbuddha42, on 07/13/2008, -14/+7While excluding fundamentalist Muslims may make your mostly free society easier to obtain/run/peaceful/whatever, it obviously precludes true freedom. Your society is not free while it limits someone's faith.
You may limit someone's actions based on maximizing others' freedom, but you can't limit their faith based on possible conflicts between that faith and the society.- sanman, on 07/14/2008, -4/+17*****. You can certainly limit immigration. They're not telling her how to practice her faith in her own native country, they're telling her she's incompatible with incorporation into their country, France. You can't demand immigration as a right - that's ridiculous. That's putting the rights of the applicant over the right of the prospective country to have freedom of dissociation from her. If a country has no right to dissociate from others or be distinct from them, then how is it a country?
"Get rid of that ***** border - now! It's violating my rights!"
Any lib that's defending this regressive anti-feminist brainwashing is themselves brainwashed.
Good job, Diggers -- go defend this *****, and right afterwards go and condemn Scientology as a brainwashing cult. What HYPOCRISY!!
"This fundamentalist lady is totally right, and I support her! But that Tom Cruise is just a nut!"
Haha, go figure... - buildbyflying, on 07/14/2008, -2/+3cbuddha isn't arguing that you can't limit immigration. He's arguing that by doing so, you're limiting the freedom of that nation. There's a lot of things a gov't can do: spy on it's people, repress opposition through violence, etc. But that doesn't make it right.
I think the point is not so much that this one particular woman so deserves her right to citizenship, but that by setting a precedent to exclude people on the basis of faith is an ethical conundrum at best.
but then I don't know why I'm trying to speak logically to you sanman, i don't think that's where your points are coming from. - sanman, on 07/14/2008, -2/+5Nonsense, there are plenty of Muslim applicants who have been given citizenship, so they are proof against your argument. It's not merely her faith, but HOW she practices it. The problem with religion is that there are no limits on what can be defined as religious, and thus no limits on what can be piggybacked onto the freedom-of-religion argument.
Suppose I found a religion today, where I am required to carry automatic weapons? It can then also be against my religion to bathe, and it can be part of my religion to scream loudly at the top of my lungs outside at 4am. It can also be part of my religion to forbid my wife from working, and to have sex with my kids.
There are no rules on how to create a religion, or what is/isn't permissible within a religion. There are indeed (and should be) rules on what is/isn't permissible in a society, and if a religion comes into conflict with that, then guess what -- the religion has to yield. Too bad. Tough luck.
And if you argue back that "Islam isn't just ANY religion, it's many centuries old" then I'll likewise question on where you draw a line in recognizing a "real" religion from a makeshift one. But even if I argue logically, I don't think logic is where YOUR points are coming from. Pot, meet Kettle. - p3ngwin, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3i believe that the freedom in question is that of the deciding nation to choose who to let in based on what kind of nation it wants to be.
it is not about what the applying individual wants, it's about what the empowered being "asked" want.
in this case, France wants little to do with their belief and so is choosing to not invest in a lifestyle that it believes is counterproductive to France's desired future
- sanman, on 07/14/2008, -4/+17*****. You can certainly limit immigration. They're not telling her how to practice her faith in her own native country, they're telling her she's incompatible with incorporation into their country, France. You can't demand immigration as a right - that's ridiculous. That's putting the rights of the applicant over the right of the prospective country to have freedom of dissociation from her. If a country has no right to dissociate from others or be distinct from them, then how is it a country?
- UltraDavid, on 07/13/2008, -3/+10It's not even fundamentalist Islam, it's crazy sects that blend non-religious misogynist cultural norms with Islam. Nothing about the religion is opposed to freedoms, and in fact some Muslim societies have in the past been quite free, but the take on Islam this woman subscribes to? Yeah, I'd say it's pretty well opposed.
- jhickner, on 07/14/2008, -3/+1The faith/behavior line is too blurred for your assertion to be true. In theory, a faith that doesn't interfere with others shouldn't itself be interfered with. But Islam is clearly NOT such a faith.
- 1charmedlife, on 07/13/2008, -1/+13How about we prioritize what it means to be "free" thusly:
1. Life
2. Liberty (expect where it would conflict with the right to #1, Life)
3. Pursuit of Happiness (except where it would conflict with #1, or #2, above.)
There ya go. So if your (or my) idea of liberty or pursuit of happiness includes elements that deprive others of their own life or liberty, then my own choices shall be subjugated.
I would say that fundamentalism in *many* flavors, Islam, Christianity, and more than a few others, have principles in direct conflict with the ideals of a free society. In which case, I'd say it's a good idea to keep those principles out of the society that wishes to remain "free."- geezor, on 07/14/2008, -8/+2I think the American revolutionists would disagree with you. I believe the motto was "Give me liberty, or give me death!" Therefore, they clearly value liberty above life.
- ZenMojo, on 07/14/2008, -1/+8@geezor
Ah, Patrick Henry.
"Ear-witnesses to Henry's hypnotic orations remarked that while they always seemed to be convincing in the moment, they had a difficult time remembering exactly what he had said immediately afterwards: according to Jefferson, "Although it was difficult, when [Henry] had spoken, to tell what he had said, yet, while speaking, it always seemed directly to the point. When he had spoken in opposition to my opinion, had produced a great effect, and I myself had been highly delighted and moved, I have asked myself, when he ceased, 'What the devil has he said?' and could never answer the inquiry."
I think that sums it up right there. - buildbyflying, on 07/14/2008, -2/+2but then who decides what principles can be kept and which can be discarded? the majority? a secret collective of mystics that divine what beliefs will stunt or propagate freedom?
I'm all for keeping ugly people out of my country. Oh, and dudes. Only a nation full of hot ladies and me. That's my idea of freedom. - ShakeWell, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4@geezor
uh... no
that quote puts one's OWN liberty above his OWN life, 1charmedlife is, on the other hard, talking about any individual's liberty and pursuit of happiness should not be placed above another person's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness -- your quote does not apply in that context. - dacodanelson, on 07/14/2008, -1/+3I rather like your laws, they may be an updated of Assimovs, which I have personally modified for contrast here, although I have to say, my laws are also very very good:
1. A muslim may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A muslim must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A muslim must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
- alexkreuz, on 07/13/2008, -7/+0@tenesmus
How do you know its fundamental Islam? Have you been studying up on it? Fundamental Islam suggests its at the core of all the various Muslim beliefs. Is that really the case?- TKOtheKDR, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1While all of you are debating about fundamental Islam, there ar****BOOM****
- monsieurginger, on 07/13/2008, -10/+56I have a question, do Muslim women wear their hijab or niqab for their passport pictures? How is airport security personnel supposed to recognize the veiled woman holding the passport as the veiled woman in the picture? And if they do take off their niqab or hijab for the pic and a male security officer sees the pic, isnt that against their religion/mores?
- johndi, on 07/13/2008, -7/+51Good questions. IDs must be taken unveiled in Muslim Countries. The Quran does not require women to be veiled so it isn't against their holy book, but may be against the the dogmatic beliefs of their sect. Some women take it so far that even their husbands and children have never seen their face.
You see similar things in Christianity where denominations add laws that aren't even implied by the Bible or even directly contradicted by it. Easy example being the Bible requires a Bishop to be the husband of one wife, but some go as far as to forbid their priests to get married. Some people seem to have a compulsive need to live a rigid lifestyle and fear any deviation will lead to chaos. Other people project their issues onto others and demand that society be equally rigid and that is where the problems come in.
http://www.islamfortoday.com/syed06.htm
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,2204 ...- kingsal, on 07/13/2008, -6/+7johndi, you're right that the Quran doesn't require Muslims to be veiled but ....
This is not true.---> "Some women take it so far that even their husbands and children have never seen their face." - mr100percent, on 07/13/2008, -5/+11"Some women take it so far that even their husbands and children have never seen their face."
