Adventure Game Studio

There's an interesting article in today's New York Times about multiculturalism, or lack thereof, in Europe:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/15/international/15letter.html?hp

Since so many Europeans are on this board, and it's a topic I've struggled with myself, I thought perhaps we could have a discussion about it.

I've spent about a year and a half in Germany, and traveled a fair bit in Europe as well, and it always struck me as interesting how on a whole, people could be extremely progressive or culturally liberal on a whole range of topics, but when it came to immigrants rights or issues of diversity, people would regress to the stone age.  For example, the whole issue of "religious" headwear and clothing in French schools.  I would talk about it with my crunchy, neo-hippy Berliner friends, who would passionately argue on the side of the French government that "religious" clothing should not be in schools.  I tutored a middle-aged Ukrainian sports agent for a while, and he was about as liberal as a middle-aged Ukrainian sports agent can get, and we seriously almost got in a fight over this topic. 

What's the deal?  It always seemed to be not about religion in schools, as those students are obviously not "teaching" religion, but about assimilating foreigners.  I mean, didn't they make Sikh's take off their turbans in school?  If I'm not mistaken, aren't turbans of cultural significance, not religious? 

This is just one example of course, but the article above discusses how Europeans, unlike Americans, have failed to embrace cultural diversity.  I don't think you can make that a blanket statement of course, but as a whole, it's definitely true.  Maybe it's just easier for us Americans to except that culture is an ever-changing thing, because that's the way it's always been in our country.  It's obviously different in Europe, as the odd bookstore or petrol station is often older than my country.  Old habits die hard. 

So, thoughts?  Opinions?  Am I making any sense here?

Thanks for linking me to the New York Times' "log in" page.

And they're not "turbans" they're "chaddor" a symbol of the submission of the muslim women to God.

And I will be against everything meaning submission to any "God"...

Anarcho, I don't get it either.

I'm a teacher at a primary school myself... we had a whole discussion about the topic.

Out of the 25 people who work at my school, I and 4 others didn't have a problem with headwear.

Twenty others had. Without any real valid arguments.

Fear, ignorance, if you ask me... try to understand, learn other religions, broaden your perspective.

It's a cause worth fighting for, imho.

Farlander,

Sorry I linked to the login page, I thought it would link to the article.  You don't need to be sarcastic.  I was hoping we could have a mature discussion here. 

The nytimes can be reached here: www.nytimes.com and the article is entitled, "A Continent Watching Anxiously Over the Melting Pot".  Evidently, you'll need to login if you want to read it.

As for the word Turban...it's kinda funny, because I've read about half a dozen articles or so and Sikh headwear is refered to as Turbans, and believe it or not, in the Sikh encyclopedia they talk at length about Turbans:

http://allaboutsikhs.com/encyclopedia/index.php?article=105itle=TURBANgt=T&brief=no&lastArt=113

Hopefully that link will work, and you won't have to login.  From what I read, I don't see anything about  the submission of muslim women to God.  Maybe some people interpret it that way, and perhaps some people use the term "chaddor".   I haven't come across the interpretation or the term over here. 

Hobbes,

That's really interesting.  I guess you've had the same experience.  When I would talk about it with the sports agent I mentioned above, he would get really really defensive, and when I tried to breakdown his argument, he basically would just refuse to talk about it further.  Wierd.

But that leads me to another question.  Farlander, are you against  "religious" headwear in school because you disagree with what it stands for?  I don't want to put words in your mouth, but is that how you feel?  That's pretty different from the separation of church and state.

As for wearing turbans in school, I guess there are arguments for and against it. I'm against it, personally. As Farlander mentioned, they can be a sign of submission. I've seen girls in schools over here wearing veils. I find that so highly fucking offensive, that our government can condone this treatment of women. I don't care what that little girl thinks is right, and I don't care what her parents think is right, because I've been brought up in a country that embraces freedom and equality and now we're allowing people to let their little girls walk around being submissive to men or god or whatfuckingever. We sure as hell wouldn't allow IRISH parents to treat their children like this.

I'm all for multiculturalism, but the government is going about it completely wrong. They're forcing completely different people together, and that will only cause a bigger gap between them. The truth is, this is our country and our ideals, and while we should welcome other people, asking us to welcome their fucked up belief system is a step too far. If they come here, they should be prepared to accept a couple of our ways.

I think the government is doing a shit job of promoting it. The situation as it now stands, is that if you don't agree with certain aspects of multiculturalism, like my post, you get called a racist. Which really fucking pisses me off.

Man, I wish a big nuclear bomb would go off in France and end all our problems.

Woh, what happened to your whole post?  i was writing a response and then half of it is gone!

First of all, I don't want you to get offended by anything I say here, but I'm going to be honest.  I find it hard to believe you when you say “I'm all for multiculturalism” but later resort to “This is OUR country.”  Look, I agree with your assessment of the stricter Muslim/or cultural traditions that, among other things, oppress women (though I think it's safe to say that Islam does not necessarily condone the oppression of women, the culture does).  And when it comes to a person breaking local laws, i.e. domestic violence, then all citizens should be held accountable.  It shouldn't matter where you're from.  But things like veils, clothing, turbans, these things have a deeper context for a lot of people that can't be easily dismissed.  A lot of people at my former college were Muslim, and wore headdresses.  I remember one person remarking that if she took it off, it would feel like she was naked.  So why is it any of your business to tell her to take it off?  Why do you wear pants?  Or ties?  Or anything else for that matter?

Even if you disagree with some of the things “religious” clothing may or may not stand for, the whole idea of multiculturalism is that you should tolerate it. 

Furthermore, this whole “my country” or “OUR country” thing…it's a little misleading.  Culture isn't a static thing.  It's constantly changing.  I mean, what's Irish culture?  It's not like God created an Irishman, plopped him down on the island, and let him go nuts.  No, it's a culture that evolved through time following migrations, invasions, cultural turmoil, oppression and immigration.  Sure, you were presumably born in your country, and feel entitled to call it your own, but what about the little girls you speak of who were born to Muslim parents.  If they were born in Ireland, is it not their own country too?

Sorry to keep responding here, but...

Farlander, upon further investigation, a Chaddor is what Muslim women wear, and for modern practitioners, they are optional.  Sikhs are not Muslim.  And they wear turbans.

I think a lot of the anti-immigrant sentiment comes because a lot of immigrants don't try to integrate with the country they're moving into, and instead set up their own little communities.

It's understandable for immigrants to want to live near other people from the same country, but when you get large pockets of 'foreigners' who haven't even bothered to learn the language of the country they're living in and just keep themselves to themselves, it makes a lot of people nervous.

For instance, a friend of mine is an immigrant from Zimbabwe. He has made an effort to live in a 'normal' British town, speak English and get to know the local people; and thus has integrated into the community.

On the other hand, people who immigrate from Eastern Europe tend to come and live in a town already dominated by people from their country. They don't integrate with the existing population, but keep to their own community, speaking their own language. This then leads to other local people feeling intimidated (whether perceived or real) by the large groups of 'foreigners' walking around, and this then leads to tensions.

This is all a huge generalisation of course, but it seems to be what people feel.

So I don't think that immigration itself causes the problem, more the way people behave, and are interpreted by the rest of the population.

This is a very interesting topic indeed.

I must say that I agree with Yufster on the point that people coming from another country should accept the new way of behaviour that might not be similar to their home country. But by that I don't mean things like clothing etc. More like things that just don't fit into the rhytm of life in the new country. I've heard stories about stuff like that happening and it has caused big discussions.

As for wearing those turban thingys, I personally have nothing against it. It doesn't offend me and I don't really see how it would offend anyone else. From what I've seen people have got really well along with other people who are from another country or stuff like that. I'm not entirely sure, but I remember here in Finland being some discussion about not allowing people to wear those turbans in school but I don't know if it really happened or was it just about the case in France. But if it really happened here, I guess they wouldn't allow me to go to school with turban if I one day decided to wear one for fun.

Well, the refusal to assimilate has definitely led to severe oppression throughout history.  Jews are the greatest example of a people who have historically refused to assimilate, and as a result, have been lynched, murdered, harrassed, isolated, etc.  But I really disagree with the sentiment that anyone should have to give up who they are or what they believe in just because they move to another country.  Learn the language?  Sure, but that's also a pretty tough thing to do, speaking as someone who has tried. 

Plus, why do people end up in ethnic communitiies?  Because when they decide to immigrate, they move to a place where they know someone.  They have a cousin, or have a friend, or someone they know might know someone etc.  And then this continues to happen until you have a community.  I live in a neighborhood in Washington, DC called Adam's Morgan, and it was historically (recent history anyway) a hispanic community.  It grew into a "hispanic community" through the very process I mentioned above.  I don't think people wanted to stay isolated, it's just the easiest way to get through a really difficult process.  And you know what?  I'm not pissed that there are people who look different from me on the streets, and I'm not angry that the restaurants don't serve hamburgers or sport American flags, I find the diversity interesting.  And more importantly, I like the food.  Anyway...

As an American, and on a totally NON-RELIGIOUS note......

we weren't allowed to wear hats in school; hence no turbans.  I went to public school, too, not a private school.

Bt

Quote“This is OUR country.” Ã, 

So now we're not allowed to say that this is OUR country, without being against multiculturalism? Isn't it our country? Who's country is it, exactly? Are we allowed to be proud of our country any more, or does that seem too guarded?

QuoteA lot of people at my former college were Muslim, and wore headdresses. Ã, I remember one person remarking that if she took it off, it would feel like she was naked. Ã, So why is it any of your business to tell her to take it off? Ã, Why do you wear pants? Ã, Or ties? Ã, Or anything else for that matter?

In my country, we wear trousers, among other things. Since I can't think of a country whereby the people run around naked, I'll use another example; rainforest tribes or beduin tribes. If they were offended by clothes, and I chose to live with them, I would wear whatever they wear (or rather, don't wear). However, that's a retarded example as (a) I wouldn't choose to live with them and (b) nobody would.

I don't like what headdresses or veils represent. I don't think they should be allowed in schools because they represent a certain element of a culture that is oppressive and backwards. Furthermore, there are plenty of countrys that DO allow them to wear headdresses if they feel it is so necessary, and I'm sure they could move there if it bothers them so much.

QuoteEven if you disagree with some of the things “religious” clothing may or may not stand for, the whole idea of multiculturalism is that you should tolerate it.

This is exactly the thing I hate. For me to want multiculturalism, I have to accept absolutely everything that the other side have to offer? Absolutely NO. So many of their views and opinions and traditions offend and sicken me, I won't accept them. If I have to accept them to accept the people, well then, I don't accept multiculturalism. It's completely unrealistic to assume that so many people that are so wildly different can live together peacefully. I have enough difficulty sitting next to a fundamentalist christian.

QuoteIf they were born in Ireland, is it not their own country?

Firstly, they weren't. Secondly, no. Not necessarily. What is it to be irish? Well, that's a hard, retarded question. In my opinion, it doesn't matter whether you're Irish or African or what the hell ever else. What matters is that it's a free country, and I'd very much like to see it stay that way. If people come to this country and don't like the idea of 'their' women not wearing veils, well, maybe they're in the wrong country.

QuoteAs for wearing those turban thingys, I personally have nothing against it. It doesn't offend me and I don't really see how it would offend anyone else.

I'm getting angry and saying ridiculous things now, but I'm calming down. Alright. Breath. The reason it offends me is because I have, on numerous occasions, been treated quite appalling by muslim guys, most often at work. You probably don't get this as a guy, but I do. For instance, at work, I work with a guy who does my friggin' head in. If he wants something, he just grabs my hand and pulls me across the store. Right? He's that ignorant.

What bothered me most was when he told me that our women dress inappropriately. How dare he tell me that?! Another time, a guy came in with his wife in full dress from head to toe, and refused to speak to me, but a 'man'.

One of my friends at school always wore a veil outside of school, although she wasn't allowed in school. She was one of the sweetest girls ever, but had such a submissive attitude. She was very smart, too.

It's very frustrating for me to see this, and the veils are just sign of submission. If they want, they can wear them outside of school or whatever, but a school is a place of education and we're all equal.

An argument often used is that people wear decorative crosses to school, which is a religious symbol as well. Well, if they want, they can wear whatever religious symbol they want around their neck. But we're not allowed wear towels on our heads either, you know.

