Burqa ban in France goes into effect today..

[nato2101]

And what about all the Catholics who still wear relatively small crosses to public schools? Where do you suggest they go?

Catholic school. Do I think the law is too vague and weak (only affecting the non dominant religions)? Yes, however it is a step in the right general direction imo.

 

[Formaldehyde]

In this country, we still have religious freedom. I prefer it that way even though I am an agnostic.

 

[Steph]

I don't see your point Formaldehyde.

I already said that the law was to ban "ostentatious" religious sign, but discreet ones are allowed, and this for all religions.

The idea is "you can be religious, but stay discreet at school".

And this is for public schools only, it doesn't apply to private school. If you really want your children to study in a more religious environment, you can send him to private school.

 

[nato2101]

In this country, we still have religious freedom. I prefer it that way.

So do they in France, nothing is stopping them from worshipping their God or following their religion (the Burqa is not required by religion but by tradition). If the parents don't want their kids to go to a secular school then they are free to send them to a religious one or home school them.
What do you say to the fact that in England they public schools got rid of the Christmas play? And the Christmas tree? Is that right? Just so those of other faiths would not be offended.

(imo opinion it is right)

 

[Akka]

Actually, you still can.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools

Learning comprehension isn't your forte, he ?
Moderator Action: Flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[kochman]

Why? So I can be exposed to even more intolerance? You do realize there should be a difference between modern advanced civilizations and more backward ones?

So you could have SOME BASIC idea of what you are talking about.

Source, please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium

How could I ever compete with Wikipedia?! Hahahaha! That's hilariously ridiculous. I was also addressing BIRTH rate, not current population.
I meant to say Brussels, not Belgium...
http://in.ibtimes.com/articles/132339/20110409/muslima-europe-france-hijab.htm
25% of the city is already Muslim.

Also check out from Daniel Pipes.
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/67507

I am sure neither of this sources will pass through your ultraliberal filtering process though, because they contain numbers and data, not emotions and hopes.

 

[kochman]

Learning comprehension isn't your forte, he ?

Wikipedia is his forte apparently!

Please stop using wikipedia, it is VERY inaccurate.

 

[Camikaze]

Not all of them are forced by a male. Some are forced by their religion.
Forced in both cases...

Should be start banning all things that people are 'forced' to do by their religion, under some sort of pretence of religious indoctrination and informed choice?

And by the way... Can you prove that every burka wearer want to wear it due to their own religious belief? You don't think some are forced to wear it by a male?

It's the converse that VRWCAgent posted that must be proved for this law to be acceptable. Isolated incidences of power imbalance between genders isn't solid ground for restricting the freedom of choice of the victim of that power imbalance.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I already said that the law was to ban "ostentatious" religious sign, but discreet ones are allowed, and this for all religions.

Perhaps you should try directing that comment at Nato since I have stated exactly the same thing numerous times now.

What do you say to the fact that in England they public schools got rid of the Christmas play? And the Christmas tree? Is that right? Just so those of other faiths would not be offended.

What do I say to bringing up even more irrelevancies to this thread while ignoring what I'm posting?

If you wish to discuss it, start another thread.

So you could have SOME BASIC idea of what you are talking about.

Care to point out anything I have stated that isn't completely factual or my personal opinion which is based on facts?

How could I ever compete with Wikipedia?! Hahahaha! That's hilariously ridiculous. I was also addressing BIRTH rate, not current population.

I meant to say Brussels, not Belgium...

You just realized you make a mistake but you are still trying to blame me for it?

25% of the city is already Muslim..

That story says nothing about Muslims accounting for over 50% of the births in even Brussels. It even states that Muslims "are believed to be" perhaps as high as 25% of the population. So you have no actual proof that Brussels is actually 25% Muslim, much less anything to back up your revised allegation that they account for over half the births in this particular city instead of the entire country?

And even if they do right now, that is certainly no certainty that they will keep growing at that rate. The "Muslims are taking over Europe and soon will be the majority" conspiracy theories started coming out decades ago. And guess what? They are still a very tiny minority in any Western European country.

Also check out from Daniel Pipes.

Why would I possibly care what a blog writer has to say about the evil Muslims who are threatening all of Europe? Someone who is actually proud of the fact that his links appear in WorldNetDaily and David Horowitz's blog?

The site is linked to by nearly 300,000 other pages (with the most readers coming from WorldNetDaily.com FrontPageMag.com, and LittleGreenFootballs.com).

WND and David Horowitz literally have zero credibility with anybody who isn't from the far-right, and for good reason. They make Fox News look good by comparison. They are an international laughingstock on par with Conservapedia.

