Switzerland's decision, by ballot initiative, to place a constitutional ban on the construction of minarets -- an architectural symbol of the Islamic faith -- ought to be intriguing to Americans on a number of levels. It's a reminder that Europe is not necessarily more enlightened than the United States -- and indeed may often be less so on matters of race and religion. It's a warning sign about the limitations of democracy by referendum. And it's a possible example of some sort of Bradley-type effect, since the initiative was considered an underdog in public polling but wound up winning somewhat overwhelmingly (57.5-42.5) at the ballot booth.
But the Swiss decision is also worth considering on its own merits. Ipso facto, the ban can be classified as an example of religious intolerance. But just what breed of intolerance is it? Does it reflect a sort of post-modern disrespect for religious practice in general -- people who basically wonder what all the fuss is about, and treat the ban as nothing more than another sort of building code? Or is it more about distaste for the Islamic religion in particular?
Switzerland is a moderately religious country; it has fewer athiests/agnostics (as a percentage of the population) than most of the "major" European nations, including Germany, England, Russia, France, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, and the Czech Republic, although it's a bit less religious than a couple of other countries, like Italy. According to official statistics, about 42 percent of its population is Catholic, 35 percent is protestant, 4 percent is Muslim, and 11 percent is nonpracticing.
For a small country, however, Switzerland is also fairly diverse, and this is where things get interesting. If we break the results of the referendum down by canton (province) and compare them against the number of nonreligious people in that region, we find a fairly strong relationship. The more religious the region, the more likely it was to support the ban:
The R-squared, for those scoring at home, is .57 -- which is reasonably strong. If we include another good predictive variable, which is the percentage of French speakers in a canton (Francophone regions were less likely to support the ban), we can improve the explanatory power of the model further, up to .80.
There may be variables other than religious and linguistic status at work here -- I can't exactly claim to be expert on the demographics of Switzerland. But it appears at first glance that this indeed reflects some degree of fear, dislike, or anxiety about Muslims -- and by Christians. In some ways, then, the analogy to American politics holds up, in which the religious right -- fairly or not -- is associated with intolerance, and sometimes xenophobia.
But it's also interesting to consider whether such a ban would pass in the United States. Suppose that the Muslim population were three to four times higher here, making it comparable to the levels in Northern Europe. Suppose that the Muslim minority had started to become a bit more assertive, generally deciding not to pursue a goal of integrating itself into society, and perhaps leading to some relatively minor, but much-ballyhooed, incidents of violence. Suppose that these adherents had started to build a fair number of minarets in smaller towns and suburbs. And suppose that some enterprising, right-of-center party had politicized the issue, and found some loophole by which such construction could be banned by ballot referendum without Constitutional challenge. Would such a ban win majority approval?
I don't know; respect for religious identity runs pretty deep here. Polling -- if it can be trusted on this issue -- suggests that Americans have more positive views of Muslims than do most Europeans. And Switzerland is a somewhat idiosyncratic country, with a historical tendency toward isolationism.
My guess is that the ban would probably fail -- although the hypothetical I've constructed contains some rather important differences from the status quo, placing Islam more literally on people's doorsteps.
Nevertheless, neither the Europeans nor the Americans would seem to have a monopoly on intolerance. And in contrast to something like homosexuality -- the body of evidence suggests that people become more tolerant of gays and lesbians when they have more exposure to them -- greater exposure of Islam into Western democracies (it has increased sevenfold in Switzerland over the past 30 years) may indeed breed contempt.
11.30.2009
Intolerance, European Style
by Nate Silver @ 8:39 AM...see also europe, international, religion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

195 comments
HERE'S THE TEST:
1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by:
a. Superman
b. Jay Leno
c. Harry Potter
d. A Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40
2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by :
a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davey Jo nes
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens , and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jo rdan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers.
Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
Who murdered 13 U.S. soldiers at Ft. Hood Texas in November 2009?
a. Michael Jackson.
b. Mother Teresa
c. Billy Graham.
d. A Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40
No, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you?
So, to ensure we Americans and Canadians never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone lest they be guilty of profiling.
Minarets have so far not killed any Swiss people, Mr. Stutter. Neither will building codes specifically targeting religious group prevent "Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40" from doing whatever they would otherwise do.
So perhaps you'd like to explain why your comment is relevant? Or is it just bone marrow reflex copy-pasta?
...some loophole by which such construction could be banned by ballot referendum without Constitutional challenge.
That's an untenable supposition.
Excellent post, Nate. And thanks, Mr. Korneliussen, for pointing out the obvious. Some folks are too blind to see it.
Yes, stop_the_stutter, anyone that answers (d) for question 1 is looking for Islam snakes, equating any male Arabic with "Muslim male extremist". Sirhan Sirhan actually shopped around (coverted to) Christianity (Baptist, Mormon), and even outside that a bit.
Yes, and Sirhan didn't just experiment with Christianity from a Muslim background. His family, like that of many Palestinians, was Christian.
Well done, Nate! I'd love to see your model thoough, b/c I suspect that rel. nonaffiliation correlates highly with rural / urban differences and, yes, francophone or German regions.
greater exposure of Islam into Western democracies (it has increased sevenfold in Switzerland over the past 30 years)
I doubt the hostility has much to do with religion at all... more with the knee-jerk human defensiveness that arises from a feeling of being invaded and overrun by a group of Others.
The Swiss reaction to Muslims is likely pretty much similar to the feelings about Mexicans in the southern US.
Nate:
Rather than religious intolerance per se, this vote is the product of demography and a battle of cultures which has been raging in Europe for years now.
The European culture is literally dying out. Euros have been reproducing at far less than the replacement rate for a generation now and their native populations will start shrinking as the boomers die off. At the same time, Muslims have been migrating in force from the Middle East and Africa and then reproducing at a rate that will nearly double their population every generation. The most common name for new children in the EU is Muhammad.
These demographic trends might not be much of a problem if Europe integrated immigrants into the dominant culture as does the United States. However, in many or most cases, the Muslim immigrants are living in a parallel culture complete with their own Sharia law, which is antithetical to European liberal values.
Under these conditions, the Muslim immigration appears to aging Euro populations as a demographic and cultural conquest.
The Swiss vote is not unique. Euro politicians running on anti-immigrant platforms have been gaining ground for years now.
Although it is a bit polemic for my tastes, Mark Steyn's "America Alone" does provide a good discussion of the data and the issue.
I can't help thinking that at least some of the people who voted for this amendment thought that they were casting a harmless protest vote for something which couldn't possibly win.
Opponents of the referendum were treating its loss as inevitable, and in fact didn't do much campaigning at all east of about Vevey.
All but one major political party and all of the churches had come out against it. I guess they thought most people would just go with it.
The US is fortunate to have a fundamental animating policy of religious pluralism. Any ballot initiative (or statute) like this would almost certainly be blown out of the water by our First Amendment.
This is of course HIGHLY relevant to the point Bart DePalma makes. If Europeans had been forced to actually accept all the implications of religious pluralism, even when the results were uncomfortable (oh no, otherwise modern women are wearing HEADSCARVES next to our CHILDREN!!!!), the kinds of parallel cultures now threatening their precious "Enlightenment cultures" would at least have been greatly slowed. It's a lot easier to assimilate when the legislature isn't actively targeting you for specially harmful treatment.
@Dvd Avins
I suspected that but was going off dusty old memory and couldn't quickly confirm it. Thanks for chimingin.
So yeah, stop_the_stutter.
Bart DePalma,
"America Alone" seems to be couched in the NA mirror of this fear in Europe? Because, no mistake, it's here.
I don't understand how this is religious intolerance at all. Muslims can still practice their religion regardless of whether they have a minaret. If anything, I think allowing one group to build a non-traditional building all over the country is asking for a special privilege.
Two points:
1. rc is dead on. There's a major cultural difference between the US and Europe when it comes to freedom of religion, thankt to our First Amendment.
2. I think the more appropriate analogy is with cultural integration of (especially Mexican) immigrants, where the right has been trying to make "English-only" rules. In the US, we won't discriminate against the religion of Mexican immigrants because it's the same as many non-immigrant Americans. In Switzerland, I'd expect that they're less likely to discriminate against language because (1) there isn't necessarily a single language being used by the immigrants and (2) Switzerland already has several official languages.
In both cases, I believe the root problem is an anti-immigrant position, and the things that get discriminated against are just symptoms.
"Suppose that these adherents had started to build a fair number of minarets in smaller towns and suburbs. " Right now, there are 4 (four) minarets in the whole of switserland, plus, the ban doesn't even affect these. It only applies to new ones.
I also would be carefull to draw analogies between christians in Europe and America, the Vatican and the Church leaders in Switserland were heavily opposed to the ban. The yaysayers from your polls are not Christians, foremost, but traditionalists and hence Christians. There is no new active Chistian political movement in Europe, no reborns, nobody is "finding Jezus", Christianity something attached to the ways and days of lore, it is something old and dying, and in the remote mountain villages of Austria and Switserland, it is slowest to perrish.
Apart from this, there in no european country spared from this surge of xenophobe parties, getting monsterscores in elections for more then a decade now. And there is no answer to this. As they rarely partake in actual government, they can not be proven wrong. When they do partake in government, and predictably implode in the proces (FPO in austria), their voters only remember this for one election, then their fear gets the better of them again. Fear is the easiest controller of the people, and there is no "unfear" button.
and "stop_the_stutter", what a selective list. Oklahoma? Anthrax scare? Unabomber? Waco? etc etc.
If anything, I think allowing one group to build a non-traditional building all over the country is asking for a special privilege.
I suspect this might have something to do with why this passed. Not the "special priviledge" detritus, but follow the money. Tourism is big in Europe and there is a certain "look" that they sell. This could be partially driven by have overriding building codes for the skyline.
Max: So nothing wrong with outlawing the use of crosses in church construction, then? They're not needed for worship, and I find the ones with a bleeding half-naked Jesus on them particularly disturbing and yet oddly homoerotic.
Or outlawing cross jewelry, for that matter. Not necessary for religious purposes, either. Who cares about self-expression?
What an embarrassment for Switzerland. A seventeenth century style legislation based on religious intolerance. They won't get my tourist dollars.
Of course, the illogical praise that this will receive from the bigoted right is an embarrassment to the US.
Banning a certain religious expression - for everyone, note, including the most native Alpine Swiss who may want to build a minaret - has no logical connection to either preventing terrorism, nor to increasing European birth rates.
Fortunately, here in the US, this type of thing would be absolutely banned by the most basic elements of our constitution.
ok, just a point: The most common name for new children in the EU is Muhammad, probably just because Muhammad is by faaar the most common muslim name, and each EU country has its own huge set of posible names.
So it's not so much that muslims are becoming majority, but that they don't put that much tought when naming a child
Max-
Keep in mind that Switzerland still allows the building of recognizably Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox and Jewish architecture. Only one group has been told that their most recognizable religious architecture is banned. If that group was the group you belong to you would have no trouble understanding how this is religious discrimination. If you replace "minaret" with "Star of David", can you imagine the (justified) cries of antisemitism? Only through supreme lack of perspective is is possible to not see that is intolerance.
@stop_the_stutter "No, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you?"
No, I see a pattern of profiling and selective memory. For example, you include the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, but not his older brother or Martin Luther King Jr., other assassinations that happened in the same time frame, as well as plenty of attempted assassinations of other important people. Sounds like cherry picking to me. Similarly, you exclude other terrorist attacks, like Oklahoma City and the Olympic Park bombing, and mass murder sprees. Again, you're cherry picking events that make your point and ignoring counter-evidence.
