The Asylum   Search Private Messages Options Blogs Images Chat Cam Portals Calendar FAQ's Join  
Asylum Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.8 Asylum Forums > Polėticās der Mondé > The World v Muslims --Chapter Two
  Last Thread   Next Thread
Author
Thread [new thread]    [post reply]
Alice
Soft Tissue Damage

Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 416
The World v Muslims --Chapter Two

This is some shit.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...xworld.html
A Geman state imposes "Muslim only" loyalty tests.

Common sense? Discrimination? Common sense and discrimination...?

Germany sees it as discriminatory and seem to be trying to squash it.

It is a dangerous precedent... a natural progression that will work itself out in German courts...? Interested in opinions.

__________________
"This excessive concern with little weasels is a sickness." Rudy Giuliani

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 01-01-2006 11:19 PM
Alice is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Alice Click here to Send Alice a Private Message Find more posts by Alice Add Alice to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Mordecai
.

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: Denver
Posts: 23169

You just love brown people.

-m

__________________
-m

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 01-02-2006 02:57 AM
Mordecai is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Mordecai Click here to Send Mordecai a Private Message Find more posts by Mordecai Add Mordecai to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Alice
Soft Tissue Damage

Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 416

Hell, somebody's got to bathe the children.

__________________
"This excessive concern with little weasels is a sickness." Rudy Giuliani

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 01-02-2006 03:03 AM
Alice is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Alice Click here to Send Alice a Private Message Find more posts by Alice Add Alice to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
lucidnightmare
Pro Snowflake

Registered: Nov 2003
Location: North Myrtle Beach SC
Posts: 9712

I don't see a problem with it.Any nation has a right to decide who it wants as a citizen in my opinion.Why should a nation commit cultural suicide by allowing people in that have no respect for the nation and my even want to destroy it?They want all the benefits of the west while hating the culture and philosophies that allowed those benifits.If theocratic Islam is so great, then live in it's results.


When did sedition become a human right?
People aren't born with the right to live in Germany or anywhere else.I hear about radical clerics in Europe and even in America giving fire and brimstone anti western speeches while living in the west,if they hate the west so,then I ask you why are they there?There must be a reason they are living in a place and among people they hate.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to make these speeches,I do think that they should be watched more closely because of it,and shouldn't whine that it is racist when they are , and again it's appealing to hated western values for protection.Freedom of speech isn't an Islamic value,all over the world Muslims are demanding that laws be passed to stop anti -Islamic speech.

This is just one example.There are so may more,from piggy banks to anti Islamic films.

quote:
Legislating Religious Correctness
By Daveed Gartenstein-Ross
The Weekly Standard

ON SEPTEMBER 6 AND 7, Pastor Daniel Scot, who last year was found to be in breach of Victoria, Australia's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, met with human-rights lawyers and policymakers in Washington, D.C. In these meetings, Scot described his experience defending himself in Victoria's courts against the charge of inciting hatred against Muslims. Many of the people and groups with whom Scot met hope his visit will serve as a springboard for a campaign against the religious vilification laws that have been increasingly considered, and adopted, in Western countries.

Scot, a diminutive 55-year-old bearded Pakistani with speckles of white in his black hair, was forced to flee Pakistan for Australia in 1987. As a devout Christian who says that he's filled with evangelistic zeal, Scot had never shied away from debating Muslims on theological matters. Unfortunately for him, in 1986 Pakistan adopted a vague and open-ended blasphemy law, section 295-C, which prohibited any speech that directly or indirectly defiled the Prophet Muhammad. Punishments included the death penalty and life imprisonment.

According to Scot, he came under official pressure to convert to Islam near the end of his time in Pakistan, and was charged with blasphemy when he refused. When he fled to the safety of Australia, he didn't imagine that he'd again face legal penalties because of his faith.

Upon his arrival down under, Scot noticed many Australians converting to Islam. This prompted him to begin lecturing about the faith. "I wanted to help these people learn what's in the Koran so they could make an informed decision rather than an ill-informed decision," Scot explained in an interview. But just as Pakistan imposed penalties on improper religious speech in 1986, Victoria did so too, on January 1, 2002, when its Racial and Religious Tolerance Act went into effect.

The Act prohibits conduct "that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of" a class of people based on their religious beliefs. Its force was brought to bear against Scot and another pastor, Danny Nalliah, after three Australian converts to Islam covertly attended a seminar they held in March 2002, took notes, and then filed a legal complaint.

Although many controversial ideas were put forward in the seminar (Scot contended that the Koran makes offensive jihad obligatory and that Islam places women in an inferior position), the presenters made clear that they weren't attacking Muslims as people. A transcript reveals that Scot admonished the audience to remember that "we are not here learning how to fight with Muslims, we are learning here how we can love Muslims and help them to see the truth." Despite this, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal determined in December 2004 that Scot and Nalliah had violated the act. Their case is currently under appeal.

A number of U.S.-based organizations believe the time is ripe to stand against the spread of religious vilification laws in the West. The Australian states of Queensland and Tasmania have adopted laws similar to Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. A religious vilification law is in force in Sweden, and such legislation is being considered in Britain. Further, it isn't uncommon in Europe for people to be taken to court for criticizing Islam. In France, actress Bridgette Bardot was fined last year for lamenting the "Islamization of France" and the "underground and dangerous infiltration of Islam." Italian author Oriana Fallaci faces trial next year over charges that she defamed Islam in her book The Force of Reason.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, an international law firm that defends the right of free expression for all faiths, has submitted a pair of letters to Australia's attorney general arguing that Australia will violate international law if Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act is used to punish religiously-motivated speech in Scot's case. The Becket Fund's position is that the government shouldn't put itself in the role of referee over religious debate by determining which religious criticisms are "legitimate" and which are out of bounds. In an interview, Roger Severino, legal counsel for the Becket Fund, outlined why the Fund chose to oppose Victoria's religious vilification law.