I'm going to call you on this one. Where is your proof? The most strict of women don't show their face to anyone who isn't their Mahram (usually a family member). Every Muslim woman I know of removes her headscarf when indoors and no strangers are around, allowing them to do whatever they want in the presence of family or spouses. - mohsenxp, on 07/13/2008, -9/+6""Some women take it so far that even their husbands and children have never seen their face."
The whole idea of the hijab is to cover yourself infront of 'nah-mahrams' - which basically means anyone that CAN get married to you.
So this immediately excludes the husband (since he is already married) and children. All other women are excluded as of course Islam forbids same marriage sex (ironically, a lustful lesbian can see a woman without any hijab at all, however a gay male would still not be allowed to!).
The idea (it is 1400yrs old bare in mind) is to protect the sanctity of the woman from preying eyes!
So I call complete ***** on that statement and pass it off as yet another ignorant 'fact' let loose on the interweb.
Education leads to understanding, understanding leads to tolerance. Stop being ignorant. - koft, on 07/14/2008, -6/+7@mohsenxp
I don't tolerate stupid people with thousand year old beliefs. - buildbyflying, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article- ...
- Jlaugh, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1Islam borrowed the veil from the Christian Greeks it's not inherent to Islam. It's not in the Koran. Christian woman wore veils into the 20th century, it's not in the bible either. It comes from secular society.
- kingsal, on 07/13/2008, -6/+7johndi, you're right that the Quran doesn't require Muslims to be veiled but ....
- creativity, on 07/13/2008, -12/+10Johndi don't talk about something you don't know...
I am a muslim, and I have never heard of muslims that cover their faces from their husbands and kids!
and our religion does require woman to be veiled, but IDs are an exception because it is a security issue which is critical...
In muslim countries they tend to let woman check for ID pictures and match them to their owners...- digga1301, on 07/13/2008, -0/+15Well, he's correct.
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2007/10/08/40103 ... - Rivetgeek, on 07/13/2008, -4/+13Yeah um, care to point out where in the Quran it says that women are second class people and cant drive a car, learn to read, or show their face?
Please, feel free to quote a passage *****. - exegesisClique, on 07/13/2008, -5/+11Right, cause I'm sure God/Allah will forgive you this one time for "security reasons".
Bloody Hell. Follow your religion or don't. Christian, Jews, Muslims, who-the-*****-ever. Quit with this wishy-washy religious *****. If you're going to be religious follow your damned book! If you're not going to follow your damned book stop pretending to be religious! - shawn1122, on 07/14/2008, -1/+4exergesisClique, it is this thinking that leads to fundamentalism...I personally will follow my book, but some things just don't apply to the way things are done today, it would be foolish to try and do those things now. It isn't being wishy-washy, its being flexible. If I did try to follow things down to every word, you'd be calling me a retarded fundamentalist, and we all know we need less fundamentalism in this world. I follow as much as I can from the Bible, mostly Jesus' teachings of love and I try to learn from his parables. Anything involving some kind of hatred I try to avoid, I don't want to be judgemental (the Bible says that God is the judge, not us) Hateful or violent passages in the Bible could have been easily influenced by the people who wrote them back in that time, and it would be stupid to try to base one's beliefs on them.
I highly doubt ID existed back when the Bible or Quran or any book was written, so it may be able to say 'never unveil oneself' and be reasonable in that time. But in this day and age, it is not reasonable at all. I personally believe that God is just enough to understand the circumstances, and will, at the very least, forgive the person for breaking that rule. - zombies187, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1exegesis, have you read any of those books? Please just let them not follow stuff.
- dksupremacy, on 07/14/2008, -0/+5*****, Women DO NOT have to wear a veil to cover there faces, no where in the Qur'an does it say that. You as a Muslim should be ashamed spreading something false
As johndi posted providing source
http://www.islamfortoday.com/syed06.htm
Islam is made to be easy, - exegesisClique, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1My reply was partially satirical.
It was basically pointing out the fact that no-one followings their religious books. Yet many people have the nerve to claim that they are the written word of God. Or divinely inspired, or other such drivel. So how can you *not* follow them? I understand that it would lead to fundamentalism. But whats the alternative? You either believe or you don't! Why these half measures? Doesn't God or Allah or Yahweh have the foresight to know what will be good for his people only 2000 years after he has his magnum opus published?
Either the book is written by men, and can therefore be discarded, or it is a divinely inspired document and *must* be adhered to. I'm sorry, I don't see a middle point. That's why I left religion behind back when I was 9. (And yes, it was this exact issue with that led me to atheism.)
- digga1301, on 07/13/2008, -0/+15Well, he's correct.
- mohsenxp, on 07/13/2008, -2/+21dude the whole hijab thing is blown out of proportion! The quran doesn't state the woman should be covered from head to toe! It just suggests that women should dress appropriately (something I would not entrust a 1400yr old book to do in all honesty!!).
It is individual leaders down the line that have altered the whole hijab thing. What is sad is that many many muslim women that I know think that fellow muslims (who do not wear the hijab) are somewhat less muslim than they are!
Its all pretty sad really.
I'm not a muslim but I have been brought up in a muslim household and therefore ignore alot of this ignorant babble being thrown against Islam. But I still get very angry when I see a woman covered in black with just a slit showing her eyes! In my opinion people like that should be ashamed of themselves for allowing MEN to control their religion to such extremes. - Fremen93, on 07/13/2008, -5/+141500 years ago when Islam was brand new, muslim women covered their hair and faces so that people in public would know they were muslim and should leave them alone. Back then, women in that region were constantly harrassed, raped, abused and treated like property. Islam gave them rights when before Islam they were nothing more than cattle to be used. Now here we are, 1500 years later, only 85 years or so in this country since woman first were given the right to vote! and of course, we are so self righteous and quick to point out all the chauvinistic things we see in Islam compared to today's culture...and yet not so long ago the top christian scholars of the world said that Christianity taught them that women were the root of all evil and they tempted men into sin. They taught that women got their periods as a form of punishment from God.
The fact is, all the major religions sought to keep women down.. - Ogopogo, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1Canada has had some controversy on this topic. Voting doesn't mean ***** here anyways, so the ruling is that they don't have to take off their veil to vote.
See: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=muslim+vote+ve ... - askegg, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1In some countries (like Saudi) women aren't allowed to leave the house without a man (even if it's only a 4 year old boy) or drive a car. Sure as hell they would not be allowed to fly.
- johndi, on 07/13/2008, -7/+51Good questions. IDs must be taken unveiled in Muslim Countries. The Quran does not require women to be veiled so it isn't against their holy book, but may be against the the dogmatic beliefs of their sect. Some women take it so far that even their husbands and children have never seen their face.
- bsmeteronhigh2, on 07/13/2008, -17/+82 Trade the Burka for a Beret! With all of the recent riots by Muslims in France, why on earth would they even consider adding to the growing problem? Good on them for saying, no and not falling prey to political suicide in the guise of political correctness.
- alexkreuz, on 07/13/2008, -8/+2I don't know how you got this many digs with such an obvious logical fallacy.
Muslims rioted in france.
Muslims wore Burkas.
Therefore in order to prevent riots, all those who wear burkas must be banned.
So what you're saying is everybody who is a muslim will riot.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/compositi ...
Enjoy- bsmeteronhigh2, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4Not all Germans were Nazis, either. It's just that the ones that weren't didn't do all that much to stop the ones who were from invading France. That my friend is reality far removed from the land of Ivory Towers.
- alexkreuz, on 07/14/2008, -3/+0Guilt by association is another logical fallacy. You're assuming members of the same group are responsible for each other.
Why do you assume that all muslims function as a unit rather than individual people?
If we are both Americans, and I murder someone, it is your responsibility to answer for me because you and I are an American unit?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by- ... - DamnMan, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1Logical fallacies in a religion/political discussion is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
- bsmeteronhigh2, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4Not all Germans were Nazis, either. It's just that the ones that weren't didn't do all that much to stop the ones who were from invading France. That my friend is reality far removed from the land of Ivory Towers.