QuoteI think a lot of the anti-immigrant sentiment comes because a lot of immigrants don't try to integrate with the country they're moving into, and instead set up their own little communities

Right, I agree with this. I'm not anti-immigrant though, I just think that changing our ways for immigrants isn't going to help anybody. If they do move over here, they should realize they have to accept a certain part of our culture and try to fit in.

QuoteI don't like what headdresses or veils represent. I don't think they should be allowed in schools because they represent a certain element of a culture that is oppressive and backwards. Furthermore, there are plenty of countrys that DO allow them to wear headdresses if they feel it is so necessary, and I'm sure they could move there if it bothers them so much.

Not to disagree with you at ALL Yufster, because I don't.  But playing another side of the coin here, who is to say that our cultural and morals are superior to some other culture?  Who are we to declare that THEY are backwards?  Maybe we are backwards.... who knows.  It's a fine line - I recently got into a conversation with my mother about this, and she spoke of how some Muslim cultures severly opress women.  I agreeed that I felt that opression and submission of women is wrong, how can I condemn a culture and tell them not to exist, without feeling like an opressor myself!  It's such a hard line.....

Bt

Quote from: Anarcho on Wed 15/12/2004 21:51:10
I really disagree with the sentiment that anyone should have to give up who they are or what they believe in just because they move to another country. Learn the language? Sure, but that's also a pretty tough thing to do, speaking as someone who has tried.

Sure learning a language is hard, but it's the effort that counts; if anything, attempting to learn is a sign that you're wanting to become a part of your new country, not just sit in it in isolation.

It's a bit like a kid moving to a new school ... either you can sit at the back and sulk along with the other new kid, or you can get in there and make a name for yourself in your new school.

Quote
Plus, why do people end up in ethnic communitiies? Because when they decide to immigrate, they move to a place where they know someone. They have a cousin, or have a friend, or someone they know might know someone etc. And then this continues to happen until you have a community. Ã, I live in a neighborhood in Washington, DC called Adam's Morgan, and it was historically (recent history anyway) a hispanic community. It grew into a "hispanic community" through the very process I mentioned above. I don't think people wanted to stay isolated, it's just the easiest way to get through a really difficult process. And you know what? I'm not pissed that there are people who look different from me on the streets, and I'm not angry that the restaurants don't serve hamburgers or sport American flags, I find the diversity interesting. And more importantly, I like the food. Anyway...

Of course, it's only natural that people go somewhere where they already know people and know that they'll be welcome.

And of course, there are loads of immigrant communities that are friendly and welcoming, and integrate in a great way. But at the same time, there are those where the opposite is true. Often, there's no particular reason why, it's just mistrust that has developed over several decades.

I agree with Yufster on most of her points.
I mean, I know a family of Muslims. They're nice folk.
For multiculturalism to work, we have to take some of their culture as well. But (taking Muslims as an example), why would we want to adopt a culture were women are second class citizens?
I mean, they are all entitled to their beliefs, but I feel that parts of their culture represent something backward. The world has moved on since then.
About the headresses, I think they probably should be banned in schools. Its about learning, not religion. If they want to worship a god, then they can do it in their own time.

Heres a point. We complain that they form their own communities within our country, but what do we do when we go on holiday?
If we meet someone from our own country, we would generally make friends with them. The concept of Little Britain.

I think its really ironic that people who trumpet "we are a free country" and "i hate oppression" think that its Ok to inflict their views, such as "I don't care what your religion is, you can't wear an X" on others. They also tend to be the ones that say "people should be able to believe whatever they like" and then say "oh, but, you're not allowed to believe that I need to be converted, or to believe that I am wrong in my beliefs"

QuoteAbout the headresses, I think they probably should be banned in schools. Its about learning, not religion. If they want to worship a god, then they can do it in their own time.

In my old school student were free to wear pretty much whatever they wanted in school (well of course it would have been inappropriate to come in school naked or something like that) but during the class you weren't allowed to wear a hat. Believe me, I saw lots of different and really out of place clothing on people, but did it affect their studying? Not at all. I never saw anyone wearing (religious) headdress but I doubt anyone would have mind it, as long as they took it off when going to class.

I simply can't see why people don't adopt an "I don't F___ with you, don't f___ with me" attitude.  I've got no problem with people wearing religious attire.  After all, being part of a particular religion means believing it all the time, not just as an after-school activity.  If the school (for some reason) has said that hats aren't allowed, then they'd have to comply as well. 

It's easy to argue that the US embraces multi-culturalism more but I think that's giving us a little too much credit.  I think that much of the religious tolerance is due to laws we have in place to protect the practicing of one's religion (laws made with Christianity in mind, no doubt).  I do think there's a good deal of fear, hatred and prejudice as pertains to many of our immigrants but the population - as a whole - keeps the nastiest bits under their hat and pretends tolerance. 

My view on this is best summed up by my first sentence.  Somebody wearing a turban, or a cross around their neck, or a sari, or a friggin' poncho doesn't hurt me.  Somebody demonstrating that they're of a particular faith doesn't chew on my ass, so long as they leave me the hell alone (on a preaching level, not an interpersonal one).

QuoteSo now we're not allowed to say that this is OUR country, without being against multiculturalism? 

Basically, yeah.  That's like saying, "So now I can't burn a cross in front of a black man's house without being called racist?"  Here's a definition of multiculturalism:

"the doctrine that several different cultures (rather than one national culture) can co-exist peacefully and equitably in a single country."  So basically, it would seem that most of the people who have responded do not like the idea of multiculturalism.  Most people seem to advocate assimilation.  Ok.  Let's just get that out of the way.

But let's get to the little girl that is born in Ireland but is not "ethnically" irish, whatever that means.  And there are DEFINITELY children born in Ireland who are not ethnically irish.  What are they?  Are they eternally foreigners?  For how many generations do they have to live in Ireland before it's their country too?  Do you have a rulebook for this?  It's bullshit and doesn't make sense.  I mean, I've never been in Ireland, but do you have someone that walks around with some kind of "Irish-o-meter" that measures how Irish you are?  Like, if you're wearing enough green?  Maybe it's just reserved for the dark-skinned Irish-born children, to determine if they're Irish enough to be considered Irish?

Look, you can be patriotic, celebrate Irish culture, wear your "trousers", have a ball.  No one is saying you can't.  But your country, as well as other countries in the EU, are going to have to come to grips with the idea that non-white people will be living in your country...and working in your country...and voting in your country.  And your culture, and country, is going to change.  It may change in slight ways, but it's going to change.   AGAIN: YOU DO NOT HAVE TO LIKE EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERY CULTURE THAT YOU COME IN CONTACT WITH NOR MUST YOU ACCEPT IT, but telling them to move somewhere else doesn't help anybody. 

Quote from: Anarcho on Wed 15/12/2004 19:54:05
Farlander,

Sorry I linked to the login page, I thought it would link to the article.Ã,  You don't need to be sarcastic.Ã,  I was hoping we could have a mature discussion here.Ã, 

I forgot the smiley after my first sentence, sorry.

About inmigration... well... In Spain inmigrants are 6 %, but the prison population is 66 % inmigrant... That's what I call a "little reason for not being confident" with some sources of inmigration.

We do not care about Russians, Yankees, Brits, Japs... But we (We, as Spaniards, I mean) are reluctant to Marrocoeans, Rumanians and Colombians (I could explain why, but my points may be seem as a healing for racism, and I am not... I'll just say: "Their special social developements make that his emigrants are in a remarkable amount delinquents")

So... that's what CJ explained. Last weekend I was in "Casa Abdul", a Moroccoean restaurant in my town whose cook is Abdul, a lovely moor who has spent 32 years here, who speaks Spanish perfectly and mounts a Bethlem in Xmas. He even wears a Santa's hat in Xmas! How could people be reluctant about that guy?

But there is the other side... People who has been here for generations and still does not feel like in home. I am not telling of speaking his lenguaje at home, or celebrate it's parties, I am talking of people who does not want to learn the lenguaje, who is here because they have no other choice, people who is not happy here, who aggressive with us.

The thing is becoming a paradox. Spain is lay. We do not put crosses in class... We do not pray preachers before today's theme. Our jew citizens do not wear "Kippa". So... if there is a group of girls wearing Chaddor we will have that the laycism we've been fighting for years, a national agreement of the majory to say: "ok, I am Christian but I will not make publics shows of it because I respect the tiny minory who is not" is going to the flush. Maybe I am crazy, but I don't really like it.

Right, but if you make people hide their religion, then you don't have freedom of religion.  If they're not allowed to be proud of who they are, or what they belief in, then you don't have a very free society.  I respect secularism, I'm an athiest.  But if someone wants to wear a Yarmulke, I'm not going to tell them they can't.  It doesn't effect me at all.  How does they're wearing something religious effect you?  What about nuns?  Are nuns and priests allowed to wear religious dress?  How would that be different?

QuoteBasically, yeah. Ã, That's like saying, "So now I can't burn a cross in front of a black man's house without being called racist?" Ã, 

Um, what? That's not even comparable.

QuoteSo basically, it would seem that most of the people who have responded do not like the idea of multiculturalism. Ã, Most people seem to advocate assimilation.

How did you draw that conclusion? True multiculturalism is great if you can find it, but in reality life's just not like that, however much we may wish it was.

QuoteFor how many generations do they have to live in Ireland before it's their country too? Ã, Do you have a rulebook for this? Ã, It's bullshit and doesn't make sense.

My personal opinion is that if you're born in a country, then that is your country. Equally, if you immigrate and adopt and integrate into the culture, it also becomes your country.

QuoteBut your country, as well as other countries in the EU, are going to have to come to grips with the idea that non-white people will be living in your country...and working in your country...and voting in your country.

What? Where did "non-white" come from? A lot of immigration problems involve white people from other countries; since when did this become a colour issue? Equally, we've gone far past the stage of thinking of "blacks" as immigrants. It's culture, not skin colour, that's important.

QuoteAnd your culture, and country, is going to change. Ã, It may change in slight ways, but it's going to change.

Every country and every culture is going to change. I can't help but feel you're giving the US rather too much credit, when it has well known racial tension problems, just like many other countries.

Nobody is perfect, but if you think of the progress that has been made in the last 50 years it's astounding. A truly global multiculturalism will happen, but realistically it's going to take at least another 50 years to get there.

There are too many old people stuck in their ways; my grandma still hates the Germans because of World War II. It's something that effected her in a great way and she's never forgotten it ... on the other hand, younger people now don't have any such issues.

These things take time, and that's something that YOU have got to accept.

:P

One other thing:

QuoteIn Spain inmigrants are 6 %, but the prison population is 66 % inmigrant

So what does that statistic mean?  Does it mean that more immigrants commit crimes?  Or does it mean that more immigrants are sent to prison?  Look at my country, the US...visit any university campus in the country, and you'll find more drugs and drug dealing than on any city corner in Detroit.  But do college kids go to prison for drugs?  Rarely.  If ever.  But go down the street to the black neighborhoods, or the hispanic neighborhoods, and look at how many young kids are sent to prison for doing the same exact thing.  The enforcement of laws is biased almost everywhere.  Do you think the police cars patrol the rich neighborhoods?  If a rich kid gets busted for breaking a law, how likely is it that they cops will say, "ah, he's a good kid, we'll let him off with a warning."  It's extremely likely.

I'm not trying to excuse anybody of anything, but it's important to look beyond the numbers sometimes.

I don't mean to give the US credit at all...really.  My country has plenty of problems.  Segregation, racism, intolerace.  You name it.  But in a lot of ways, it's different in Europe, because you're just beginning to experience problems we've been dealing with for our entire (however short) history.

I brought up the "non-white" term because when people talk about immigrants and culture, a lot of time it boils down to race.  Don't kid yourself for a second that there isn't a racial element in this debate.  And for all intents and purpose, "non-white" can mean a lot of things.  The Irish weren't considered white in the US for a very very long time.  But I know what you're saying, there's a much larger issue involving people of all kinds of backgrounds and nationalities.

I think my analogy, while extreme, is correct.  And I'm saying that when everybody says that people who come into their country should adopt the customs of the country, that's rejecting multiculturalism.  It's advocating assimilation.  And that seemed to be what people are advocating. 

Quote from: Farlander on Wed 15/12/2004 19:37:44

And they're not "turbans" they're "chaddor" a symbol of the submission of the muslim women to God.

