NationStates

Insaanistan wrote:

Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana wrote:The usual sequence of events following a terrorist attack:

Attack happens

People start protesting and show solidarity to the victims

Certain people immediately jump in to call those showing solidarity Islamophobic xenophobes

The "NotAllMuslims" crowd jumps in and says the REAL oppression is happening to Muslims who didn’t commit violent acts, forgetting the fact that a good chunk of them, to some degree, defend these actions

Someone proposes a law or bill to the legislature

The usual suspects immediately start screaming about how said law is racist and promotes Islamophobia, causing the law to not pass

As a result nothing actually changes, and we wait for the next attack

Cycle repeats

Change that to Islamophobic bills get passed and Islamophobia increases greatly.

That’s not why islamophobia increases at all. Anti Islam laws don’t lead to islamophobia, the act of doing nothing while beheadings and other terror attacks happen increase it

Resilient Acceleration wrote:

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:
Islamaphobia isn't being against Islam though. That's just not supporting hate and bigotry. Islamaphobia is when you see someone who looks Muslim and automatically assume they're the bad guy. I can understand why people wouldn't be fans of Islam but I am concerned about people thinking Muslims in general as people are shitty people or even worse thinking that anyone who is Arab or looks Arab is the problem.

I think we should introduce the term "Muslimophobia" to differentiate between criticism of religion and unjust bigotry against groups.

The thing is it isnt a phobia to be afraid of a religion that supports things such as killing gays. Thats not irrational which is what phobias are. Whats irrational is fearing people because they look different or dress different. My view of Islam is like an atheist version of "love the sinner, hate the sin." I accept Muslims the same way I accept people who are right of center politically. I understand that people are three dimensional and not just characters with one personality trait.

Thermodolia wrote:

Insaanistan wrote:
Change that to Islamophobic bills get passed and Islamophobia increases greatly.

That’s not why islamophobia increases at all. Anti Islam laws don’t lead to islamophobia, the act of doing nothing while beheadings and other terror attacks happen increase it

There needs to be a two way street of understanding. People have the right to practice Islam and people have the right to not like Islam.

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:

Resilient Acceleration wrote:I think we should introduce the term "Muslimophobia" to differentiate between criticism of religion and unjust bigotry against groups.

The thing is it isnt a phobia to be afraid of a religion that supports things such as killing gays. Thats not irrational which is what phobias are. Whats irrational is fearing people because they look different or dress different. My view of Islam is like an atheist version of "love the sinner, hate the sin." I accept Muslims the same way I accept people who are right of center politically. I understand that people are three dimensional and not just characters with one personality trait.

Again, Islam doesn’t actually say that, but people do it anyway.

Thermodolia wrote:

Lost Memories wrote:That's the distorted modernist version of Laicity.

Laicity, or separation of church and state, is about separation of institutions, church institutions and state institutions.
It's about a bishop not being allowed to directly change state laws. And state politicians not being allowed to directly change religious laws.
It doesn't mean separation of religion and state, religious citizens can still take part in politics.

The French version definitely means separation of religion and state. So much so that crosses are not common on churches in France and instead the Republican symbol replaces it.

Also in France the government owns the majority of religious places of worship and not the religions themselves.
France makes it very clear that religion and the state are totally separate.

You are going by the American version which is less extreme than the French one

Aren't the underlined contraddicting themselves?
That looks like the state trespassing into religious matters and (literally) spaces.
Not really "separation", but "absorption/assimilation of religion into state".


An other, simpler, way to define laicity in its original sense is:
A religious authority can't also be a state authority: a bishop can't also be a judge, mayor, governor, or president, nor can appoint any of those roles.
A state authority can't also be a religious authority: a politician, president, king, mayor, etc, can't also be a bishop, nor can appoint a bishop.

