Latvia to ban Islamic veils

[Communist Xomaniax]

Only 40% of the people flooding into Europe are refugees. Line up ten of the illegals and more than half have no right to be here.

I really dislike the idea of the Migrants(people who come to Europe to make a new living.), but I think we should let in refugees.

As long as they don't harbor any extremist beliefs, obey the law, and assimilate, I agree. Failure should be punished by deportation and permanent banishment.

[Czervenika]

Even if there are economical immigrants, which I highly disbelieve, they'd still be running from a life of war, crime and violence. Europe, America, Canada and other countries should let as much refugees in as the budget allows and as long as borders don't overflow.

You know, this is a good point. Surely there's only so many refugees a country can handle. One of the main reasons I'm not so opposed to Canada taking them in is because we're actually underpopulated here. I mean it's the second largest country in the world and has only about as many people as the state of California.

However, if it was Germany or something then I would be a bit more wary. They're already pretty crowded there, having 80 million people or something.

[Socialist Tera]

People still wonder why I consider Socialist Latvia better than Capitalist Latvia. The only solution now is to restrict potato imports to Latvia. Kappa

[Ohioan Territory]

And, by the way, I'd like to hear your excuse for a German school banning miniskirts because they're afraid they might offend Syrian refugees. Absolute bull shit.

http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/europe/76383-150627-fearing-syrian-refugees-german-school-bans-miniskirts

That should've been banned in the 1st place.

You're continuing to make excuses. I don't care whether you think they should've been banned before refugees began coming into Europe. The fact is that they were banned, and the only motive was TO NOT OFFEND THE REFUGEES.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I really dislike the idea of the Migrants(people who come to Europe to make a new living.), but I think we should let in refugees.

As long as they don't harbor any extremist beliefs, obey the law, and assimilate, I agree. Failure should be punished by deportation and permanent banishment.

I agree with 2 of your "as long as": they shouldn't have any extreme beliefs and obey the law. Refugees shouldn't have to assimilate because that could bring multiculturalism. And I think your punishment too harsh. If they do something wrong, they should be tried and sentenced to jail time, not deported.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

That should've been banned in the 1st place.

You're continuing to make excuses. I don't care whether you think they should've been banned before refugees began coming into Europe. The fact is that they were banned, and the only motive was TO NOT OFFEND THE REFUGEES.

I'm typing that the reason they banned them was stupid, but the fact that they banned them was good.

[Crusader occupied mecca]

There are plenty of countries those three can go to if they want to keep wearing that garbage. Too many in fact. I welcome Latvia to the civilized world of the twenty first century.

[Vistulange]

I'm aware, and take no stance on what it was in reply to. You claimed you didn't bring up islamism, I pointed out that you did.

But you brought that last post from something else we were talking about. When I said "persecution's wrong", and he said (to the effect), "but if Islamists do it it's not", that's when I said that I didn't say anything about Islamism. In my "persecution's wrong" post.

Persecution is perfectly justified and correct when done to Islamists. Look at Turkey - 14 years of pseudo-fundamentalist, ultraconservative Islamist rule. Saudi Arabia is another hellhole. Iran is another. ISIS is the epitome. There is no reason to acknowledge Islamism as anything but a movement which seeks to restrict people at best and massacre them at worst, so why grant them any leniency?

[South Shellfort]

There are plenty of countries those three can go to if they want to keep wearing that garbage. Too many in fact. I welcome Latvia to the civilized world of the twenty-first century.

They can go back to their nations in the Middle East, not the ones where Christianism dominates.

Only Muslims nations can accept Muslim people.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

But you brought that last post from something else we were talking about. When I said "persecution's wrong", and he said (to the effect), "but if Islamists do it it's not", that's when I said that I didn't say anything about Islamism. In my "persecution's wrong" post.

Persecution is perfectly justified and correct when done to Islamists. Look at Turkey - 14 years of pseudo-fundamentalist, ultraconservative Islamist rule. Saudi Arabia is another hellhole. Iran is another. ISIS is the epitome. There is no reason to acknowledge Islamism as anything but a movement which seeks to restrict people at best and massacre them at worst, so why grant them any leniency?