I am sure neither of this sources will pass through your ultraliberal filtering process though, because they contain numbers and data, not emotions and hopes.

Once again, I see nothing which supports your assertions. Perhaps you can point them out instead of engaging in absurd personal attacks and deliberate mis-characterizations of my political views?

Wikipedia is his forte apparently!

Please stop using wikipedia, it is VERY inaccurate.

Are you serious? You still haven't come close to providing any evidence to support your comments. You are citing someone who is apparently a reactionary nutjob as a source of "facts". And you have the temerity to actually question facts which are easily corroborated from other sources that clearly show your original allegation is completely false? That 3% of the population simply can't be responsible for over 50% of the births?

 

[bernie14]

have not read the entire thread and sorry if this point has already been made but in not allowing women to wear their burqas in public only serve to alienate them more? i seriously doubt that this law will not have any "liberating" effects for these women, only make them more dependent and fearful of even being able to walk in their own neighborhoods.....

personally, i see NOTHING good coming from a law like this.....the ONLY reason that i would force them not to wear a covering on their face would be for some sort of ID card or Driver's License, that is, if a state requires a PHOTO ID, it would be illogical to allow a covered face and in this case, the secular law should superceed religious law....of course, the woman could choose not to drive, still making her somewaht dependent but not to the extent of this ridiculous french law

 

[kochman]

Care to point out anything I have stated that isn't completely factual or my personal opinion which is based on facts?

That story says nothing about Muslims accounting for over 50% of the births in even Brussels. It even states that Muslims "are believed to be" perhaps as high as 25% of the population.

And even if they do right now, that is certainly no certainty that they will keep growing at that rate. The "Muslims are taking over Europe and soon will be the majority" conspiracy theories started coming out decades ago. And guess what? They are still a very tiny minority in any Western European country.

Why would I possibly care what a blog writer has to say about the evil Muslims who are threatening all of Europe? Someone who is actually proud of the fact that his links appear in WorldNetDaily and David Horowitz's blog?

WND and David Horowitz literally have zero credibility with anybody who isn't from the far-right, and for good reason. They make Fox News look good by comparison. They are an international laughingstock on par with Conservapedia.

Once again, I see nothing which supports your assertions. Perhaps you can point them out instead of engaging in absurd personal attacks and deliberate mis-characterizations of my political views?

Are you serious? You still haven't come close to providing any evidence to support your comments. You are citing someone who is apparently a reactionary nutjob as a source of "facts". And you have the temerity to actually question facts which are easily corroborated from other sources that clearly show your original allegation is completely false? That 3% of the population simply can't be responsible for over 50% of the births?

OK, if it states that it is around 25%, it may be 24%, sorry... you really are splitting hairs here. It is obviously well over your favored 3% rate if estimates take it to 25%.
Now... let's engage in some basic math, try to focus like a laser beam because this involves something that cannot be felt, but only brained out. If muslims make up 25% of the population in Brussels, and they give birth at twice the rate of the locals... what percentage of the babies are going to be born to muslims?

Muslims are not a tiny majority in certain countries in W. Europe. In others they are, because they simply aren't welcome... using the entirety of W. Europe to say that it isn't happening in some countries is obviously your not being factual. Muslim pops in France, for example, are verging on 10% as we speak, that is hardly a tiny minority in such a LARGE country, and well above the 3% you cited as the "average".
Please, get off the 3% stat already, it isn't what is being talked about. Yes, I made a mistake when I said Belgium instead of Brussels... would you like me to take out a full page add in the NYT? Or can you play like a big kid and accept that I mispoke, and acknowledged it? I guess you need to harp on errors, since you basically rely on erroneous sources for all your points and perspectives.

You quote Wikipedia WAY more often than anyone should... it is highly inaccurate... but then, you don't really like facts that you don't support, so you gloss over them, and constantly citing wikipedia is helpful to you in this way (and shows incredible intellectual laziness)...
And, by the way... you are certainly the pot calling the kettle black when you talk about demonizing opposing positions. You do it pretty consistently. But, that's what you do... anyone who doesn't agree watches FoxNews, is a far right religious extremist, etc... and you, on the other hand, have the ability to determine which sources are acceptable, based on how warm and fuzzy they make you feel inside.

Present some facts, FOR ONCE, instead of hopes and conjecture.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

You quote Wikipedia WAY more often than anyone should... it is highly inaccurate...

And some guy's blog without numbered citations is better? The writer didn't even link to sources.