The largest difference between the United States and Switzerland in regard to this issue--at least at the federal level--is that the US constitution is specifically designed to prevent "mob rule." The framers were very worried about the implications of direct democracy, any especially their effect on the rights of the individual, so civil rights tend to be emphasized far more heavily in the constitution. That alone could likely defeat any sort of ban, since if one did actually pass, a Muslim group could appeal to higher federal courts, who would likely rule it unconstitutional.
As far as Europe goes, I understand that animosity against Muslims is quite high, and the cultural differences as well as the general association of Muslims with terrorists hasn't helped as well. But I don't know if banning Minarets will necessarily provide much solace to Europeans who feel that their culture is being stripped away. As extreme as it sounds, it may be better to better integrate cultural teachings in the classroom, much like the 'Americanization' policies practiced in the United States during the late 19th century.
I don't understand how this is religious intolerance at all. Muslims can still practice their religion regardless of whether they have a minaret.
It's not banning all religious symbols from buildings, just a muslim one. How is that not religious intolerance? It's singling out a single religion and taking rights from them, and not imposing similar restrictions on other religions.
If anything, I think allowing one group to build a non-traditional building all over the country is asking for a special privilege.
What makes a building traditional? Surely, if this is considered a muslim symbol, that would make it traditional for muslims. Should "non-traditional" mosques be outlawed next? How about synagogues or churches?
It's one thing to apply a law equally to all religions (a law banning all religious symbols on buildings, for example), but singling one out pretty much guarantees some kind of intolerance is occuring.
I'm reminded of Bart condemning liberals for misrepresenting right wingers as stupid and evil. This thread's first post is indisputable evil. Take a series of crimes and reduce the perpertrators only to their race or religion and use that to generalize everyone of the same race and religion. KKK spammers do the same thing on the readnews groups: they find some article about a crime committed by a black person and use it to peddle their own hate propaganda. For sure the Klansmen are jumping on the crime of that black guy shooting four people, just as "stop the stutter" is doing the same to those quiz's crimes.
Bart, do you really want to go there? Making such a big deal about birth rates reduces human beings to baby making machines.
Stop_The_Stutter -
Here's a test -
Oklahoma City Bombing was committed by -
1) Right wing bigots
2) Someone else
Last year, a security guard at the Holocaust Museum was gunned down foiling an attack by a -
1) Right wing bigot
2) Someone else
Matthew Shepard was massacred by, and his murder was celebrated by -
1) Right wing bigots
2) Someone else
The Atlanta Olympic bombing was committed by a -
1) Right wing bigot
2) Someone else
Long active as an outright terrorist organization, the KKK was (is) composed of -
1) Right wing bigots
2) Someone else
Come to think of it, Muslim extremist jihadi terrorists are themselves
1) A type of right wing bigot
2) Something else
If you didn't answer "1)" to every question, you fail.
Is there a pattern here which justifies profiling?
Stutter is right! If we did his profiling suggestion we could eliminate one crime every 3-5 years!
Crime problem solved!
We know that white men like John Wayne Gacy or Timothy McVeigh or Ted Bundy never commit murders.
As a (white) American hitchhiking around Europe decades ago, I was surprised at the number of racists I found. On the other hand, many of the people who expressed disgust with American racial intolerance were from countries which had almost no minorities themselves.
What I'm trying to say is that there seems to be a pattern to this. When a country has almost no religious or racial minorities, it's easy to be tolerant. But as minorities grow in number, so does bigotry. I imagine that's due to fear that their own nation will change and also the natural human tendency to blame the group when it's not YOUR group (i.e. if a white Christian commits a crime, he's just a bad individual; if he's a member of a minority, then that whole group is indelibly smeared by the incident).
To get away from this natural tendency, you need education and integration. If you live and work with people different from you, you'll get to know them as individuals. And one bad apple won't necessarily change your opinion of the whole bunch. If Muslims in Europe are not pursuing integration, then that's going to be a big problem. On both sides, feelings might stay as "us" vs "them," which will not help mutual tolerance.
Of course, radical Muslims are no more interested in tolerance of other faiths than bigots of any race or creed. In fact, they fear integration. And normally, moderate Muslims (as far as I know, there aren't any liberal Muslims, are there?) let the radicals get away with defining Muslims in general. Almost none support integration. I suspect that they have an inferiority complex. They don't really think that they can compete in a free and open society. Well, a number of religious groups - cults - are like that.
Hey, I know! Let's go build some churches in [pick one] Iran, Afganistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. We'll see how well that is received.
Fear over demographics always disturbs me.
Think about it. If demographics is a problem, how exactly do you solve that problem?
Outlawing abortion among white Europeans?
Forced pregnancies for white Europeans?
Ethnic cleansing to redistribute the demographics?
Forced abortions for muslims?
Genocide for muslims?
Think about it: There is no solution to a demographics problem that is not a crime against humanity.
Inkan1969 said...
Bart, do you really want to go there? Making such a big deal about birth rates reduces human beings to baby making machines.
Ummm... The first priority of a species or a culture seeking to survive is to reproduce. Generally, it is a higher priority than self preservation. This is not ideology, it is an indisputable mathematical imperative.
Folks on the secular left in the United States need to start thinking about this fact of life because they are in the same boat as the Euros.
Oliver said...
Hey, I know! Let's go build some churches in [pick one] Iran, Afganistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. We'll see how well that is received.
I think you just proved the opposite point than you wanted. Do we consider Iran, etc. to be backwards theocracies, or do we consider them to be democracies with freedom of religion? I'm puzzled as to why you're arguing for turning a western democracy into some place like Iran rather than the opposite...
And normally, moderate Muslims (as far as I know, there aren't any liberal Muslims, are there?) let the radicals get away with defining Muslims in general.
I know many liberal muslims, and they dislike being defined by extremists every bit as much as any other large group does. Like with all groups, muslims are far from monolithic.
Many groups have extremists within their ranks, but it's important to remember that while the most vocal tend to get the most attention, they don't necessarily (and in actuality probably rarely) accurately represent the group as a whole.
Oliver,
Iran Afghanistan and Pakistan have, though very small, Christian communities; there are already churches in these countries.
How does the saying go: Better to be silent and be thought of as a fool than to speak out and prove it?
Inkan1969 said...
Fear over demographics always disturbs me. Think about it. If demographics is a problem, how exactly do you solve that problem? Outlawing abortion among white Europeans? Forced pregnancies for white Europeans? Ethnic cleansing to redistribute the demographics? Forced abortions for muslims? Genocide for muslims?
Think about it: There is no solution to a demographics problem that is not a crime against humanity.
Abortion is a crime against humanity. Outlawing the killing of your children is both an ethical and for Europe a demographic necessity.
The Euros need not commit the actual crimes against humanity you listed to simply reproduce. Instead, they need to again make having children culturally vital and provide economic support for the raising of children.
BDP:
I 100% agree that killing children is a crime against humanity.
Luckily for those women who absolutely must make the choice, a clump of cells is not a child.
Sirhan Sirhan was not a Muslim, and if he ever was he certainly was never a very convicted one. If his motives are to be believed he was a proponent of Arab nationalism, which is the opposite of Islamist extremism.
The man convicted for the attack on Flight 103 was a Libyan intelligence officer, and Libya has explicitly claimed credit for the attack, likely in retaliation for attacks by western powers on Libyan patrol ships. Not seeing a connection to 'Muslim extremists' here.
In pretty much every example you give you seem to be confusing 'muslim extremism' with anger by Arabs directed at the west for secular grievances. The hijacking of the Achille Lauro was PLF protest of Israeli actions in Palestine. The seizure of the embassy in Tehran concerned populist anger towards America for supporting, protecting, and sheltering the shah. The Beirut attack is difficult to discuss without an understanding of the religious fragmentation unique to Lebanon, and wasn't just 'muslims being violent like muslims always are'. Nothing is as simple as you'd like it to be.
In Bart's outlook, humans have no humanity: they exist only to produce babies. Bart would turn human beings into livestock. For that reason his idea of outlawing abortion would be the true crime against humanity.
And actually, didn't Nicolae Ceusesceau carry out Bart's idea? He outlawed abortion to prop up the Romanian demographic. That dictator's act of banning abortion explicitly branded the mother's womb the property of the State.
And someone so against government run health care sounds ridiculous now demanding that economic support for raisng children be provided.
Bart, you really want to dehumanize religious conservatives by making that analogy to muslim demographics in your blog entry? By that reason, perhaps we should follow the Swiss solution and pass laws such as the prohibition of fundamentalist christian parishs beyond a maximum number. Or the banning of fundamentalist christian expression except in designated areas.
Just the obvious: In the history of civilization ;) more people have been killed/murdered in the name of religion than any other reason, not a close call ...
sooo indeed, profile Christians ie Protestants/Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.
btw Harold forgot Dr. George Tiller, who yes, was killed by a right-wing conservative extremist!
p.s. Be especially alert for Germans, Italians and Japanese, whose leaders were pursuing right-wing ideology/extremism during WWII and murdered a lot of folk and Americans, recently led by right wing extremist cheney/bush who killed many innocent civilians in Iraq.
America, the melting pot of extremists! :)
hey, before you abuse, criticize and accuse, walk a mile in my shoes ...
carry on
@WCG
(as far as I know, there aren't any liberal Muslims, are there?)
I suppose that depends on your definition of "liberal"? :) And whether you consider the two sitting US House Representatives that claim to follow Islam (one has self-described themselvs as a "Orthodox, universal, secular Muslim" (D-IL), and the other (D-MN) posed with the Koran for his swearing in. But I'd argue that yes, certainly as it applies to the US there are.
I find the rest of your post even more disturbing.
I'm curious why you report an R-squared value for a graph that has "% supporting Minaret Ban" on the X-axis (My understanding of your description is that it would be the dependent/response variable). Is the graph just backwards compared to the regression model?
stop_the_stutter:
I don't exactly follow where your test fits into this discussion. HOWEVER, I salute your inclusion of excellent alternative choices in your test.
Inkan:
I suggested options the Euros might consider to avoid dying off. This libertarian conservative would not necessarily want to adopt these measures in the United States.
The only legitimate laws are those that prevent one person from harming another. I believe that an unborn human being is a person and thus merits legal protection, you do not, so let's leave it at that. This is not a thread on abortion.
On the other hand, I would not waste tax money convincing the secular left in this country that reproduction is a necessity. Indeed, there is a certain Darwinian justice in allowing a culture which is too stupid to reproduce to die off.
I think Americans really are missing something when they consider this vote. American towns and cities are, with a few exceptions in New England, extremely new. They thus tend to be an assorted motley or different types of building and architecture. In Europe, particularly rural countries such as Switzerland, settlements have an architectural character that stretches back centuries. Putting in very tall towers with an architecture completely out of keeping with the place really ruins that character, especially when its something that stands out on the skyline. It would be the equivalent of building a modern skyscraper right next to Inca or Tibetan ruins. Note that it is NOT Mosques which have been banned - just minarets.
shiloh,
"In the history of civilization ;) more people have been killed/murdered in the name of religion than any other reason"
This is demonstrably untrue. The biggest slaughters have come from Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Leopold. These come from Communism, National Socialism and Belgian Imperialism respectively.
Well Oliver, I picked one, Pakistan.
what do you know, there are Churches in Pakistan. Plenty it seems.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/intolerance-european-style.html
In muslim countries
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=970006
Next time, do a little research.
Well Oliver, I picked one, Pakistan.
what do you know, there are Churches in Pakistan. Plenty it seems.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/intolerance-european-style.html
In muslim countries
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=970006
Next time, do a little research.
Ocho said:I think that killing you actually would be a good idea. If it were up to me, you'd be a dead motherfucker, you child-killing bastard.
Remember these four words, Pan.
I will kill you.
Wow. Just wow. Holy CRAP.