- fasda, on 07/14/2008, -6/+1But why should you care in the first place if a woman should dress and live a certain life style? As long as she obeys the law (which currently does not mandate that a woman shall not cover her self from head to toe) then really is no reason to give a rats ass about the situation
- ZenMojo, on 07/14/2008, -4/+6Ethnic Arabs rioted in France because an unarmed teenager was shot in cold blood by the police and it was never investigated.
Coincidentally, the most recent riots in France had nothing to do with ethnic strife. In fact, it was based on the government's refusal to raise state workers' salaries.
France riots like a *****, mostly because they don't take ***** from nobody, especially the government.- jackkerouac, on 07/14/2008, -2/+3Except in those pesky World Wars, where they bent over and took it in the ass like a bitch, right?
- Wartz, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4@ jackkerouac: Excepting the fact that in world war one, France went toe to toe with germany for 3 years at a cost of 1.5 million dead and 4.3 million maimed for life. WWII for France was like getting a chloroform handkerchief in the face, tied up, and then forcefully penetrated.
- blackjack75, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1The people rioting in France are not muslims. They are lower-class (as in poor) french citizens. A lot of them happen to be muslims since obviously the children of the most recent immigration have less money than the others.
- Monk22, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1The people rioting in France are not muslims.......A lot of them happen to be muslims
logic fail
- Monk22, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1The people rioting in France are not muslims.......A lot of them happen to be muslims
- alexkreuz, on 07/13/2008, -8/+2I don't know how you got this many digs with such an obvious logical fallacy.
- cgbspender, on 07/13/2008, -14/+150The decision was right. It does not matter if they are muslim or not, the problem is they have no respect for human rights. Freedom of religion is important, but it ends where it interferes with other human rights.
Else we would have to legalize the murder of female family members who had premartial sex and all the other inhumane ***** some religious nuts came up with.- diggimator, on 07/13/2008, -8/+8Might as well demand toplessness or even total nudity while we're at human rights. After all, we mustn't allow murders within families. None of that religious conservatism should get in our way.
- cgbspender, on 07/13/2008, -5/+11"Might as well demand toplessness or even total nudity while we're at human rights"
In a way, yes. But then its not because of gender oppression that we cover our private parts - both men and women do it and I dare say (female) toplessness in much more accepted in Europe than in any other part of the world. - diggimator, on 07/13/2008, -4/+9The women who go by a different skin exposure standard then the majority of the west say it's not linked to oppression. It's hypocritical to deny opportunities to women practicing their religious obligation,
all in the name of fighting gender oppression.
- cgbspender, on 07/13/2008, -5/+11"Might as well demand toplessness or even total nudity while we're at human rights"
- medfreak, on 07/13/2008, -12/+8How exactly does here decision to wear and do whatever she does interfere with "other human rights"? Comparing wearing certain clothing to murdering people for pre-marital sex is absolutely ridiculous.
- belebih, on 07/13/2008, -4/+13This isn't just about clothing, it's about her isolation from society and complete to submission to her husband's "authority" due to their particular sect. The comparison is more than justified because the point is, where does it stop? The belief of murder because of pre-marital sex is just as much a part fundamentalist sects as the beliefs of complete female submission is to this family. You gotta draw the line somewhere.
- medfreak, on 07/13/2008, -7/+8The point is, her "submission" to her husband affects no one but herself. Your assertion that it affects "other people" is false. And it is pretty obvious where it has to stop. When it ACTUALLY affects others. That is the line you should draw.
What about sexual practices? How about the woman that submits herself to "extreme BDSM / torture" to please her partner? Do you punish that too?
The point is simple. Once it affects others, you draw the line. Once it affects only the person making the decision, you leave them alone. - cgbspender, on 07/13/2008, -4/+6"Comparing wearing certain clothing to murdering people for pre-marital sex is absolutely ridiculous."
I did not compare it. Both were consequences if we'd let religion override the rule of law.
"What about sexual practices?"
Funnily enough, BDSM people are often more aware of rights than "normal" people and they make sure everyone involved is consenting and able to consent, so that no exploitation happens.
That is a bit different to obeying your husband's most ridiculous will because some religion threatens you with lots of ludicrous stuff like dishonoring your family and spending all eternity in hell if you dont.
"Once it affects only the person making the decision, you leave them alone."
That is the point: It was not her decision. - cbuddha42, on 07/13/2008, -3/+3"That is the point: It was not her decision."
How was this anyone's decision but her own?
She chooses to submit to the authority of her husband because that's how she wants to live her life. It's not hurting anyone else, so why penalize her for it?
If somehow the decision was made by someone else, and she doesn't like the situation, then isn't she the victim of said decision? Why blame/penalize the victim? - alexkreuz, on 07/14/2008, -2/+2I'd submit myself to the "authority" of my wife over the "authority" of the state any day.
I trust my wife has my best interests in mind. I don't trust the same to the state.
- DeadBabySoup, on 07/13/2008, -5/+37I'm not saying everyones wrong here, but there really is no denying that the women are treated like ***** in this particular culture.
France took it to the extreme, no doubt about it. Alas, the state will always, and should always, come before religion.
Sometimes I wish the US would grow some balls and get these bible humpers away from positions of power.- Iztikeit, on 07/13/2008, -12/+4The state is a religion. It requires belief to be sustained and human fodder.
- cbuddha42, on 07/13/2008, -6/+4Where in this article were anyone's civil rights violated? The woman chooses to be subservient to her husband; how is this a violation of her civil rights?
Wouldn't it be a violation of her civil rights to prevent her from being subservient to her husband?- mijelh, on 07/14/2008, -0/+5It's not that someones civil rights were violated, the point is that she does not endorse or recognize these principles, which (fairly or not) are indispensable for becoming a french citizen
- alexkreuz, on 07/14/2008, -2/+1@cgbspender
With such an absolute commandment as "Freedom ends for those who don't respect human rights", we should go ahead and ban everyone who is pro-abortion.
Oh wait, we can't do that because its not black and white.
- diggimator, on 07/13/2008, -8/+8Might as well demand toplessness or even total nudity while we're at human rights. After all, we mustn't allow murders within families. None of that religious conservatism should get in our way.
- MrKraut, on 07/13/2008, -16/+78When someone moves in to a new country, that person has to adapt to the society and culture there. It's not the host country that needs to adapt to them.
I hate seeing people in a burka, not being able to see the expression on their faces. As such I 'd never move to a country where this is the norm.
Those people should do the same. Go anywhere else- medfreak, on 07/13/2008, -16/+11They should be free to do whatever they want as long as it does not affect others. I also hate seeing gays kissing in Public. I hate seeing Fat people showing off their bellies, I hate seeing gangstas that drop their shorts below their knees. But if gays want to get married that is not my problem and it does not affect me. If fat people want their bellies to see the sun that is their freedom too. Just me hating it is not grounds for refusing such freedom. Equally so, people wearing Burqas should not be grounds for such a ridiculous decision, just because you "hate seeing it", as long as she has no problem verifying her ID at security checkpoints.
What you hate is irrelevant, as long as it does not interfere with your life.- MrKraut, on 07/13/2008, -6/+12Well, I don't care about gays kissing, fatties with their bellies, and idiots that don't buy belts...
I do however hate Burqas for several reasons: you don't know who's under one, it's basically an instrument of discrimination, and yes it goes against my culture. Does that make me narrow minded? Maybe, but I really can't get used to it.... - Iztikeit, on 07/13/2008, -2/+11If someone wants to wear a Burqas it's their perogative. That's what freedom is.
If the Burqa was infringing on the rights of other citizens it might be an issue.
I think almost every belief is totally absurd (especially being a Muslim) but going against your culture isn't a negative. If no one went against the culture there would be FAR fewer cultural changes, which are always needed.
No culture will ever be perfect, so they constantly need to be modified. - RationalXubrnce, on 07/14/2008, -2/+4Iztikeit freedom is also the ability of the populace to decide they don't want a large Muslim population inside their borders.