 

[kochman]

I gave two sources... the 2nd one was just to touch on the broader strokes... the important one was the one detailing Brussels.
I think the International Business Times is somewhat more reliable than 100 wikipedia quotes... don't you?

He loves to claim that sources are not legit... yet the numbers are never refuted. It's just a blanket excuse... that source isn't legit.

Sorry, I didn't realize Formy could determine what was legit and what wasn't, without ever having to prove something wasn't legit.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I was talking about whether your source linked to sources. I prefer to trust sources that have these things -> ([1], [2]) and a list of their sources at the bottom of the page.

 

[kochman]

I was talking about whether your source linked to sources. I prefer to trust sources that have these things -> ([1], [2]) and a list of their sources at the bottom of the page.

Sources known to be plagued with inaccuracies, like wikipedia, also use that method... it's not a cure all.
Especially since many of the sources given are opinion pieces... Look at the one about french schools above, look at how many of them are from editorial/opinion based magazines, etc.

 

[El_Machinae]

if muslims make up 25% of the population in brussels, and they give birth at twice the rate of the locals... What percentage of the babies are going to be born to muslims?

40%!

 

[kochman]

Close enough for government work

 

[Formaldehyde]

OK, if it states that it is around 25%, it may be 24%, sorry... you really are splitting hairs here. It is obviously well over your favored 3% rate if estimates take it to 25%.

My "favored" 3% pertains to the entire country. Do you dispute that figure? Do you have any other corroborable number?

And once again, your article is clearly speculating here. They apparently have no idea what the percentage of Muslims are in this city given that they provide absolutely no corroborable source.

Now... let's engage in some basic math, try to focus like a laser beam because this involves something that cannot be felt, but only brained out.

In other words, you really have no basis for your statement that the majority of births are Muslim, other than sheer speculation on your part given that you really have no hard numbers for the population of Muslims, their birth rate, and that of the other non-Muslims in Brussels.

Muslims are not a tiny majority in certain countries in W. Europe.

It is certainly true for Belgium as well as France which has already been shown. What country do you think they aren't a tiny majority of the population?

Now... let's engage in some basic math, try to focus like a laser beam because this involves something that cannot be felt, but only brained out.

In other words, you really have no basis for your 50% other than sheer speculation on your part given that you really have no hard numbers for the population of Muslims, their birth rate, and that of the other non-Muslims in Brussels.

Muslim pops in France, for example, are verging on 10% as we speak, that is hardly a tiny minority in such a LARGE country, and well above the 3% you cited as the "average".

10% is actually a tiny minority, regardless of how many people that represents. That is how percentages work. And would you believe 6%? I already posted that figure above. Do you also dispute that number? Do you have any reputable source which states otherwise?

And once again, the Islamophobes decades ago claimed that Muslims in France would already be a majority. Has it actually occurred? Why not?

Please, get off the 3% stat already, it isn't what is being talked about.

It most certainly is "what we are talking about". If you claim that Muslims are outbreeding Belgians to the point where they are going to be the majority, that 3% shows it is simply not true.

You quote Wikipedia WAY more often than anyone should... it is highly inaccurate...

It isn't that inaccurate. And all the facts they present are typically provided with footnotes so you can validate them yourself.

OTOH none of the "facts" you have provided so far can be validated at all. It is just sheer speculation on your part, as well as an incredibly dubious person you even tried to provide as a source.

but then, you don't really like facts that you don't support, so you gloss over them, and constantly citing wikipedia is helpful to you in this way (and shows incredible intellectual laziness)....

Present some facts, FOR ONCE, instead of hopes and conjecture.

Ironically, you appear to actually be describing yourself instead of me. I have indeed provided verifiable facts.

I'm still awaiting any actual facts to support this wacky conspiracy theory which has been rampant for decades now, while the actual Muslim population in western Europe hasn't actually grown much at all...

I was talking about whether your source linked to sources. I prefer to trust sources that have these things -> ([1], [2]) and a list of their sources at the bottom of the page.

Not speaking specifically about this thread or any other, I'm afraid this is yet another symptom of the failure of the public school system in the US. It seems that many people just don't understand the importance of footnotes and the difference between sheer speculation and facts which can be independently verified. If it is stated on the internet no matter the source, and they happen to agree with the opinions which are based on it, then it must be true...

 

[illram]

I would say banning burqas in public is completely the opposite of "secular."

 

[El_Machinae]

Close enough for government work

No, I'm correct.

If muslims have twice the birthrate as non-muslims, then we can 'short-hand' this to a muslim woman has twins when a normal woman would've had one

There is one muslim mother giving birth to twins for every 3 non-muslims giving birth to singles. So, 2/5 babies are muslim