I know this is way off topic, but I don't think such a post should pass without comment. In fact I wish EVERYBODY would comment on it.
It seems to me the next election cycle is going to be about two things... abortion and immigration. The Republicans have little else to campaign on.
*Fiscal responsibility? Well, their copybook is pretty smudged there, isn't it.
*"Family values"? Most every high-profile Republican is eiethr adulterous or much-married or suspected of being gay.
*Racism? America has a black president who is personally well-liked by 75% of the populace.
*National security? You can't cry wolf forever. People are getting so wise to the manipulation of this issue.
So what has the GOP got left? The kind of ugly passion around abortion as expressed by Ocho, or the xenophobic fear of "Other" epitomized by the immigration debate.
Republicans can't win on fear and hate, but they can sure try. Put on your Hazmat suits, kids. This is going to be one ugly, toxic mother of an election cycle.
While I don't agree with the end result (religion, as big a fraud as I think it is, should be tolerated in all forms equally) I certainly understand the result of the vote.
I think it comes down to people being sick and tired of muslim extremism. Thats all we ever hear - I rarely hear moderate muslim voices and you can't blame all of that on the western/liberal press. If a religion espouses all that hatred and hostility as it main themes then all muslims will suffer this indignity. Thats reality - however right or wrong.
Filistro said,
"So what has the GOP got left? The kind of ugly passion around abortion as expressed by Ocho, or the xenophobic fear of "Other" epitomized by the immigration debate."
What about jobs, the deficit, gov't spending, and disagreements regarding the President's war policies? I think those are good things to run on as a Republican...
Hey folks, like me I am sure you are all waiting with baited breath Nate's follow up exposition regarding "ClimateGate"!!! He was so dismissive of it initially calling it a big nothing. Wonder if he still feels that way?
Also, have you all noticed that as Obama's policy (health carem spending, Afganistan, etc) approval ratings have crumbled NHate & Co.'s posting have veered towards the esoteric?
Like you, I look forward to tomorrow's posting by Tom regarding how much he hates reality TV (except under the right circumstances the show Say Yes to the Dress!) and another posting by Nate regarding the upcoming national vote in Liechtenstein on subsidizing universal day care for working mothers!!!
@Bart DePalma
The first priority of a species or a culture seeking to survive is to reproduce. Generally, it is a higher priority than self preservation. This is not ideology, it is an indisputable mathematical imperative.
And it can be achieved very easily by recognizing that a) even Muslims are humans too (therefore, part of the species) and b) the "human culture" matters more than any specific sub-culture (i.e., whatever WASP-ish culture you personally think is being endangered). With these two simple realizations, we can get rid of the bigoted intolerance masquerading as a "biological imperative" that you're advancing.
Folks on the secular left in the United States need to start thinking about this fact of life because they are in the same boat as the Euros.
And your point is..... ? America is founded on "secular left" principles, i.e., the idea of religious tolerance and freedom of thought, religion, association, etc.
I've asked this before, and still not gotten an answer, and I'm dead serious about it. These are basic American principles. Bart, why do you hate America? I truly want to know.
Thats all we ever hear - I rarely hear moderate muslim voices and you can't blame all of that on the western/liberal press.
No, part of the blame also falls on those who can't be bothered to find out for themselves what islam is all about. I assure you that extremist muslims are as representative of muslims as a whole as extremist jews or extremist christians are representative of their larger groups.
Go try and meet some muslims, and you will discover that they're not all the caricature that is painted by our media.
In my experience, the majority of muslims I have met are not only extremely productive members of American society, but are also more courteous and respectful of others than as whole compared to the jews and christians I meet. Despite this, they are still the most villified by the media.
Ummm... The first priority of a species or a culture seeking to survive is to reproduce. Generally, it is a higher priority than self preservation. This is not ideology, it is an indisputable mathematical imperative.
Mercifully Baghdad Bart is not doing his part to save the white race. He is childless. It is the only evidence I have seen that there is a God.
Does it reflect a sort of post-modern disrespect for religious practice in general...
I don't know why this would be post-modern. One of the classic characteristics of the post-modern is pluralism; it tends to acknowledge and presume diversity of religious practice. "Disrespect for religious practice" would, if anything, be associated with modernism - with such grand modern narratives as Marxism, or the universalist quasi-mysticism associated with Abstract Expressionism, for instance.
I suspect many, many people care deeply about this point.
@filistro
I agree with you on your reaction regarding Ocho's offensive and threatening post. Also on your analysis of the Republicans' / tesbaggers' likely campaign themes for the next cycle.
I didn't comment directly on Ocho because he (she? it?) is an obvious moron troll, hoping only to get attention for having made a comment that would be considered a verbal terroristic threat if made in person, and grounds for incarceration. Ocho isn't worth our time.
On the matter of upcoming Republican tactics - Walker responded that there are economic issues they could run on. But the conservative cure-all snake oil of tax cuts and deregulation isn't impressing anyone anymore. The current problems he mentions - unemployment, soaring debt - these were caused by those poison pills, and everyone knows it. As for the President's war policies - we'll find out what his Afghanistan policy is shortly, and we'll see where that is three years from now, I suspect the Recpublicans won't have much to complain about by then.
The climate emails? A total non-issue. There's no there there. The real "scandal" is the total desperation of the right wing, willing to twist anything in their effort to keep eyes closed and fingers in their ears when it comes to the unanimous consensus on the reality of the science of global climate change, "la-la-la, not listening!"
Anyway, on topic, I think you're right, filistro, the Repubs are going to be all about religious and racial hatred in the next cycle, and will use "abortion" as a cover for their religious extremism, and "immigration" as a cover for their racism - and both will be proxies for their attacks on Obama, who is not only black, but is, as we all know, a secret furrin muslin terrier.
@ocho
Are you completely nuts ???? Go bang your head against a wall you fruitcake and leave us alone.
@Bart
I may be wrong on this but I think the Europeans have very generous family leave options (much more than here anyway).
And as an Indian the irony of equating ignorance with lack of reproduction is definitely not lost on me.
@ Walker
Wait a minute. After eight years of war, government spending and deficit enlarging, the Republicans are now anti - war, anti-government spending and anti-deficit ? Or maybe it was all Bush and the rest of the Republicans were either a) too dumb or b) too scared to stand up against him.
Nice try.
Nate -
Death threats are unacceptable.
Get the death threat off your site and ban the pathetic creep.
I haven't reported it, because it isn't credible or specific.
Please don't leave it hanging there.
Dem_in_Virginia,
I think it will be foolish to tun against Bush in the upcoming elections. You can try but I think that will be a losing strategy.
Obama is making the macro-economic problems WORSE through his policies, i.e., TARP, Too Big To Fail, his 'Stimulus' package (which as proven to be a huge failure), etc.
This is giving the Republicans the opportunity to reclaim true, old-school, fiscal conservatism and this is a great thing.
shrinkers said...
@Bart DePalma The first priority of a species or a culture seeking to survive is to reproduce. Generally, it is a higher priority than self preservation. This is not ideology, it is an indisputable mathematical imperative.
And it can be achieved very easily by recognizing that a) even Muslims are humans too (therefore, part of the species) and b) the "human culture" matters more than any specific sub-culture (i.e., whatever WASP-ish culture you personally think is being endangered).
Pray tell, what do you consider to be the elements of the "human culture" and where is this culture practiced?
WASPs are "anglo saxon protestants." We are speaking about European culture in general and Swiss culture in particular. WASPs have next to nothing to do with the subjects at hand.
BD: Folks on the secular left in the United States need to start thinking about this fact of life because they are in the same boat as the Euros.
And your point is..... ? America is founded on "secular left" principles, i.e., the idea of religious tolerance and freedom of thought, religion, association, etc.
My point is that the American secular left is dying off because it is too stupid to reproduce. We can leave a discussion of the myriad of ways the modern secular left has abandoned the founding principles of the Republic for another day.
Ocho -
I shouldn't engage a sick creep like you, but for the sake of others, I will point something out.
The hypocrisy of trying to justify your sadism by claiming to be defending the lives of embryos and fetuses is nauseating.
There are plenty of people I respect who have a personal moral objection to abortion.
There is no coherent values system which condones the vicious murder of adult human beings in the name of sanctity of human life.
@Walker
I think it will be foolish to tun against Bush in the upcoming elections. You can try but I think that will be a losing strategy.
I think you missed the point. The Republicans have proven they're incapable of running the country without destroying it. When they had the chance, they mucked things up worse that at any time in living memory. For them to now pretend they'd allofasudden start being responsible is laughable at best.
DEM_in_Virginia said...
@Bart: I may be wrong on this but I think the Europeans have very generous family leave options (much more than here anyway).
Many countries do. However, they do not begin to make up for the cost of raising a child on what little is left after taxes are paid.
And as an Indian the irony of equating ignorance with lack of reproduction is definitely not lost on me.
The happy median in reproduction is an average of 2.1 children per female, which replaces the population. Exceeding that level is OK so long as you have the resources to support the added population. Not meeting this level is population suicide.
Bart, you didn't answer my question. Clearly, you don't like American tolerance for varying points of view, for intermixing of cultures, for individual freedoms of conscience and of religion. But these are the things America was founded on. Why do you so hate America?
Walker:
The republicans have nowhere to run against Obama on jobs since their only proposal was to cut taxes, which happened. I guess they could complain that Obama isn't magical in that the simple act of him bieng in office didn't create millions of new jobs, but that's not a very compelling argument. Spending and deficits aren't compelling on their own in an economic downturn. Also, it's interesting that you predict that the GOP would disagree the president's war policies dispite him not announcing any yet, as if they transparently use the military as a political pawn... hmm... HMMMMM
Also, regarding the alleged "climategate", if you go and actually look at the Nature article that is referred to in the hacked email that Nate wrote his earlier article about, there is no there there. Granted, other emails in the bunch that were hacked reveal that the scientists exerted undue pressure where they shouldn't have, which is clearly unethical and against academic/scientific principles, there is no evidence that they at all made up any data or even misrepresented the implications of data. It's not a big nothing, but as far as having any meaning for climate research at large, it is nothing.
shrinkers said...
Bart, you didn't answer my question. Clearly, you don't like American tolerance for varying points of view, for intermixing of cultures, for individual freedoms of conscience and of religion. But these are the things America was founded on. Why do you so hate America?
You inadvertently stumbled upon the point I was making in my first post.
Sharia does not accept the European liberal ideals of tolerance. Instead, it is the law of a theocracy. There is a fundamental war of cultures going on in the EU.
In America, our belief in tolerance is enforced. Sahria is not recognized as law and acting against others under the precepts of Sharia is often considered a crime.
You fundamentally misunderstand the principle of tolerance. Tolerance means that all members of society are prohibited from harming others simply because they disagree with their beliefs. Tolerance is not the multi-cultural fallacy of considering all beliefs- even intolerant beliefs - to be equally acceptable.
Bart, you still didn't answer me, but rather you tried to distract into other areas. My question wasn't about Europe, it was about you. Why do you hate America?
@Bart
My point is that the American secular left is dying off because it is too stupid to reproduce.
LOL. Fortunately the "secular left" will be just fine provided that the part that is "to stupid to figure out how to use contraceptives" doesn't manage to plunge the country/world into the dark ages.
Because the "secular left" is created by direct, daily exposure to accurate information and a wide variety of viewpoints and people. Do you hear that sound, Bart? That is the drumbeat of the information revolution coming, even to your little hick-hidy-hole in the Rockies.
You fundamentally misunderstand the principle of tolerance.
From the guy that talks about different cultures as though they were different species???
How very odd religious people are. You all will fight over the name of your god, which none of you have any proof even exists. The wearing of an item of clothing can be cause for much consternation in your communities. The construction of architectural features is cause for a ballot initiative.
