1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Priest murdered, hostages taken during mass at French church

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by abradley, Jul 26, 2016.

  1. Lexicus

    Lexicus Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    21,763
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    I consider banning headscarfs and such to be religious discrimination, with the exception that you do need to be able to see people's faces in places like public schools.
     
  2. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    31,717
    Location:
    Scotland
    Well, what did happen?

    As I recall, the policy in question was theoretically egalitarian, but in practice targeted Muslims to the virtual exclusion of everyone else. After all, who in France is going to be wearing a headscarf in a school except for a Muslim? I suppose some Orthodox Jews may have been caught up, as well, but "see, we're picking on the Jews as well" is not the very strongest excuse ever delivered on behalf of religious discrimination.
     
  3. luiz

    luiz Trendy Revolutionary

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Messages:
    19,977
    As I said you don't have to ban Salafist ideology, you could just ban its speech and symbolism. The exact same tools that are already used to prosecute racists could be used to prosecute salafists. Make it a crime to preach that women must wear burkhas, make it a crime to preach that listening to music turns one into a monkey, make it a crime to preach that shaking hands with a non-muslim is haram, and so on and so forth. Right now all these things are openly preached in countless salafist mosques and prayer halls throughout France with total impunity.

    It's not a case of enforcing existing legislation, because right now there's no law against Salafist speech.

    As for targeting a specific denomination, that's the whole point: to ban certain hateful branches of Islam, which are causing all sorts of problems for French society (not just terrorism). Other denominations are not causing problems, so they're not targeted. It's quite logic and it has been done many times in the past against other groups / denominations. Again I don't think this will happen, but I absolutely think it should.

    Is it, really? Did liberal democracies not engage in far more "illiberal" practices in their war against Nazism and Communism?
    Throughout history liberal democracies have adopted far harsher policies than those I suggest here, and they won their battles, and didn't descend into dictatorships or apartheid states because of it.

    Make it treason to attempt to join ISIS and jail him forever. Problem solved.
     
  4. luiz

    luiz Trendy Revolutionary

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Messages:
    19,977
    If I moved to a Muslim country I wouldn't walk around in the streets dressed as I do in Rio. In fact living in Germany I change several behaviors that I would exhibit in Brazil. It's a basic sign of respect to your hosts.

    Muslims that want to live in Europe should show a similar respect. It's funny how "multi-culturalists" always preach about how Westerners should respect local cultures, but think it's totally fine for foreigners in Europe to behave however the hell they please, and screw local culture and habits.
     
  5. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    31,717
    Location:
    Scotland
    Prohibitions on the defence of Nazism and the use of its symbols are based on a clear and demonstrated relationship between those symbols and a movement which caused the deaths of tens of millions. The relationship between Salafism and ISIS is far more tenuous.

    There is presumably laws against encouraging violence against civilians or against the French state. If "Salafist speech" doesn't necessarily entail this, then, well, what grounds are there for prohibiting it that don't amount to "crimethink doubleunplusgood"? People are entitled to noxious opinions.

    You don't get to break the law just because you think that it's a good idea. I thought you were supposed to be one of those "law and order" types?

    I regard those measures as similarly self-defeating. Don't tell me you're coming out for Senator McCarthy?

    You'd have to prove that he attempted to join ISIS, though, is the point. Even if it's clear that it was intention, if it can't be proven, he cannot be convicted for it.
     
  6. Janskey

    Janskey Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    352
    Location:
    Finland
    I have to agree, and I wasn't clear enough. What really was asked in the survey was about whether "the use of suicide bombing against civilian targets to defend Islam from its enemies is justified."
     
  7. Akka

    Akka Moody old mage.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Messages:
    13,227
    Location:
    Facing my computer.
    It's funny how you exactly prove my point, all the while claiming you disprove it. You should have another look at our exchange.
    Another perfect proof of what I said - though at least this one is for now upfront and doesn't claim the opposite.

    So basically yeah :
    exactly sums it up.
     
  8. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    31,717
    Location:
    Scotland
    What is your point? You're being pretty damn coy about it, and you can't seriously expect me to remember the fine details of some discussion we had a year ago, can you?
     