I don't know the american definition, i'm using the first definition which did arise for historical reasons. Which said original definition is for the best of both parts involved.
Whereas the state biased version isn't equally balanced. It's just a mild replay of old european imperial habits. (which was the reason for why "separation of church and state", the original definition, became necessary)

It's worth noting that France has an extreme double standard on personal freedom, where essentially defamatory polemic against religion is considered acceptable but there's also a policy of enforced secularism which prohibits the use of religious attire in political settings and motivated them to ban the niqab and burkha. This makes them an ideal opponent for islamist nations in the Middle East, especially Turkey, which for a long time also had a policy of enforced secularism copied from the French, making them a particularly symbolic target for Erdogan's rhetoric.

Thermodolia wrote:Im not preventing people from practicing their religion. I’m just saying that when in public, meaning not on religious grounds, place of worship, or home, they can’t outwardly show that they follow a religion.

If that means they can’t practice their religion than tough shit

That's purely arbitrary and you know it. There's zero reason why people can't be openly religious in public.

Unless you really just can't handle little old ladies praying their rosaries on the tram?

Insaanistan wrote:

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:
The thing is it isnt a phobia to be afraid of a religion that supports things such as killing gays. Thats not irrational which is what phobias are. Whats irrational is fearing people because they look different or dress different. My view of Islam is like an atheist version of "love the sinner, hate the sin." I accept Muslims the same way I accept people who are right of center politically. I understand that people are three dimensional and not just characters with one personality trait.

Again, Islam doesn’t actually say that, but people do it anyway.

The text saying not to harm gays doesn’t really mean shit if the religion itself is still doing it regardless.

Salus Maior wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Im not preventing people from practicing their religion. I’m just saying that when in public, meaning not on religious grounds, place of worship, or home, they can’t outwardly show that they follow a religion.

If that means they can’t practice their religion than tough shit

That's purely arbitrary and you know it. There's zero reason why people can't be openly religious in public.

Unless you really just can't handle little old ladies praying their rosaries on the tram?

And yeah, the French approach to religion is a bit too neckbeard soyboy for my blood. I don’t like religion at all but dictating to people that they can’t wear religious garments in public is some bullshit.

Salus Maior wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Im not preventing people from practicing their religion. I’m just saying that when in public, meaning not on religious grounds, place of worship, or home, they can’t outwardly show that they follow a religion.

If that means they can’t practice their religion than tough shit

That's purely arbitrary and you know it. There's zero reason why people can't be openly religious in public.

We do a lot of arbitrary things like borders. If you complain about this being arbitrary why aren’t you complaining about how a line in the sand determines your citizenship and nationality.

Both of those are arbitrary.

Unless you really just can't handle little old ladies praying their rosaries on the tram?

People praying to themselves is fine. What’s not fine are those who make a massive scene

What i'm trying to say, in relation to the actual topic, i guess is:

The french conception of laicity is an historical regression. Away from a more equal and balanced relation between state and religions.
In the past the french did apply their model of state assimilation to their own parts, like occitania.
The christians, on average, are conciliable, so they can live up with a non-friendly state, so long there isn't actual violent persecution against them. Christians have a long history with being persecuted.

But the idea of french assimilation is going to see its limits being tested with the muslims. In a frontal way, as we are seeing.

If you want to look elsewhere in the world, where muslims are getting forcibly assimilated, you have China.
Now i don't think france will get there too, but the more mild attempts from china to assimilate their muslim population didn't work as they expected, so why would a more "civil" approach from france (compared to china) be more effective with muslims?

Thermodolia wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
That's purely arbitrary and you know it. There's zero reason why people can't be openly religious in public.

We do a lot of arbitrary things like borders. If you complain about this being arbitrary why aren’t you complaining about how a line in the sand determines your citizenship and nationality.

Both of those are arbitrary.

Unless you really just can't handle little old ladies praying their rosaries on the tram?

People praying to themselves is fine. What’s not fine are those who make a massive scene

Borders are not arbitrary, they're based in history and political policy. Well, unless you're in the Middle East or Africa.

So again, you're just being arbitrary. You just want the right to shut down people you don't want in the public sphere.

