Text 7579, 68 rader
Skriven 2010-05-05 09:07:36 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
   Kommentar till text 7561 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
Ärende: Belgium
===============
Roy Witt wrote to Robert Bashe on Tuesday May 04 2010 at 19:07:

[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.

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

RW> As in France, for their attire.

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

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

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 they
RB>> live in and its inhabitants.

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

No, I'm saying that people who intentionally make themselves visibly
conspicuous and identify with a group known for sometimes violent religious
extremism can't then turn around and ask to be treated like everybody else,
without preconceptions and without suspicion. People don't "assimilate" in a
society by making themselves visibly conspicuous, and that applies equally to
the attire and the language abilities - other things, such as the skin color
and racial characteristics (oriental) are simply facts that can't be changed
and are nowadays largely ignored.

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers, Bob

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613
 * Origin: Jabberwocky System - 02363-56073 ISDN/V34 (2:2448/44)