And the justification for this-whether it's Catholics vs. Protestants in Northern Ireland, or Muslims vs. Jews in Gaza, or Muslims vs. Christians in Geneva, it's all the same. You all declare how wonderful and open and accepting you are, except that you don't want someone to 'rub your nose in it' when it comes to their personal beliefs.
And you all do it to each other, and you all protest how unjust it is when others do it to you, and how necessary it is when you do it to others. Every one of you thinks you have some supernatural entity endorsing your side of the fight, and the other side is an infidel. From the Crusades to forced conversions to the Inquisition to the 'security fence' around Jerusalem, you,re all quite mad. Every one of you thinks you worship a god of love, but what god of love would order you to kill each other so wantonly?
Sure, go ahead and ban the minarets. Ban the chapels, cathedrals and synagogues while you're at it. None of your religions make any sense to me. I think you'd be happier without any of them.
At least then, you,d stop arguing over which one is the One True Way.
Gotta love those Republicans, eh?
They believe in God, Love, the Bible and the American Way... and if you disagree with them, they'll damn well KILL you.
Oddly enough, they don't see this as being at all contradictory or oxymoronic.
I wish one of them, just once, would explain how they differ from the Taliban. Because to me, it looks like the same mindset. At every Republican website I visit nowadays there are discussions about the necessity of forcing a personal religious morality on others, and more or less overt suggestions that unwelcome election results should be overturned by force.
BartDP... care to tackle that one for me? In what way, really, does modern Republican ideology differ from the way the Taliban thinks?
Communist, capitalist or terrorist-swear to god, I don,t know the difference.
You know how I can tell when somebody's gone completely off the rails? JD Talmon said it best in his book, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy
"The essential difference between the two schools of democratic thought as they have evolved is not, as is often alleged, in the affirmation of the value of liberty by one, and its denial by the other. It is in their different attitudes to politics. The liberal approach assumes politics to be a matter of trial and error, and regards political systems as pragmatic contrivances of human ingenuity and spontaneity. It also recognizes a variety of levels of personal and collective endeavour, which are altogether outside the sphere of politics.
The totalitarian school, on the other hand, is based upon the assumption of a sole and exclusive truth in politics.It may be called political messianism in the sense that it postulates a preordained, harmonious, and perfect scheme of things, to which men are irresistibly driven, and at which they are bound to arrive. It recognizes ultimately only one plane of existence, the political. It widens the scope of politics to embrace the whole of human significance, and therefore as falling within the orbit of political action. Its political ideas are not a set of pragmatic concepts or a body of devices applicable to a special branch of human endeavour. They are an integral part of an all-embracing and coherent philosophy. Politics is defined as the art of applying this philosophy to the organization of society, and the final purpose of politics is only achieved when this philosophy reigns supreme over all fields of life."
Be wary of anyone that tells you they want to completely transform you. The only true liberation that exists is when you liberate yourself. Have no messiahs, no gods, no prophets-be a light unto your own self.
Have no heroes.
Until he is vanquished, I will hate America and what it is becoming.
One of the major things that initially set America apart from the rest of the world was the fact that our leaders peacefully hand power over to the next elected successor, no matter how much they disagreed with their politics. So, what you propose is not only wholly un-tasteful, but wholly un-American. Political control via violence is about as un-American as you can be.
So, do us all a favor, and emigrate already. We don't need you, and we won't miss you.
Statler, I was going to say you're my hero, but I guess I'd better not...
Seriously, I think that's a very insightful passage. Thanks for sharing it. It does appear to describe well two different approaches to politics, and the reasons why a) conservatives feel justified in putting government into the bedroom, and b) liberals are comfortable with striving rather than imposing.
I can't recall who it was that said, "Republicans don't want to govern - they want to rule," and I think that encapsulates it as well. Liberals govern. Conservatives rule. The idea of "limited government" is actually what the liberals want - it is the Republicans who insist on making the government intrude upon everyday life, wanting to control what we think, how we live, how and what and whether we worship, what we say and paint - and, most importantly, what happens to their money. Liberals want to have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, a government that promotes life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, promotes the general welfare, provides for the common defense, and secures the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
filistro said...
BartDP... care to tackle that one for me?
Don't hold your breath on him tackling the tough, inconvient questions by any other means than defecting or outright ignoring.
For example he's still to post a single word explaining why he shouldn't be assumed to be a lying bag of shit that, that nothing he says should be considered to come from him in good faith.
Robert... the views expressed by our resident creep are not as far out as they seem. In fact, if you surf around to enough Republican sites, you'll see that they are almost becoming mainstream.
Michelle Bachmann, frequently mentioned as a presidential candidate, says "real Americans" should be "armed and dangerous" and ready for "revolution." Sarah Palin also uses dog-whistle words like "real Americans" and "revolution."
You can find stuff like this everywhere on the Web, and it doesn't even sound all that ridiculously overblown anymore.
Republicans seem to be growing disillusioned with these pesky, bothersome elections. They're beginning to discuss other ideas... either secede, or succeed through force.
Ocho-
Please stop. You're either a lib troll or about the most hateful Repub I know. You're not bringing anyone to your cause.
Obama is not worth any hate. He's Carter with charisma. Once Repubs win Congress in 2010, his presidency will effectively be over. Just be patient. The American people are figuring it out.
Bart De Palma…
Your posts about Europeans and Americans maintaining racial purity smacks a little of Hitler, don’t you think?
If draconian measures such as you suggest had been in place for the past hundred years or so, we wouldn’t have had the immense influx of immigrants from eastern and southern Europe to taint our gene pool. Specifically, we wouldn’t have to put up with vile, verminous and ignorant Italians, such as the De Palma clan, among the worst of the bunch, the kind who take all they can from this country then turn around and pollute the gene pool.
If “WASPs only” had been the rule, you’d be squeaking your complaints today from somewhere in Italy, and we wouldn’t have to listen.
@filistro
They may not be far out or as un-popular as they should be, but the fact remains that they are inherently un-American values. George Washington made his most significant contribution to the American way on the day he peacefully stepped down from office, and it dwarfs every other accomplishment he had made.
I haven't seen anyone talk about the call to prayer that his sounded from the minarets. That's what a minaret is for, right? Are prayers being played from these minarets.
I visted Turkey once and 5 times a day there were very loud speakers all over the city that played the call to prayer.
Hearing Islamic prayers over loud speakers 5 times a day in the streets is a very different thing than just having tall towers around town.
The thing that worries me most about religion, especially Western religions, is the idea of faith itself.
Christianity, Judaism, Islam, they all make up these bizarre stories that nobody in their right mind aught to believe. Talking snakes,hanging out in the belly of a whale, dead guy on a stick flies to the sky, desert warlord flies across thousands of miles in a single night to multiple locations-without an airplane?
And it seems like they do this just to test how much of a sucker you are. They make it admirable to suspend your natural sense of critical reasoning-that thing which has kept us alive as a species for so long-and buy into it to the point where you're willing to kill yourself over whether some sexless old drag queen in Rome is infallible or not, whether one guy aught to have been the Caliph over a thousand years ago or not, and whether it's okay to drive a car on Saturday morning or not.
You're all nuts. None of that crap is worth dying over. They're stories, you dig? Just like Aesop's Fables. Nobody's going to pick up a gun and start shooting at people who claim the tortoise didn't outrun the hare. And people that fixate on the characters in the story miss the point of the story, anyway.
What, did you think Little Red Riding Hood was about a real wolf? Come on, you gullible schmucks! How in the hell did you make it out of kindergarten?
Ocho said...
but I'll stand tall and admit that I hate America. I hate what it is becoming. And I'll tell you why. It's because we are increasingly living under the tyranny of a socialist dictatorship with Barack Obama as president.
He is a despot, and the first chance some brave soul gets to take him out, they should do just that. He is a mortal enemy of the state and should be treated as such.
Until he is vanquished, I will hate America and what it is becoming.
~~~~~~~~~~
Well, at least one is an honest conservative right-wing extremist bigot, unlike most of 538 winger, yahoo I hate America, especially Barack Hussein Obama trolls who won't admit their hatred re: an African/American family living in the White House.
... and the truth shall set you free!
btw Ocho, redstate, freepertopia and malkin, etc. have a home for you on the net as you would fit right in ...
Prag:
Spare me the gratuitous use of the race card. We are talking about the cultural conflict between European liberal society and Sharia.
BTW, you apparently are ignorant of the fact that Muslims come in every shade of human color on the planet - from lily white Bosnians to black Sudanese.
@Bart DePalma
We are talking about the cultural conflict between European liberal society and Sharia.
No, we're not talking about culture, Bart. We're talking about religion. If the question was about culture, the Swiss would have instead passed some law about behavior. They didn't - they mandated against a religious structure.
But you did hit on the point here - how intolerant people confuse things like culture and religion, and how easily they will use "cultural" arguments as a cover for imposing their religious convictions onto others.
I think you finally answered my question, though, about why you hate America. Perhaps it is because America is a left-of-center secular nation, rather than a rightwing theocracy?
Statler,
Nice channeling of Richard Dawkins. Your quaint “Grimm’s Fairy Tales” analogy was pointed and effective…back in the early 20th century when Bertrand Russell first used it. As it says in the book of Ecclesiastes, “There is nothing new under the sun.”
Another question. President Obama himself describes himself as a Christian. Is he a believer in fairy tales too, someone that should be ridiculed by the likes of you or is that a treatment only left open for religious people with conservative, right-leaning political views?
Regarding faith, particularly the Christian faith. People are free moral agents, free to believe, or not believe, whatever they want. I personally find it amazing that within scripture
We find things like this:
Galatians 4:6-7
New International Version (NIV)
“6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and
since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.”
I am no Bible scholar but I it’s my opinion that Galatians 4:6-7 is simply the most amazing (and radical) statement ever put to paper.
Think of how unique the above scripture is just in light of comparable religion. The God of the Universe stating to his creation that He considers us not only adopted sons people brought out of slavery, but also literal co-heirs!
I challenge anyone on 538.com to find anything this powerful in religious, political, economic texts, in any language, published in any time period.
To me politics is a hobby. It’s interesting but rarely truly transcendently important. My faith is the cornerstone of my life, immovable, unchangeable truth with a capital T. I encourage all readers of this site to develop and nurture a spiritual side. At the very least it will broaden your perspectives.
brian -
Ocho-
Please stop. You're either a lib troll or about the most hateful Repub I know. You're not bringing anyone to your cause.
Wow, a rare instance of a conservative criticizing ANYTHING that is anti-Obama.
For this alone, you are significant step above BDP, Walker, MR, and all the other douchebags who snickered and let it go.
But you can do better.
Obama is not worth any hate. He's Carter with charisma. Once Repubs win Congress in 2010, his presidency will effectively be over. Just be patient. The American people are figuring it out.
What if Republicans don't win in 2010? What if Obama is re-elected?
Have you got the balls to say that vicious threats against the President of the United States are ALWAYS cowardly, treasonous and despicable?
I didn't like GWB, but I never threatened to assassinate him, nor had anything conciliatory to say to anyone who did.
Can you go one step further, and meet a minimum standard of decency?
@Robert
They may not be far out or as un-popular as they should be, but the fact remains that they are inherently un-American values. George Washington made his most significant contribution to the American way on the day he peacefully stepped down from office, and it dwarfs every other accomplishment he had made.
A vital comment. The importance and value of America is precisely that - we can have a revolution every four years (and within the span of every six years we replace every single elected government official) without a single drop of blood being shed.
I think, in the end, that's what conservatives really don't like about America. They want the assurance of being able to rule in perpetuity, unquestioned, regardless of what they do, rather than having to justify themselves every so often, and risk being thrown out of office - peacefully, no less! - when they screw up.