Islamism is the process/ideology that seeks to be as Islamic as possible. Those examples you put up are not representative of Islamism as they don't interpret the Holy Qur'an right.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

There are plenty of countries those three can go to if they want to keep wearing that garbage. Too many in fact. I welcome Latvia to the civilized world of the twenty-first century.

They can go back to their nations in the Middle East, not the ones where Christianism dominates.

Only Muslims nations can accept Muslim people.

They left the Mid East for a reason, and the 2nd sentence is only true in present day, and even hen it's not the norm. Indonesia is predominately Muslim and they aren't as bad as the Middle East is.

[Vistulange]

Persecution is perfectly justified and correct when done to Islamists. Look at Turkey - 14 years of pseudo-fundamentalist, ultraconservative Islamist rule. Saudi Arabia is another hellhole. Iran is another. ISIS is the epitome. There is no reason to acknowledge Islamism as anything but a movement which seeks to restrict people at best and massacre them at worst, so why grant them any leniency?

Islamism is the process/ideology that seeks to be as Islamic as possible. Those examples you put up are not representative of Islamism as they don't interpret the Holy Qur'an right.

Islamism is an ideology which seeks to use religion as an excuse to empower the clergy and perhaps a monarchy. Islam, just like all other religions, is a lie, made up by mankind. The Qur'an was written by men and was spread by men. Thus, Islamism is only a means to power, and the bad thing about it is that it usually brings about rather unnecessary deaths and suffering.

So no, I'll stick with persecuting the fuck out of Islamists.

[South Shellfort]

They can go back to their nations in the Middle East, not the ones where Christianism dominates.

Only Muslims nations can accept Muslim people.

They left the Mid East for a reason, and the 2nd sentence is only true in present day, and even hen it's not the norm. Indonesia is predominately Muslim and they aren't as bad as the Middle East is.

So they can go to Indonesia.

[Ohioan Territory]

There are plenty of countries those three can go to if they want to keep wearing that garbage. Too many in fact. I welcome Latvia to the civilized world of the twenty-first century.

They can go back to their nations in the Middle East, not the ones where Christianism dominates.

Only Muslims nations can accept Muslim people.

Funny enough, Saudi Arabia hasn't taken a single Syrian refugee. Neither have multiple countries south of Syria and in the Arabian peninsula.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Islamism is the process/ideology that seeks to be as Islamic as possible. Those examples you put up are not representative of Islamism as they don't interpret the Holy Qur'an right.

Islamism is an ideology which seeks to use religion as an excuse to empower the clergy and perhaps a monarchy. Islam, just like all other religions, is a lie, made up by mankind. The Qur'an was written by men and was spread by men. Thus, Islamism is only a means to power, and the bad thing about it is that it usually brings about rather unnecessary deaths and suffering.

So no, I'll stick with persecuting the fuck out of Islamists.

2 questions- 1st: How would you persecute Islamists? 2nd: So you would persecute me?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

They can go back to their nations in the Middle East, not the ones where Christianism dominates.

Only Muslims nations can accept Muslim people.

Funny enough, Saudi Arabia hasn't taken a single Syrian refugee. Neither have multiple countries south of Syria and in the Arabian peninsula.

500,000 Syrians in that country (Saudi Arabia); Lebanon has accepted 1.3 million refugees -- more than a quarter of its population. Also, there's a reason why Saudi Arabia isn't letting in refugees, which I disagree with:
An overwhelming majority of the displaced Syrians are Sunni Muslims. Of the paltry 1,519 Syrians the U.S. has taken in since 2011, 1,415 were Sunnis. The Saudi population is also predominantly Sunni. There's a catch, however: Many Sunni areas of Syria have served as a base for the Islamic State, which the Saudi and U.A.E. air forces are helping to bomb. Islamic State is hostile to the Saudi regime, and it's important to them whether the refugees are fleeing Islamic State or the bombings.