First, Severino contended, the act converts secular courts into religious review boards. "If you believe in the separation of church and state, you shouldn't let the government determine what a reasonable interpretation of a faith is," he stated. This is exactly what happened in Scot's case. When Scot was accused of violating the act, the court was put in the unusual position of having to parse the Koran and hadith (neither of which it had an expert knowledge of) to determine whether Scot's interpretations of Islamic law were reasonably accurate.

Which dovetails with Severino's second criticism: The act is contrary to freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. "If you believe in freedom of conscience," Severino said, "someone should be able to discuss their beliefs freely with respect to other religions." Many observers fear that the act could have a chilling effect on religious debate, with people being forced to consider the possibility of legal liability before commenting on theological matters.

Finally, Severino argued that the Act subverts its own purposes. The act was intended to promote religious harmony, but appears to have done the opposite. Scot was charged with violating the act because three Muslim converts covertly attended his seminar--essentially, as spies. "They took offense, but they went there to be offended," Severino said. Severino says that because such spying "has now taken off" in Australia, a law intended to foster religious harmony seems instead to have produced acrimony.

Father Keith Roderick, the Washington representative of the human rights group Christian Solidarity International, has another objection to religious vilification laws. "The way the laws are being used is to protect Islam from criticism and silence those who wish to challenge it," he says.

While religious vilification laws are neutral on their face (and indeed, some Muslims have been prosecuted for religious hate speech), there is a remarkable convergence between these laws and the Islamist vision of a blasphemy-free society. Iqbal Sacranie, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, published an op-ed in the Telegraph in December 2004 arguing in favor of Britain's proposed religious vilification law--in large part, he claimed, because European writers have a history of "taking liberties" in their discussion of Prophet Muhammad. Sacranie analogized the proposed law to the Satanic Verses affair, and then stated: "Is freedom of expression without bounds? Muslims are not alone in saying 'No' and calling for safeguards against vilification of dearly cherished beliefs."

Similarly, Syed Mumtaz Ali, president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, argues on that group's website that Canadian Muslims should be protected from blasphemous speech:

In the context of the special cultural/religious needs of the Muslim community in respect of their beliefs about blasphemy, it indeed behoves [sic] a broad-minded people like Canadians to accommodate their (Muslim community's) needs . . . . Surely it will be worthwhile to rise above the pettiness and the "terminal meanness" of linguistic, regional, racial and narrowly defined cultural considerations.

One suspects that as religious vilification laws spread, the liberal proponents of these laws will end up unwittingly empowering those who believe that their religion should be above condemnation.

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross is a Washington, D.C.-based counterterrorism consultant and attorney

__________________
Trenchant_Troll
I hope you run out of butter too, Dane.

Last edited by lucidnightmare on 01-02-2006 at 03:27 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 01-02-2006 03:23 AM
lucidnightmare is offline Click Here to See the Profile for lucidnightmare Click here to Send lucidnightmare a Private Message Find more posts by lucidnightmare Add lucidnightmare to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Alice
Soft Tissue Damage

Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 416

Thanks. This unfolding drama will be interesting to watch.

And, frankly, with all the bullshit righteous European indignation at our squirmings, as we try to find a line between racism and common sense,... it's a bit consoling to see we aren't the only ones without an instant, universally acceptable answer.

__________________
"This excessive concern with little weasels is a sickness." Rudy Giuliani

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 01-02-2006 05:57 AM
Alice is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Alice Click here to Send Alice a Private Message Find more posts by Alice Add Alice to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Smug Git
Arrogance Personified

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 36297

I don't see that it should be specifically aimed at moslems. And it would really have to be a national, rather than a regional, issue, surely? But there's no reason why people can't impose tests (like the US does, and the UK has just started to). I think that it's pretty stupid, personally, but it's easy enough to write what the people who'll read it want to hear.

Linguistic requirements make more sense, although you'll have to have exceptions at least for refugees and people's elderly parents if they bring them over at some stage.

__________________
I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 01-02-2006 11:54 AM
Smug Git is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Smug Git Click here to Send Smug Git a Private Message Find more posts by Smug Git Add Smug Git to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Trenchant_Troll
ad hominid

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 44601

It might be useful to torture them a little just to make sure thay are sincere.

__________________
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 01-02-2006 01:43 PM
Trenchant_Troll is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Trenchant_Troll Click here to Send Trenchant_Troll a Private Message Find more posts by Trenchant_Troll Add Trenchant_Troll to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
SimpleSimon
Dead Horse Rider

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 28691

quote:
Originally posted by Smug Git
I don't see that it should be specifically aimed at moslems. And it would really have to be a national, rather than a regional, issue, surely? But there's no reason why people can't impose tests (like the US does, and the UK has just started to). I think that it's pretty stupid, personally, but it's easy enough to write what the people who'll read it want to hear.

Linguistic requirements make more sense, although you'll have to have exceptions at least for refugees and people's elderly parents if they bring them over at some stage.



The "objectionable" questions are not so much the written questionaire, Smug, as the oral questions before a panel of examiners. Lots harder to lie with a straight face than with a crooked pen.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 01-02-2006 02:52 PM
SimpleSimon is offline Click Here to See the Profile for SimpleSimon Click here to Send SimpleSimon a Private Message Find more posts by SimpleSimon Add SimpleSimon to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:53 PM. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
  Last Thread   Next Thread
Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this Thread

Forum Jump:
 

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
 

< Contact Us - The Asylum >

Copyright © 2014- Imaginet Inc.
[Legal Notice] | [Privacy Policy] | [Site Index]