Text 7603, 106 rader
Skriven 2010-05-06 18:18:01 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
   Kommentar till text 7579 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Belgium
===============
05 May 10 09:07, Robert Bashe wrote to Roy Witt:

 RB> Roy Witt wrote to Robert Bashe on Tuesday May 04 2010 at 19:07:

 RB> [The "Burkah ban"]

 RW>> But the whole thing stems from the fact that Arabic people have been
 RW>> discriminated against in Europe because of their religion.

 RB> No, that's not the case. But your next sentence...

 RW>> As in France, for their attire.

 RB> ...has some merit. However "attire" is a bit too general: what people
 RB> don't like are things that are generally considered signs of
 RB> religious extremism and particularly religious extremism among
 RB> muslims, where religion and politics mingle to an extent that you
 RB> don't often find in other religions nowadays.

 RB>>> What do you think would happen if I were to claim that my religion
 RB>>> prohibits me from covering my penis in public, and therefore went
 RB>>> around town with an open zipper with my penis hanging out?

 RW>> Somebody in a white uniform would put you in a straight jacket and
 RW>> haul your ass off to the funny farm.

 RB> And the case would eventually land at the Supreme Court... and
 RB> possibly allow me the free exercise of my religion regardless of any
 RB> "obscenity" laws. Don't forget even "scientology" is classed as a
 RB> "religion in the USA and enjoys the protection of the Constitution.

Depends. A psychiatric doctor may put a 72 hour hold on you. That could
lead to a 14 day hold, which could mean indefinate hold if you continue to
act like a nut case. The best part comes when you protest too much; they
strap you down to a gurney and give you the shock treatment. After that,
you're a lost soul and you'll never see the light of day again.

 RB>>> Again, what people do in their own homes - assuming no criminal
 RB>>> behavior - is their business. But what they do in public is not
 RB>>> exclusively their affair - it's also the business of the country
 RB>>> they live in and its inhabitants.

 RW>> Ahhh, so what you're saying is that those weirdos who wear a
 RW>> crucifix on their neck chain or a funny looking star on their hat or
 RW>> a wear wooden shoes can be treated the same as those who wear a
 RW>> berkah?

 RB> No, I'm saying that people who intentionally make themselves visibly
 RB> conspicuous and identify with a group known for sometimes violent
 RB> religious extremism can't then turn around and ask to be treated like
 RB> everybody else, without preconceptions and without suspicion.

Kinda like forcing the Jews to wear the star of David on their clothing.

That discrimination was bourne from their own religious views forced upon
them by others because, for one, they couldn't stand the fact that they
dressed differently.

Isn't that what is happening in Europe, again?

 RB> People don't "assimilate" in a society by making themselves visibly
 RB> conspicuous, and that applies equally to the attire and the language
 RB> abilities - other things, such as the skin color and racial
 RB> characteristics (oriental) are simply facts that can't be changed and
 RB> are nowadays largely ignored.

That's really odd, Bob. Those same muslim people live in America wearing
the same garb and have no problems being assimilated into the community.
Of course, they're assimilated sooner because they're not discriminated
against because of their attire. They actually 'want' to dress like
everyone else.

 RB>>> Tolerance is good, but too much tolerance is cultural suicide.

 RW>> OK, so much for religious freedom in Europe...oh wait! There never
 RW>> was religious freedom in Europe, that's why those who wanted it had
 RW>> to move to America!

 RB> Your clock is running pretty slow: that was around 300 years ago.

Meanwhile, you've conveniently forgotten that a new country was formed out
of the last Europeon chaos of religious discrimination around 1948. Last I
counted, that wasn't 300 years ago.

 RB> But one thing I have to admit: every kook, every nut who claims he
 RB> has a religion in the States is untouchable. The "scientology" scam
 RB> is the best example. L. Ron Hubbard was a clever man and definitely
 RB> knew how to make big money and gain power without being taxed or
 RB> controlled by the
 RB> government: start a "religion" and then claim protection under the
 RB> Constitution.

There are some people who actually believe his hype to this day.

 RB> Luckily, such schemes are not accepted as a "religion" in Europe and
 RB> have to function as what they really are: a business model. If that's
 RB> "religious intolerance", I'm all for it.

Religious intolerance incognito is still called religious discrimination,
for any reason you want to bring up.

                R\%/itt

    You can put lipstick on a pig, but the pig still stinks!
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000-10
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:387/22)