Don't know what to think about the Burqa law in France.

[Temis the Vorta]

I think the most objective thing for me to say is that if this kind of law were ever brought up in the U.S. I would not vote for it.

Fortunately, you would never be asked to vote for it - or if you did, the vote would be irrelevant since such a law would be unconstitutional.

The burqa law is a great illustration of why the Constitution exists, and is invaluable. Left to their own devices, societies invariably will fall into the Tyranny of the Majority trap. If the majority can inflict their will on a minority, they will do it. It's human nature. The Founding Fathers recognized this threat and gave us a defense against it, at least in regards to important rights such as speech and religion. People sometimes try to argue that they should have ridiculous rights (like skateboarding wherever they please ). At least they've got the right idea, even if they're trying to take it too far.

I honestly don't much care what kind of shit the French get up to. A lot of nations have values I disdain. Just look at the shit that goes on in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Nothing any of those countries do will ever affect me in the slightest since Americans don't look to other nations for examples of how to run our lives. All we have to do is turn on the news to get constant reminders of why not.

The burqa law is good in that it's a reminder to me to thank the Founding Fathers for being so far-sighted in protecting my freedom. I may have no interest in wearing a burqa or any other religious clothing, but there are certainly ways in which I am a minority who could be victimized by a tyrannical majority, something which is true of most if not all people. We are all a minority in some way or the other. Remember that the next time you see some minority being oppressed who you don't care about or understand. Next time, it might be you.

To me its just an attempt to feel better at the rising muslim growth in European nations.

Yeah, the hypocrisy is what gets me. I'd have more respect for the French if they would be H O N E S T. They feel threatened by Muslims who are undermining their sense of having a common culture, which after all, is all their nation is based on (and it's all most nations are based on). If this is the way they honestly feel, and they don't want Constitutional protections and they feel comfortable with a political system that exposes any minority to the tyranny of the majority, why don't they just say so? They're still way better than Iran! As long as I don't have to deal with any of that shit, I really don't care one way or the other.

Because they won't be honest, it's obvious that they do realize that the tyranny of the majority is wrong. Otherwise, what's stopping them from admitting the truth about the burqa law? Why aren't they proud of squelching an alien culture in their midst? Why aren't they screaming it from the rooftops? It's not like the French are famous for being overly polite and considerate of other people's feelings. So they know what they're doing is wrong, yet won't do anything to stop that behavior. What nonsense.

I think the two major issues are the nature of rights and the whole "melting pot/tossed salad" analogy for multicultural societies. With regards to rights, some believe they are innate (from God/nature) while others believe they are handed out by society/the government. The obvious american bias is that they are innate. This can be extended to individual liberty versus societal responsibility, with americans again leaning towards the individual.

Exactly. What's so useful about this thread is that it gives us an opportunity to clarify the ideas that America is based on. A lot of people, American and otherwise, apparently have no understanding of this, so they get the impression that Americans are just being "rude" or playing a game of one-uppmanship or just fibbing about there being any theoretical basis to America at all.

There actual substance here that needs to be understood, or nothing we say is going to make sense. If you procede from the assumption that rights are innate and inalienable and that the purpose of any government is to safeguard those rights, then that leads you to very different conclusions in how a government and a society should be structured, than if you believe otherwise.

Another vital point is that the tyranny of the majority becomes a worse problem, the more a society moves from uni- to multi-cultural. The Japanese don't have to worry as much about this stuff; their society is very uni-cultural by global standards. Constrast that with America, which has been multi-cultural since the day the Pilgrims landed in Massachussetts. There's no option in a multi-cultural society but to safeguard minority rights, not unless you want ongoing conflict that will ultimately tear your nation apart.

I don't know what Europe is going to do in the future, but I do know that you can't have a multi-cultural society in which only the "majority" culture (majority for how long) is treated as legitimate. But how they figure out this mess is their problem, not mine. They have three choices:

1. Reverse multi-cultural trends by restricting and evicting practioners of alien cultures.

2. Adopt a political philosophy that assumes rights are inalienable and innate, and that the government's chief responsibility is to protect those rights.

3. Split up into various nations reflecting the de-facto cultural divisions.

 

[Subcommander R.]

One more thing: Sorry I'm getting a little steamed here. Its annoying to spend so long on a topic and not find a single bit of middle ground.

 

[RJDiogenes]

There's no middle ground. Every human being has the right to be free; there are no exceptions.

 

[Brent]

Ima make it simple, just let people do whatever they want and wear whatever they want, as long as it doesn't hurt others. It really is that simple.