Lost Memories wrote:What i'm trying to say, in relation to the actual topic, i guess is:

The french conception of laicity is an historical regression. Away from a more equal and balanced relation between state and religions.
In the past the french did apply their model of state assimilation to their own parts, like occitania.
The christians, on average, are conciliable, so they can live up with a non-friendly state, so long there isn't actual violent persecution against them. Christians have a long history with being persecuted.

But the idea of french assimilation is going to see its limits being tested with the muslims. In a frontal way, as we are seeing.

If you want to look elsewhere in the world, where muslims are getting forcibly assimilated, you have China.
Now i don't think france will get there too, but the more mild attempts from china to assimilate their muslim population didn't work as they expected, so why would a more "civil" approach from france (compared to china) be more effective with muslims?

The problem with assimilation is that thus far, it's failed consistently. Muslims are now even less "French" than their fathers who migrated a couple generations ago. What can be done, I don' know, but French assimilation has not been taken seriously enough by the administration to work. Seriously, if they could commit a near-total cultural genocide of the Bretons in less than 50 years, they should have at least managed to make Muslims not stand out for their actions.

Salus Maior wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:We do a lot of arbitrary things like borders. If you complain about this being arbitrary why aren’t you complaining about how a line in the sand determines your citizenship and nationality.

Both of those are arbitrary.


People praying to themselves is fine. What’s not fine are those who make a massive scene

Borders are not arbitrary, they're based in history and political policy. Well, unless you're in the Middle East or Africa.

So again, you're just being arbitrary. You just want the right to shut down people you don't want in the public sphere.

Borders are arbitrary. They are just lines drawn in the sand. They might be lines that have been there for a long time but that doesn’t make them less arbitrary.

For example if 100 years ago someone just drove a stake into the ground and said that everything south of the stake is a different nation it’s pretty fucking arbitrary.

What was stopping people centuries ago from just drawing a new map that covered most of the world under their domain. Borders are arbitrary but there’s nothing wrong with arbitrary things

Ors Might wrote:

Insaanistan wrote:
Again, Islam doesn’t actually say that, but people do it anyway.

The text saying not to harm gays doesn’t really mean shit if the religion itself is still doing it regardless.

And red flags starts to flood when you question why nations that tried to fully implement Islam always descends towards 7th century backwardness, why regions under the influence of certain religions are mega hostile and homophobic against sexual minorities 100% of the times, to the point of throwing them off the roof. Maaybe the religious norms itself is instead part of the problem. Maaybe the holocaustic hate tirades preached and taught by the religion breeds Bad Things.

Lost Memories wrote:What i'm trying to say, in relation to the actual topic, i guess is:

The french conception of laicity is an historical regression. Away from a more equal and balanced relation between state and religions.
In the past the french did apply their model of state assimilation to their own parts, like occitania.
The christians, on average, are conciliable, so they can live up with a non-friendly state, so long there isn't actual violent persecution against them. Christians have a long history with being persecuted.

But the idea of french assimilation is going to see its limits being tested with the muslims.

If you want to look elsewhere in the world, where muslims are getting forcibly assimilated, you have China.
Now i don't think france will get there too, but the more mild attempts from china to assimilate their muslim population didn't work as they expected, so why would a more "civil" approach from france (compared to china) be more effective with muslims?

I think the problem is that the Muslim population isn't historically French. When Indonesia was fighting the expression of hardline Islam in the 1920's, the military dictatorship era, and in today's era, we find it easier because the fight comes bottom-up from ourselves, we deal with our own historical brethrens, while radical Islam itself is a foreign teaching contrary to our culture and thus its removal will be a return to the status quo.

Refugees are new people, radical Islam is the status quo for a lot of people, so bottom-up campaign against radical Islam is harder, in fact it's far easier for radical Islam to proliferate and generate a dangerous parallel society.