Beeep! Wrong. Thanks for playing, please try again :)

Sikhs are not muslims and the men wear turbans and do not cut their hair or beards. They also carry a sword (usually a small ceremonial knife). This resulted in sikhs being arrested and harrassed in the US right after 9/11 since they are obviously asian and armed.

I haven't had time to post, but I'd like to add something relevant.

Is it me, or do a lot of Europeans seem to find themselves superior to Americans. They think their so much better, and any chance they get they seem to insult us and generalize us. Granted, we do it to.. But it seems unfair that everyone in America is comdemed into one category.

what category would that be? 

Isn't the modern thought process of an individual, whether American, European, Australian, ..., one that allows freedom for all things?
When these things begin to offend the individual, the professed freedom 'allowed' the other is no longer existent.
Is anyone really free to do anything?
If freedom is something in such demand, and so readily given by those who wish to be 'in the right', why is it still veiled,? Ã, Meaning that accepting certain freedoms as long as they are not offensive to the individual is okay, but once they offend they are considered slavery, so to speak.

Quotethe doctrine that several different cultures (rather than one national culture) can co-exist peacefully and equitably in a single country.

What is co-existing? Being in the same country, neighborhood, etc. or intermingling?
Equitable is defined as "existing or valid in equity as distinguished from law," but once you enter a country are you not under that country's law? If that law states that headresses (since that is the subject) are not to be worn, where did the individual freedom go?

I don't think so LGM, we're mostly friendly toward each other right? It's more like the jokes European people make about each other's nations and people.
Of course there are people that will take it further now more than usual because of the large amount of resentment over US politics, that's silly of course, but I admit it exists.
I don't know why you think the post is relevent though :P

As for attitudes to immigration... a few years ago I thought of the UK as one of the best examples of a multicultural country, at least where i have lived people from different cultures have got along just fine with very little seperation from each other. Ã, It seems mostly the same to me now, so I wonder what has triggered such a wave of resentment among people (a minority, but still...)
We still have one of the highest rates of interracial marriage in the world and in general things are how they have been all my life, it's a shame some people feel under threat or something. Ã, It's actually only making problems of integration some immigrants face harder.
Also, I wouldn't say people have a problem with non whites, it's less of a racial issue than you think, it's mainly Muslims that get hated (and white Eastern European economic migrants to some extent), just new immigrants. Ã, The more established Black and South Asian communities are as much a part of british culture as ever, only actual racists seem to have problems with them.

You know, from an American point of view, the French rule against religious headwear is scandalous.

Many schools in the US prohibit hats... but, if a student protested because his headwear was part of his religion, the school would make an exception (or the Supreme Court would).

Also, most of the European opinion I've heard on this issue (the broader immigration issue) would be considered raving racism if heard from an American.

Not criticizing, just observing.

In all honesty, this conversation seems very bizarre to me.  At every school I've ever been to, the rule has always been "no hats except religious headwear." So you can wear your turban, your chador, your yamulke, your whatever, but take off the baseball cap. You can also wear your communion cross, your Star of David, your Pentacle, or whatever.  You can fast during Ramadan, pray with the Christian Fellowship before classes, even keep a little shrine in your locker if you are so disposed (just no candles- they're a fire hazard). Kosher and Vegetarian meals were available (you had to ask sometimes, but they were there). My public highschool even rented out the audiotorium to a Christian group to hold prayer services on Sundays. The school doesn't have any symbols of religion, because the school itself isn't religious. But you're free to practice your religion there- just don't make others practice with you.

Here in Canada, people immigrate to live with people they are related to- it's actually the law. You have to have a sponsor who you are related to by blood, marriage or adoption, and you have to have that relationship recognized by the governmentfor a full year before you can gain landed immigrant status.  This creates neighbourhoods where there are large groups of people are all the same race and loosely related (next door neighbour is your sister's husband's cousin's neice sort of thing). The only time I've ever heard of people having a problem with this was during the SARS thingy a couple of years ago when Chinatown in Toronto basically shut itself down.

Yeah... I'm boggled by some of the reactions. Live and let live.

I find it all bizarre too. 

I have never met  Muslim women who was forced to wear headwear. They chose either to wear it or not wear it although most chose not to. Maybe Europe is different, but I can't see how.

In terms of it being a symbol of repression, it may be no more so than dresses and skirts, which prevent mobility and are restricted to the female sex.

But we don't ban dresses, and it's purely a choice to wear them, since the are clothing choices within school uniforms to allow pants.


Really, people need to stop patronising these girls, and in fact muslim women in general. They're just as capable as any woman to make choices and stand up for themselves. If they choose to do soemthing, why do we pity them. Those girls I mentioned at the beginning were most upset when people pitied them. They tended to get more angry at the tendency of secular and Christian people to think they had no ability to stand up for themselves than they did when people chraracterised all muslims as terrorists [although I rarely observed that happening when they were around]. These were women of Turkish, Pakistani, malay and Indonesian descent, so they took in much of the Muslim world, but they, like all human beings, were capacble of standing up for themselves.

When are sanctimonious people going to stop pitying them and recognising it. it does no good, it only dehumanising it. Where there is repression they could use support, not pity.

and that taps into a similar resentment that you can feel amongst people in the third world, aboriginies, the disabled and other groups suffering some sort of disadvantage.

On another note, multiculturalism is inevitable, adopt it or self destruct.

The one problem I see when talking about a mulitcultural society is, "where will people live?"Ã,  I just can't see a time when there won't be problems when cultures collide.Ã,  Most people like to live around other people who are of a 'like mind'.Ã,  People who share the same ideals, beliefs, etc.Ã,  I don't think this is a bad thing, rather I think it should be embraced!

Now ...

Should people isolate themselves from dealing with other cultures?Ã,  Certainly not.

Should people dislike other cultures simply because they're different?Ã,  Obviously not.

But take this example:

Let's say I live in a neighborhood of 30 people and we're all 'Culture A'.

Now, let's say a person of 'Culture B' moves into our community.

Multi-culturalism dictates that we all say, "Welcome to the neighborhood!" and all that shit being 'polite and PC'.Ã,  We don't mind that this person isn't 'Culture A', but we're [understandably] concerned, because we don't know much about 'Culture B' and what it's all about.

Now lets say that this new neighbor of 'Culture B' has a cultural practice of running through the backyard banging large metallic objects together from 2am - 5am when the rest of the neighborhood (Culture A) is trying to sleep as is their practice at this time.

Should the 30 people of 'Culture A' have to accept this, and be multi-cultural, simply because it's 'Culture B's way of life?

The answer is no.

It's not wrong to feel this way.

In the modern day, however, the 'Culture B' neighbor will just piss and moan about multiculturalism and oppression until he's granted the right to make this nightly noise.Ã,  Which will then anger all of the 'Culture A' folk and cause resentment towards the people of 'Culture B'.Ã,  Then the problem just goes on and on.Ã,  Sure, 'Culture B' now gets to maintain their practices, but now 'Culture A', whose practice is to sleep at night, can no longer do that.Ã,  That's not multiculturalism, or fair.

Think of it this way:

If you're of 'Culture B' and you live in a place where you're outnumbered by 'Culture A' you need to respect their way of life and not make this noise at night.Ã,  And vice versa, if you're of 'Culture A' and you live in a place where you're outnumbered by 'Culture B' you need to accept the nightly noise escapades.

Tolerance, understanding, acceptance, and fairness.

THAT is true multiculturism to me.

Quote from: Anarcho on Thu 16/12/2004 00:05:07
One other thing:

QuoteIn Spain inmigrants are 6 %, but the prison population is 66 % inmigrant

So what does that statistic mean?Ã,  Does it mean that more immigrants commit crimes?Ã,  Or does it mean that more immigrants are sent to prison?Ã,  Look at my country, the US...visit any university campus in the country, and you'll find more drugs and drug dealing than on any city corner in Detroit.Ã,  But do college kids go to prison for drugs?Ã,  Rarely.Ã,  If ever.Ã,  But go down the street to the black neighborhoods, or the hispanic neighborhoods, and look at how many young kids are sent to prison for doing the same exact thing.Ã,  The enforcement of laws is biased almost everywhere.Ã,  Do you think the police cars patrol the rich neighborhoods?Ã,  If a rich kid gets busted for breaking a law, how likely is it that they cops will say, "ah, he's a good kid, we'll let him off with a warning."Ã,  It's extremely likely.

I'm not trying to excuse anybody of anything, but it's important to look beyond the numbers sometimes.

It's more a matter of the fact that the people who leaves from this countries, the ones I'd called "sources of criminality" (making a gross generalization that you have just understand as a way to save further explanations), rumanians, people from the Magreb, and some places in South America, are in such dissesperated situation that in many times their only choice is to commit crimes.

In fact, cops in Spain is a million years away of the effectivity (sometimes took to the extreme!) of the american police. Cops do not register your crime if it's the first, a mild one... so, what's the problem? The center of the big cities is full of inmigrants who steal wallets. If they are caught, they say, "hey, look at my criminal register, I did nothing yet!" and the cop agrees, so, the circle continues forever.

You have to make something gross to enter prison in Spain... Do you know which has been the penalty for the dealers of the explosives who killed 192 people in Madrid? 4 years.... they'll probably be out in one and a half, as they've already been half year in prison. In addition, no matter what you do, you can only accomplish 30 years (Which become 15, because everyday you have good behaviour in prison is a day less). Penalties of prison less to 2 years are not accomplished if they're the first.

So... who is in prisons? As for some south americans, it has to see with big cocaine dealings, or assassinations (but that is rare, because the colombian assassins who come here do it by order, they do the job in less than one day and come back to it's country). For magrebins (Magreb is a zone between Marocco and Mauretania), it has to see with serious crimes or massive hash delievery. Remember also that if you want to come in a boat from Africa to Europe without paying the abbussive amout of meoney that mafias demmand to you you can pay your debts working for them for a year (See why we can't jump of joy when we see shows of certain cultures?). Rumanians have managed extremelly well to export their mafias to Spain, and they love to steal our cars for export them to their countries and sell them as new luxury articles. Sadly, rumanians girls are close to what we consider a "ideal of beautyness", so, many of them are took here to work as a prostitutes, hoaxed telling her they're hired as a models, threatening their lives if they do not help.

About all the "turbant" stuff, I was just refering to the "chaddor" thing, a muslim item for women, I can't relly talk of the other religious items because here chaddor is the only visible religious item in schools. I repeat the previous... why they must be more than us? We do not wear crosses, jews do not wear kippas, why they, being 3 % have to monopolize the 100% of the items in schools? It's a matter of education. My cousin went to Egypt last winter. At the moment he arrived, he bought a "djillabah", put it on, started to lear some basic arab words, started to eat their food... Was he less Christian or less Occidental by that? No. When he went to Scotlant he bought a kilt, but not this nowadays kilt, the ancient one which messures 4 meters long, and he wear nothing else. He discovered it was very confortable and he wears it in his home some days. That's what I call knowing a new culture! I guess I wouldn't dare to enter in a japanese house with my shoes on... There are millions of examples. The final feeling is that, whereas I (Yo,, Jo Ego, ào, Ich), dunno if the majority of occidentals, but I talk by me, would try to be like them if going to their countries, they're not dispossed to make that effort, so, I can't jump of joy when I see them making show of their culture (When the rest of the country doesn't).

And yeah, LGM, many Europeans tend to believe we're intellectually superior to America. A superior intellect which has took the World to the edge of destruction twice, but, hey! who wants to remember histories happened 60 years ago when we can critizise Bush!  ;D

I see myself as a citizen of earth. What hat you or what language you speak shouldn't matter. I think there should be a global campaign about earth as a community. I know there are borders between countries, but they're all made up. People should be allowed to move where they please. If people do what they do, it's okay as long asnobody else gets hurt. About "immigrants". Immigrants are everyone moving to another country than their own, aren't they? Are we talking specifically about immigrants from the middle east?

It's the rich and powerful that fuk it up for everyone.

If you move to another country and you are already rich or have potential to help the Economy they will accept you ahead of anyone else.

If you are just trying to start a new life, without having to worry about where your next meal is coming from or dodging bullets, you can just fuck off, hows that gonna help us.

This is why people tend not to mix as much in general and hang out in their own towns or suburbs. Sydney is fairly multicultural, but as with most large cities, there are certain cultural groups living in certain areas,

The younger generation seem to mix quite easily when they are in the earlier years of school, but it seems as they get older they tend to want to know more about their heritage and slip back into their own groups.

you would think that over many generations, everyone would become friends, but if that was the case, it would have happened by now. So it must be animal instinct that cause all the problems (along with greed and money).  We like to think we are more superior, but we act just like other animals, trying to be more dominant to be noticed in the crowd.