  9. luiz

    luiz Trendy Revolutionary

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Messages:
    19,977
    The relationship between Salafism and various terrorist groups is not at all tenuous. Also, Salafism preaches a rejection of French society. French society can thus reject Salafism.

    Saying "blacks are inferior" is also not encouraging any violence, and yet it is illegal in France and people get in trouble for that all time, even when they use far less direct formulations.

    The grounds for banning Salafist speech is the same as those for banning racist speech. Society does not accept them, does not want to accept them, and is not forced to accept them.

    Non-argument. I'm saying the law should be changed.

    Self-defeating? Do you see the Third Reich around? Or the USSR?

    I'm not defending Joe McCarthy, but obviously many measures taken against nazis and communists were necessary and effective. Western democracies have taken harsh and "illiberal" measures many times in the past, and not only survived but thrived. Also note that specific groups were targeted: during WW2 fascists and Nazis, during the Cold War communists and fellow travelers. It's the same now: radical Islam must be specifically targeted, and there's no reason why it shouldn't. Doing that won't turn Europe into a Fourth Reich, just like the specific measures against nazis and communists didn't.

    You only have to establish beyond reasonable doubt, actually. If it's clear from his own statements on social media, from messages found on his phone, from his travel plans and etc, that's good enough for a court of law. That's how people are sentenced for all crimes, you know. The prosecution just needs to convince the judge or jury.
     
  10. Akka

    Akka Moody old mage.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Messages:
    13,227
    Location:
    Facing my computer.
    Wut ?
    I'm pretty explicit about my point. It's written in simple english and is about one sentence long. Are you being dense on purpose or are you honestly confused by someone saying "it's not what happens" when you claim that "only zealots complain when people are all held to the same standards" ?
     
  11. Lexicus

    Lexicus Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    21,763
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    Well, there are two separate issues here as I see it.
    One, you know and I know you don't attach any kind of religious importance to what you wear in Rio.
    Two, changing one's dress as a mark of respect ought to be a choice, not compelled by law. Compelling people to dress the way you think they should, by law, is really not too different as I see it from the mullahs forcing women to dress a certain way.

    If you want to adapt your dress to the country you find yourself in, that's fine, I applaud your sensitivity, but I don't think that ought to extend to the point of compelling people to do so by law. And I feel fairly certain that if you did have religious sensibilities that required you to dress a certain way, you'd be much less blase about changing to fit in.
     
  12. luiz

    luiz Trendy Revolutionary

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Messages:
    19,977
    A couple of problems.

    First is that society may assign a different significance to those symbols / vestments. While some immigrants may assign religious significance to the veil (even though as far as I know it is entirely a cultural thing and not mandated by the Koran, not that this matters), some societies may see it as primarily a symbol of oppression of women. Naturally the views of native society have precedence.

    Second is that some European societies, above all France, place an enormous value on social cohesion. In the Anglo-Saxon countries it's all about different communities that somehow need to find a way to tolerate each other so they can live together. In France they regard themselves as one single French community, or at least it used to be this way. There's a big reaction right now against what is called "communautarisme", which is exactly the view that society is divided in several "communities", and that each has its own traditions and leaders and can negotiate with the other communities or with the state. This is anathema to traditional French republicanism, which again is all about social cohesion and equality. In this context, when you go to some French neighborhoods and see pretty much every single woman wearing a veil or worse, it is a painful symbol and reminder of the degradation of social cohesion.

    Finally, note that all societies do have some enforced vestment codes. Muslim countries tend to be pretty strict about that, so maybe Muslim immigrants to the West should try to respect local traditions, as they expect Westerners in their countries to do.
     
  13. Lexicus

    Lexicus Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    21,763
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    Well, I guess you and the mullahs and the nutcase Wahhabi clerics have in common that you need to see people dress the way you want them to, because of "social cohesion" or "submission to Allah" or whatever reason you can come up with.

    I think it's generally best to just let people wear what they want to wear, both on moral grounds and because I think banning veils just feeds into ISIS' narrative that the West has it out for all Muslims. Of course, your ridiculous calls to do things like ban Salafism are even less helpful in that regard.
     