I'll be honest I dont much care for the French ban on Islamic garb, that said trying to turn the recent murder of a French teacher by an Islamic extremist into some kind of point about 'Islamaphobia' is just disgusting.

Thermodolia wrote:Borders are arbitrary. They are just lines drawn in the sand. They might be lines that have been there for a long time but that doesn’t make them less arbitrary.

For example if 100 years ago someone just drove a stake into the ground and said that everything south of the stake is a different nation it’s pretty fucking arbitrary.

What was stopping people centuries ago from just drawing a new map that covered most of the world under their domain. Borders are arbitrary but there’s nothing wrong with arbitrary things

Your ignorance of history is really shining here.

Borders have never been that arbitrary. Even in the Middle East and Africa's case where the borders are egregiously not representative of realities on the ground, they were created by foreign interests with said interests in mind. They were made to serve a real purpose, even if that purpose wasn't a good or constructive one in the long term.

In America's case that's definitely not true either. Our borders with Canada and Mexico are representative of historical realities and existed because of tangible differences in policy, values, government, ethnicity, religion, etc. Even if those historical realities are no longer relevant, that doesn't make the existence of these borders arbitrary.

And yes, there is plenty wrong with arbitrariness. Namely, the lack of justice in what's arbitrary, which is fine by you of course because you're literally advocating this point to strip people of their rights simply because you do not like them. That is what children do.

Resilient Acceleration wrote:Refugees are new people, radical Islam is the status quo for a lot of people, so bottom-up campaign against radical Islam is harder, in fact it's far easier for radical Islam to proliferate and generate a dangerous parallel society.

This. This does not only happen in France; but also Germany, The Netherlands and Belgium for example. I think another factor is that because a lot of immigrants from muslim countries tend to identify better with each other rather than their new adopted land, which in turn fails with proper immigration policies or clarity, these communities become even more closed.

The closedness of these communities are a breeding ground for ignorance and extremism and indeed, very dangerous parallel societies.

Genivaria wrote:I'll be honest I dont much care for the French ban on Islamic garb, that said trying to turn the recent murder of a French teacher by an Islamic extremist into some kind of point about 'Islamaphobia' is just disgusting.

The teacher (God rest his soul)’s murder isn’t a source of the claim on Islamophobia. Two Muslim women being stabbed in front of their children for it, however, is.

Resilient Acceleration wrote:

Ors Might wrote:The text saying not to harm gays doesn’t really mean shit if the religion itself is still doing it regardless.

And red flags starts to flood when you question why nations that tried to fully implement Islam always descends towards 7th century backwardness, why regions under the influence of certain religions are mega hostile and homophobic against sexual minorities 100% of the times, to the point of throwing them off the roof. Maaybe the religious norms itself is instead part of the problem. Maaybe the holocaustic hate tirades preached and taught by the religion breeds Bad Things.

Lost Memories wrote:What i'm trying to say, in relation to the actual topic, i guess is:

The french conception of laicity is an historical regression. Away from a more equal and balanced relation between state and religions.
In the past the french did apply their model of state assimilation to their own parts, like occitania.
The christians, on average, are conciliable, so they can live up with a non-friendly state, so long there isn't actual violent persecution against them. Christians have a long history with being persecuted.

But the idea of french assimilation is going to see its limits being tested with the muslims.

If you want to look elsewhere in the world, where muslims are getting forcibly assimilated, you have China.
Now i don't think france will get there too, but the more mild attempts from china to assimilate their muslim population didn't work as they expected, so why would a more "civil" approach from france (compared to china) be more effective with muslims?

I think the problem is that the Muslim population isn't historically French. When Indonesia was fighting the expression of hardline Islam in the 1920's, the military dictatorship era, and in today's era, we find it easier because the fight comes bottom-up from ourselves, we deal with our own historical brethrens, while radical Islam itself is a foreign teaching contrary to our culture and thus its removal will be a return to the status quo.

Refugees are new people, radical Islam is the status quo for a lot of people, so bottom-up campaign against radical Islam is harder, in fact it's far easier for radical Islam to proliferate and generate a dangerous parallel society.