Sectarian difficulties have already surfaced in Muslim countries that have been open to displaced Syrians, upsetting often fragile ethnic and religious balances. In Turkey, Syrians initially settled in the province of Hatay, which has a sizable Arab Alawite minority. The local Alawites weren't welcoming and the Turkish government made an effort to resettle the refugees. Elsewhere, it became clear that local Christian minorities were scared of the newcomers, too. Kurdish refugees, though Sunni like most Turks, were best directed to areas with bigger Kurdish populations. In general, the longer the refugees stayed, the more the locals resented them and perceived them as a threat.

In Lebanon, where the Sunni-Shia balance is especially fine, the authorities are afraid of further tipping it in favor of Sunnis, given the tendency of the Shia Hezbollah militias to react violently to any provocation. There are now visa restrictions in place for new arrivals and renewing residency has been made more difficult for those already in Lebanon.

In Egypt, which initially welcomed Syrians, the regime of president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi suspects the refugees of having links to the Muslim Brotherhood, which Sisi has vowed to eradicate, so entry has become more difficult and there have been deportations.

In the Gulf states, potential problems are complicated by the already large expatriate populations: In some of them, locals are outnumbered by workers from neighboring Arab states, India and Southeast Asia.

That's why, even though I'd still have refugees in the Gulf States though. Saudi Arabia's reason is stereotypical, so is Egypt's.

[Ohioan Territory]

Islamism is an ideology which seeks to use religion as an excuse to empower the clergy and perhaps a monarchy. Islam, just like all other religions, is a lie, made up by mankind. The Qur'an was written by men and was spread by men. Thus, Islamism is only a means to power, and the bad thing about it is that it usually brings about rather unnecessary deaths and suffering.

So no, I'll stick with persecuting the fuck out of Islamists.

2 questions- 1st: How would you persecute Islamists? 2nd: So you would persecute me?

Do you hold radical Islamist beliefs?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

2 questions- 1st: How would you persecute Islamists? 2nd: So you would persecute me?

Do you hold radical Islamist beliefs?

I forgot the source: Bloomberg. Now for your question, I support the Islamization of predominately Muslim countries and I support the Islamization in Western countries where there is a Muslim population (ex.: Islamic schools)

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Do you hold radical Islamist beliefs?

I forgot the source: Bloomberg. Now for your question, I support the Islamization of predominately Muslim countries and I support the Islamization in Western countries where there is a Muslim population (ex.: Islamic schools)

In fact, I'd support Islamization for Muslims, Christianization for Christians, Judaiztion for Jewish, Hinduization for Hindus, etc. And of course, Atheization/Agnosticization for Atheists and Agnostics.

[Scomagia]

Seems like a rather foolish gesture, to me. What is this ban supposed to accomplish?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Seems like a rather foolish gesture, to me. What is this ban supposed to accomplish?

Exactly. Latvia supports bigotry enacting this 'law'.

[Teemant]

Seems like a rather foolish gesture, to me. What is this ban supposed to accomplish?

People in Europe don't cover their faces in public and it helps to prevent religious radicalization.

[Scomagia]

Seems like a rather foolish gesture, to me. What is this ban supposed to accomplish?

People in Europe don't cover their faces in public and it helps to prevent religious radicalization.

The fact that an activity is not common is not a reason to ban it. How does it help prevent religious radicalization?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Seems like a rather foolish gesture, to me. What is this ban supposed to accomplish?

People in Europe don't cover their faces in public and it helps to prevent religious radicalization.

People who aren't Muslims don't cover their faces inn public. And how does this prevent religious radicalization? Seems to m it would boost it.

[Teemant]

People in Europe don't cover their faces in public and it helps to prevent religious radicalization.

The fact that an activity is not common is not a reason to ban it. How does it help prevent religious radicalization?

Because only most radical and fundamentalist islam versions ask women to cover their faces.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/12/21/as-muslim-women-we-actually-ask-you-not-to-wear-the-hijab-in-the-name-of-interfaith-solidarity/

Also this is a good article that talks about hijab. I'd recommend to read it.