That's why religious considerations - such as the minarets on mosques - matter so much. They are a symbol of freedom, of the right to be different, something that conservatives really can't tolerate.
Bart DePalma said...
We are talking about the cultural conflict between European liberal society and Sharia.
Are we really? Well stop_the_stutter certainly seems confused about that. He's talking about Arabs. ;)
You certainly seemed to be confused about "European liberal society". As there are decidedly different different segments of society within Europe. Remember that the Swiss, by stubbornly remaining "neutral", did not experience the same purging of hawkish, conservative, inward looking families as France and Germany. Their xenophobia, if anything, became more stark in contrast against the rest of Europe.
Also I'm pretty sure someone further up mentioned the "American secular left"? But maybe you aren't confused at all. Maybe this is just you being a lying bag of shit, again? Trying to muddy the waters and sprinkle in a little of Crazy Charles' Greater Theory of Earth Running Out Of People along with a little racial hatred.
Because culture isn't set at conception. Only race is.
Statler... I like your analogy about people killing each other over whether the tortoise really beat the hare. Unfortunately, ridicule is wholly lost on ideologues. They all seem essentially humorless, though I've never seen any studies on causation. Does a rigid ideology appeal to humorless people... or does adherence to such an ideology sap all the wit and warmth from people?
(Apropos... has anybody ever known Bart DP (who seems like quite an intelligent person) to make a JOKE? If so, I must have missed it.)
Anyhow, Jonathan Swift addressed this very issue almost 300 years ago... but his ridicule had no effect on the wingers of his day, either:
Commentary by Oleksandr Shepotylo
Source: Ukrainian Observer
Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift is one of my favorite books. It has many allusions to the political situation in 18th century Europe described in a genre of political satire. One of the major themes in the book is the so-called egg dispute between the Lilliputians who preferred cracking open their soft-boiled eggs from the little end, and Blefuscans who preferred cracking the big end.
Deep ideological differences between Big-Enders and Little-Enders even led the countries into war against each other. Lilliputians and Blefuscans could have benefited greatly by ending the war and engaging in free trade to their mutual benefit.
However, the issue that was irrelevant for economic development plagued their relationships and considerably reduced potential for economic growth and prosperity. The seemingly ridiculous and artificial example of the egg dispute illustrates a very deep problem faced by many nations over and over again: ideological differences often prevent political parties from reaching a consensus over mutually beneficial economic policies.
Let me see if I can put Bart's arguments in other words.
There is a difference between Cultural assimilation, and Cultural diversity.
Cultural assimilation (AKA "The Melting Pot) is what occurred in the US from 1600 till today. Sometimes the cultures took a while to break down, but eventually, most of them did. The key thing here, is TIME, and smaller cultural groupings.
Cultural "Diversity" is when you have 2 or more separate cultures that aren't readily mixing. This can happen often, and it happens more often between either more wildly separate cultures, larger blocs of cultures, or a particularly cohesive minor culture, that resists being broken down into the major culture.
When you have 2 or more cultures, you have inter-cultural conflict. The more different the cultures, the larger the conflict. It's not intentional, but different cultures will express pleasure or displeasure at different traits. For example, Sharia cultures tend to be displeased with minimally clothed females, whereas, Western cultures find them fine.
The article you linked failed to mention that the ban was actively supported by radical feminists. I was confused by the omission, as I had learned of the issue from a similar story at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6936267.ece
How does this affect your analysis?
Pat said: When you have 2 or more cultures, you have inter-cultural conflict. The more different the cultures, the larger the conflict.
Not necessarily. America has espoused the "melting pot" approach to culture, while Canada favors the "mosaic" view.
Canadians don't press others to assimilate. They are quite accepting of different styles of dress, worship, diet, learning, etc... and there's not much conflict at all over cultural differences.
Why is this? I don't know... but I suspect it has something to do with the fact that Canada is primarily a secular rather than a religious nation. A 2004 Gallup poll said that less than 10% of Canadians say they are "born again" while 45% of Americans use that term to describe themselves.
Religious conviction, it seems, does not really lend itself to tolerance and inclusiveness.
@Walker -
I am a very religious person. But I don't subscribe to your religion. My gods are not your god. I would rather not be claimed by your god - or by his followers - as being a son, even an adopted son. So no, it isn't loving. It's presumptuous and arrogant.
Further, that line (and others like it) has been used as an excue for religious persecution and intolerance - as if your religion has the right to convert others, by the sword if necessary, since your god has already supposedly claimed them.
No thank you. That passage was written by a man - Saul of Tarsis, later called Paul - who was himself a hateful bigot. I find nothing of comfort there. I find, instead, a rather typical example of the sort of intolerance and bloated claims that religious extremists of all stripes are wont to make.
And no, it is not particularly amazing, or radical. It is, in fact, rather typical. Far more powerful is the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, or the Bill of Rights - documents which helped to reign in the absurd arrogance of statements like Paul's.
You know, folks, the kind of stuff Ocho is saying (about abortion, minorities and the vital importance to the nation of removing Obama, by assassination if necessary) appears ALL THE TIME at websites like Free Republic.
The moderators used to scrub the offending posts but they are becoming so frequent that it's hard for site management to keep up anymore.
Welcome to the seamy underbelly of American politics. It's scary ugly out there. No wonder the party crashers at the White House were so alarming to so many people.
Ok, its official, Ocho is a lib troll.
Yes, violence is never warranted. We get elections every 2 years, which people forget.
Last I checked, term limits was a Repub idea. So much for ruling in perpetuity. And I certainly don't remember Bush going after CNN like Obama goes after Fox....so much for "unquestioned".
Ocho is a "lib troll"? I think not.
brian, I can find 50 similar posts to Ocho's over at Free Republic on any given day, posted by people who have been dedicated Freepers for years.
But I'm really not surprised you'd choose to hang out here with tolerant, literate, well-rounded people. Your own party's base is not nearly as appealing.
@brian
Last I checked, term limits was a Repub idea.
Yup. They come up with this idea every time the Dems are in the majority, and then drop it again immediatly when the Repubs get back into power. They're not serious about it, they use it as a cynical and manipulative political tool, nothing more.
As you said, "We get elections every 2 years, which people forget." We already have term limits. It's called the ballot box.
And I certainly don't remember Bush going after CNN like Obama goes after Fox....so much for "unquestioned".
Bush didn't have to. He had most of MSM doing it for him. CNN was almost as toadying toward Bush as Fox is. (Perhaps you meant MSNBC?)
Bush and Co. manipulated the media brilliantly. And by the way, have you never heard the right wing drumbeat about the "liberal media"? They constantly "go after" the press as a way of shutting up the voices who disagree with them. Or have you really not been listening?
@filistro -
I've seen enough to know that you're right. And I have a great deal of respect for your fortitude in reading their madness. Please don't hesitate to be our reporter embedded in that warzone...
... and please take care of yourself while you're there ...
@Ryan,
No, they do not use the 2 minarets for call to prayer, they're just decorative.
No, I see a pattern of profiling and selective memory. For example, you include the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, but not his older brother or Martin Luther King Jr., other assassinations that happened in the same time frame, as well as plenty of attempted assassinations of other important people. Sounds like cherry picking to me. Similarly, you exclude other terrorist attacks, like Oklahoma City and the Olympic Park bombing, and mass murder sprees. Again, you're cherry picking events that make your point and ignoring counter-evidence.
Particularly interesting because the perpetrator of every single crime on your list (except Bobby Kennedy, of course) was a former member of the U.S. military. And that's not all, D.C. sniper - military veteran (the adult one, anyway). Fort Hood shooter - military veteran.
stutter, I assume that you'll advocate as strongly for profiling veterans as Muslims? Or no?
shrinkers... thank you.
Seriously, that's one of the reasons I came back to 538 (even though it's an enormous time-waster :-) I've been researching right-wing American political views but since Obama's election it's all so scary and troubling that I need to come here and offset it with regular doses of decency and political commonsense... otherwise I find it hard to sleep.
Yuck.
Someone please ban Ocho already.
Ocho said...
I will kill you.
Nice to have you back, Muley.
BTW, how the hell has Ocho not been banned? Surely we're not just letting people come in here and fling the n-word around like it's going out of style? I appreciate the conservatives coming in here, as beleaguered as they are, since it keeps the site from being a total liberal love-fest like Kos. But I don't think any conservative here actually agrees with Ocho. This isn't even like old-school 60s racism, this is hard-core neo-Nazi stuff. Honestly, I'm a little worried having opened this page at work.
I sort of agree on term limits. All politicians are into self preservation. However, the base of Repub party is far more for power limiting ideas like term limits and balanced budget amndt.
Heard both Thomas Friedman and Robert Reich recently laud the Chinese for their one party rule "getting things done". Throw in CBC's visits to Castro and visits to Chavez---its pretty clear which side favors authoritarian rule.
The "liberal media" is a fact. 95% of media is liberal. Its why Fox is so successful---they are the one alternative. I will say that
Fox is likely the most partisan of them all though, although MSNBC is trying to emulate.
or a particularly cohesive minor culture, that resists being broken down into the major culture.
It takes two to tango, Pat. :) The larger being unwilling to adopt, even co-opt, some of the minority's ways and share power and resources is also part of the issue.
That is why the US is many ways has NOT been uniformly the "melting pot" over the period you claim. Hundreds of years of forced and enforced segragation of blacks is a prominent example.
But fundementally that is NOT the difference between "multicultural" and "melting pot". Multicultural, something short of complete homogenization, is only a problem if there is a widespread perception that there must be homogenization and/or the lack of total homogenization is leveraged as a tool for repression. If each sub-culture is largely accepting of the others then "melting pot" isn't really a requirement for peaceful co-existance.
It's one of the puzzles of the US society. How insistance on personal liberty is juxtapositioned by a feverant desire for confomity and jingoism. *shrug*
@brian -
Balanced budget amendment is another tactic the Repubs pull out of their memory bag when they're not in power. They're not serious about that, either. Do recall, it was Clinton who balanced the budget, not any of the Republican presidents since WWII.
And on authoritarian rule - it was the Repubs who pushed the "Patriot Act" through in the dead of night, and it was Nixon who first went to China, and Reagan who made arms-for-hostages deals with Iran and with central American rightwing contras.
"Liberal media" is a joke. Can you back up your "95%" figure? It's nonsense - during the Bush years, they were all sucking toadies for the Republicans, with the exception of a handful of outliers like Olbermann and comedians like Stewart. But at any rate, there you go, just like the hypocritical rightwing politicians you like, "going after" the media and then complaining when someone else does it.
However, the base of Repub party is far more for power limiting ideas like term limits and balanced budget amndt.
Yet they have regularly voted for people in GOP primaries and into office that are certainly not above approving quite sizable deficits.
Could it be empty sloganeering that they like? A desire that a simplistic idea of "outlaw deficits and it'll all be OK"? You know, like the "three strikes". Simplistic, black-and-white laws that ignore the more nuanced details of reality and create more problems than they solve?
what Steven said.
Ocho said...
@shiloh,
Thinks for reminding me of one more reason why I despise Obama. He's a f ...
~~~~~~~~
You're welcome and Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, Boortz, Larson, Malkin, Ingraham, Coultergeist, Billo, Hannity, Dobbs, Liddy, Prager, etc. and 538 winger trolls thank you for your eloquent/loquacious support!
brian said...
Ok, its official, Ocho is a lib troll.
~~~~~~~~~~
No Brian, officially he's your brother-in-arms as teabaggers unite! and help BDP w/the tar and feathers. ;)
take care
Steven said...
I've noticed far too often in the months I've been reading 538 that when an obscenity-laced and threatening comment is made by someone, some of you regulars and other long-timers are quick to attach the comment to that Mule Rider lunatic.