- omegared, on 07/14/2008, -4/+2so then by your definition blacks should have accepted to status as slaves and adapt to live that way, Europeans should have adopted native American culture, instead of destroying it. Such a narrow minded and hateful way to see the world. It saddens me to see that you were dugg me. Guess the world still as a long way to go. Maybe you should read me and understand what the Burqua means to people who wear them. In most cultures it is a status sample not used for oppression.
- MrKraut, on 07/13/2008, -6/+12Well, I don't care about gays kissing, fatties with their bellies, and idiots that don't buy belts...
- alexkreuz, on 07/14/2008, -5/+0Well then you as a country really can't claim to support freedom if you don't give people the freedom to choose their way of life.
I guess that takes away the argument for denying the citizenship in the first place?
- medfreak, on 07/13/2008, -16/+11They should be free to do whatever they want as long as it does not affect others. I also hate seeing gays kissing in Public. I hate seeing Fat people showing off their bellies, I hate seeing gangstas that drop their shorts below their knees. But if gays want to get married that is not my problem and it does not affect me. If fat people want their bellies to see the sun that is their freedom too. Just me hating it is not grounds for refusing such freedom. Equally so, people wearing Burqas should not be grounds for such a ridiculous decision, just because you "hate seeing it", as long as she has no problem verifying her ID at security checkpoints.
- smacksaw, on 07/13/2008, -15/+17There is a difference between citizenship and permanent residency. For humanitarian reasons, especially for refugees, people should be given PR in other nations. But being a citizen implies something more. They have a point, though it's not a pretty one.
Anyway, here's my solution: Going to Canada from the US, I was shocked how many foreigners were able to legally work in Canada on a simple working holiday visa. These things are reciprocal, meaning that the rules apply both ways. As Americans, well, with our immigration problems, we don't make it that easy for people to come here, especially because we have NO handle on illegal immigration - and really, we ought to get our ducks in a line on that before we start going overboard with other casual visas like working holiday visas.
For citizenship, make it a reciprocal thing. It's amazing to see how liberal we are to say, Mexican nationals, but when the roles are reversed, it's an absolute joke for Americans in Mexico as far as our rights go. The problem is, when you have things that are THAT uneven, you create a magnet that becomes a black hole. Why do Mexicans want to come to the US? Because we've got it better. But we can't really do the opposite, nor would we want to. What if we said "fine, you are a Mexican national in the US. We will give you the same status that Mexico offers US citizens, just as we give French nationals the same status they offer US citizens."
All of a sudden, the US isn't that much better than Mexico. We're being dragged down to their level, just as France is being dragged down to the level of these corrupt regimes people are fleeing from like this poor woman did. With my plan, they have to elevate if they want their citizens to have the benefits of their new land. And if they match what we (or France) have, what's the reason to leave?
In the end, what I am saying is that if you are from a liberal, western Democracy like France, Ireland, etc, the comparo is close enough that citizenship is essentially the same. If you are not and you are anything but a refugee, at best you're a temporary resident with the same restrictions you have in your homeland.
If you're a refugee, or you can prove you can abide the rules of your new home, you can be a permanent resident. People should think about reciprocity. If there is a mass exodus from screwed-up places, how do you ever fix it? And these people leaving - they are GOOD people. The kind of people their country needs to FIX their homeland. It's like all of the politically concerned Americans who constantly threaten to leave for Canada. If you're that concerned, don't run away. You're robbing your country and abandoning your people - a strange stance for leftists who believe in taking care of everyone. If you're such a great person and so politically motivated, stay at home and fix things.
I, a lifelong libertarian will be applying for Canadian citizenship as soon as possible - and I embrace Canadian socialism. Because as a citizen, it's what is required of me. Maybe it's not my philosophy, but it's the philosophy of most Canadians, and as a future Canadian it's incumbent upon me to add, not detract from their society.- tufftugg, on 07/13/2008, -12/+14 We are not a 'Socialist' country...we would just rather have our tax money spent on the welfare of all citizens, to make our society healthy and educated, thus stronger. Canadians are very astute politically, and watch American politics for comic relief, it's like the High School popularity contest.
- sixspeed, on 07/13/2008, -0/+13There's lots of comic relief available in Canadian politics as well.
- leahcim, on 07/13/2008, -1/+17Don't be so defensive brother, like it or not you just gave the definition of socialism.
- mchisari, on 07/14/2008, -7/+7"like it or not you just gave the definition of socialism."
Socialism: Worker ownership of the means of production and distribution.
Canada is not socialist. They're mildly a social democracy. - nickcommie, on 07/14/2008, -6/+1Mchisari, you mean there's a difference between socialism and social democracy!?!?! Blasphemy! They have universal health care! They must be COMMUNISTS!!!
/Sarcasm
I live in Canada. Just because we don't have cut throat economic politics and spend all of our money on war doesn't mean we're socialist (not yet anyways). Maybe if the NDP ever wins a federal election... - ZenMojo, on 07/14/2008, -2/+10"Since the 19th century, socialists have not agreed on a common doctrine or program. Various adherents of socialist movements are split into differing and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between reformists and revolutionaries and Marxists and non-Marxists. Some socialists have championed the complete nationalization of the means of production, while social democrats have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies, while libertarian socialists advocate cooperative worker ownership of the means of production."
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Hehe, Canada's Socialist. Nyah nyah. - mchisari, on 07/14/2008, -1/+3"Hehe, Canada's Socialist. Nyah nyah."
If applying nominally social democratic reforms and a basic investment in infrastructure is considered "socialism", can you name five first world countries which aren't socialist? - zombies187, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1"If applying nominally social democratic reforms and a basic investment in infrastructure is considered "socialism", can you name five first world countries which aren't socialist?"
Nope. Thats why socialism is good. - kuzotz, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3well look at the US. We don't care aobut our infrastructure thus we are better because aren'tt socialist.
TRust me Americans are delusional and I live in this country. It gets very annoying having to get your voice heard over many people who go "no sir no socialism here sir. No medical care here sir."
We over spend on our military and we have very very deregulated industries. Nothing is safe and hell our health care system is under a capitalist system and people really and truly feel that they are better off... Why do you think I am getting my PR in Singapore once I get my job there :P - nickcommie, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2"Hehe, Canada's Socialist. Nyah nyah."
...As I was saying, apparently getting dug down for it, there's a difference between a mild social democracy and socialism, dumbass.
Keep in mind we have a Conservative party in power. Free healthcare does not equal socialism. By your logic, anything FDR did was "socialist". ***** libertarian nutjobs. - Opiate, on 07/14/2008, -2/+2Why do socialists try so hard to hide their real intentions?
- mchisari, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1"Why do socialists try so hard to hide their real intentions?"
They don't. Socialists are open about their intentions. Proponents of national investment strategies, and followers of Keynesian economics are most definitely not socialists.
- SeanCallan, on 07/14/2008, -1/+8Buried for being too long to read.
- RationalXubrnce, on 07/14/2008, -8/+1 How come you're leaving? By your own words your country needs you, don';t you take your own advice?
And there is no cure from being dragged down by the third world except not to let them in in the first place. It's not like they are capable of running first world societies but choose not to, they do the best they can.- smacksaw, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1I never said I was leaving. That's what you said. I will be a dual national, just like my children are.
- fasda, on 07/14/2008, -7/+5you know people probably said the same things about our country being brought down when the Irish Italians, Russians, Polish, Chinese cam over here too. For proof just read a Nero Wolf book you can see that in 90 or so years what Americans think about immigrants really hasn't changed much
- Lazydriver, on 07/14/2008, -1/+4Dugg up for truth.
***** idiots think Mexicans are taking their jobs, yet, they never stopped to realize that the minute an illegal forms a union, they get deported (AND they're assimilating, been here for years)! You wanna secure your jobs, befriend the Mexicans, legal or not, cause I guarantee you the illegals would almost always want to be legal anyway and get the equal wages! Don't you think they'd be legal if it wasn't for the long-ass background checks that take up to 10 YEARS? Would you let your family starve to death because some Cracker at the FBI is too ***** lazy or undermanned to check on you?
