And this makes it okay???
What kind of standard is that???
Ik keep saying these things go hand in hand…
Have Turkey draw up a decent code for Imams in cooperation with religious parties in the west, and apply it to the appointment process here, for example. Because religion is a matter of warfare, (war is often done by people who feel in their hear that they want to fight) as well as it is of peace, it is important to depoliticize it. Not by “crushing it” - if you think I want to eradicate the faith you are not addressing me on a rational level. No, what is required rather is the active selection of the good and reasonable elements and the active discarding of the elements that are in direct contradiction to the spirit of our laws. For that term I refer to the works of Montesquieu, but rather to your own imagination, which I am sure can still discern “republic” from “coca cola corporation”. “Western culture” is not the same as American inflated consumerism. That is far too irreverent for the capacities we still have. Every country is always worthless in its most banal forms. Right ow the most banal forms are the only form that is socially acceptable, so it’s all you see. It’s not all shit, the shit is just what feels proudest. Except the day of the unity rally. For a moment the air was fresh – neither racism nor fear of terror, simply presence of will, ready to represent itself.
Well then you need an alternative, that carries enough weight to stand up to ‘the impoverish form of western culture’ AND ‘religion’. You think what is still remaining of ‘real culture’ is actualised and strong enough?
Maybe you don’t allways express yourself as clear as could be.
I get the idea of selecting Imans, if you want to do something about extremisme and terrorism, you need to get rid of the ideological recruiting sources. I don’t know how feasible that is though, Turkey isn’t the only countrey delivering i don’t think. Also part of the problem is that those recruiting sources find fertile ground in parts of the population that don’t feel they have a place in our countries.
Where you present at the rally perhaps? All i saw was a bunch of people and a charade of world leaders…
Perhaps the goo isn't old enough to have total dominion yet. After all, ipad schooled idiots are just barely turning 30 at the oldest. The rest of us, and that would be the people in power, still remember what it means to have a bond with the people that share your geography and so on. I'd have to hear more about Holland and what it has lost to really understand what France and the U.S. still have, I suppose. I see the estrangement you are talking about with the U.S., though. Anybody who relates to what you'd classically consider Americana - guns, outdoor living, Protestantism, and etc., is portrayed in all media all the time as a sort of wicked cartoon, with the good people portrayed only as the urban sorts that believe in nothing.
I have often thought that it will be one day even forbidden to live outside the cities. So then, anybody and everybody will have to live in cities and will not be allowed to leave the cities. Horrible.
One good thing about the German economy is that it is very much region-based, the regions are as important as the cities to keep the large industries going. There is no advantage to the ‘top of the economical pyramid’ in German to draw all work into the city because of the physical reality of their products. So it was in America, before the great strip show began, in - the 70’s or 80’s? I don’t know that history too well. I know it was beyond the point of no return in the 90’s. And so it still is in Japan, and in China. The city dystopia, the prison city, is for countries that have no tangible industries. The whole concept of a ‘capital industry’ is quite idiotic. Capital management requires restraint in investments, restraint to speculation purely for profit, always in some industry that not only ‘creates jobs’ but more crucially creates useful products. An economy like ours would be quite well self regulating if there wasn’t such a thriving market in illusory images of failing companies. A few basic, rational laws could do the trick. Of course such law could never pass the people who make the laws at this point. Except of a few large nations somehow figure out a way to become self-accountable again.
Rephrase of the last bit, which I left out from the quote:
If the state does not take over a certain ethical role from the smaller, organic community and sets some objective limits to religious reach into the shaping of a citizen, the individual who grows up in a certain religious community has no effective way of distinguishing his/her own will from that of the community. The state in its best form will allow the citizen to liberate him/herself from ‘tribal’ ethics.
My and Frances contention is that religion does not have that right, and it is the states responsibility to curb religions ambitions to exercise this unlawful will to power.
La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale. Elle assure l’égalité devant la loi de tous les citoyens sans distinction d’origine, de race ou de religion. Elle respecte toutes les croyances. Son organisation est décentralisée.
La loi favorise l’égal accès des femmes et des hommes aux mandats électoraux et fonctions électives, ainsi qu’aux responsabilités professionnelles et sociales.
It would be entirely pointless to have a democracy if the state was in charge of what people are to believe is ethical. That is a complete Egyptian Pharaoh type of governing, Priest-King totalitarianism. The state IS the religion.
What would be the point in voting?
… other than to find out who the dissenters are (as it is in the the USA now).
ALLOW, ALLOW. Not enforce. That is why I make the suggestion I did. If a women wants to respect the idiotic tradition of her own religion it is not for the state to say she shall not.
1 and 2 are not practically possible together. We have the same first article (my grandfather ‘locked it down’), It’s an issue of much contention. It is the naive presupposition required for a theoretical freedom that one persons religious freedom does not interfere with another’s civil liberties or religious freedoms. When this is not the case, the French state usually takes sides and does so very strongly.
You won’t get anywhere by just iterating isolated facts and trying deductive logics. Politics is a creative endeavor, always. The very existence of a constitution guaranteeing liberty is a contradiction in the deepest sense. This is why Islam has such an advantage - this is an explicitly human, rational process, not a pre-written reality. The judge is not, like the priest, a medium for the law, but rather the actual law.
Not at all.
Allowing a women to chose and to protect that decision is perfectly within the remit of the Article. What is not, is the law that prevents her from wearing a Burkha should she wish to do so.
I mean to say that within certain religions, there are rules that contradict these secular rules of equal stature and equal access. The Brqua is a very clear expression of such inequality. It’s not ‘fashion’, it’s a thing that is invented to restrict. It’s thus not ‘religious expression’ but a situation of harsh sexual oppression under the guise of religion. There are very many religious customs and expressions that we would consider naturally inappropriate, and one has to draw the line somewhere.
But that would not be incompatible, as long as the right of the individual to escape that tradition was maintained.
The difficulty comes with children where genital mutilation and religious indoctrination can abuse the body and mind of a young person before they are able to make informed choices.
For me, that is why I am set against all Faith schools, and religious instruction within institutions paid for by the state.
Do you mean to say that judge doesn’t produce the law, whereas the priest does? If not, i would have to disagree. The seperation of powers is one of those famous foundations of the french state. The judge only applies and interprets the law and has to keep within its bounds. Parliament makes laws.
I kinda agree that a lot of it leads to contradictions, but it’s not just a dead piece of paper. It ensures that people cannot be prosecuted in court for practising their religion. Maybe if you have a confict with another fundamental right… but even then i’m not so sure judges automaticly would rule in favor of the other right(s). What you’re saying, with the state imposing ethics, even seems to go a lot further.