It's a running joke. I don't actually believe it. The only way I can respond to internet tough guys (or internet psychopaths) like Ocho is with a joke. They're ludicrous cowards who would never talk like this to someone face to face. To do anything other than laugh in their face is to give them far too much attention.
The budget got balanced largely because 1) Tech bubble created alot more tax revenue 2) DC gridlock made new spending programs impossible. If one party controls everything, the only thing that will stop an expansive govt is BBA. Politicians (including Repubs) love to spend money.
I would love to take a poll of jornalists at CBS/NBC/ABC/AP/Time to see how many were Obama voters. My guess, 80%+. Its just a fact, all media is in NYC, which is liberal. If a major media outlet was in Ft Worth, it may be different.
Even The Atlantic is becoming undone do to "ClimateGate":
http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/more_on_climategate.php
When will Nate comment? Does he still think it's no big deal? I think his initial effort at meme formation failed.
People of all stripes and backgrounds move to New York to make the media, and far more simply write from wherever they happen to live. It's not as if people make it into journalism because they happened to live near the newspaper factory.
The fact that most of them voted for obama simply reflects that most of them are well-educated and that they are far better versed in understanding current events... kinda a necessity for a journalist.
If anyone still cares about the original post ...
The posters who stated that there is no mechanism in the US for a referendum to ban minarets, or whatever, that couldn't be struck down as unconstitutional are correct. What we would more likely see is some kind of legislative action, made by pandering legislators who know but don't care that the ban would surely be overturned. Happens all the time -- e.g., flag-burning ordinances.
I am sad to see the anti-religious diatribes in many of the comments. They are not only rude, they are silly. It's easy to set up straw men and knock them down, a la Dawkins. But I know you know that there is a lot more to religion than kindergarten level renderings of stories. (Although I do notice that the people who get so freaked out by Bible stories seem to have no trouble learning from Greek or Roman mythology or Aesop's fables, but never mind).
You might tell yourself that President Obama or Bobby Kennedy weren't really religious, they just said they were for political purposes, but what about Martin Luther King, Jr., Gandhi, or Mother Theresa? Do you think they were stupid and violent? Worse than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao?
There are smart and kind and stupid and cruel religious people. There are also smart and kind and stupid and cruel nonreligious people. Amazing and awful and neutral things have their roots in religion -- and also in secular culture. There is Torquemada, and there is Mengele. Attempts to oversimplify and generalize about religion are just as foolish as literal adherence to nonsense -- in fact, that's what they are.
i´m from austria/tirol - so the swiss is next door and culturally it´s quite the same
what many americans don´t understand is the role of religion in central europe - its not important anymore
most central europeans are of christian faith because their parents are, its tradition, most people are and the ceremonies (birth, marriage and death are celebrated at the church and some reasons for partys like xmas and easter) are nice
religious zeel ? there may be a religious fringe (lets say 5% - well in the usa they would be described as mainstream )
for the rest of us its tradition, cultur and identity and NOT a deep reborn faith (most catholic people here think that the popes position on sex, abortion and homosexuality to name a few is insane)
so the vote against the minarets is not about religion
its about the way people want to live ("as it always was")
and a part of the muslim population look different (tschador with women and a distinct look of the clothes of men [as a majority of muslims came from few countries])
and different behavioral patterns
(many think: they look different, they behave different, they are different--> they shell integrate /behave like us or go)
its a mixture of insecurity, fear(of change and everything that is different), hate and misunderstanding of the other ("he is strange - is he dangerous?")
its not about religion
its about tradition and the way you live your everyday life
(drinking alcohol, the role of men/women, how you dress, how sex/sexual relationships is seen and done in society)
in a way "we" are not a secular but a post religious society
and some muslims are more religious than accepted
the way some allow the koran to define how they should live and what is allowed and what not (which is in conflict for example with women rights) creates fear and hate
this is a rising problem ignored by our politicians for at least one generation
it is used by rightwing, intolerant parties and i fear that there will be a big explosion down the road
Actually, andreas is more right than s/he seems --
Although the minaret ban certainly does qualify as religious suppression, the arguably greater harm (and probably, as andreas seems to be sensing, the greater motive) is an equality problem.
The Muslims of Switzerland are being treated unequally to all other people there. Yes, the form of the expression, and to some extent its impact, is religious.
But wouldn't it seem to be pretty similar if instead the ban were against Muslims doing anything, even something having nothing to do with religious practice? Like, I don't know, if Muslims, and Muslims alone, were not allowed to own dogs or paint their houses green or something.
Obviously, those are fanciful examples, but you get my point: the harm here is much less a matter of incursion into religious practice (I assume from the minaret-less mosque in my neighborhood that a minaret is not a sine qua non) than it is marginalization; a statement that Muslims are not "real" Swiss.
brian said...
I would love to take a poll of jornalists at CBS/NBC/ABC/AP/Time to see how many were Obama voters. My guess, 80%+.
Doubtful it was that high, Dem/Rep split among journalists isn't that skewed, especially in the TV media. Nate's posted the numbers here before I believe, I can't find the link at the moment.
Though admittedly it was certainly a pocketbook/ease of job issue for a number of them (some SENSATIONAL headlines for a couple months :) ) if he won. They certainly wouldn't be the only people registered GOP that were jumping ship on McCain/Palin at the top of the ballot.
@brian
The budget got balanced largely because ... [etc]
No, it got balanced because Clinton insisted on a policy that any new spending would be paid for through increased revenues or through cuts elsewhere. Make any excuses you want. Clinton balanced the budget. Reagan/Bush/Bush bankrupted us. And that's the truth.
I would love to take a poll of jornalists at CBS/NBC/ABC/AP/Time to see how many were Obama voters. My guess, 80%+.
Oh, so you're guessing that there's a "liberal media"? No actual evidence? Didn't think so.
In any case, how reporters voted isn't the point (and isn't any of your business anyway). The point is editorial policy. And the huge corporate interests that make those decisions are overwhelmingly supportive of conservative Republicans. Their lockstep in-tune chorus in support of the invasion of Iraq is a good example.
But - here you are, insisting there is a "liberal media", and yet criticizing Obama for making a rather gentle comment about some (unnamed - he didn't mention Fox) channel that is unwaveringly critical of him? Come on. Republicans have been running against the media since Nixon. Your hypocrisy is showing.
Ok, back to original topic.
I agree, this is more about culture. To all the libs...do you beleive America has a unique culture that is worth preserving?
As for profiling, I'd be fine with profiling every male between 17 and 40 (includes me). Strip searching 80 yr old grandmas at the airport is just PC gone amuck.
The demographic ("brown peril") ignored the very well-established negative correlation of affluence and fertility. Despite considerable job discrimination, this negative correlation holds for Muslims in Europe. Birthrates among European Muslim women are declining sharply; for instance, the fertility rate in the Netherlands for Moroccan-born women fell from 4.9 to 2.9 between 1990 and 2005. Turkish-born women had 3.2 children in 1990 and 1.9 in 2005. Similar patterns have been observed in France and Germany.
Consider the very low birthrate among Catholics in Italy before making causal assertions about correlations of creed and birthrates!
@brian
To all the libs...do you beleive America has a unique culture that is worth preserving?
Speaking for myself - No, I don't believe that. I think we have laws and a Constitution that is worth preserving. Out culture is an amalgamation of all the people who came here from teh rest of the world (and those, like the Native Americans, who have been here for tens of thousands of years). Culture evolves and changes, and what we have here is amazingly rich for all the different influences that are impacting it - and will continue to do so.
As for profiling, I'd be fine with profiling every male between 17 and 40 (includes me). Strip searching 80 yr old grandmas at the airport is just PC gone amuck.
No, those strip searches - and the profiling you suggest - are not "PC gone amuck". They are paranoia gone insane, and they are profoundly in violation of our Constitution. There is no excuse for any of it. Period.
Depends on what you mean by "worth preserving". Worth what? I think freedom of expression, including through building on one's own property, is central to American culture, and as such is something that cannot be given up while simultaneously preserving the culture.
Effectively, there isn't an over-arching American culture that can be preserved through coercion, though there are subcultures that adherents may believe can be. I think that is largely what we see in the teabagger movement, defense of a minor American subculture from natural change that is threatening its existence, and its adherents are so unwilling to allow their culture to evolve that they are willing to destroy the larger American culture to protect it.
Well, Brian, I can't agree with you about the strip searches or profiling, but you raise an interesting point -- ALL the "correct" answers in both Stutters' and Harold's quizzes were male.
As for your question about whether America has a unique culture that is worth preserving ... that's sort of loaded wording, isn't it? How can you answer "no"? But a "yes" answer doesn't justify discrimination.
Anyway, culture always changes -- even if, today or ever, there could be something that could be identified as "the" American culture.
Again, oversimplification is either laziness or sophistry.
Piddlesworth, that was really well put. I wouldn't have put my post up if I'd seen yours.
Is anyone else getting video ads with sound that autoplay and can't be paused in the upper-right corner of the page? Man, really poor business decision, whoever okayed that. (Yeah, yeah, I know, ad block... I'm betting most people who visit here regularly don't use it, though)
do you beleive America has a unique culture that is worth preserving?
I do, and I would start by getting rid of all the fascists who think that stopping and searhing people based on a profile is part of American culture.
@Piddlesworth
1. At what cost, indeed. Really I don't think it is something that can be saved, in the sense I think that means frozen and unchanging.
2. Yes. :/ Others have complained as well. You can't pause it but you can press the speaker icon to mute it. It looks like a broker handles the ads, not Nate directly. Hopefully Nate has passed on the concerns.
Why would I find anything at all beautiful about the idea of being adopted by an imaginary person?
That's like telling be you think the idea of Santa Claus is the most beautiful thing there is, so you're going to start worshiping him in hopes that someday you'll get to be an elf.
A lie does not become truth over time. And even if it did, christianity, and even judaism, are lies which are rather new when compared to other world religions. In fact, one can trace the core concepts of both from much older faiths-including Zoroastrianism, the cult of Aten, and the gods of ancient Phoenicia and Arabia.
The christian concept of God is pretty closely linked to the ancient kinds of Persia, in fact, born ut of a time when governments used religion as a tool to keep the population from revolting. Of course, even today many governments still do. Putin heavily courts the Russian Orthodox church to build his power base, and no politician in Utah stands a chance of getting elected without a nod of approval from the LDS.
My ideas are not new at all, they represent the ideas of everyone who has ever looked at the power-mad who promote the idea of themselves as divine or as messengers of the divine, and announced that they are, to paraphrase another fable, wearing no clothes. We are the truthtellers, those who refuse to adopt a lie simply because it's easier. And we are very very old indeed.
Ever since the first Neanderthal shaman declared himself to be the mouthpiece of the divine, there have been those of us who have pointed him out as a sham. And just as we have predated you, we will outlast you.
Provided you don,t destroy the planet in your religious insanity first.
“Fiscal conservatism”…
This is the dish that the GOP serves up to the electorate, usually with a catchy line such as “It’s your money! You should be able to control it instead of some Washington bureaucrat!” This line resonates very strongly with the cheapass, the uneducated, and the stupid. They think no further than: Hey man, the Republicans want me to keep my money, and the Democrats want to steal it from me!
Never mind that the most profligate spenders since World War II have been Republican presidents.
Never mind that the enormous national debt we are burdened with today came from two Republican presidents—Reagan and Dubya.
Never mind that the “tax breaks” the GOP has engineered have all gone to the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.
Never mind that George Bush himself described the GOP as the party of “the haves—and the have-mores.”