If you don't have compassion for these people, you are a Nationalistic ***** because frankly, just because someone's poorer then you and has a somewhat different culture (Roman Catholic, lots of partying, and of a brownish tone... Sounds a lot like the Irish, minus the brown), - kuzotz, on 07/14/2008, -1/+3lazydriver you forgot to mention that they also pay taxes, and don't get refunded or see the benefits of those taxes. the mainstream media has done a huge number on making the reality is never seen.
- Lazydriver, on 07/14/2008, -1/+4Dugg up for truth.
- tufftugg, on 07/13/2008, -12/+14 We are not a 'Socialist' country...we would just rather have our tax money spent on the welfare of all citizens, to make our society healthy and educated, thus stronger. Canadians are very astute politically, and watch American politics for comic relief, it's like the High School popularity contest.
- d686, on 07/13/2008, -16/+95[article]
Faiza M. was denied citizenship on the grounds that she has "adopted a religious practice incompatible with essential values of the French community, particularly the principle of equality of the sexes".
[/article]
sounds good to me. vive la france. enough with tolerating the stupid ***** religion tells people to do out of political correctness.- Fremen93, on 07/13/2008, -9/+2But that is total *****. If you read the Bible and all the writings of the saints, Christianity is far worse when it comes to preaching equality of the sexes. Hell, christianity allowed slavery and was often used to explain why women should stay in the kitchen. Islam banned slavery, and gave women rights they never had.
- rlh1, on 07/14/2008, -0/+10B.S.................... " Islam banned slavery"...Saudi Arabia only made slavery illegal in 1962.
My nephew who became Muslim and runs with many Muslims from the Gulf area says that some of his friends still have slaves, but it's ok because they are treated like part of the family....
and not only that, the British spent a good 100 part of the 19th century in the Gulf trying to shut down the Arab/Muslim slave trade... - ImperialSoren, on 07/14/2008, -1/+6he wasn't implying Christianity is more correct... I think he threw them in with stupid ***** religions we shouldn't be tolerating... where they belong
- rlh1, on 07/14/2008, -0/+10B.S.................... " Islam banned slavery"...Saudi Arabia only made slavery illegal in 1962.
- SugarCoatedSalt, on 07/13/2008, -1/+8agreed, this what its all about, she doesn't believe in equality of sexes.
if she believes being stoned to death for showing your arm is bad, or that she wants to be covered in that trash, then tell her politely to go back to the hell hole she crawled out off.
- Fremen93, on 07/13/2008, -9/+2But that is total *****. If you read the Bible and all the writings of the saints, Christianity is far worse when it comes to preaching equality of the sexes. Hell, christianity allowed slavery and was often used to explain why women should stay in the kitchen. Islam banned slavery, and gave women rights they never had.
- namar777, on 07/13/2008, -19/+26What does having your hair covered affect other people's freedom... ? Damn it!
- poidh, on 07/13/2008, -23/+13Because she'll bang out a dozen young jihadis who WILL affect other people's freedom?
- ohplease, on 07/13/2008, -11/+9
Someone who refuses to adopt the values of a country they are seeking citizenship for should be refused themselves.- matu4251, on 07/13/2008, -0/+14you obviously didn't read the article. She wears a burka (head to toe). She started wearing it only after she married her husband (who is a French muslim)... thus the decision: "she has adopted a religious practice incompatible with essential values of the French community, particularly the principle of equality of the sexes".
She is still allowed to live in France, she was denied citizenship.
- matu4251, on 07/13/2008, -0/+14you obviously didn't read the article. She wears a burka (head to toe). She started wearing it only after she married her husband (who is a French muslim)... thus the decision: "she has adopted a religious practice incompatible with essential values of the French community, particularly the principle of equality of the sexes".
- piper999, on 07/14/2008, -3/+8Forcing women (even the good looking ones) to wear bags over their heads seems a little over the top at best.
- alaskanassassin, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2she chose to enter that life style.
- flashback99, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1LMAO
- kuzotz, on 07/14/2008, -2/+1piper youa re the same as all these other idiots. This woman made that choice, and I don't see how a burka interferes with the right of equality between the sexes. France is really racist and people don't realize this.
- Frostek, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2kuzotz - There's no such thing as the Muslim "race".
- mikehosek, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2A burka covers the entire body. IMO it is a form of imprisonment.
- TheSpook, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2How does a swastika on a skinhead affect other people's freedom? I bet most would think it safe to assume that there is some baggage that comes with the tattoo. Same with the burqa, it's a symbol of a backward belief system.
- AboveandBeyond, on 07/13/2008, -15/+3they are right, she need to be more hairy, especially in her armpits.
- belebih, on 07/13/2008, -7/+48It's funny how some people see this only as the opposition to wearing a burqa while completely skipping the part about "her aversion to leaving her house, and full submission to her husband's authority" (as stated in the article). I'm all for letting people believe whatever silly things they want, but when it comes down to promoting women as servants to their husband's authority, that I have a problem with.
If France feels this is in direct opposition to the country's ideals of equality (and I agree), then they are totally right in denying citizenship. You really gotta draw the line somewhere, and better now than having to fight even crazier behavior under the guise of "religious freedom" later on.- askegg, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4I agree. This is more about oppression of women than any religious beliefs. In this case it so happens that Islam gives rise to the oppressive behaviour, but that is a side issue and really nothing to do with the ruling.
- 9bpm9, on 07/13/2008, -21/+9Duh, they have tons of illegal Muslims because they are too racist to let them become citizens.
- ohplease, on 07/13/2008, -0/+6
Islam is not a race.- 9bpm9, on 07/14/2008, -4/+2Oh, so sorry, Arabs, that are Muslim. If you knew anything about the situation in France, you would of caught that.
- Cayfox, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1You're getting dugg down, but you aren't wrong. OK, maybe calling Muslims a 'race' is a bit un-PC, but that's what they're being treated like in France, and some Diggers talk about Muslims now the way white segregationists talked about African Americans fifty years ago...
Anyway, an article about the plight of France's "sans-papiers" - undocumented migrant workers:
http://www.humaniteinenglish.com/article844.html
- ohplease, on 07/13/2008, -0/+6
- muslimthinker, on 07/13/2008, -11/+21It is amazing how is this world.
Look at this American women fro Texas converting to Islam and wearing the Hijab/ Niqab
http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=zcknqi2yv0- andj, on 07/13/2008, -2/+7i dont know why your being dugg down for this.
- scaaven2, on 07/14/2008, -4/+2I think it's shameful for this nation to need documentaries like this. It's insane that people get so worked up about ***** like this. His family's response is disgusting.
- blackjack75, on 07/14/2008, -1/+3In other news retarded texan ultra-christians can easily become retarded texan utra-muslims.
- andj, on 07/13/2008, -2/+7i dont know why your being dugg down for this.
- muslimthinker, on 07/13/2008, -19/+5- Niqab, covering the face, is a controversial issue between Muslim scholars. It should be left to the individuals to decide what opinion they want to take.
- Muslim women have to uncover their faces if they are requested to prove their identity (ID cards, driver license...).
- Supposedly France is a country where every body is free to practice the religion he wants...their should not be any discrimination because somebody is TOO MUCH MUSLIM.
- IS THEIR ANY PROOF THAT THIS LADY WAS FORCED BY HERE HUSBAND TO WEAR HIJAB /NIQAB.. OR it is just a media made prejudice against muslim women who wear hijab- layzice, on 07/13/2008, -1/+6We should ask her... oh wait...
- TritonX, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2If she's covering her face, it means she is really into her religion and thinks that I'm a sub human if I'm not a muslim, so I can believe the same for her and her husband.
- Iztikeit, on 07/13/2008, -15/+7A problem liberal America doesn't have. I guess Europe isn't heaven, as many would lead you to believe, after all.
I don't know how many people I know that think France is the cultural capital of the world.- mohsenxp, on 07/13/2008, -0/+9Why does France = Europe?
I don't like this war that is ongoing amongst Americans and 'Europeans'.
For starters, we don't see ourselves as Europeans. Just the same way you would not call a Brazilian your fellow American.