 

[JarodRussell]

There's no middle ground. Every human being has the right to be free; there are no exceptions.

My freedom includes being able to marry three women and a dog. What now?

 

[Haggis and tatties]

There's no middle ground. Every human being has the right to be free; there are no exceptions.

My freedom includes being able to marry three women and a dog. What now?

There's a joke about a bone in their somewhere.

 

[Sean Aaron]

4. Talk about mischaracterizing. Sounds like you're just bitter and dislike Americans. Cowboy up and admit it, you'll feel better. None of us have mentioned divinity at all, and we haven't exactly been leaping onto rooftops and proclaiming anything. Just providing the basic facts.

Preachy ones or ones who get their back-up because someone professes a different viewpoint absolutely, but I have nothing against Americans (or any other national group) generally speaking.

5. So you're saying that I should promote injustice in the name of tolerance? Weren't you the same one screaming about banning the KKK?

You don't need to promote it or agree with it, just stop preaching about it because you're not in a position to.

6. I'm a history major and know all about my country. You apparently are unable to tell the difference between the past and the present. I'm talking about the America of today and the best you can do is go back a hundred years? If we back the UK up then you were still subjugating a third of the world, but none of us is foolish enough to claim that makes the UK today some imperial power. That was simply irrelevant.

Gee we must be twins as I'm degreed in history as well. I was responding to your image of loving harmony, which is hardly an image that's historically accurate.

It also doesn't reflect modern sensibilities in light of widespread (and popular) moves to enshrine English as the official language, building physical borders to keep out undesirables, i.e., Mexicans and a clear intolerance for Muslims, e.g., public burning of the Qur'an and profiling at airport security.

Ultimately my point was that any feeling of security enshrined by the possession of The Constitution is a false one and America is not immune whatever ills you feel are presently being perpetrated in France as a result of it. It's ignored at the convenience of your leaders and the willingness of the population to go along.

America is not "more perfect" than anywhere else; it's citizens definitely seem to be lacking in humility - at least those who participate in online discussion.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

It also doesn't reflect modern sensibilities in light of widespread (and popular) moves to enshrine English as the official language, building physical borders to keep out undesirables, i.e., Mexicans and a clear intolerance for Muslims, e.g., public burning of the Qur'an and profiling at airport security.

Hold the phone.

Unless you have some data that I am not aware of, there is no widespread incidence of public Qur'an burnings in the United States. There have been public desecrations. A few of these and one in particular was very high profile.

Share the data with us, that lets you conclude either that public Qur'an desecration in the United States is more than a sparsely occurring phenomenon or that it is a widespread one.

 

[Sean Aaron]

Unless you have some data that I am not aware of, there is no widespread incidence of public Qur'an burnings in the United States. There have been public desecrations. A few of these and one in particular was very high profile.

Share the data with us, that lets you conclude either that public Qur'an desecration in the United States is more than a sparsely occurring phenomenon or that it is a widespread one.

I didn't say it was widespread, but it did happen and I expect will become more commonplace. I'm sure everyone in the country wasn't having parties over it, but I'd hazard a guess and say a significant minority, i.e., people who watch Fox News for their news, think that's okay.

 

[Shaytan]

3. Of those, only America was created specifically for the purpose of freedom (religious at first).

Historical background...
Our Révolution was also anticlerical because of the oppressive nature of the catholic church in the country.
We can't react the same way Americans do with religions, it's logical. To us, Americans are irrationally silly with their extremist view of religion. It's not a problem, it's funny to watch that from this side of the ocean and it's your country, you do whatever you want

If a French citizen had a problem with an American law and suggested emulating the French model

No thank you, I prefer being unique

 

[lurok]

One more thing: Sorry I'm getting a little steamed here. Its annoying to spend so long on a topic and not find a single bit of middle ground.

So say we all. And I owe apology to SR and Rage. Being new here, and to net forums in general, I took defense of holocaust denial under First Amendment very personally (for family reasons). Blame youth and ignorance After further investigation and consulting US friends, I now understand and appreciate they were ably defending constitutional position, which while I may not agree with, I should respect. It may differ from mine/UK/some European countries position, but so be it.

edit: Looking back through recent thread, it seems 'anti-Americanism' has been raised. Personally, I am not anti-American and there is much I love and admire about peoples, country and culture(s). But do I see faults/differences I don't agree with (both federal and state)? Yes. As I'm sure many Americans do with rest of globe. Made me realise we are more than people divided by common language...