The cheapass here is represented by Bart De ’Publican; the uneducated by stop-the-stutter (remember how he couldn’t hack college, then decided all colleges are evil and liberal?) and stupid is covered by Ocho, who uses, suspiciously, much the same foam-at-the-mouth rhetoric as stop-the-stutter. It’s like they were all from one big litter.
Pragmatus, I would hold up George W. Bush's national debt totals at the end of his presidency up to Obama's first year national debt totals anyday.
Bush II was bad, Obama is even worse.
It just hit $12T and is projected to double by 2018.
The party that takes the risks associated with the debt and borrowing seriosuly will reap the rewards electorally.
So if Indians came to America and said "we're not assimilating, we are teching Indian ways to our youth and our community" and we slowly became more like India....that would be OK?
Frankly, my parents were immigrants. They made my go to immigrant schools and speak the language. I hated it and the whole concept. I wish I had been taught to become American.
Of course most journalists are Democrats and liberals, probably 80% easily. Some networks are better than others. Fox is honestly closer to 50/50 than NBC, CBS, ABC, etc. regarding the composition of its news staff, as much as they are vilified.
Dems: Brian Williams, Couric, George S., Charles Gibson, the staff of the NY Times, the Washington Post, Newsweek (what a joke that’s become), Time, etc. All of them, Dems.
Obviously, journalism school attracts liberals as it’s a good avenue to promote their particular “causes” and worldviews. They tend to be a bit idealistic and believe in the power of government.
On the flip side, you probably find more Republicans within the military, in aerospace engineering programs, in sports management, etc.
Walker…
Sorry, I forgot to add you to the list of the “stupid”.
The exploding debt you speak about is due to—
♦ Bush’s Medicare Part D, which was enacted without a scrap of funding
♦ Bush’s going to war in Afghanistan, without any means to pay for it
♦ Bush’s going to war completely unnecessarily in Iraq, again without any means to pay for it
♦ Bush initiating the largest tax breaks in history for the wealthy, without any corresponding cuts in expenditures
♦ Bush’s $800 billion bank and Wall Street bailout, enacted in October of last year
You try to pin this profligacy on President Obama because you have an ax to grind for the GOP, and on top of this you don’t seem terribly bright.
The most enlightened form of government is that which makes no attempt to control the totality of the governed. After all, government is nothing more than an expression of the popular will, and when the majority of the population decides it must control every aspect of the minority, and indeed must police itself for any wrongful deviation of thought or harmless action, then that society has gone mad.
Religious totalism is a mental disorder. People get all hung up on the rituals, the songs, the chants and the books-listen, those are just props. The Pope is no more sacred than you or I. Neither is any mullah or rabbi or pastor. They're all self-appointed assholes who have convinced you they've got exclusive rights to the Universal Mind, and they're all full of shit.
Don't take it so seriously. Listen, do you know what the word 'Alleluja' means? It doesn't mean anything. That was ancient Hebrew for 'doo-wah-diddy'. The long ago version of jazz scat lyrics. The point of it wasn't for you to get all hung up on whether it's Doo-WAH-Diddy or DO-wah-DIDDY, it's for you to get into it, to have a good time with it. To lighten up and enjoy yourself.
They say the angels fly because they take themselves so lightly. And yet, all the religious people I know walk around with these heavy weights on their shoulders, its all serious business to them. Well, what do you expect from a religion that tells you to eat a hunk of brad and them pretend it's dead flesh, and then suck down a cup of pretend blood? Ritualized cannibalism!
Man, you've got it all wrong. Religion was never meant to be a tool for control. It was never supposed to dominate your every waking moment. That,s not a real religion, that's just somebody playing you for a fool. Here, let's get all serious about these fables and pretend the characters are more important than the point.
It's really no wonder you never bothered to grasp the point. You've all built these extravagant temples and mosques and cathedrals and now you've nothing left to feed the hungry or clothe the naked with. Instead of throwing the moneychangers out of the temple, you asked them to finance a megachurch.
Baby, I think you missed the point. Those stories were to instill in you a sense of love and beauty, a respect for other people and their right to live their own lives. YoU,re supposed to see that everybody is holy, even the bum on the park bench. Every single human being is a manifestation of the divine, and therefore no human being has an exclusive connection with the divine. Every time you kill a man, either through the death penalty or war, you're killing God.
God is truly dead, but I didn't kill him. You did. I just woke up one morning and stumbled over the corpse.
Nate, the religion correlation could be spurious. It could be an age thing.
There are huge age differences in attitudes to immigrants in Western Europe - those who grew up before immigrants started arriving are most threatened by them. Older European voters are also much more religious. It may be nothing to do with religion per se but more to do with cultural threat - like English language tests in the border states.
Not sure if you have the data to control by age profile, but that would be my guess as an alternative hypothesis.
Pragmatus, you seem like an imminently likeable chap, undoubtedly blessed with endless charm and grace. I imagine as you stroll down some unnamed thoroughfare ladies swoon and steady themselves with over-sized, silk Victorian fans. Furthermore, your spirited missives on 538.com indicate a truly staggering intellect, an intellect somehow made even more impressive as it is interlaid with fine, golden threads of wit and rakish impishness.
My God you are a glorious paragon, Pragmatus.
You condescend to even chat with the likes of us...
brian said...
do you beleive America has a unique culture that is worth preserving?
Worth preserving? Yes.
Worth legislating? No.
The culture of the U.S. today versus that of 100 years ago is nearly unrecognizable. In 100 years, it will likely be unrecognizable to someone of today.
Just be mindful of opening Pandora's box. Once you make it okay to use laws to force the majority's culture on the minorities, what do you think will happen when you become a minority?
Statler said:
"Don't take it so seriously. Listen, do you know what the word 'Alleluja' means? It doesn't mean anything. That was ancient Hebrew for 'doo-wah-diddy'."
Wrong spelling and wrong etymology. It's Hebrew meaning "Praise Yah (God), you people". Yah as in Yahweh.
@ Walker,
Well played sir, Well played.
Walker…
Well, you apparently have a dictionary at home, and evidently know how to use it, so I suppose you probably aren’t all bad.
But how did you get sucked in so completely by the GOP BS?
You can’t parrot that nonsense and claim the intellectual high ground too.
brian:
Yes, if we became more culturally like Indians, that would be okay. It's all gonna be okay, brian.
To be honest, I don't know what is going on specifically with muslims in Europe, but with Indians in America at least, the more I and my community have been accepting of their culture and ideas, the more accepting they have been of ours. This is because, despite their parents trying to raise their children purely in their image, the next generation is not actually raised in a cultural vacuum. Or, to look at it another way, assimilation is only really effective as a two-way street.
Although I still have a distaste for the desire of some Indian-Americans to connect to the class system of their old country among themselves and the desire of some to have marriages be arranged, by being open to them and connecting with them on a philosophical level, I have been able to successfully connect with them enough on a social level that I can discuss and even joke with them about those practices. A result of this openness is that those who are younger, even if they were born in India, are more willing to considering other viewpoints and other lifestyles to the point that most young Indian-Americans I know date people outside their religion or race at some point in their lives, and most also seek to escape the fate of an arranged marriage. Although the muslim immigrants I know are more insular than the Indian-American immigrants I know, I think that is largely a self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I used to be guilty of never speaking to women who wore head scarves, etc. because I didn't understand it, but eventually I realized they're just like any other person except you can't see their faces. Some of my best friends were muslim women toward the end of my college years and during my masters degree, and that's not something that would've happened if I had just accepted the view of them being a uniformly insular and imposing people.
Pragmatus, I have many good friends and family members who are yellow dog Democrats (I am from Texas). They are also very intelligent.
Believe it or not, there are also a lot of very bright Republicans and Liberatarians.
It's not about intelligence. I think its more about how you view the world.
Walker,
Hebrew doesn't sue the same alphabet that we do, so the spelling is more flexible than you realize. Just as there are alot of different ways to spell Khaddafy's name (Quaddafi? Kadafy? Quawahahadaffy?) because Arabic uses a different alphabet, same is true for that ancient version of jazz scat.
That might disturb someone who wants everything, every detail, to be precisely one way-control freaks usually go fucking nuts when things get out of order. But religion itself was never supposed to be you controlling me through doctrine. That perverse kind of power-game is something that disgusts me. It's s form of sadism, one whereby the only joy that can be derived must come from inflicting judgment and pain on others.
And it's a lie. It's a flimsy mask used by control-freaks to give them an excuse to dominate others. That's why they call you lot Dominionists-you won't be satisfied till everyone's under your heel.
Well, fuck y,all. I'm happier believing that every human being is a manifestation of god- that every living thing is a manifestation of god. When my cat purrs, that's god talking to me. When I hear people laughing and having a good time, I hear god's voice. I never heard it in any preacher's sermon, never read it in any old book. To me, heaven is when I reach out my hand, you grab it, and we go off dancing like a pair of fools.Hell is when people are fighting and arguing and killing one another.
I notice that the Abrahamic traditions all seem to be joyless affairs. Y'all think heaven doesn't come until after your dead, and seem to take joy in telling people they're going to hell. And in all that time, you miss the heaven that is this life, it flies right past you, you can't even see it. You don't even notice the beauty that is all around-and inside-of you.
Don't waste my time with your bibles or korans or torahs. I don,t believe that only a select few get to hear the voice of god. QAnyone who claims to is probably a con-artist.
Doo-wah-diddy, god-inside-a-man.
Walker said...
Of course most journalists are Democrats and liberals, probably 80% easily.
Translation: Just making shit up. :)
While journalists tend to self-describe somewhat more-often as "liberal" than the general public (though still far more likely to see themselves as "moderate" than "liberal", a degree more-so than the general public), their very vocation tends to involve more libertarian types of concepts. Little wonder that they tend to lean that way. Once upon a time those people would have been welcomed into the GOP, and could have registered. Those days are largely past now but that's true for a LOT of people, GOP ID is still way down.
Remember, this is all of them, TV, especially the top end is the conservative end compared to print.
Yeah, there are going to be plenty of folks with that sort of mindset that would have looked at Palin and gone "WTF? A heartbeat from the Presidency??? I don't think so." Because you had colomnists at the National Review doing that.
But truth is the registration is much closer than you think. But hey if you don't believe go find that data, stop fishing between your cheeks for it. It is out there.
@ Walker
If you can get through to them, power to you. The "Left" (For example Pragmatus) very often simply cannot to admit any point but their own is valid.
Far too often, they accuse others of using "RW Talking points", while missing the irony that they're doing exactly what they claim others are, only from the Left Wing.
This is coming from an Independent in the heart of Silicon Valley.
Religions should stay out of government. The biggest question churchment shoudl tackle is this:
Father O'Walker, is it a sin to play the Sonic Reducer on the electric guitar?
To which you should respond, "well, you see, it kinda depends on the context. At 3 AM in a small apartment with paper thin walls without having invited the neighbors over for the party, yeah, it,s probably sinful to play the Sonic Reducer on the electric guitar"
And that's it. The Church should stick to basic "Be nice to each other" questions. The government, for its part, should have no official say on the matter of playing the Sonic Reducer on the electric guitar.
It's a simple separation of church and state matter.
Pat said...
@ Walker
If you can get through to them, power to you.
He sure isn't going to "get through" making up numbers like that, this is the wrong site for that. :)
Walker…
If you assert that Fox News is fair and balanced, then you are either willfully blind or you are out-and-out lying.
Since you have made such a point of being a Christian, do you realize that this does not excuse you from adhering to the Ten Commandments?
Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor means “Don’t lie.” You can try to parse the language as allowing fibbing as long as it’s not against your neighbor, but the real meaning, as any decent Christian will tell you, is an instruction not to lie.
So are you like all the rest of the ardently religious, who cherry-pick their religious texts only to bolster their own points of view?