English are from England, French are from France etc. Take some advise and learn this; we do not hold each others hand and sing the 'we are fellow European' song all day long. - Fremen93, on 07/13/2008, -6/+1France is basically a racist country. They think french is the greatest language in the world....they cant' get over the fact that their culture is only embraced in a small region of Canada while the rest of the world embraced their old enemy (England).
They fought so many wars with england over the years...and in the end...they lost- alexkreuz, on 07/14/2008, -0/+5Its called nationalism, not racism.
- TritonX, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3Canada is a great example of how two cultures can live side by side without killing each other, well for the last century at least ;P. I speak fluently both languages and it enables me to learn more from each culture. Personally I think hardcore nationalism is as harmful to humanity than religion, but we all have a right to be proud of where we come from.
- mohsenxp, on 07/13/2008, -0/+9Why does France = Europe?
- ericjohnson0, on 07/13/2008, -3/+5It is conforting to know that someone had the guts to tell the truth, even if she was 73 years old.
http://thesaloon.net/blog/_archives/2008/6/4/37278 ... - poidh, on 07/13/2008, -18/+32Why on earth would a Muslim want to live in a society which, as their religious duty, they must work to destroy to fulfil that religious duty?
- Fremen93, on 07/13/2008, -9/+14Uhm that is total *****. Muslims do not have any duty to destroy other societies. Stop making ***** up. The insane ramblings of terrorists and extremists do not represent the faith of a billion Muslims.
- poidh, on 07/14/2008, -5/+8Go and read the Qur'an and hadiths and study Islamic history. Simple as.
- bunit03057, on 07/14/2008, -4/+5See the fact is that there are as you said a billion muslims so even if 5 percent believe in these insane ramblings (and the numbers are higher) than we a 50 million person problem. That's bigger than the world population of followers of Judaism.
- ImperialSoren, on 07/14/2008, -4/+6all infidels need to be converted to Islam or killed- yes that is a duty of followers of Muslim... it's funny you bring up "making ***** up"
- RoflcopterFUEL, on 07/14/2008, -4/+4Don't even bother. LGF'ers rushed this place like crazy.
- kuzotz, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2its funny because the european renasiance was based off of Islam society. A lot of the europeans ship design during the enlightenment period was based off the ones in the arab world. Hell the arab world was in contact with other civilizations when europe was a ***** hole. When europe was a ***** the world prospered. When europeans took over. You started to see this third world ***** you see today.
- brezhoneg, on 07/14/2008, -2/+0Actually they do. They divide the world roughly in 2 : Countries were lslam prevails, and the Countries of War, where they plan to wipe out other religions and replace it with Islam. That is why they are fine if a Christian converts to Islam, but they behead anyone who does the opposite. So they consider the Western world as land to conquer. It has been like that for 13 centuries now. Check online for the words Poitiers, Reconquista, Vienna, etc....
- animatedtripod, on 07/13/2008, -5/+12Jesus christ. Have you actually ever met or had any kind of contact whatsoever with a muslim? In my experience they tend to be pretty normal people...not crazy evil doers bent on death and destruction.
- poidh, on 07/14/2008, -8/+5You're talking about people who identify as Muslims; who call themselves Muslims.
Even though I'm an atheist, if I called myself a Hindu would I be an atheist or a Hindu?
People are what they are, not what they say they are. - animatedtripod, on 07/14/2008, -3/+3So the all knowing poidh has the ability to determine what constitutes a true muslim and who's just one of those sneaky imposter muslims. Are you saying that anyone who differs from your definition of an murderous psycho islamist can't be a real muslim? If that's the case, what kind of extra information regarding this woman do you have? If you're certain she qualifies as a real muslim, you must be privy to something the rest of us aren't.
As for your atheism/hinduism thing, I think that's a pretty good example of my point. There are, and always have been atheistic philosophies and schools of thought in hinduism. Like most beliefs, it can be a pretty complex thing. It's all a lot less black and white than it sounds like you want it to be. - tehbored, on 07/14/2008, -3/+1Not all Muslims are fundamentalists. We're talking about the ones who are.
- poidh, on 07/14/2008, -8/+5You're talking about people who identify as Muslims; who call themselves Muslims.
- alexkreuz, on 07/14/2008, -5/+6I really don't understand why such ignorance is being dugg up.
- bunit03057, on 07/14/2008, -2/+5Because religion is a choice not trait, so I can trash it all I want, and I often do.
- Technohamster, on 07/14/2008, -2/+4Digg has trouble with religious freedom sometimes.
- Fremen93, on 07/13/2008, -9/+14Uhm that is total *****. Muslims do not have any duty to destroy other societies. Stop making ***** up. The insane ramblings of terrorists and extremists do not represent the faith of a billion Muslims.
- Fordi, on 07/13/2008, -3/+28'Too religious' can be a valid reason to deny citizenship if their strict adherence to the religion's laws cause a person to break the country's laws or run counter to the country's culture. This applies to any religion, not just Islam.
The fact that fundamentalist Islam in particular has laws that *would* incite people to break national laws or unduly harass others (abuse of women for minor infractions, for example) means that fundie muslims will run into this a lot - and good on that. If they feel the need to follow bronze age laws, they can stay in bronze age countries.
Cultural sensitivity does not extend to allowing cultural behaviors that are against the law. We don't allow fundie mormons to be polygamists in the US for exactly that reason.
It'd be nice - though difficult for them - if they were to make a stand, but given France's history with this, I doubt they will.- prammy, on 07/14/2008, -2/+3Seriously?
When will a similar action outrage you? When someone can't get a citizenship because they are atheist? Or too Christian? Or Hindu? Or Buddhist?
This is prejudice plain and simple.
Fundamentalists of all sorts cause problems and when they do it is against the law. If this woman wants to be subservient to her husband and believes that she should be, let her be. The instant, they expect _all_ women to be subservient to their husbands is when it becomes against the law.
You cannot call yourself secular and be prejudiced against a religion at the same time. - Fordi, on 07/14/2008, -0/+6"When someone can't get a citizenship because they are atheist? Or too Christian? Or Hindu? Or Buddhist?"
It will outrage me when they are denied citizenship just for being whatever religion - but for France to deny citizenship to this woman implies that there is some outstanding case, as they've allows Muslims into the country already. Fundamentalism in any form isn't just religion; it's a superiority complex.
Meanwhile, neither your or my outrage makes the slightest bit of difference here; France has the sovereignty and the French people, with their mandate to their government, are the ones who, should outrage be had, would get outraged.
"You cannot call yourself secular and be prejudiced against a religion at the same time."
I can be prejudiced against any religion that treats women like cattle, or outsiders like animals, or are hostile to science, or closed minded to change. These things in individuals, fine, but the second these things are institutionalized, it becomes a problem that secularism has to *address*, rather than sheepishly move aside for.
In fact, I'm pretty prejudiced against any and all fundamentalism; christianity, islam, judaism, it doesn't matter. Fundamentalism is prioritization of dogma over reality, and I honestly have no problem if a government wants to keep that kind of ***** out of their country.
Fundamentalism is *caustic* to secularism, and part of any movement is preservation of ideals.- prammy, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2"Fundamentalism in any form isn't just religion; it's a superiority complex."
I agree with this statement.
"but for France to deny citizenship to this woman implies that there is some outstanding case, as they've allows Muslims into the country already."
From the article:
"The reports said she explained her attire, her aversion to leaving her house, and full submission to her husband's authority as part of the couple's practice of Salafism — a literal reading and rigorous observance of the Qu'ran. "
If she chooses to follow her religion, then she should be allowed to practice it freely. That is what a secular society stands for. While I don't agree with the religion, people who practice it should be allowed to practice it. If she forces someone who does not want to practice it the way she does, then that is wrong.
Now I do agree that the rules of the land should be followed. I.e passport photos etc should be taken without the hijab for obvious reasons. But if she wishes to stay at home, be subservient to her husband and follow her religion, then I cannot understand why a so called secular society would be against it.