If it were up to me, you could choose to live anywhere in the world you like for as long or short as you like, no visas or passports, It's our World, Universe. none of this I'm from country A or B, we are all just cells hanging about on a rock, without having any say in where we start on it.

I know why this wouldn't work, but it was the way it was intended to work.

We could choose to wear turbans, bras, kilts, strap-ons, nothing, does it really matter, we all know what's underneath (generally), what's more important is just accepting people for who they are, if you don't like them, find someone you do like, and don't put everyone else down.

sounds simple, but we still haven't mastered it.

Quote from: Farlander on Wed 15/12/2004 23:40:10
Abdul, a lovely moor who has spent 32 years here, who speaks Spanish perfectly and mounts a Bethlem in Xmas.

Farl, you really need to look up all the meanings of the word "mount"  ;)  Don't worry, Marian makes the same mistake of saying "mount" when she means "assemble" or "put up". Maybe I'm the only one who knew what you meant there. Marian really misses the "Belenes" at Christmas, as they don't really do them here, or at least not on such a scale.

Quote from: [lgm] on Thu 16/12/2004 00:19:38
Is it me, or do a lot of Europeans seem to find themselves superior to Americans. They think their so much better.

It's not racism if it's true?  ::) For example, we know the difference between "they're" and "their"!

On the religious headwear issue, I think it's very important to remember that the thought that you don't really need to express your religion outwardly is very much an idea grown out of a western semi-Christian attitude.

The French ruling on outward signs of faith in school is opressive, not liberating. It doesn't create a secular, level-playing-field because it only allows some pupils to express their religion in the manner they choose.

On the topic of muslim women's headwear, I think it could be a terrible mistake to assume that women are commonly forced to wear items of clothing that seem restrictive from a western standpoint.

If we see a women in a skimpy skirt would we assume that her chauvanist boyfriend
forced her into it?

When it comes to immigrants gathering in "ghettos":
Last year some friends and I traveled Europe. The father of one of my friends had an appartment in Spain that we borrowed for a few weeks. The area the appartment was in is called "La Manga", it is close to Alicante so Farlander can propably confirm this. What we're talking about here is a whole peninsula populated with foreigners. At the beginning of the peninsula lived the english, then the germans, and, at the very end, the scandinavians. This is europeans living in another European country, and they keep to themselves. Another example in Spain, Torremolinos. Packed with english people.
After experiencing this I realized that what we ask when we tell immigrants to integrate is to be better people than most of us are.

Yeah SSH... MY typos are veny funny when seen by a mother born English speaker! ^_^ Happy to see that you try to hide them telling it's a mistake more related with false friends than my own lack of culture (Which may be the real reason, of course! XD)

As a show of my sense of humour, allow me to keep the typos for fun of the next generations.

And YOke, that's a lovely example. And works for illustrating that "reluctances" are not just aimed to middle east inmigrants (which actually are forced to live in Ghettos), but also for richer inmigrants. Those Brits, German and Skandinavian who freely choose to go on living in England, Germany or Norgue (but in it's Spanish sunnier alter ego), are worst seen by us that those who try to learn, those who put effort to say "gracias", "hola" and "adiós", those who celebrate our parties or join us in our ceremonies... The primal fact is that the host must see a little feeling of the inmigrant meaning "I like your country as much as mine, thanks for hosting me, I want to be your friend", whereas when people joins ghettos or makes public shows when it's out of context of their origins the message we feel they're saying is "I'd like to be in my fatherland, but I am forced to live here in this your crappy country, I don't like your lenguaje and I don't like you, thanks for nothing".

Theo van Gogh was stabbed and shot dead at daylight by a muslim fundamentallist.

Why?
Because he made a short film about a veiled, but naked, muslim woman that had, among bruises, female unfriendly texts from the koran written on her body.
Van Gogh said a lot of bad things about the islam, he said a lot of bad thing about jews, christains and pritty much everbody, as well. But it was a muslim who thought that he should die.

When they asked the muslim community for a reaction, one said "Theo van Gogh played with fire. He got burned". A muslin religious leader said "A real muslim wouldn't kill someone, therefore this has nothing to do with muslims". In other words how Shaggy would say -It wasn't me-. Nice way to evade the question.

I don't give a fuck about their religion or culture, but I tollerate it. The least they could do is tollerate my country too.
(why is it always heavy religious people who are intollerant basterds)

And who killed Pim Fortuyn?
All political and religious wings have their extremists that are willing to kill for their cause. Christian extremists bomb abortion clinics and shoot the doctors. Yet we don't go around asking all christians to answer for the acts of theese few people.
That is becuase we know how things work in our society. We know that not all christians can be blamed for what one disturbed individual does.
Yet each time a muslim kills a non-muslim (we don't give a damn when they kill eachother) we attack the muslim community. And each time we blame a group for the actions of a single individual we push that group further away, increasing the risk of it happening again. On top of that we spread unresonable fear among our own, decreasing their quality of life. This is a downward spiral.

Quote from: YOke on Thu 16/12/2004 13:25:17
And who killed Pim Fortuyn?

He was killed by a narcist hippy half-witt.
Pim Fortuyn had death treats from all sides, including muslims. (interresting detail: Theo van Gogh was making a movie about Pim Fortuyn and his death)

Quote
All political and religious wings have their extremists that are willing to kill for their cause.

Both murders had no connections to politicions.
And I don't think that the Party for the Elderly have geriatric extreamists that have c4 in their canes and blow up kindergarden schools.

Quote
Christian extremists bomb abortion clinics and shoot the doctors. Yet we don't go around asking all christians to answer for the acts of theese few people.
That is becuase we know how things work in our society. We know that not all christians can be blamed for what one disturbed individual does.

Yes, I do. And in what kind of banana state do you live if doctors get shot.

Quote
Yet each time a muslim kills a non-muslim (we don't give a damn when they kill eachother) we attack the muslim community. And each time we blame a group for the actions of a single individual we push that group further away, increasing the risk of it happening again. On top of that we spread unresonable fear among our own, decreasing their quality of life. This is a downward spiral.

Holland has no extream right wing. The problem is that we've been too tolerant to imigrants. Double passports, bring over your pre-arranged wife over to Holland and allow illegal imigrants in the country if they lived here more that 5 or so years. -edit: Letting illegal imigrants stay even if the justice system has proven that they should leave the country.

I think we're running into a fundamental difference in opinion here.  I would argue, and even fight, over the right to dress and believe in whatever I want.  How does it effect you at all?  Who cares if 6% of the population dresses differently from you?  Why would you want everyone to look the same? 

On a very primal level, I think people fear that their land has been invaded.  They fear that they have lost control of their own country.  While I support a person's right to keep their own customs, in this increasingly globalized world, where societies, peoples and cultures have also become exports, I do not support the forcing of those customs on others.  Even within the borders of the country they were born in. 

Of course, it's easy to go back to the argument that the veil represents oppression.  That's the safe argument.  But what does that even mean?  It implies the belief that by forbidding women (or men, we were talking about turbans as well) from wearing these items of clothing, you will liberate these people.  From their own culture.  It's presumptuous to think that one customary form of dress is more liberating than another. 

A word about skirts and dresses: they were originally designed and evolved out of a necessity for men to have quicker, easier access to women's genitalia.  Does that mean women would be liberated if they all stopped wearing skirts or if women moved to a place that forbid them from wearing them? Not necessarily, because they have come to represent something else.  Just as how now, in your country, women are not forced to keep their heads covered, it is a choice.  The head covering no longer represents repression to most women, it represents something else. Maybe personal identity.  Maybe cultural identity. And that is probably why so many European folks are expressing a desire to ban people from holding on to these pieces of clothing: they are part of a cultural identity that is foreign, strange, and therefore unwanted by the cultural majority.

One other word of advice: in order to actually liberate a culture, or an entire gender, you may want to ask or work WITH those you are trying to save.  Especially if you've decided to save them from themselves.

Quote from: Anarcho on Thu 16/12/2004 14:41:47
I think we're running into a fundamental difference in opinion here.Ã,  I would argue, and even fight, over the right to dress and believe in whatever I want.Ã,  How does it effect you at all?Ã,  Who cares if 6% of the population dresses differently from you?Ã,  Why would you want everyone to look the same?Ã, 

We're not saying 6% can't dress different. We are saying 6% would MONOPOLIZE all religious shows in schools.

At least, I am talking of the controversy in french about wearing crosses, kippas or chaddors. Christians and Jews did not complain, but muslims do.

If the conversation runs into something completely different,  which is wearing typical dresses of your original country in the country where you're living nowadays, it doesn't  matter for me... I am not going to cut their throads and record it in video or something...

QuoteWe are saying 6% would MONOPOLIZE all religious shows in schools.

What exactly are you saying?  That they would be the most visible religion in school?  How?  I would think that secular, i.e. non-religious dress would be the most visible attire in school.  And again, if muslim dress is visible...WHO CARES?  Why would you care?  They're not teaching religion in school, it's just a matter of clothing.  Do nuns and priests have to take off their religious clothing when they visit schools?

If there is only a show of religion in school, they monopolize it. I am not saying that they would be the MOST visible religion in school. I am saying they would be THE ONLY visible religion in school.

And what about my right of caring of it? You don't care? ok, congratulations, you're pure. I am not. I care. If the laws say "NO FOR RELIGION EXHIBITIONS IN SCHOOLS" I am not going to think "Ok, let allow some muslims to avoid the law, who cares?"

What happens when there are two different opinions about something? In my country we follow the laws, and if a vast majority does not like a law about something, they complain, they vote another party or make something to make the govermnent know they're wrong. In France, when Chirac made the law for "No religious shows" the society said "perfect!". In Spain, when the same thing happened and a father of a muslim girl told he was not going to take his daughter to school because she was not allowed to wear chaddor, the general feeling (yeah, the general feeling, not that "polically correct" feeling we express in some forums) was, "So, if you don't like our laws, move to another country, please, we won't complain!"

What annoys me is that you as a paladin of freedom are trying to impose to a majority who does not want religious shows a residual wave of opinion which goes against laws.

And, of course, whereas I've deffended that everybody must be the same in front of the law, that schools must be a atheist space of equality, I'll finish this discussion seen as the fascist. I'm quite sick of this...Ã,  :P

Just because you are in another country does not mean that you have to give up everything that symbolises your own country/religion. Saying that wearing certain kinds of clothes is unfair because it serves to "show off" your religion is a strange arguement. Would you be annoyed if a person "showed off" their vegetarianism by asking what foods were without meat in a restaurant? That person is not making a show...he/she just doesn't want to compromise their beliefs...they just don't want to eat meat. They are not trying to make a statement. Same with religion. If it is a persons belief that it is sinful to be without covering their hair, what is wrong in letting them cover it? They are not trying to convert anyone. They are not forcing their beliefs on anyone.
Sure, when it comes to a person saying that "Your beliefs are wrong! You shall go to hell!" or "Your clothing is inappropriate!", then you have every right to be pissed off. They are pushing their beliefs on you. However, I don't see that happening when someone wears particular items of clothing

Bad example. In that restaurant there is a buffet. It's been agreed that there is a table with vegetables, for vegetarians, and another one with meat. Then, the restaurant is full of meat eaters, but the vegetables are still there. Then comes a vegetarian, and starts to yell, "remove of this restaurant that table with that infected meat! From now, just vegetables will be served!"

There is a big difference between showing your origins and being the ONLY doing it in a place where has been stablished an equality for all. That's specially serious if you're a minority.

But Farlander, you just made my point.  The French are acting like the vegetarians, demanding that all meat be taken away from the table.

How does displaying your origins effect equality?

But regarding your previous post...I'm not talking about whether or not a group of people should be allowed to break a law, I'm talking about whether or not the law should exist.  Personally I think it's a gross misinterpretation of the idea of separation of church and state.  If the state allows religious clothing in schools, it's not establishing or supporting any one religion, it's allowing citizens to freely expression of their religion.  The separation of church and state means that the state, in this case through public schools, will not support the establishment of any religion.  It doesn't mean that schools are an atheist space, because if they were, that would mean the state supports an atheistic ideology or "religion" .  But that's not what this whole discussion is about.  It's about foreign elements being visible in public places.