  14. Tahuti

    Tahuti Writing Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Messages:
    9,492
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe one should consider the weaknesses of Western society with its consumerism, meaningless jobs, racism and privacy invasions. Salafism doesn't offer an alternative to Western society though it is correct about its flaws.

    Depending the country, this is already happening.
     
  15. luiz

    luiz Trendy Revolutionary

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Messages:
    19,977
    I didn't even say I agree with the veil / burkha ban, I was just explaining the rationale for it and why not the whole world sees eye to eye with Anglo-Saxon multi-culturalism. But as you make very clear, the far-left in the US can be as insular and provincial as a stereotypical redneck, in believing that US values are always universal and all different perspectives are wrong and equivalent (e.g., "French laicité is as bad as crazy mullahs").

    As I said to Traitorfish, Western liberal democracies have taken tough and targeted measures against past enemies like Nazis an communists, and I see no reason why they can't likewise take tough and targeted measures against Salafists, who are obviously enemies of Western societies.
     
  16. Lexicus

    Lexicus Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    21,763
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    As bad as? No. Similar in this matter of not allowing people to wear what they want to wear? Yes. For the record, I oppose dress codes that are frequently present in US schools as well.

    Well, here in the US the "tough measures" taken against the Communists are one of the darkest chapters in our history. Though I suppose you and McCarthy would probably get along really well.

    In any case, Salafists as a whole are not "enemies of Western societies." You are more specific than the fools who just say "radical Islam" as though that's even a thing, but you're still missing the mark. "Salafists" are no more "enemies of Western society" than evangelicals, or romantic lefties like Torvegieter.

    In fact, if you want to target the "enemies of Western societies", your best bet is purging the people who vote for parties like FN and AfD. They are far more dangerous enemies to the West than ISIS ever dreamed of being.
     
  17. kramerfan86

    kramerfan86 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,572
    I would think that an attempt to join a hostile army which is an enemy of France could easily justify a treason charge.
     
  18. luiz

    luiz Trendy Revolutionary

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Messages:
    19,977
    All countries impose dress codes. That doesn't mean they're all equivalent or as bad.

    As I already said, I was not defending McCarthy in particular, but when you consider that American communists gave out to the USSR the freakin' atomic bomb, and countless other secrets, it was obvious there was an internal enemy that needed to be fought, and that required targeted and tough actions. Those actions were successful, the US did not degenerate into some Orwellian regime, and the USSR doesn't exist anymore.

    To say that "Salafists aren't the enemies of Western societies" is extreme denial. They don't even hide their rejection and disgust of Western society - usually their hatred is quite transparent as well. There is a direct connection between Salafist preaching and terrorism (and also other problems). Again, there is no reason why Western societies are forced to tolerate an ideology like that, which is openly hostile and is responsible for countless murders.

    I am no supporter of the far-right, in fact I think they offer wrong solutions on all fronts, but to say they are the "biggest threat" right now is ridiculous. French people are being killed almost on a daily basis by Islamists. How many people have the FN killed? Please, lets try to not be ridiculous.
     
  19. Lexicus

    Lexicus Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    21,763
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    The dress codes I'm talking about are imposed by local school boards, not "the country."
    The only way to say some restrictions on dress are more acceptable than others is cultural chauvinism (well our dress codes are fine because the way we force people to dress is the way they should dress!)

    Well I'm not trying to defend McCarthy but *proceeds to defend McCarthy*

    Pretty clearly, you don't know what Salafism is so there is no point responding.

    Big deal. Despite the apocalyptic visions peddled by the far right, "radical Islam" has no chance whatever of destroying France or taking it over. All it can do is kill a relatively small number of people.

    The real threat to Western societies, as has been the case since the Great Divergence at the beginning of the 19th century, is internal. It is the Nazi current running just beneath the surface.
     
  20. Gary Childress

    Gary Childress Student for and of life

    Joined:
    May 11, 2007
    Messages:
    4,444
    Location:
    United Nations
    Who gives a FF what ISIS thinks? They are a morally depraved group that doesn't deserve any recognition whatsoever. They've relinquished all rights to having a "point" about anything. The "West" may not be perfect but we'll ALWAYS be light years ahead of the absolute moral depravity that their miserable souls represent.
     

Share This Page