 

[iguana_tonante]

I responded to the points, and very mildly implied there was a certain degree of dislike. Lets just say I can't really see you wearing an "I Love New York' shirt. The fact that you've tried to make that the whole issue shows it hit a nerve. If you have a problem with my country thats something for a different thread.

You see? This is the part I find irritating. I move a criticism on something a few Americans said, and immediately I'm accused of being anti-American. Doesn't matter what else I have said or done. Doesn't matter my reasons or rationales. No need to look any further. I'm the bad guy. End of discussion. "You are with us, or you are against us." Sounds familiar? Thankfully, not all Americans think like this.

1. They aren't equivalents. The middle east is a fusion of culture and religion, and amongst the relevant cultures the burqa and niqab are viewed as (and are) religious garments. If you religion commands you walk around with your junk out then do it. Just don't make up some bullshit 'religion' solely to do it.

Well, that is your opinion. It's fine and dandy, but it's still an opinion. Personally, I am very much concerned about the oppressed rights of the naturist community.

2. Reread Locke, none of that is what he said. Society is the sum of agreement amongst individuals. Government is giving society an embodiment and authority over individuals. When you take those both away and you simply have people living, there are certain understood facts. Even (maybe especially) if they come from fear of retaliation, there is a basic understanding. Hobbes differed, but you'll find Locke had more influence on republican thought. No offense, but you missed the boat with the squares.

I disagree. I have never seen an example of "people simply living" without a society and a government. Even the smallest social unity, the family, has some kind of power structure (usually, kids must do what they are told by the parents, who in turn share power, hopefully equally). So talking about "rights" outside of society and government is inherently absurd, Locke notwithstanding.

3. Of those, only America was created specifically for the purpose of freedom (religious at first).

And that is sugar-coating history. The US (which isn't "America", btw) was created because a bunch of colonials didn't want to pay taxes to the Bristish crown without an equal representation in Parliament. Which is a great and worthy goal, something that I hold sacrosanct. The Founding Fathers had great and worthy ideals, too, and even if they sometimes fell short of their intentions, they are still commendable for their effort and the path they paved. But still, it's a quite narrow and rose-coloured reading of history to hold that "America was created for FREEDOM(TM)".

Again I have to ask why such a response would come so harshly if you actually liked us?

Because I'm a tough motherfucker in a debate, that's why.

Seriously, you seem to be using an inordinate amount of rude sarcasm and simplistic generalizations.

I disagree. I use a very ordinate amount of rude sarcasm and very carefully-chosen generalizations.

So I will ask you now: do you dislike America? Answer candidly, I'd at least like to know if your biting tone is universal or reserved for a select few national origins.

Sigh. I love the US, I think it's an amazing place. In many ways, it's unrivalled among other nations. The best that America has to offer is sometimes the best that the world has to offer. I consider it one of my favourite countries in the world. Funnily enough, when we had the thread about favourite countries, I ranked the US above France.

Sure, I have a few fundamental disagreements with its cultural landscape, but honestly I have a whole bunch of fundamental disagreements with virtually every other place on Earth, including my own country.

If I sometimes criticise the US, it's because I like you. You won't hear me spending a lot of time criticising North Korea or Kazakhstan, because they are virtually shitholes with very little redeeming qualities at the moment. So take your accusations of anti-Americanism where they belong, ok?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Got a problem with Kazakhstan?

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWGm8HvOrNI[/yt]

 

[iguana_tonante]

Well, as with most ex-Soviet countries, they have kick-ass national music. Russia has still the awesomest, tho.

 

[Subcommander R.]

4. Talk about mischaracterizing. Sounds like you're just bitter and dislike Americans. Cowboy up and admit it, you'll feel better. None of us have mentioned divinity at all, and we haven't exactly been leaping onto rooftops and proclaiming anything. Just providing the basic facts.

Preachy ones or ones who get their back-up because someone professes a different viewpoint absolutely, but I have nothing against Americans (or any other national group) generally speaking.

5. So you're saying that I should promote injustice in the name of tolerance? Weren't you the same one screaming about banning the KKK?

You don't need to promote it or agree with it, just stop preaching about it because you're not in a position to.

6. I'm a history major and know all about my country. You apparently are unable to tell the difference between the past and the present. I'm talking about the America of today and the best you can do is go back a hundred years? If we back the UK up then you were still subjugating a third of the world, but none of us is foolish enough to claim that makes the UK today some imperial power. That was simply irrelevant.

Gee we must be twins as I'm degreed in history as well. I was responding to your image of loving harmony, which is hardly an image that's historically accurate.