Aside from the minor quibbling on whether a restaraunt is serving ala carte or buffet Ã, ;D... That is what the second part of my post was about. The person is only asking for vegetarian food for himself. He is not forcing it on others. He is not shouting "Remove all the meat!". Should he force himself to eat meat just because he is in a restaraunt in a place where there are predominantly meat eating people? No, he will ask if there are any dishes without meat. You can't be mad at him for that!
heheh...what a lot of allusions to meat and religion

The french are acting like the manager of the restaurant, who knows 90 % likes meat, and even with that, he has the deference to put a table with vegetables. The normal should have been putting a table with meat, and tell the vegetarians, "go to another place to eat vegetables".

The defference is the atheism. Using chaddor is the offense.

And, if you don't want that europeans laws to exist, move to Europe, get your nationality and vote for parties which want to remove it (I don't think they exist, though, because majority wants atheism and no religious shows). I haven't dared to crit americans laws and I'll never do.

I don't really understand the problem with accepting the will of the majority...

And about "foreign elements being visible in public places" re-read my posts and see that I am not against. I am just happy to see that whereas I can addapt my way of behave and my customs to those to the place where I move (without renegate of my own symbolisms and my culture in private, and in the events who request so) some other can't. That make me feel I am, in that sense, more educated than them.

And Babar... You're wrong. In a place where there is a NATIONAL AGREEMENT of not using religious showing, saying "I will!" is equal to break the stablished law. The example of the meat and vegetables is that there is an agreement, where everybody has the same oportunities, where the majority accepts to remove a little space for the meat they'd like to see there for a table with vegetables. The only way to break that common agreement in my example would be if a vegetable eater says "remove the meat", and that's why I mentioned it. But in the real situation the way of breaking the stablished agreement is to wear chaddor.

By the way, the example can be better. Imagine there is a room with 10 people who'd like to see a film. 9 of them love sunflower seeds, but they've accepted not to eat them because the noise annoys a lone guy.Ã,  That guy loves to smoke, and the others would like to see the film without breathing the smoke of some other man. They reach to a common agreement of not smoking and not eating seeds.

In the middle of the film, the guy starts to smoke.

Man... that's what I call an example! What do you have to do with that lovely example, eh??? What???!?!?

/me laughs an evil laugh
;D  ;D  ;D

It's not like that at all. The story is good, but reality is that we are chewing away on sunflower seeds with a "either you are with us or you're against us" attitude while shouting at the lonely guy "Don't smoke cigarettes here! I saw you smoking them back at hour house so I know you people smoke!"
The poor guy is about to loose his mind with all the sunflower seed chewing, so he decides to go outside and have a cigarette to calm his frayed nerves. There's a wind outside, so he decides to light the cigarette before going out the door. Just after he lit the cigarette, but before he can go out the door, a guy from a newspaper takes a picture of him. Next day the frontpage of the newspaper reads "Muslims smoke inside even when we tell them not to!" Further down on the same page is says "Should muslims be allowed to smoke during movies? Send YES or NO to 4242" In smaller print underneath it reads "100 bucks per message"

This is a pretty accurate description of how the western society works.

QuoteI haven't dared to crit americans laws and I'll never do.

Why not criticize American laws?  I do all the time!  There's nothing wrong with a little healthy debate.  As for moving to Europe to get my nationality--funny thing about that.  You see, part of my family fled France specifically because the French had this strange habit of burning Protestants at the stake:

http://www.geocities.com/hugenoteblad/hist-hug.htm

I know the French are a whole lot more enlightened these days, but I'll stick with the dumb ol' USA just the same.

QuoteI am just happy to see that whereas I can addapt my way of behave and my customs to those to the place where I move (without renegate of my own symbolisms and my culture in private, and in the events who request so) some other can't. That make me feel I am, in that sense, more educated than them.

So if you refuse to hide your culture and assimilate, you're uneducated?  Are you serious?  I guess my ancestors were just fucking dumb!  They should have kept their religion private, and I'm SURE everything would have been all right.  As for the whole murder/ burning at the stake / mass extermination thing, well, I guess if the majority think it's a good idea, then it's O.K.!

Furthermore, from what I've read, the Spanish state provides the Catholic church with preferential treatment, including financing through the tax system.  What ever happened to the whole separation of church and state thing?  Or is that JUST for schools?  Then again, a school isn't much of an "atheist space" if you get off Catholic holidays such as:  Epiphany (January 6), Holy Thursday and Good Friday, Assumption (August 15), All Saints Day (November 1), Immaculate Conception (December 8 ), and Christmas (December 25).  Somehow I doubt that Spain let's the kids have Rosh Hashanah off.

Spanish new goverment is going to add new blanks spaces to put a cross into our declarations of rent for donate to muslim and jewish church.

Also, moving some parties to make them coincide with some other religious parties is being debated...

If you ask me, telling the spaniards kids "I'm sorry, you won't have Santa Claus this year, this year you must spent half of the days of november without eating in solidarity with our muslims friends!" would be a new step in the creation of the Spanish Hiter youth. (That last part of the paragraph has been a joke...  ;D)

And yeah... If I should have to go to a muslim country, a country whose people has a religion which has an open conflict between counties who have my religion, I would hide anything that could annoy them. And I would consider it educate, smart and sensible.

If you think the opposite I invite you to come here with one of those shirts with an american flag, that cool ones Bob Dyllan wore. We can catch a ferry and being in a Zoco of Túnez in a few hours. If you feel that you're beeing gentle with those people... well, then maybe your sense of freedom is making everything you want without taking care of hurting the other people's feelings. Mine isn't.

And feel free to criticize americans laws. It's your country. But do not discuss mines. I am not discussing yours.

I still doesn't have the answer to the question I am making... If we allow the muslims (not because they're muslims, but because they seem to be the only ones who CAN'T live without showing how religious they are) to use chaddor because we MUST protect a minory... Who protects the other 95% people who doesn't want to see it? Is your answer "let's fuck that 95% because of the 5%!"?

And before mentioning me how "enlightened" the europeans are in front of americans, you should re-read some of my posts deffending the american culture against the auto-proclaimed paladins of the ultra-legitimate Europe. I am probably the most pro-american european here...

So Anarcho, I'd be interested to hear your views on the moves being made these days to get rid of Christmas because it's "offensive to non-Christians". In some local councils and some companies, Christmas has now become a banned word, with people expected to call it "Winterval" or "The festive season" and other such rubbish.

It's not just immigrants who are having their religion "oppressed"; in fact, it seems to be quite the opposite nowadays.

QuoteAnd yeah... If I should have to go to a muslim country, a country whose people has a religion which has an open conflict between counties who have my religion, I would hide anything that could annoy them. And I would consider it educate, smart and sensible.

Ok, I would agree.  I think there was some translation issues here, as educated can have a lot of different meanings.  I too would think it sensible to fit in with the local population if they local population didn't like me.  But that doesn't make it right.  The idea is to have a free and open society where people can celebrate their own culture.  Obviously, that's a high idea, and doesn't always work that way.

But regarding the 95% and 5% argument:

Are you against freedom of expression?  Or do you support freedom of expression, just as long as people don't try to actually express themselves?  Since I'm only allowed to talk about my own country's laws, in the US, we're pretty much allowed to express ourselves freely so long as it doesn't endanger the public at large.  For example, I can wear a crazy shirt that says "KILL PUPPIES" and shave my head and tattoo my face.  That's fine.  But I can't shout "fire" in a public theater, because that could cause a stampede, and people could get hurt.  So regarding your downtrodden 95% of the population that has to look at muslim clothing: SUCK IT UP! 

Unless their clothing hides death rays from Planet X or is laden with SARS, it doesn't effect you physically.  Maybe it doesn't fit in with your idea of how people should dress or look, but so long as you live in a "free" society, you have to deal with it.  Unless you'd rather live in, say, some distopian dictatorship where everyone looks and acts and dresses the same.

Farlander, I've got to say, this conversation is pretty exhausting.  Interesting, but exhausting.  But I am trying to see where you're coming from, really I am.

Chris,

Don't get me started on Christmas!  I love the holiday, but I just don't like how the Christians co-opted it and tried to turn it into something about Jesus.

But seriously, this all happened in the US when I was a kid.  When I was younger, we would get "Christmas" off.  And we would make "Christmas" decorations in school, and it would be plastered all over.  Then when the whole PC thing came along, people just used the term Holiday.  It became the Holiday season, and we would put up Holiday decorations.  And you know what?  It was no big deal.  Sure, people might have grumbled a bit, but if I were a Jewish kid in school and everybody talked only about Christmas, I would feel pretty alienated.  What does it matter if you celebrate the holidays collectively instead of singularly celebrating Christmas.  You're not killing Christmas by recognizing the fact that people celebrate other holiday's too.  People can still choose to celebrate the holiday, and we still talk about Christmas in school, but we also talk about Chanukah (and some people mention Kwanza...). 

And for the record, nobody stops you from wearing a "Christmas" sweater because it says Christmas on it....

If you really think about it though, nearly every major religion has a celebration in the middle of the winter.  I find the origins of Christmas really interesting, mostly because I'm a bid dork, but that's a whole other topic of conversation.

I will be lost in translation many times, man, false friends kill me...

But you're exhaust... and you'll allways be if you don't carefully read my posts. I say "no, at least not in the school" and you say "not allowing foreign people to dress like they want is an attack to the freedom of expression!" You'll finish really tired because you're trying to convince me of a thing I agree with you.

Read them again and see that it is allways related to school, french laws about dressing in schools, muslims fathers in Spain taking out his daughter of the school because it's not allowed to wear chaddor there... I think I've specifically told that how they dress out of the school is something that particullary gives a fuck to me.

And... Chris... ARE THEY DOING THE SAME IN ENGLAND??? Here, an idiot mayor has removed the Xmas and substituted it by a "civil" form that includes singing songs of peace... And in Catalonia the "Bethlems" have been substituted by "winter landscapes" with no religious figurettes. We are really reaching a stupid point. Xmas has nowadays the same religious charge as a sardine, but I don't really feel as a bad thing to use religion as an excuse for making all the funny things I do in Xmas. Anarcho, you seem that you are a person who really cares of the feelings of the people. In my country there are 6 percent of inmigrants, whose half of it are christians, so, we have that only 3 % of the total amount of citicens here are not christians. Do you really approve to massivelly bother them for not bothering that 3%? I could agree with you f that would lead to a total lay state, but, that would be impossible because some muslims have not a minim intention to be lay. Don't you see the inherent danger of that the only show of religiousity is going to be made by muslims?

As I told... you seem to be pure and you couldn't care of it, but, man... that would really piss me off. And would piss a majority.

Please allow me to change the side of the omelette. If I was in Israel during Hannukah, I would LOVE to be invited to some of the celebrations that a possible jewish friend of mine could make to me. And I would be quite happy to live another different party than the one I had. I wouldn't leave celebrating Xmas at home, and I would probably bring a Santa's hat to school, but be sure that I would remove it if somebody feels offended (Or if there is a LAW which says "We won't allow any religious shows in class" and somebody informs me of it) and I would be glad to invite some of my jewish friends to my Xmas eve dinner. That's what I call making an effort trying to integrate me in a society (an effort that has to be greater if some stupid jerk who says who shares my religion has killed 192 people in a train). That's an effort that some people is not doing.

It's deliciously ironic when people justify anti muslim sentiment [and I thought this was about migrants...] on the basis that muslims must be intrinsically intolerant.

.....


Becausea  tolerant culture is the kind that can classify an entire other culture as intolerant...


I remember how that French woman was found in the French subway with the cuts and bruises and swastikas, and that she was attacked by "north africans" [which is a euphemism in the same way anti semites use "zionist"] who thought she was Jewish and immedietly the attack was condemned by every single member of society up to Chirac. Of  course, she was lying and crazy, her boyfriend had helped her and in the end there was nothing to support her story but her word, which she retracted, but still, there was immediate sympathy since everyone knows how much "north africans" hate Jews right?

Likewise, that book Forbidden Love which sold countless copies to westerners wanting to be sanctimonious over those patrichal beasts, but hey, it was entirely made up by a woman who spent her life in America. But hey, it fed what we wanted to beleive.



On another note, immigration is one area where the US has a huge advantage over Europe, since it's historically a migrant nation, and didn't spend the past two centuries divying up the continent based on linguistics and the like. The EU is largely a reflection that the world outside is more frightening than each other now...