Islam doesn’t preach hate of gays, but again, countless countries and rulers said, “Nah, screw that” throughout the centuries.

Insaanistan wrote:

Resilient Acceleration wrote:And red flags starts to flood when you question why nations that tried to fully implement Islam always descends towards 7th century backwardness, why regions under the influence of certain religions are mega hostile and homophobic against sexual minorities 100% of the times, to the point of throwing them off the roof. Maaybe the religious norms itself is instead part of the problem. Maaybe the holocaustic hate tirades preached and taught by the religion breeds Bad Things.

I think the problem is that the Muslim population isn't historically French. When Indonesia was fighting the expression of hardline Islam in the 1920's, the military dictatorship era, and in today's era, we find it easier because the fight comes bottom-up from ourselves, we deal with our own historical brethrens, while radical Islam itself is a foreign teaching contrary to our culture and thus its removal will be a return to the status quo.

Refugees are new people, radical Islam is the status quo for a lot of people, so bottom-up campaign against radical Islam is harder, in fact it's far easier for radical Islam to proliferate and generate a dangerous parallel society.

Islam doesn’t preach hate of gays, but again, countless countries and rulers said, “Nah, screw that” throughout the centuries.

Neither did Christianity, but...

Kandorith wrote:

Resilient Acceleration wrote:Refugees are new people, radical Islam is the status quo for a lot of people, so bottom-up campaign against radical Islam is harder, in fact it's far easier for radical Islam to proliferate and generate a dangerous parallel society.

This. This does not only happen in France; but also Germany, The Netherlands and Belgium for example. I think another factor is that because a lot of immigrants from muslim countries tend to identify better with each other rather than their new adopted land, which in turn fails with proper immigration policies or clarity, these communities become even more closed.

The closedness of these communities are a breeding ground for ignorance and extremism and indeed, very dangerous parallel societies.

This is the whole reason for the bill Macron’s government is trying to pass. I fully support it, of course, the segregation of Muslims from the rest of French society (and Muslims in other European nations) must be stopped. The people within these burgeoning parallel societies need to stop trying to separate themselves from their (if applicable: new) countrymen. I think we have this problem here in the UK, but I admittedly haven’t investigated it to the fullest just yet.

Albionist Great Britain wrote:

Kandorith wrote:
This. This does not only happen in France; but also Germany, The Netherlands and Belgium for example. I think another factor is that because a lot of immigrants from muslim countries tend to identify better with each other rather than their new adopted land, which in turn fails with proper immigration policies or clarity, these communities become even more closed.

The closedness of these communities are a breeding ground for ignorance and extremism and indeed, very dangerous parallel societies.

This is the whole reason for the bill Macron’s government is trying to pass. I fully support it, of course, the segregation of Muslims from the rest of French society (and Muslims in other European nations) must be stopped. The people within these burgeoning parallel societies need to stop trying to separate themselves from their (if applicable: new) countrymen. I think we have this problem here in the UK, but I admittedly haven’t investigated it to the fullest just yet.

The problem is in many ways Muslims are often basically told our choices are: leave Islam and conform to Western culture, or be separate and keep our culture and religion.

Insaanistan wrote:

Albionist Great Britain wrote:
This is the whole reason for the bill Macron’s government is trying to pass. I fully support it, of course, the segregation of Muslims from the rest of French society (and Muslims in other European nations) must be stopped. The people within these burgeoning parallel societies need to stop trying to separate themselves from their (if applicable: new) countrymen. I think we have this problem here in the UK, but I admittedly haven’t investigated it to the fullest just yet.

The problem is in many ways Muslims are often basically told our choices are: leave Islam and conform to Western culture, or be separate and keep our culture and religion.

There should be no "choices". You should have to conform to the culture of the country you're living in (if that means you have to leave Islam, leave it. If you can find a compromise, do that).

this will end in a shitshow will it?