Muslim couple denied citizenship over handshake refusal

[luiz]

Jst FYI, I grew up in an area where almost all but a few of the people who dress modestly, adhere to (what I think are) weird rules about men and women touching each other, etc. are Jewish. There was a time, of course, when many people would have said we shouldn't let these Jewish people into the United States, for many of the same reasons you're giving now.

You might want to really give that some thought.

If Switzerland was opposed to granting citizenship to ultra-orthodox Jews that immigrated there and showed being incapable of adapting to important Swiss cultural norms, I would likewise think that it's a pretty reasonable decision.

 

[Lexicus]

Does anyone else think it's kind of weird that we have to stop these people from becoming citizens because they don't share our universal values like respecting women, but also

it's a closed national and cultural one.

I suppose that, to be fair, two different people made those two arguments.

 

[Patine]

Not Switzerland, but I'll just share something.

In 2007, the bishop of Viborg, Denmark, said that male priests were not required to shake hands with female priests if they didn't want to. This is because a not insignificant segment of Danish priests follow Luthersk Mission and Indre Mission whose practice (Bible-based) requires them not to shake hands with women. When priests "graduate" they have their hands shaken by a priest. The bishop defended their choice by saying that if it's in the Bible, they have a right to their own interpretation and practice. A government representative said that by law all public officials have to shake hands when prompted (and Denmark has the Lutheran church as the state religion and the churches are funded as such). Not these male priests nor the bishop of Viborg were thrown out of Denmark or have had their citizenship removed. Now, they may have their right to work as public officials revoked, I don't remember what happened there. I still wanted to share the story. I don't know what to think of the OP's news, or what to do with it, but I thought I wanted to share this story for juxtaposition. Especially now that Denmark has grown increasingly intolerant (racist) of immigrants, and increasingly indifferent to our own socially conservative problems.

A lot of those obscure Biblical rules are Old Covenant rules which are "fulfilled" by the New Covenant of Christ or no longer necessary on the Earth because of the sacrifice of His Life and Blood for all mortality. Also, many similar, but different, quotes by Paul were tied to SPECIFIC events and problems and were not REALLY meant as across-the-board rules into perpetuity out of the context of the short-term problem they were solving at the time that Epistle was written.

 

[dutchfire]

Jst FYI, I grew up in an area where almost all but a few of the people who dress modestly, adhere to (what I think are) weird rules about men and women touching each other, etc. are Jewish. There was a time, of course, when many people would have said we shouldn't let these Jewish people into the United States, for many of the same reasons you're giving now.

You might want to really give that some thought.

Can't speak for the others here, of course, but my position has been that the Swiss state has the right not to give citizenship to these people, not that the Swiss state should not give citizenship to these people.

 

[Mouthwash]

I think we're getting at the root of the problem, here, because what is implicit to both of the above posts is that the republic is a closed corporate entity. The university analogy is particularly instructive, because that's precisely what tenure represents, it's a relic of the era when a college was a corporation of scholars, and tenure represented acceptance into that corporate group.

Now, not to imply that there's some sort of inherently fascistic tendency about this, just because it express one of the central assumptions of fascism about nationhood, the nation-state, and national belonging. Not to imply that at all. Wouldn't dream of it. Unthinkable. Inconceivable. Flatly absurd.

But there's something inherently illiberal about it. Something inherently reactionary. It presents the model of the modern democracy as the primitive Medieval commune, a corporation of guild-masters and their dependents. More egalitarian and more democratic, arguably. (Arguably.) But still essentially closed and inward-looking. A rejection of the republic as a universal principal, as a universalising institution, and not just an accumulation of local privileges.

Nationalism was a product of liberalism, dude. It formed in reaction to the 'divine right' of kings to rule disparate ethnic groups and areas. I'm not even sure how a republic could be anything but a closed corporate entity without abolishing itself.

You do understand that being a citizen of a liberal republic does not make one a world citizen, correct?

 

[Lexicus]

Can't speak for the others here, of course, but my position has been that the Swiss state has the right not to give citizenship to these people, not that the Swiss state should not give citizenship to these people.

Well, I'm not claiming that Switzerland should be invaded and occupied if they refuse to change their immigration policies.

is that I'm sceptical that the modern nation-state can ever achieve legitimacy

If the arguments we're seeing in this thread are any indication, the modern nation-state isn't even interested in attempting to achieve legitimacy within the terms of liberalism. Seems a lot of people are more fond of states that legitimate themselves by defending our blood and our soil, rather than legitimating themselves through defense of principles.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If the arguments we're seeing in this thread are any indication, the modern nation-state isn't even interested in attempting to achieve legitimacy within the terms of liberalism. Seems a lot of people are more fond of states that legitimate themselves by defending our blood and our soil, rather than legitimating themselves through defense of principles.

States are made up of people, and by all indications very few people have any principles to be defended.

 

[Traitorfish]

Nationalism was a product of liberalism, dude. It formed in reaction to the claimed divine right of kings to rule disparate ethnic groups and areas.

I don't think it's really that straightforward. Nationalism and liberalism develop alongside each other, and there's a period where each aspiration seems to go hand-in-hand, but neither is clearly prior to the other. Liberalism is before anything else a critique of tradition, but nationalism is comprised largely of inventing and reinventing traditions. The two have an uneasy relationship at the best of times.

I'm not even sure how a republic could be anything but a 'closed corporate entity' without abolishing itself.

Not to say that American history is uncomplicated in this regard, but you would have a hard time arguing that the United States got where it is today by behaving like a Medieval commune writ large, either as a federation or as individual states.

 

[Chose]

Some of the same people who basically said it would be a good thing to round up and shoot all the racists are now ferociously defending the rights of sexist people to immigrate. No, that doesn't make any sense. You can't be all for liberalism if it's one of your "in" people groups and then go full swift hammer of justice courtesy of the state on trump supporters and racists and people who commit hate speech. Get your story straight.