Quote from: Las Naranjas on Thu 16/12/2004 22:30:13
BecauseaÃ,  tolerant culture is the kind that can classify an entire other culture as intolerant...

That means that if actually exist a culture which is intolerant the rest of the cultures in the world couldn't mention it because they'd be seen as intolerants too...

Interesting...

and don't be biased, and if you've read something in a e-newspaper, say it all. If the tale told by that french woman was so successfull it was becuase in the previous month there were some of attacks made by a muslim faction against severall Sinagoges.

QuoteThen when the whole PC thing came along, people just used the term Holiday.  It became the Holiday season, and we would put up Holiday decorations.  And you know what?  It was no big deal.  Sure, people might have grumbled a bit, but if I were a Jewish kid in school and everybody talked only about Christmas, I would feel pretty alienated.  What does it matter if you celebrate the holidays collectively instead of singularly celebrating Christmas.  You're not killing Christmas by recognizing the fact that people celebrate other holiday's too.

But you are killing Christmas by telling Christians that they must call it "Winterval" so as not to offend other faiths. Is this instruction itself not offensive to Christians who do want to celebrate Christmas?

Nobody tries to rename Divali as "November Light Festival", so why the onslaught against Christmas?

Quote from: Pumaman on Thu 16/12/2004 23:02:02
Nobody tries to rename Divali as "November Light Festival", so why the onslaught against Christmas?

Perhaps it's a conspiracy by greetings card companies?Ã,  ;)


On the issue at hand, I was watching a documentary on multi-culturalism a long time ago and it took an interesting stance. It seemed to protray it somewhat like positive discrimination. We're trying so hard to be tolerant and encourage cultural diversity, when we're really just ending up segregating ourselves.

My own views, well I'm not entirely sure of them at the moment. This thread has made me think a lot. I would really like to think that everyone can just get along, but thats rather naive of me.Ã,  ::)

I've never heard of calling Christmas Winterval.  And I've never heard of making Christians call Christmas anything other than Christmas.  That wouldn't go over well in the US.  What I'm talking about is in the workplace, or in schools when there are people of different religons, refering to the "Christmas" season as the Holiday season.  Or just recognizing that people celebrate things other than Christmas.  You can't walk three feet around here with coming across something labeled "Christmas", so a little political correctness and tolerance doesn't automaticaly Kill the holiday.  I think it's more in spirit with the holiday, don't you think?

As for your Israel example...I would agree that it would be wonderful to share in the local celebrations and customs.  But having been in a similar situation, it's also just as nice to be able to share your own customs and celebrations with those that are different from you.

Farlander, even if you're only talking about schools, I still disagree with you.  Freedom of expression and Freedom of religion shouldn't end once you walk into a school.  So long as the teacher isn't talking religion, I don't see what the issue is.
Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree.

But who is actually trying to ban Christmas? As far as I'm aware it's the work of "politically correct" ex-Christians with bizarre guilt complexes. Morons that are acting on behalf of what they *assume* repressed minority groups want. While in reality these people not of the dominant culture/faith aren't in the slighest offended by our Christmas celebrations.

Our local Chinese and Indian resteraunts both have Christmas trees up, although I must say that trees are probably a hangover from the pagan winter solstice festival and so its maybe the Christians who should be the last ones having Christmas trees. Apparently there is a huge reduction this year in the number of Santa Clauses in shops becuase people are really now seeing Christmas as a consumer spending festival than ANY kind of beleif system, be it one originated by Coca-Cola, the Maccabean revolt or one originated by Jesus.

I must say its kind of sad and funny seeing kids programs doing their Christmas specials without any kind of reference to Christmas. Disney ones are the worst...

Although I also notice that any Chirstians who object to people celebrating the pagan festical of Halloween are branded as fundamentalist nuts.

http://www.illwillpress.com/xmess.html
Look at this, because I agree with Foamy on most points.

Chrismas is "gezellig".
"Gezellig" is a Dutch word that is hard to translate. It's that comfortable feeling when you're hanging around with your friends.

It is kind of strange to be calling christmas something other than christmas. I mean, that is what it is called, changing its name won't change the holiday. Why should someone object to having other people celebrate christmas? It is just as weird as being bothered by other people's clothes.
I am immensely thankful that I used to be in an international school. In Ramadan, just for the fun of it some of the non-muslim students fasted. Even if they were not fasting, they had enough good sense not to tempt the students who were fasting by eating infront of them. On Eid (the muslim feast) we all asked the teachers for eidi (gift of money). Everyone celebrated and exchanged gifts on christmas - on the 25th and the 6th of January (I think) for the Coptic Christians. We even used to celebrate Diwali (although I think there were only 1 or 2 Hindu students). This was all in fun. No one was forced into including everyone in the party or attending all the celebrations. Nobody thought they were desecrating the sanctity of their religion by viewing other celebrations or joining in on them. We all learnt alot about each other, and had fun doing it.
I think this is a better method of multiculturalism than trying to mesh all the holidays in a spurt of political correctness. Referring to Christmas as "Winterval" and other such PC will just cause those who wish to celebrate it to do so in private. The gap of misunderstanding between cultures will never be bridged and even in countries with lots of different cultures all the cultures will stick with themselves and not really mix with the other cultures.

No matter what anybody says and/or does I will NEVER stop calling it Christmas nor celebrating it how I want.Ã,  (There are still more of us who celebrate Christmas than any other faith in the US (http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions))

There was a protest at the Broward mall this week.Ã,  Christians were protesting because a local Jewish store owner has a minora painted in his shop window.Ã,  Yet the 30 Christian shop owners surrounding him aren't allowed to put up Christmas decorations in their places.

This is so hypocritical I want to vomit.

I mean ... isn't religion supposed to be about tolerance?Ã,  I don't care when I see other religion on display ... what I care about is when people of my faith can't express it without it being complained about and forbidden.Ã,  Isn't religious freedom the VERY reason people come to this country?

Again ... hypocritical.

It goes back to my point in my earlier post.Ã,  It seems more and more that the 'many' must suffer so as not to offend the 'few'.Ã,  Doesn't seem to matter that the 'many' are then offended.Ã,  As long as society panders to the 'few' to keep them happy.Ã,  (in case you can't tell I'm avoiding using the words 'majority' and 'minority' because people associate those words with race)

I can't wait until I open my office down here and have my first Christmas there.Ã,  I'm going to decorate it with so much Christmas stuff ... and I just hope somebody complains.

Tis the season ... bah humbug.

I have never heard of people outlawing the word "Christmas," and Darth's mall example is pretty extreme and a great example of people taking PC waaaay too far.  (though I must say, I really don't like the word Christmas anyway, as it comes from Christ's Mass, which in itself resulted from Church Fathers in the 4th century fixing the still unknown date of Jesus's birth around the old Roman Saturnalia festival--it was just the Christian leadership trying to usurp a traditional pagan celebration of Solstice!).

But let me make another example of what I'm okay with.  I just got my semi-weekly email from the DC Metropolitan Labor Council.  Its subject says, "SPECIAL UNION HOLIDAY EDITION."  Now why didn't they put "SPECIAL UNION CHRISTMAS EDITION."  Hmmm, I dunno, maybe because there are a lot of Jews and Muslims who get the email too, and it wouldn't make sense to send them a "SPECIAL CHRISTMAS EMAIL".  But does this email subject heading offend me?  Is it oppressing me?  IS THIS EMAIL SUBJECT HEADING KILLING CHRISTMAS!?!

No.

I can still send Christmas cards to my family and friends, put up a tree in my house, and wear a stupid green and red Christmas sweater to work if I want to.  I think it's perfectly reasonable to find a balance here.

I think it's important and I don't get it... call me stupid, but, what's "PC" in this context?Ã,  :-[

And... now we're asking a little bit of all... "minora"? My online translation does not seem to make the work with this particular one...

Sorry Farl, PC is short for "Politically Correct" or "Political Correctness".  You know, saying African American instead of Negro.  African American would be the PC term.

Darth meant Menorah, a candelabra (sp?) that has a lot of significance in the Jewish faith.

Ahá, thanks...

So, if the rules say not for every religious item of any celebration, the minorah should be out. But in this case I'd see more logical to have both symbols of the celebrations, both Xmas items and Hannukah/jewish ones.

Actually celebrations are a so much logical dates to show this symbols. The rational agreement could be reached if all people could show its religious items just in that dates.

So, no crosses till Xmas. No Chaddors till Ramadan. No kippas till hannukah or Easter.

I should see that quite logical (and more important, I thing a majority would agree), whereas you're trying to impose something that does not count with the approval of the majority (At least in my country...)

Quote from: Anarcho on Fri 17/12/2004 16:01:14
I have never heard of people outlawing the word "Christmas," and Darth's mall example is pretty extreme and a great example of people taking PC waaaay too far.Ã,  (though I must say, I really don't like the word Christmas anyway, as it comes from Christ's Mass, which in itself resulted from Church Fathers in the 4th century fixing the still unknown date of Jesus's birth around the old Roman Saturnalia festival--it was just the Christian leadership trying to usurp a traditional pagan celebration of Solstice!).

If you ask 100 kids what Christmas means, I'm guessing here, but not one of them would know that it was old world Christians usurping a pagen celebration.Ã,  To children it doesn't even have much to do with religion anymore other than it's the christians who celebrate it.Ã,  To most it's a time ofÃ,  year where you celebrate and give gifts and be cheerful and wait for Santa Claus.

My point was that Christians make up more than 70% of the population of this country ... and Christmas is a Christian holiday.Ã,  We should be able to make the country look like one big candy cane and Christmas tree every December.Ã,  Not only should we be allowed to do this we should do it.

Of course ... we're no longer talking about multiculturalism in Europe ;)

I'm really not trying to piss anybody off ... so if I've offended anybody let me just say "Merry Christmas!!!"

No, what I was saying is that Christmas has little to do with the word, but with the traditions we still observe, many of which have carried down "through the ages." 

First of all no one has bothered to define what is meant by multiculturism.  Multiculturalism is not new, it's been around for a long time.  In the US it's been there since the beginning.   What's new is the leftist version, currently in fashion in the US, that is based on some flawed presumptions and I assume that is what we are talking about here.

• All cultures are exactly equal and cannot be judged by any measure
  
  
• Diversity is a good unto itself and needs no explanation or justification
  
  
• Practice tolerance of all things.
  
  All cultures are exactly equal
  While it's true that one's own culture influences one's opinion about other cultures,  making objective assements difficult, it is not impossible to make such assements.   For example, one could ask how well does this culture provide for it's members vs another culture.  Which has growing dynamic and growing ecnomonies?  How well or poorly are the sick, young, old, and weak treated?  How are women treated?   How many freedoms are restricted and to what extent.  What is the average life-span,  mortality rates,  frequency and severity of disease, etc.  I could go on and on but I think you get the idea.  One final test I personally use;  I sometimes look at things to judge people actions form other cultures is to use
  
  Diversity is a good unto itself...
  Why?  Diversity of what?  It certainly is not diversity of opinion, thought, or ideas is it? Anarcho, in his very first post labeled anyone who disagrees with him a cave dweller.  IMHO, diversity, as practiced in the US, is a means by which universities and govermental entities, etc avoid the embarassment of having to admit to their racialy discriminatory policies.
  
  Practice tolerance of all things...
  Except dissent!  Dissenters and the politically incorrect are not to be tolerated.  Their areguments are not to be listened to nor challenged in a logical manner.  Call them cave dwellers, bigots, idoits, etc.  Attack them personally so as to discredit their ideas. etc...
  
  Bottom Line
  I think when you visit someone's home you should follow the rules and customs of that person's home.  The same goes when you visit someone's country.   If you don't like the way it is there then just don't go.     
  
  
  

QuoteFirst of all no one has bothered to define what is meant by multiculturism. 

Did you read the whole thread?  Check out the first post on page 2.  You seem to be confusing multiculturalism with cultural relativism.

QuoteAnarcho, in his very first post labeled anyone who disagrees with him a cave dweller.

Did you read what I said?  I was talking in reference to friends of mine, who would worry about 3rd world debt, discuss environmental issues ad nausea, and be able to expertly discuss foreign affairs, but when it came to immigrants living in their back yard, reverted to very close-minded and intolerant positions.  In reference to these people...whom I'm friends with... that I'm specifically talking about...I think their opinions are backwards.  I don't think anyone who disagrees with me is a stone dweller.  Read what I wrote before making bullshit accusations.