"I can be prejudiced against any religion that treats women like cattle, or outsiders like animals, or are hostile to science, or closed minded to change. These things in individuals, fine, but the second these things are institutionalized, it becomes a problem that secularism has to *address*, rather than sheepishly move aside for."
I am against any custom or religion which treats others like cattle too. But by denying this woman (who has a French husband and french children) citizenship, I do not see how they are planning to tackle it. She still lives in the country and has just been told that France is not secular at all despite what they claim. She has been told that the government _will_ discriminate against her because of her religion.
You can be prejudiced against anyone you want for any reason you want. However the state cannot call itself secular and be prejudiced against a person solely due to the religion they practice. It is called hypocrisy.
You see, I believe that all persons are equal. Men, women, christians, muslims, buddhists, atheists,scientologists whatever. This is discrimination based on religious grounds which I do not agree with.
I am not French and I do not live in France. They are free to do whatever they want with or without my approval. But that does not change the fact that this is a case of prejudice based on religious grounds. Maybe they should amend their constitution to say 'secular unless Muslim' - Fordi, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1To those Burying prammy: stop it.
I disagree with the guy, but he's making valid and thought provoking points identifying some of the difficulties with maintaining a secular mindset with self-preservation while remaining fair. This is not some black-and-white ideological struggle we're talking about; we're discussing the finer points of how a secular government should act.
He's adding usefully to the discussion, not trolling. That should never be buried, even if you disagree with his position. Use some ***** analysis, people. In short, it's just the sort of thus-far isolated incident with few consequences that makes a good social experiment.
Prammy: I would like to continue this discussion after watching France act; it's a novel thing they've done - a secular nation denying citizenship essentially on religious identification on the grounds that they believe the specific 'flavor' of said religion is antithetical to their culture. As you said, just the act of doing so is, indeed, also antithetical to secularism. On the face of it, it is as hypocritical as you say.
Still, their actions beg a few questions, not the least of which is "What is the quantitative difference between what is technically unacceptable and what is unacceptable to a population?", or "Can secularism defensibly discriminate against dogma that is caustic to it?"
The interesting thing about this case is that it can end up being a social case study in which such questions can be, at least tentatively, answered. I for one would like to see how it plays out, for better or worse.
In short, I get the outrage. I don't feel it, but, in general, I would rather see how things work than avoid seeing them in action. There are rights issues with citizenship, but I would surmise that they are somewhat mitigated when you figure that she doesn't leave the house - and thus, exercise them. - prammy, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2"Prammy: I would like to continue this discussion after watching France act"
Definitely.
- prammy, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2"Fundamentalism in any form isn't just religion; it's a superiority complex."
- prammy, on 07/14/2008, -2/+3Seriously?
- ixid, on 07/13/2008, -5/+27"But there are times when France's adhesion to secularity seems to generate the same prejudice it's supposed to prevent."
I love how messed up modern dialog has become when rejecting something that's clearly bad and primitive (gender inequality/no women's rights) is prejudice.- Idiggapony, on 07/13/2008, -1/+7It's profoundly ironic, and profoundly disgusting, that the notion that a woman should be allowed to show her face in public is seen as prejudiced.
- 0011002, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2we need to start a religion for ninjas and say it's against our religion to show our faces to anyone outside our clan also saying that a shuriken or a katana are religious items that must be carried at all times.
- sirandrewofkay, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1don't misunderstand a quote and get upset because of it
the article is saying that france's strict adherence to secularity leads them to actively discriminate against religion. in america, religion interferes too much with government. in france, government interferes too much with religion.- ixid, on 07/14/2008, -1/+0Yes, I have at least the reading comprehension of an 8 year-old, I understood that and did not misunderstand the quote.
- Idiggapony, on 07/13/2008, -1/+7It's profoundly ironic, and profoundly disgusting, that the notion that a woman should be allowed to show her face in public is seen as prejudiced.
- spiritflare1, on 07/13/2008, -8/+25it's about time France took the lead - when someone immigrates to a country, the immigrant should adopt the values of the host country, not the other way around. We in Canada have this issue here - immigrants come here and kill their daughters over headscarves:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/clayton/sto ...
In theory you immigrate to get away from the problems of your home country - if you want to practice these and other types of cultural "values", then it's better you stay in your country and do it there. Don't expect Western societies to bend to this extremism. You value your culture, we value ours, if you come here, adopt to ours, or leave.- Technohamster, on 07/13/2008, -6/+3Uh okay. Canada has an official policy of multiculturalism. Get over it.
- infiniphunk, on 07/14/2008, -3/+6you are so right. It's amazing how many people want to move here to enjoy the standard of living, and yet at the same time have to cling to their cultural ways that cause their country of origin to be backwards, and poor.
- bash, on 07/14/2008, -6/+51) What kind of Canadian thinks Georgia is part of Canada? Check your links, dude.
2) Your philosophy reflects "the melting pot" idea, a distinctly American concept. Canada does multiculturalism.
And as someone who (unlike you I'm presuming) has lived in it for a great deal of time, I say you can't wrap the very idea around your head that Canadian Muslims, can, God forbid, not support terrorism, not descend to honour (note the 'u', you American) killings, and not do 90% of the things people make them out to do.
And the few that do honour killings? The reason they get press is because they're the exception that proves the rule.- spiritflare1, on 07/14/2008, -1/+11) if you read the whole article, you'd see the Canadian part.
2) yeah and multiculturalism is idealism that sucks in reality. - tehbored, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2And because murders usually get media attention.
- Technohamster, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2We have the best relationship with immigrants in the western world. Multiculturalism rocks.
- spiritflare1, on 07/14/2008, -1/+11) if you read the whole article, you'd see the Canadian part.
- tehbored, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2I've heard Britain is absolutely horrible with this. The could learn a thing or two from France.
- spiritflare1, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1The good part about North America is at least here in Canada, well in Quebec, they are formally rejecting multiculturalism in favor of "interculturalism".
http://origin.www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/200 ...
- spiritflare1, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1The good part about North America is at least here in Canada, well in Quebec, they are formally rejecting multiculturalism in favor of "interculturalism".
- toshibu, on 07/14/2008, -1/+3That story's been disproved. Toronto police have repeatedly said it wasn't an honour killing (the guy had a second daughter who doesn't wear a headscarf, and surprise, she's alive)...
- msheidi, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1darn straight I agree with you. We have to become more selective with who we let in our countries. Our cultures will disappear and be taken over by the immigrating culture.
- ultraJesus, on 07/13/2008, -17/+10Islam in France is a delicate subject for ethnic french people. It's very possible that in 30 years France will be a Muslim majority country given current birth rates. I can sort of understand the resentment that people who are ethnically French and carry France's traditions feel towards these masses of newcomers. It must seem like your culture is being taken away. Not that any of this should prevent someone from getting citizenship.
- ShadowMerchant, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1"Not that any of this should prevent someone from getting citizenship."
Damn straight it should, and there should be mass deportations too.
- ShadowMerchant, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1"Not that any of this should prevent someone from getting citizenship."
- Ledjar, on 07/13/2008, -2/+30There's absolutely nothing wrong with France doing this, its not a melting pot like here in the US. There just protecting there own traditions and there's nothing wrong with that.
- msheidi, on 07/14/2008, -1/+0We need to protect our own culture. U.S. believe it or not does have a culture. Melting pot BS. We are a nationof laws. We care more about minority rights than our own. This nation used to be majority rules. Do not know what happened, but it sucks.
LOL, that is why we have idiots like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton getting press time. They hold their own people down.
- msheidi, on 07/14/2008, -1/+0We need to protect our own culture. U.S. believe it or not does have a culture. Melting pot BS. We are a nationof laws. We care more about minority rights than our own. This nation used to be majority rules. Do not know what happened, but it sucks.
- kingsal, on 07/13/2008, -18/+5This is why I am proud to be an American. We welcome everyone.