 

[Angst]

A lot of those obscure Biblical rules are Old Covenant rules which are "fulfilled" by the New Covenant of Christ or no longer necessary on the Earth because of the sacrifice of His Life and Blood for all mortality. Also, many similar, but different, quotes by Paul were tied to SPECIFIC events and problems and were not REALLY meant as across-the-board rules into perpetuity out of the context of the short-term problem they were solving at the time that Epistle was written.

I'm well aware. But the Christian religion is very plastic and the bishop argued that as long as it's in scripture and in fair interpretation, he would allow Danish priests - public officials mind you - misogyny. Regardless of his own position on that interpretation.

 

[Patine]

I'm well aware. But the Christian religion is very plastic and the bishop argued that as long as it's in scripture and in fair interpretation, he would allow Danish priests - public officials mind you - misogyny. Regardless of his own position on that interpretation.

"There will be wolves in sheep's clothing amongst the flock," Jesus Christ's warning to His followers on the church He was building before His Ascension to Heaven after the Resurrection.
That's all I'll say...

 

[Synobun]

I've got to wonder if we'd be having this conversation if the couple, instead of being Muslims, were perhaps Hardei Jews or Mennonite Christians. Would the same behaviour be denounced as alien to our noble Western tradition if these people were themselves Westerners, however eccentric or isolated their communities from mainstream Western society? It hard to picture it. We can dress it up in progressive language, but the fundamental error of this couple was being simply too foreign.

100%. I grew up around Mennonites. Went to school with them. Lived 10 minutes away from them. They get away with a lot of stuff in rural Ontario. The act of essentially selling their women between communities to keep the bloodlines from getting a bit too interesting is abhorrent, as are their general family dynamics.

Could not care less about where they come from or what colour of skin they have.

Nobody said anything about "noble Western tradition" either. Equality is a fairly recent idea. Nothing western about it. We can do better than how we've done thus far, and the state can be a tool towards that end.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Some of the same people who basically said it would be a good thing to round up and shoot all the racists are now ferociously defending the rights of sexist people to immigrate. No, that doesn't make any sense. You can't be all for liberalism if it's one of your "in" people groups and then go full swift hammer of justice courtesy of the state on trump supporters and racists and people who commit hate speech. Get your story straight.

A fairly basic principle for most liberals is tolerance of differences between people.
Still I haven't seen any evidence that the couple were sexist. Both of them preferred to avoid contact with members of the opposite sex. How is that in itself sexist?

 

[Ryika]

A fairly basic principle for most liberals is tolerance of differences between people.
Still I haven't seen any evidence that the couple were sexist. Both of them preferred to avoid contact with members of the opposite sex. How is that in itself sexist?

I don't think it's sexist in itself, it's just a showcase of deeply sexist beliefs that surely also factor into other, more important things of life.

 

[luiz]

A fairly basic principle for most liberals is tolerance of differences between people.
Still I haven't seen any evidence that the couple were sexist. Both of them preferred to avoid contact with members of the opposite sex. How is that in itself sexist?

As already mentioned, the problem is that this refusal to shake hands or answer questions posed by the opposite sex, while in themselves relatively trivial, are in truth a symptom of a deeply sexist worldview, and also many other cultural norms which are most unwelcome.

 

[Patine]

As already mentioned, the problem is that this refusal to shake hands or answer questions posed by the opposite sex, while in themselves relatively trivial, are in truth a symptom of a deeply sexist worldview, and also many other cultural norms which are most unwelcome.

To extend this a bit further, would you view this as the same if a traditionalist Brahmin or Kshatriya caste family from India refused to shake hands or interact with a social worker, of either gender, they had learned did leatherworking as a hobby.

 

[luiz]

To extend this a bit further, would you view this as the same if a traditionalist Brahmin or Kshatriya caste family from India refused to shake hands or interact with a social worker, of either gender, they had learned did leatherworking as a hobby.

I don't know, perhaps? Depends on how problematic their overall worldview and culture are. Could well be the case. I certainly don't see why Switzerland, or any other country, should be forced to import foreign prejudices and hatreds, as our far-left residents here would like.

The worldview and cultural norms of fundamentalist Muslims like the couple in question are extremely problematic and not compatible with Swiss values, which is why I totally understand their decision and think it was the right one.

 

[Yeekim]

To extend this a bit further, would you view this as the same if a traditionalist Brahmin or Kshatriya caste family from India refused to shake hands or interact with a social worker, of either gender, they had learned did leatherworking as a hobby.

Why wouldn't he?

 

[dutchfire]

Well, I'm not claiming that Switzerland should be invaded and occupied if they refuse to change their immigration policies.

That does not really address my point.

 

[Patine]

I don't know, perhaps? Depends on how problematic their overall worldview and culture is. Could well be the case. I certainly don't see why Switzerland, or any other country, should be forced to import foreign prejudices and hatreds, as our far-left residents here would like.

The worldview and cultural norms of fundamentalist Muslims like the couple on question is extremely problematic and not compatible with Swiss values, which is why I totally understand their decision and think it was the right one.

The REAL problem is that "fundamentalist' Muslims are not really Muslims, and warp, twist, distort, and corrupt their own religion's scriptures outside of it's intended spirit and meaning, sometimes even anathema to it, for ulterior ends upon the earth. They are the same thing to Islam that Evangelical Charismatic, Dominionist, Fundamentalist, and Christian Identity, Prosperity Gospel, anti-reform LDS sects, and old school Roman Catholicism are to Christianity. But they're all so convincing that many people, both within and without Muslim and Christian circles, believe they are the CORRECT to practice those religions.