QuoteExcept dissent!  Dissenters and the politically incorrect are not to be tolerated.  Their areguments are not to be listened to nor challenged in a logical manner.  Call them cave dwellers, bigots, idoits, etc.  Attack them personally so as to discredit their ideas.

What?!  I've said a number of times that there's nothing better than healthy debate, and that I'm trying to understand people's point of view.  When has anyone been personally attacked, other than in your previous post?

QuoteI think when you visit someone's home you should follow the rules and customs of that person's home.  The same goes when you visit someone's country.   If you don't like the way it is there then just don't go. 

Of course someone visiting a persons home should follow the rules and customs of the home, but what about respecting the rules and customs of the visitors?  What are we even talking about here?  Are we talking about viels?  Are the 5 to 6 MILLION Muslims living in France ALL visitors?  I just think that the French also have to respect their customs as well.

Quote from: Pelican on Fri 17/12/2004 00:29:55
I would really like to think that everyone can just get along, but thats rather naive of me.  ::)

That's precisely what I've always felt. Personally, I don't understand why people have all these conflicts and hate each other so strongly just because they're of a different religion or culture. Situations like the Isreal / Palestine thing and the Northern Ireland Protestant / Catholic thing, always have puzzled me slightly, and "why can't you just get along" seems such an easy answer.

QuoteWhat I'm talking about is in the workplace, or in schools when there are people of different religons, refering to the "Christmas" season as the Holiday season.  Or just recognizing that people celebrate things other than Christmas.  You can't walk three feet around here with coming across something labeled "Christmas", so a little political correctness and tolerance doesn't automaticaly Kill the holiday.

If somebody wants to refer to Christmas as "the holiday season", that's fine with me -- just don't try and force everyone to do the same, by trying to make Christmas into an offensive word.

One of my friends who is Hindu celebrates Christmas, but he still celebrates Diwali. Another friend who's a Muslim also celebrates Christmas, but that doesn't stop him celebrating Ramadan. They don't celebrate Christmas in a religious way, but as a holiday season to enjoy. They call it "Christmas", because that's what its name is.

QuoteBut who is actually trying to ban Christmas? As far as I'm aware it's the work of "politically correct" ex-Christians with bizarre guilt complexes. Morons that are acting on behalf of what they *assume* repressed minority groups want. While in reality these people not of the dominant culture/faith aren't in the slighest offended by our Christmas celebrations.

Precisely.

Quote from: Anarcho on Fri 17/12/2004 18:28:29
Of course someone visiting a persons home should follow the rules and customs of the home, but what about respecting the rules and customs of the visitors?Ã,  What are we even talking about here?Ã,  Are we talking about viels?Ã,  Are the 5 to 6 MILLION Muslims living in France ALL visitors?Ã,  I just think that the French also have to respect their customs as well.

Are you really aware of the situation in France? The law says no for ANY religious showings in schools. Why is the muslim community the ony who feels attacked? Aren't we being witnesses of a community which has some amount on member who do not accept the rules of the game? You've spent half of the thread saying "equality", but what you're deffending is a POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION in their very case.

Maybe Muslims are the most vocal about he law because the law was created specifically with Muslims in mind.  I'm no expert, but every article I've read about the French law states that they were created in order to stem off what is viewed as growing Islamic fundamentalism in France.  I would think that if a law was created to specifically take away YOUR rights, you would be the most vocal about it.

Regarding Muslims being the only people who have a problem with the law, you're just wrong.  Since the beginning, some Sikh boys also refused to take off their turbans and under-turbans:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/world/newsid_3945000/3945851.stm

As for people of other faiths having a problem with it, I don't know.  Perhaps there isn't a sizeable hasidic Jewish population (who are strict in wearing skullcaps), or perhaps they stick to private schools.  I know that if they tried to do such a thing in the US, the Jewish population would be outraged, as there is a sizeable population of Jews living in the US.

He... If you're powerfull enough to enter into other people's minds, I won't dare to discuss with you...  ;D

There's a difference between reading people's minds, and being familiar with the political realities of a nation.  In a country where the debate isn't about wearing religious headwear, but whether or not teachers should lead students in prayer, I can pretty much guarantee that people would go nuts if they tried to forbid religious attire in school.

In that law there was a paragraph sayng that the girls' trunks which hips are too short and allow the elastic tapes of the underwear to be seen were going to be prohibited.

As the muslins girls do not wear that kind of trunks, I could say that "I know enough of political realities" to say it is a paragraph aimed to christian girls.

um....ok....

You know what, you're right, I mean I live in little old Ireland, or as they say in Deutschland, "Scheise Irland land of mist", such a lovely language but as we say in Ireland "Ta a lan duine gorm san Eireann ach, ta teifigh an rud is measa" ( to those who don't speak Irish you're better off  not knowing)it's not fair and I don't believe it ( We're not all racists but some small minded freaks up in little towns can't stand the sight of foreigners) Even earlier this year we had a referendum to take away the right of foreigners to become instant citizens when they give birth here, and it was passed! I was disgusted and I don't think it was fair. As regards religious symbols in schools, I think it's unwise to take away such strong symbols of who we are (that and I don't want to have to lift that huge statue of the virgin mary out of my school!) coming from a predominately catholic country whose schools are almost completely catholic based, I think it would be a farce. I've lots of muslim friends and they are some of the nicest guys I have met, last year my friend Ali Ahktar gave my mother a christmas cake for cryin out loud! It's about time we all grew up.

By the way, Rammstein suck
(that wasn't racist I just hate their "music" ich will and all)
but then again so do u2 so who am I?

Wow, they really took away citizenship rights from people born in Ireland?  There has to be more to it than that, but still...

I read it as people giving birth, not being born. I can't imagine it could be legally made retroactive either.

Do you have any links to stories describing it, Matchew?

Geez I dunno, well to start, the kids being born are kids whose parents are not citizens to begin with, they say they were using it as a back door into the EU many refugees and asylum seekers living in the aid camps and small towns found it easier considering it takes ages to get a valid passport cause our government are ass***es and they think a new mercedes every year is a valid expense (that ahd our taoseach's* daughter's wedding to a pop star in france) the only links I can think of would be found on the Irish times website, but it'll take some searching do a google search specific to Irish websites and you should find something. or look at www.ireland.ie You'll find loads there. good luck


P.S. Taoseach is the irish equivalent of a prime minister or head asshole for the layman

Quote from: Matchew on Fri 17/12/2004 20:57:44
I've lots of muslim friends and they are some of the nicest guys I have met

Does that deffense of "how nice the muslims are" mean that you think that everyone here deffending not having symbols in schools think muslims "are not nice" you can't be more wrong, mate...

What has been discussed here is not "if they're nice or not", or if they're "better or worse" than us. What has been discussed here is what makes them special for not accomplishing laws which are accepted by a vast majority of the people in the countries they live.

Actually, to be completely specific, multiculturalism isn't just multi ethnicity, it actually refers to a series of government policy initiatives designed to promote an integrated society whilst retaining differences.

That's clearly reflected in the history of the term, since the multi is in contrast to the bi in teh old Canadian policy of biculturalism, reflecting the Francophonic and Anglophonic spheres of the country, until it became apparent there were more than just those two spheres.

Multiculturalism does not just refer to the mixing of cultures or a society made up of different ethnicities, used in it's proper and correct context, it refers to a kind of government policy first adopted by Canada and subsequently adopted to varying degrees by other countries.

I know people commonly use multiculturalism to refer to the social force, but the term does refer to a form of policy that can arise as a result of the force.

Oooo!  I did an research paper on the topic of religious expression in French public schools last year.  When I have time, I'll have to look through all these posts.  Lots of interesting arguments here.

There is a difference between religious symbols like wearing crosses and the scarves that muslim women use to cover their heads. Wearing the cross is out of choice. Muslims are not given any choice in the covering of hair. It is the law for them. That is why they are so forceful about it.

It is a religious law which collides with a law in the French civil code. Christians also have the law of not eating meat on fridays and I don't accomplish it...

Anyway I don't really know why are we discussing, in Spain there is a million of muslims and only one complained in such degree of not taking his daughter to school. I guess in France there must be simillar because muslims are much pragmatic as the image of religious die hard we're giving to them here.

The problem that IMO sublies here is that this year the birth rate in Spain has been 60 % for foreign babies in front of 40 % for nationals. Nationals must give the image of "You are welcome here, we need you, we like your culture too... but make an effort of trying to integrate in this society".

Because if not the next Spanish generation will be islamist in the degree of islamism they had in their original countries. And we can deal with multiculturalism, but not with a colonization which may change the spirit an the signs of identity of our country.

I am sure some of the "Politically correct" guys will gladly reply "And whats the problem of Spain being islamic in the next generation, nah nah nah nah?". It's very easy to say to a country "hey! became muslim! It isn't that bad!" when you're a thousand milles away.... And I could really agree with them if the incoming muslims were from Casablanca, Egypt, Turkey... but what is coming here is inmigration from Magreb, an arid land in the middle of Sahara which has one of the most severes sources of radical islam in the lands of muslim religion. Muslims who do not follow a "sensible mahometan" religion, but anotherÃ,  later branch called "sharia" which includes amputation the clits of women as they born because "such a source of pleasure for women is sin". That sharia includes "pearls" in its laws as lapidation for women for adultery and cutting the hands of the thieves. A way of living which allows men to treat women as a possession who must cover his face with a veil and live as a servant to the husband. A branch of Islamism who does not follow the lines of the main muslim council, a branch which allows every radical to become an Imam and say whatever bunch of no senses he likes, and his congregation, following Sharia, will have to obbey..

I don't know if you, "Politically Correct" guys, know that the events of the 11-m were conceived in the Mosque of Madrid, the bigger in Spain. A mosque kept with the money paid by radicals Saudis, of the wahaby islamist branch, and that in their walls speeches talking about the "holy Jihad" were, not just allowed, but healed.

I don't know if you, "Politically Correct" guys, know that the Imam of Barcelona, the second bigger in Spain, published a book with a report of which objects to use and where to hit a woman for not leaving her marks, so the police won't be able to punish them in virtue of the "pusillanumous" occidental laws which do not recognise the superioity of the man in front of the woman.

And I am not talking of mad imams talking in garages. I am talking of the high Imam of Madrid and the high Imam of Barcelona, regarding a congregation of more than 500,000 accollites.Ã,  Do you imagine what would happen if the Ku Kux Klan was the main financier of radical churchs in Arabia Saudi? Do you imagine the social conflicts may occur in the born rate in arabia saudi was 60% for texans immigrants and 40% for Saudis? Do you imagine what could happen if the main Bishops of that KKK churchs start to say bullshit that 500,000 of their accollites must follow.

Do you imagine how would the Saudis react if they make a law for not making any kind religious shows in the schools and the texas would go on wearing his offensive cowboy hat?

Do you say that muslims women do wear their chaddor voluntarilly? I say that they do their chaddors "voluntarilly".

Many of you are using sentences as "lack of knowleadge" about Islam to put those who are against some forms of it down. As you can see, I am perfectly able to know about Islam, to differenciate Wahabism of mahometanism. I am perfectly able to differenciate between my friends Abdul, Saed, Yussuf or Rachid, who are coming from the north of Morocco, from the neighbour of the 3rd plant who forces his daughter to wear a chaddor and does not want to learn talking spanish.

I think it's more a problem of some of you, PC guys, who are really showing a lack of knowleadge of the real situation. Now, dare to make a post telling how "lovelly your muslim friend is" or that "Islam is in his majority a very respectful religion which bla bla bla..." The problem is that I am not attacking THAT Islam, but the other one.

And now, counter attack me saying "there are christians who kill abortive doctors... We are bad too". Do you really think that my reluctances to a specific sources of Islam and to a very specific branch of it make me feel a christian extremist who do like doctors to be killed? I think you are being taking by the spiral of the debate if you think so, because the real message that is in my post is "fuck all the extremists" no matter which color they have.

And now, as a final weapon to throw at me, you could allways say that the girls wearing chaddor are not the reflect of that "bad islam" I painted. There can be some specific cases in Granada or the Spanish colonies in North Africa where that custom has been took for generations of spanish muslims and it does not mean "submission to god" of being forced by the father, but in 99 percent of the new inmigration comming from Magreb, it is.