It also doesn't reflect modern sensibilities in light of widespread (and popular) moves to enshrine English as the official language, building physical borders to keep out undesirables, i.e., Mexicans and a clear intolerance for Muslims, e.g., public burning of the Qur'an and profiling at airport security.

Ultimately my point was that any feeling of security enshrined by the possession of The Constitution is a false one and America is not immune whatever ills you feel are presently being perpetrated in France as a result of it. It's ignored at the convenience of your leaders and the willingness of the population to go along.

America is not "more perfect" than anywhere else; it's citizens definitely seem to be lacking in humility - at least those who participate in online discussion.

1. Different viewpoints are fine until they infringe the rights of others. Then they have to be questioned as a matter of conscience.

2. You don't have to be a world leader to take a stand. In fact, world leaders rarely take stands. Thats why its so important the regular person speak up. So 'position' really doesn't matter.

3. You're still missing the boat. We're talking about TODAY, not yesterday. Thats irrelevant, but you don't seem to care that went off on a tangent. A national language is really no problem since realistically you need to be able to function. Also it cuts down on paperwork. Thats practicality, not intolerance.

As to the border, you try moving your island up against, say, Colombia and then try to find a way to stop the cocaine from entering. Its easy for your borders to be controlled, not so much for others.

You'll also notice that for the lion's share, prejudices against Muslims are limited in their popularity and power. Its certainly no different from Europe in that respect, but with arguably better legal protections.

You see? This is the part I find irritating. I move a criticism on something a few Americans said, and immediately I'm accused of being anti-American. Doesn't matter what else I have said or done. Doesn't matter my reasons or rationales. No need to look any further. I'm the bad guy. End of discussion. "You are with us, or you are against us." Sounds familiar? Thankfully, not all Americans think like this.


Well, that is your opinion. It's fine and dandy, but it's still an opinion. Personally, I am very much concerned about the oppressed rights of the naturist community.


I disagree. I have never seen an example of "people simply living" without a society and a government. Even the smallest social unity, the family, has some kind of power structure (usually, kids must do what they are told by the parents, who in turn share power, hopefully equally). So talking about "rights" outside of society and government is inherently absurd, Locke notwithstanding.


And that is sugar-coating history. The US (which isn't "America", btw) was created because a bunch of colonials didn't want to pay taxes to the Bristish crown without an equal representation in Parliament. Which is a great and worthy goal, something that I hold sacrosanct. The Founding Fathers had great and worthy ideals, too, and even if they sometimes fell short of their intentions, they are still commendable for their effort and the path they paved. But still, it's a quite narrow and rose-coloured reading of history to hold that "America was created for FREEDOM(TM)".


Because I'm a tough motherfucker in a debate, that's why.


I disagree. I use a very ordinate amount of rude sarcasm and very carefully-chosen generalizations.


Sigh. I love the US, I think it's an amazing place. In many ways, it's unrivalled among other nations. The best that America has to offer is sometimes the best that the world has to offer. I consider it one of my favourite countries in the world. Funnily enough, when we had the thread about favourite countries, I ranked the US above France.

Sure, I have a few fundamental disagreements with its cultural landscape, but honestly I have a whole bunch of fundamental disagreements with virtually every other place on Earth, including my own country.

If I sometimes criticise the US, it's because I like you. You won't hear me spending a lot of time criticising North Korea or Kazakhstan, because they are virtually shitholes with very little redeeming qualities at the moment. So take your accusations of anti-Americanism where they belong, ok?

1. Okay, I can see your point there. But try to look through my eyes, we're accustomed to seeing the worst from other people. So we start to expect it.

2. That one falls a little flat. The experts agree with me about that cultural/religious fusion. But your concern for nudists is very admirable.

3. You could easily argue that point. But I will ask: do you honestly believe no rights should be held as self-evident and guaranteed against the government?

4. Sorry, the US and the colonies blur together. I misspoke. But you really can't deny that besides 'freedom from paying taxes on everything' we also enshrined other freedoms to greater degree than the British empire at the time. So its still a valid point.

5. Fair enough.

6. I swear you must have been channeling Voltaire with that statement. Nicely done.

7. I withdraw my accusations, but echo Mr. Laserbeam's point: what's the matter with Kazahkstan? (And speaking of ex-SSR anthems, Tajikistan gets my pick).