- infiniphunk, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2"We welcome everyone."
really? even terrorists? - kingsal, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1"Everyone" in the context of this article means people of all religions/nationalities. For example, people are not denied US citizenship because they are "too" Muslim.
p.s. i really hope your comment was sarcastic- TritonX, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1Because those people go straight to Guantanamo ;P
- ssn697, on 07/14/2008, -0/+7We welcome everyone? That is why Obama has to spend so much time proving he "isn't a Muslim". Welcoming everyone and ACCEPTING everyone are two different things.
That said, Bravo to the French for their decision.- kingsal, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1Running to lead a country and trying to get your application for citizenship are two different things. Obama has to do that b/c there is a small percentage of the population that can be swayed by him being a non-Christian (not just Muslim), and b/c the media chooses to pay attention to that topic, but it does not mean the country at large feels that way.
btw-- America doesn't "accept" everyone, but it does welcome and tolerate them. that's the point. oh well.
- kingsal, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1Running to lead a country and trying to get your application for citizenship are two different things. Obama has to do that b/c there is a small percentage of the population that can be swayed by him being a non-Christian (not just Muslim), and b/c the media chooses to pay attention to that topic, but it does not mean the country at large feels that way.
- infiniphunk, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2"We welcome everyone."
- UltraDavid, on 07/13/2008, -6/+20Misleading title. She wasn't too Muslim to become a citizen, she was too much of a submission fetishist.
- ashfish, on 07/14/2008, -2/+2No actually domination/submission works in exactly the opposite way that Islam works. I don't think Muslim women have a safe word to stop the craziness that is Salafism. There is no sense of control being -given- in these relationships, only being ripped away. You have no idea what you're talking about.
- UltraDavid, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1Uh, it was just a joke... obviously.
- ashfish, on 07/14/2008, -2/+2No actually domination/submission works in exactly the opposite way that Islam works. I don't think Muslim women have a safe word to stop the craziness that is Salafism. There is no sense of control being -given- in these relationships, only being ripped away. You have no idea what you're talking about.
- Portwineboy, on 07/13/2008, -12/+39Reminds me of the time I got rejected for French citizenship for not being "surrendery enough"
- tanuki0, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2OMGLOL You are funny and offensive! Did you find this joke by yourself?
- zeero, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1all the jokes aside, i bet it is 100 times better to live in france than in your ***** up government controlled police state.
- CorneliusStump, on 07/13/2008, -10/+12the cars of Paris are too flammable to remain unburnt by ravaging hordes of angry Muslims
- NelsonR, on 07/13/2008, -9/+18You are not going to enjoy this if you are a Muslim, (Disclaimer). As I watched a report on a Muslim country just last night, Sharia law condones, as Mohammad acted in the past as a pedophile. What is up with a religion condoning the forcible rape upon children under twelve. I think Islam needs to look within itself and realize the abuse of little girls is not only abominable but ungodly. There again, I am but one small mortal who knows religious dogma in all religion is the root of all evil in the world. By the way, it is all insanity and evil via thinking repenting absolves the sin. Islam is but one atrocious dogma placed upon the world.
- gcnaddict, on 07/13/2008, -11/+3"Mohammad acted in the past as a pedophile."
Proof?- johnnyfistfight, on 07/14/2008, -2/+12 Muhammad followed custom in marrying a child who had her first menstrual cycle. One of his 6 wife's named Aisha was 9 when they married. No matter how you slice it or dice it, he sounds like a dirty old pedophile.
- gcnaddict, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2"Muhammad followed custom in marrying a child who had her first menstrual cycle."
Following customs of the time makes a person a pedophile now? If, at that time, marriages were commonly determined by when a person could first become pregnant, him simply following that custom doesn't make him a pedophile.
I'm quite surprised you've been dugg up despite the blatant contradiction in your post. - vpxx, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2@johnnyfistfight
This was the norm of all Semetic cultures of that time and it still is the norm of many cultures today, they were not invented by him nor by Islam. They were widespread even throughout Europe. The only reason why you are saying he's a pedophile is because your community's religious morality has been changed for a new set of humanist values where people like yourself use their own opinions to determine what is right and wrong.
40 years ago homosexuals were discriminated by the majority of the population, they even lost jobs due to their sexual orientation. Nowadays they have their own association and are being accepted by the Western culture. This clearly proves how morality is changing due to people's usage of their own opinion to determine what is right and wrong.
- vpxx, on 07/14/2008, -8/+2According to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, right and wrong are ordained by Almighty God. As such, morality does not change over time based on our whims, desires or cultural sensitivities. In cultures where there is no Divinely revealed ruling on an issue, what is right and what is wrong is determined by cultural norms. In such cases, a person would only be considered "immoral" if they violated the accepted norms of their society. The marriage of the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) viewed both in the light of Absolute Morality and the cultural norms of his time, was not an immoral act. The large majority of Islamic jurists say that the earliest time a marriage can be consummated is on the onset sexual maturity, meaning puberty. Since this was the norm of all Semitic cultures and it still is the norm of many cultures today: it is certainly not something that Islam invented. However, widespread opposition to such a Divinely revealed and accepted historical norm is certainly something that is relatively new. he criticism of Muhammad's (PBUH) marriage to Aishah is something relatively new in that it grew up out of the values of "Post Enlightenment" Europe. This was a Europe that had abandoned (or at least modified) its religious morality for a new set of humanist values where people used their own opinions to determine what was right and wrong. It is interesting to note that Christians from a very early time criticized (again hypocritically) the Prophet's (PBUH) practice of polygamy, but not the marriage to Aishah. Certainly, those from a Middle Eastern Semitic background would not have found anything to criticize, since nothing abnormal or immoral took place. It is"modern" Westernized Christians who began to criticize Muhammad (PBUH) on this point, not earlier pre-Enlightenment ones.
- TritonX, on 07/14/2008, -6/+1Very well said and explained from a moderate point of view, ... but what is wrong with, as you said:
'This was a Europe that had abandoned (or at least modified) its religious morality for a new set of humanist values where people used their own opinions to determine what was right and wrong.''
How are you sure that those that wrote the bible or the kuran haven't been doing the same thing but calling it the voice from god? This is what I call hypocrisy. - ShadowMerchant, on 07/14/2008, -2/+0Piss be upon him, the dirty filthy murderous pervert.
- vpxx, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1@TritonX
Sharia laws haven't changed ever since they were introduced nearly 1500 years ago. Not many Muslim governments implement them yet the fact remains that they haven't changed.
- TritonX, on 07/14/2008, -6/+1Very well said and explained from a moderate point of view, ... but what is wrong with, as you said:
- hamobu, on 07/14/2008, -1/+9You got your stereotypes mixed up. Catholics are pedophiles and muslims are therorists. Btw: Evangelicals are gay, and jews rule the world.
/sarcasm - jussipupu, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1Mohammad was also banging a Jew. I love that part of his pathetic history.
- gcnaddict, on 07/13/2008, -11/+3"Mohammad acted in the past as a pedophile."
- djAnakin, on 07/13/2008, -9/+28Islam is sexist. Plain and simple. It's pathetic.
Then again, most religions are.. which is why religion sucks.- mohsenxp, on 07/13/2008, -2/+5Dude look at it logically.
The idea of equal rights between genders is fairly new right?
So of course anything from over 1000yrs ago will be considered sexist. There is no need to specifically pick on Islam.
In truth, any doctrine (whether it claims to be divine or not) will always carry forward sentiments of its time.
Would you expect a book that advocates equal rights to be accepted as divine by the people in a society 2000yrs ago? Of course not.
All of these 'divine' books are nothing but an example of sociopolitical thoughts of their time.- tommymctom, on 07/13/2008, -0/+4"The idea of equal rights between genders is fairly new right?"
No, look up the Phoenicians. - wolferz, on 07/13/2008, -1/+2It holds true that this is excusable untill you realize that even Catholicism is making efforts to update it's practices. Women,. though still unable to attain ordination, are able to serve and function in capacities within the cathol
- tommymctom, on 07/13/2008, -0/+4"The idea of equal rights between genders is fairly new right?"
- mohsenxp, on 07/13/2008, -2/+5Dude look at it logically.