You could tell me that "you've read an article denying that"... bullshit. I've seen it. I've seen that girls alone in the corner in the yards of the schools, talking to nobody. The PC wave may say "That's because the other christians guys in school are a bunch of racists!" So, fuck you for judging the youth in my country without knowleadge because that's not true. There is allways a group of good people in each class who wants to stablish relations with those girls, but they don't allow... And the group of good people is allways much bigger that the tiny un-brained one who is unkind with that girls. But that girls simply don't make the effort of making an step of the road to integration. I know I can't blame them personally, I must blameit to their parent and to the disgusting branch of Islam which allows that. THAT Islam make me sick. Islam doesn't, but that specific wave does.

I simply won't undestand why some of the girls here will go on deffending chaddors now they know what it is a symbol about.

About all of those who have deffending "a totally freedom of religious symbols", you're not here. You don't know what is happening. You don't work as a valid speaker anymore.

And about muslims AGSers who are deffending Islam against my opinion... Think it twice. I am not agains Islamism, the Coran, your believs or your costumes. You must recognise that the whole aspect of Islam has a big problem in front the Roman apostolic religion, and it's preciselly that it has no "Rome" a defined central organ which keep all the religious manifestations coherent. That causes that there may be specific loctions were Islam is completelly different to the think that you know. Before hoisting the flag of Islam and auto-proclaiming you experts because you are muslms, have in mind that I may had more contact with those radical Islam coming from Magreb that you. I am against that brach of islamism that is making all of you look like crap for all the rest of the world. Actually it only shares with the religion you respect and love the name. If you are sensible you should be with me expressing the differences of your totally respectfully beliefs and the other.

I am tired of this. I will be replied that "chaddor is not that" and all that things, but I've reached the conclussion you don't know to realise I am talking of a very specific case located in a very specific geographic point, which are Spain, France and some other countries in centre of Europe which are receiving magrebins. And you won't realise of that because you're too busy making everybody know you are politically correct and that you are a die hard deffender minorities. If you can't realise that "chaddor" is just a first step into more sever forms of woman repression like velis or burkas, I simply can't go on.

But have in mind that you're not deffending the right of the minorities. You're deffending the symbol of the opression of woman. And there is an attempt to make at least one tiny space of freedom for they, called school, where that symbols are not allowed. But you're denying them even that.

Hey Farlander.... I completely agree with you....on some points ;D. There are alot of extremists who make the world think that their oppressive version of Islam is correct. I wouldn't want them to be in control of any country. I had to walk out of a mosque on one Friday because the Imam started talking about how the woman's correct place is worshipping in the kitchen. I find myself defending Islam as much from these type of extremists as those on the opposite side of the coin. However, you can't deny everyone the use of the chadur/shawl/scarf just because a few people force their daughters to where them. What about those who wish to wear it out of their own choice? What about those who wish to be good muslims? Just because you wish to eat meat on Friday, doesn't mean everyone is willing to sacrifice their religion. Covering the hair doesn't have to be a symbol of oppression.
Sorry if I pushed you too much. I was just trying to understand where you were coming from, and I think I finally did.

Yeah, as said, in many places the chaddor is just a costume that as many harmless costumes has to be respected and understood, I don't have any kind of bad feeling when I see women in Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq... as I haven't complained about hindis wearing turbants... But well, Magreb is a very specific point and I have the stong feeling that most of this girls from Magreb who wear chaddor here are willing to take it out and be as close that they can be in the occidental country they're living in, which doesn't mean that they want toÃ,  lose a bit of their own culture.

The example are girls in Granada or in Ceuta or Melilla, spanish colonies in Africa. Ot the girls in Casablanca, who can dress as occidental girls if they're going to a disco, and with chaddor if they're going to a Mosque.

The main difference is that you can see in her faces, in her eyes, they're dressing like that because they want. the consequence, is that occidentals who have to deal with this girls inmediatelly lose the reluctances they may had.

I don't know if I gave the impression that I am againt all muslim symbolism because I think it's "ancient or stupid". Costumes can't be "ancient or stupid", because the word costume implies turning back to the ancient origins, which can't be stupid. Actually, I don't see many differences between muslims expressing their religiousity and some Christians, and I must say that seeing millions of muslims rounding that Ka'ba Mosque in La Meca is so much confortable that some of the expressions of heart-breaking pain I see in Easter in Seville.

If I gave that impression I really failed of expressing myself in the early stages of this thread.

Glad to see I am finally making it clear.

*Edit* And no! You haven't pushed me too much! I am waiting till the come back of DGMacPhee for that!  ;D

Quote from: Farlander on Fri 17/12/2004 23:11:17

Quote from: Matchew on Fri 17/12/2004 20:57:44
I've lots of muslim friends and they are some of the nicest guys I have met

Does that deffense of "how nice the muslims are" mean that you think that everyone here deffending not having symbols in schools think muslims "are not nice" you can't be more wrong, mate...

What has been discussed here is not "if they're nice or not", or if they're "better or worse" than us. What has been discussed here is what makes them special for not accomplishing laws which are accepted by a vast majority of the people in the countries they live.

Yeah but, that wasn't what I was getting at either, I was just expressing how the idea of banishing religious symbols in schools is an act of (subliminal) fear. I'm not making any broad or bold statements when I say this but, I was explaining that people are people and there's nothing to be afraid of.
And secondly, my country is not as culturally diverse as yours, it has only begun to expand in this regard in the past ten years or so, so grow a brain and cop on. We are still naiive and are only growing as a state (although our economy is doing grand) and Ireland will not be fully culturally aware for some time.
I recently participated in a debate on this subject in UCD in Dublin, and I learned that although we may insist on displaying our religious symbols with pride, we seem intimidated by those who are different from us. It's childish I understand this, but if you were raised with kids the same as you all the time, of course you would have your doubts and suspicions about those who are different (it's human nature after all) and I feel that the simplest way of understanding this reality is by embracing those who are different and instead of simply deciding that you don't like those who are different, you should be curious, ask questions and relax.



we're all God's children.


P.S. settle down it's only a mild discussion.

P.P.S. by the way farlander, I asked my dad who'se an ex-clergyman about the whole meat being forbidden on a friday and he told me that sex was also forbidden, but the idea was long abandoned about 100 years ago because back then meat and sex were luxuries, and they costed a lot of moolah, but these days everything is feckin ( no that is not the bad word with the "U" in it , it's a lovely Irish word see father ted for details) expensive, at least in Ireland it is anyway. " a euro for a bag of crisps, ya must be bloody mad in the head, fer feck sake ye have me beggared"

There's also a really really juicy irony in people in Ireland complaining about migrants  ;D

If sex was forbidden in fridays  to I'll move to Islam, because of location issues friday is my "happy day of the week"!  ;D

Quote from: Las Naranjas on Sat 18/12/2004 22:43:37
There's also a really really juicy irony in people in Ireland complaining about migrantsÃ,  ;D

You know what? you're right, during the great famine, about four million or so of our six million population (we were at it like rabbits okay?) left for Australia, America, Great Britain, France, and of course, your homeland Spain ( we helped ye out in yer civil war after all.) it's sick and idiotic to discriminate when we were probably one of the most widespread cultures after all ( what with Leprechauns, Alcohol, Big fluffy shamrocks and what happened on the simpsons St Patrick's day episode when the british chip shop was blown up and the crowd all roared in celebration (I think I should shut my big fat mouth here before I cause trouble)). We should know better when you take into account that in America there were signs saying "no niggers or irish wanted" we have no right to object to migrants. I'm actually sick and tired of this topic cause I did a four page irish essay on this very topic, (it's hard okay, I'm fluent English) but y'know if ya can't beat em, join em.

(stupido idioto) ( i'm really sorry for that poor attempt at humour)

By the way, who knows what caused the famine in the first place?
(you get extra points for not mentioning the word potatoes)

Las Naranjas is in the other part of the World taking Spain as a reference...  :-\

Quote from: Farlander on Sun 19/12/2004 18:49:23
Las Naranjas is in the other part of the World taking Spain as a reference...Ã,  :-\

maybe so, but what's really embarassing is that all you could come up with is that answer.

You just wait until the next world cup, we won't miss on penalties next time. oooh I'm so annnnnnnggggggrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!! >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( ooh free tranquilisers yum!  :D

I'm um, the descendant of Irish migrants to Australia.

One of 100 million members of the Irish diaspora.

It took another Irish schoolgoer to make Yufster look coherent, I notice...  :=

I better add that my surname is MacCormack, a good old Irish name... Erin gu bragh

As luck would have it, there's a very interesting article in today's Washington Post (www.washingtonpost.com) entitled, "Evangelicals Use Courts to Fight Restrictions on Christmas Tidings" that talks specifically about the issues we've been discussing.  Notice how the debate is quite different in America.  I bet a lot of you would find it very interesting, though you have to register with the post to read it.  Here are some excerpts...

QuoteAfter years of legal assaults on municipal displays of Nativity scenes and Christmas observances in public schools, Christian groups are now mounting court challenges in the other direction. From Mustang, Okla., to Maplewood, N.J., they are filing or threatening lawsuits to win the inclusion of manger scenes in school plays, Christmas carols in school concerts and Christmas trees in public buildings...

Last year, a school administrator stopped Jonathan Morgan at the door to his classroom because the "goody bag" he had brought to a school party on the last day before Christmas vacation contained candy canes with a religious message attached...

This year, the 9-year-old and his evangelical Christian parents went straight to court. They were among four families who persuaded Judge Paul Brown, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, to issue a temporary restraining order on Thursday securing their children's right to hand out "religious viewpoint gifts" at school-sponsored holiday parties.

This kinda thing is nuts, stopping someone with a Candy Cane because it has something religious attached, but is it so different from viels?  ::)

QuoteKelly Shackelford, the Liberty Legal lawyer who argued the case, said in a telephone interview that Supreme Court decisions since 1969 clearly have established that students do not give up free-speech rights when they walk through the school door. Expressions of religious faith that would be unconstitutional coming from a teacher in a classroom are acceptable among students as long as they do not "materially and substantially disrupt" school operations, he said.

This is where the laws in the US obviously differ from those in France, and why as I said before, people would go nuts if you stopped them from wearing religious clothing in school.  Actually, in the US they don't go nuts.  They just sue.

One last one...

Quote"This area is predominantly white, and it's predominantly Christian. Frankly, it's pretty conservative Christian," he said. "We have to be careful, though, that those students who are Hindu or Islamic or Jewish don't have their rights trampled on."

This is what I've been talking about.  So the majority of the population has an opinion of something, their opinion or even their laws cannot trample upon the rights of the minority.  Just because you make a law, doesn't mean it's constitutional or morally valid.

The article goes on to relate a story of how a town took down a nativity scene because someone called up asking them to put up a Menorah too, and instead of just doing that, they took the whole thing down thinking that it would lead to a windfall of religious symbolism that would never end.  Eventually they just put the scene up with along with a Menorah and it was no big deal.

But like I said, if you're interested in this thread, check out the article.  I could cut and paste it, but I'm not sure what the rules are for that kinda thing.

Quote from: SSH on Mon 20/12/2004 07:23:58
It took another Irish schoolgoer to make Yufster look coherent, I notice...Ã,  :=

I better add that my surname is MacCormack, a good old Irish name... Erin gu bragh

Good man, mine's Fitzpatrick, it's norman! by the by, you spelt that wrong, it's Erin Go Bragh, but I forgive ya. Do you know what's scary?, our Irish-speaking channel is doing adverts on anti-racism and stuff and it has North african immigrants and Asian immigrants speaking better Irish than me. It made me wake up and realise that these migrants want to be Irish too ( at this stage i think it's safe to say they're more irish than the Irish themselves ) and if anything they deserve to be here.
Now, back to multiculturalism, how do we expect to embrace different cultures when we can't even accept each others ( europe's that is) I mean what with football hooligans, ethnic cleansing, neo fascists, hate crimes etc. ???

Quote from: Matchew link=topic=18226.msg222628#msg222628it's Erin Go Bragh

In Scots Gaelic it's gu. Alba gu bragh!


And on reflection, I think its about time that someone accused you of being DGMacphee

Quote from: SSH on Mon 20/12/2004 16:47:21

Quote from: Matchew link=topic=18226.msg222628#msg222628it's Erin Go Bragh

In Scots Gaelic it's gu. Alba gu bragh!


Fair fucks to ya, but I'm not DGmcphee, who is he by the way?