Historical background...
Our Révolution was also anticlerical because of the oppressive nature of the catholic church in the country.
We can't react the same way Americans do with religions, it's logical. To us, Americans are irrationally silly with their extremist view of religion. It's not a problem, it's funny to watch that from this side of the ocean and it's your country, you do whatever you want


No thank you, I prefer being unique

1. Curious, why would you call it extremist to tolerate all religions?

2. You certainly are unique.

So say we all. And I owe apology to SR and Rage. Being new here, and to net forums in general, I took defense of holocaust denial under First Amendment very personally (for family reasons). Blame youth and ignorance After further investigation and consulting US friends, I now understand and appreciate they were ably defending constitutional position, which while I may not agree with, I should respect. It may differ from mine/UK/some European countries position, but so be it.

edit: Looking back through recent thread, it seems 'anti-Americanism' has been raised. Personally, I am not anti-American and there is much I love and admire about peoples, country and culture(s). But do I see faults/differences I don't agree with (both federal and state)? Yes. As I'm sure many Americans do with rest of globe. Made me realise we are more than people divided by common language...

Thats good to hear.

And now I feel the need to sit down and sing 'kum bay yah.'

I really can't stay mad during debates, even if I do get a bit steamed it doesn't last.

 

[Shaytan]

1. Curious, why would you call it extremist to tolerate all religions?

It's not that that I call extremist but the importance religions seem to have in Americans private and public life is crazy.
Here religions are not that important, secularism really means something.
Only on this board I'm asked what my religion is, over here, nobody cares. I'm an atheist, I don't have to justify it because it's not uncommon and nobody is interested in that
I've never met in real life someone, except priests, who had read the bible...I'm not even sure I know someone who owns a bible

When Americans speak about religions, I find that very exotic

 

[iguana_tonante]

4. Sorry, the US and the colonies blur together. I misspoke. But you really can't deny that besides 'freedom from paying taxes on everything' we also enshrined other freedoms to greater degree than the British empire at the time. So its still a valid point.

Sure enough. I just like to be pedantic.

but echo Mr. Laserbeam's point: what's the matter with Kazahkstan? (And speaking of ex-SSR anthems, Tajikistan gets my pick).

Well, I picked it as a typical central Asian not-so-democratic-republic, but I was actually thinking about the late President-for-Life of Turkmenistan, who was seven kind of crazy.

 

[Subcommander R.]

1. Curious, why would you call it extremist to tolerate all religions?

It's not that that I call extremist but the importance religions seem to have in Americans private and public life is crazy.
Here religions are not that important, secularism really means something.
Only on this board I'm asked what my religion is, over here, nobody cares. I'm an atheist, I don't have to justify it because it's not uncommon and nobody is interested in that
I've never met in real life someone, except priests, who had read the bible...I'm not even sure I know someone who owns a bible

When Americans speak about religions, I find that very exotic

Its really funny to think of that being exotic!

We consider it mundane mostly. I really do wish our religious right wing would focus more on what christianity actually states and less on their political ideology. They try to fuse them together and end up making all christians look bad.

Sure enough. I just like to be pedantic.

You're very good at it. Does it take practice, or did you just wake up one day with this ability? Maybe a radioactive something bit you?

Well, I picked it as a typical central Asian not-so-democratic-republic, but I was actually thinking about the late President-for-Life of Turkmenistan, who was seven kind of crazy.

Oh you bet, he was nuts.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

There's nothing wrong with a society determining what is permissible or not for itself.
...
Other countries that follow democratic principles make determinations that are appropriate for themselves. I can't speak for any other American here, but I am not arguing for the inherent superiority of our position.

... as I said above, I believe that, when acting according to democratic principles, other societies have the right to establish their own standards for behavior, even if those standards are in contrast to ours, even with respect to some of our most cherished beliefs.

Personally, I don't think it to be very wise for us to presume that our way is the best way for every culture. I think we've done enough cross-cultural meddling in the past decade for the time being. We've got our work cut out for us as is, in order to try to make sure that everything we're responsible for works out for the better.

America is not "more perfect" than anywhere else; it's citizens definitely seem to be lacking in humility - at least those who participate in online discussion.

Do you mean all citizens of the United States, who participate in online discussion, lack humility, or only some, especially that you may have in mind in particular? I'm an American and a natural born citizen of the United States. I'm posting online. You don't think my previously posted positions quoted here to be reasonable and tolerant? The first quote was a direct response to something you had posted.

 

[Shaytan]

Its really funny to think of that being exotic!

Yeah, I guess but with that, I'm acknowledging that it's a different culture. I wouldn't want that here (I'm fine with our religious apathy) but it's fine for you, it's logical for you and it's a great source of entertainment for me