Pat, nice to "meet" you too.
Through gritted teeth some might be provoked to reconsider their love of the ol' Hope and Change.
In real life, I have "converted" two ex-Obama supporters. What got them, interestingly, was the hypocrisy on terror policies and spending concerns. They are by no means Republicans now but they have grave reservations about how things are going.
Classical-liberal Republican in the heart of East Texas.
But I know you know that there is a lot more to religion than kindergarten level renderings of stories.
You know, ohio, if this were true, I think there would be a lot less anti-religiosity in the world.
Unfortunately, people routinely spend millions of dollars promoting these kindergarten level renderings as entirely, literally true.
Not to mention the people who kill themselves and thousands of other people over these kindergarten level renderings.
Is religion a heck of a lot more than attempting to interpret a largely metaphorical book entirely literally, and insisting that interpreting the book any other way is treason against God? Yes. Absolutely. Unfortunately, by that metric, much of the "religion" in our world isn't religion at all.
We're not even sure that Sirhan Sirhan shot Bobby.
I don't think we need to legislate culture, except maybe make English the official language.
Yes, I know the culture will evolve. Thats far different than throwing open the borders to anyone and not expecting anything in return. Do you do that at your house?
The extent to how free a country is is largely related to how white and Christian it is. I know you libs think all cultures are beacons of freedom, but it ain't the case.
Persuter,
I'm not equally critical of all religions. I just don't like the ones that exert political control over others.
To me, the worst system of government is authoritarian government. The flaws of the Soviet system were in how it had to control every aspect of human life, from reading people's mail to kids spying on their parents. The dystopian pressure exerted under such a system-the 'cop inside your head', as one author described it-made existence a dull, soulless affair, full of empty praises for a Party that people saluted for fear of retribution, not out of any real admiration.
The most vocal proponents of religious totalism want to dictate who can marry, what days the mail is (not) delivered on, what holidays can be federal holidays, write odes to their religion on our money, make little kids take oaths they can't understand and prayers they can't opt out of, to establish a religious test for public office, etc etc... they want to control everything there is.
No different than the Soviets.
Walker said...
They are by no means Republicans now but they have grave reservations about how things are going.
Translation: They know damn well the current alternative is crappier. :)
Frankly I question anyone that doesn't have grave concerns about the current deficit and the continuation of extremely dubious Constitutionality in regards to things such as Gitmo.
But at least on the later the official word has finally come from the Justice Department that they going to stop screwing around wasting time and resources with [new?] cases involving State OKed medical marajuana operations. A relatively small thing but a positive change none-the-less.
To me it's quite obvious that EVERYONE who read this post missed the point.
The Swiss banned minarets because they're loud, not because they are religious symbols. If you live in a country (as I do) which has many mosques, you'll know that the minaret is the tower from which the local muezzin pronounces the Muslim call to prayer, normally nowadays with the aid of loudspeakers mounted at the top of the minaret.
Sometimes, people miss the obvious because of preconceptions.
The extent to how free a country is is largely related to how white and Christian it is. I know you libs think all cultures are beacons of freedom, but it ain't the case.
Culture has little or nothing to do with the government. Look at North and South Korea. Also, India, a democratic nation despite its non-white, non-Christian population, is by itself more populous than the entirety of white Christianity, so I'm pretty sure you're not correct on a per-capita basis.
Not to mention the obvious fact that non-white, non-Christian nations tend to be screwed up because white, Christian nations spent the last five hundred years exploiting them and in some cases genociding their inhabitants. America's only a "white, Christian nation" because we slaughtered virtually all of the non-white, non-Christian inhabitants.
I'm not even sure you're right on a per-country basis, particularly if we go back just twenty years. The entire Eastern Bloc wasn't free, virtually the entirety of Central and South America wasn't free, yet these were mostly white, Christian nations.
I'm not equally critical of all religions. I just don't like the ones that exert political control over others.
Not sure why you're responding to me - that's pretty much what I said. Thoughtfully religious people are not the ones attempting to exert political control over others to force them to accept their religious beliefs. There's nothing wrong with religion - there is something wrong, however, with pretending as though a ludicrously literal interpretation of the Bible/Koran/etc. is the only possible interpretation.
@Trebucket
Sort of like this, only smaller? Funny, I lived 5 years just a few blocks from a mosque and never a peep did I hear. :P
@Statler N Waldorf
I'd rather the government also get [gently] involved in the same Sonic Reducer that hypothetical situation the hypothetical Father O'Walker posed. To help mediate so said neighbours need not resort to pulling out the cable cutters at 3AM to disconnect the aspiring axeman's power. ;)
Pragmatus, I would hold up George W. Bush's national debt totals at the end of his presidency up to Obama's first year national debt totals anyday.
Bush II was bad, Obama is even worse.
It just hit $12T and is projected to double by 2018.
If you can't understand the difference between pure deficit spending(Dumbya, and to a lesser extent Reagan) and spending to prop up an economy destroyed by deficit spending and deregulation there is no hope for you.
Dumbya threw money into a black hole, for the most part(except the tax cuts given on the insistence of the "fiscally responsible") is actualy investment that will return money to the economy and eventually back to the government.
I am not surprised that you don't understand this. These days to be conservative, means to be willfully and proudly stupid.
India is listed a "mostly unfree" economically in Wiki. Press freedom has "some problems" as well. Overall, a "flawed democracy".
A while back, I crossreferenced the predominant religion of a country with its place on international freedom indices. Overwhelmingly, if Islam was the major religion, a country was not free. If Christian was the religion, very high freedom rank.
HERE'S THE TEST:
1. In 2004, which group tried to pass an Amendment preventing two consenting adults from marrying in the United States?
a. The Socialists
b. The cast of Twilight
c. Harry Potter
d. Christian extremists
2. The professed religion of the KKK is
a. Islam
b. Punk Rock
c. Hockey
d. Christian Identity
3. In 1995, The Murrah federal Building in Oklahoma City was blown up by a
a. Lost Norwegian
b. Elvis Impersonator
c. Tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d . Christian extremist
4. Who staged the Inquisition?
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Christian extremists
5. What group operates a fundamentalist sect in Colorado City where girls as young as 9 years of age are married to much older men and forced to have sex with them?
a. Domino's Pizza
b. The Golden Girls
c. Feminists
d. Christian extremists
6. Jesse Helms suggested the best way to deal with the AIDS crisis was to lock up every gay man in America and administer identifying tattoos on their bodies in case they should escape. Helms was a devout:
a. Smurf
b. Madonna fan
c. Fashionista
d. Christian extremist
7. Last week, the government of Uganda passed a law establishing the death penalty for homosexuality. The group lobbying for this law in the Ugandan Parliament were a group of:
a. Celebrity lookalikes
b. Flying Elvises
c. Drag Queens
d. Christian extremists
8. The Pope has recently announced that using a condom is worse than becoming infected with HIV. The Pope is a
a. cartoon character
b. out of work actor from Philly
c. amateur trombonist
d. Christian extremist
9. In May of this year, George Tiller was murdered inside a church, shot in the back during services. The murderer was:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jo rdan
d. a christian extremist
10. the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta Georgia were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Henry Rollins
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Christian extremists
11.In 1920, a woman's right to vote was opposed by the same group that would later oppose the Civil Rights Act, the Labor Movement, Environmentalism, Child Labor Laws, Anti-lynching Ordinances, The ERA, the overturning of Sodomy Laws, the Peace Movement, and attempts at ending the Death Penalty. This bloodthirsty bunch are:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. the Gay Men's Chorus
c. Mr Bean
d. Christian extremists
12. In 2003 the United States President insisted there were WMD in Iraq, and launched a war he called a crusade. That President was a:
a. Al Franken supporter
b. Deadhead
c. Comedian
d.Christian extremist
13. In 2005, a President of the United States flew over a drowned New Orleans en route to John McCain's birthday party. That President was;
a. Tony Blair
b. a Teletubby
c. Your Pet Goat
d. A christian extremist
In the 1930's, the Iron Guard murdered thousands of Jews and attacked the US Embassy at Ekaterinburg. This group was composed entirely of:
a. Michael Jackson.
b. Mother Teresa
c. Billy Graham.
d. Christian extremists
Nathan Bedford Forest was a
a. Buddhist
b. Jain
c. Hindu
d Christian
In 1999, a group called Concerned Christians planned an armed attack on Jerusalem, believing this would spark the much anticipated Apocalypse. They were:
a. Pagans
b. Hippies
c. Punks
d. Christians
Aryan Nations, the Army of God, The Order, Eric Rudolph, Tim McVeigh, the Phineas Priesthood, the Covenant, The Sword, The Left Arm of the Lord, and the Lambs of Christ, all of whom have been involved in acts of murder and violence in the past few decades, are all:
a. Liberals
b. Socialists
c. Communists
d. Christian Extremists
Does anyone see a pattern here?
Maybe we need Glenn Beck to point it out for us.
The Swiss banned minarets because they're loud, not because they are religious symbols. If you live in a country (as I do) which has many mosques, you'll know that the minaret is the tower from which the local muezzin pronounces the Muslim call to prayer, normally nowadays with the aid of loudspeakers mounted at the top of the minaret.
So they also banned loudspeakers?
What about those annoying Christian church bells?
No? hmm...
What if we had Bette Midler sing the call to prayer? Would that make you happier?
brian said....
[more silly stuff]
How about the Philippines? Ok, so they aren't pasty white but they have a higher % of self-reported Christians.
What it got to say about the Vatican City?
How about Somalia? That's one hell of small government town there, surely it's inhabitants are Christian and white as the snowbanks on the streets in downtown Mogadishu?
Not to mention that correlation does not == causation.
@Dwight
1) Party Identification doesn't matter so much. In the end, it's who people actually vote for. Remember, McCain DID pick up 46% of the popular vote, in a "Democratic year".
2) The Issue with the "Media" being to the "Left" of the public in general, something that you seem to have admitted is true, is that, when the media confers among themselves for a "Neutral/median viewpoint", that "Neutral/median viewpoint" is going to be to the left of the public's median viewpoint.
@ Beavis:
"(Deficit) Spending to prop up a country destroyed by Deficit Spending.."
Umm....
@Statler.
Here's the Test.
Barack Obama is a....
A. Christian.
B. Christian
C. Christian
D. All of the Above.
Trebuchet:
The Swiss did not ban minarets because they are loud. Calling to prayer from them was already affectively banned by noise ordinances and the four minarets already built there are not used to call to prayer nor were any of the planned minarets to be used in that way (those who submitted the applications for them stated as much far before this whole debate about banning them came up).
2) The Issue with the "Media" being to the "Left" of the public in general, something that you seem to have admitted is true,
Actually, you weren't following closely enough. :) They appear to be more libertarian which comes out as "liberal" and perhaps "moderate". Part of the issue of course is doing the best you can trying to going to post-secondary (that's a good thing, right?) and still remain "conservative". Getting exposed to lots of different ideas, and hopefully this even happens during their work, has a tendancy to skew a population "liberal".
is that, when the media confers among themselves for a "Neutral/median viewpoint", that "Neutral/median viewpoint" is going to be to the left of the public's median viewpoint.
You seem to forget editorial oversight and the heavy influence this has on media. As you get higher up the chain-of-command it tends to skew "conservative" (if for no reason other than they are older).
As well, as I said before, when you get to TV things get even more centric.
Now do I think it's a problem that journalists skew slightly libertarian? It's not optimal but I don't see it as much of an issue. It certainly I'd think that much less problematic than skewing towards a totalitarian outlook (which is likely to be reported as "conservative", much to Lord Calvert's chagrin).
P.S. I thought Obama was a Kenyan Muslim? ;)
Remember, McCain DID pick up 46% of the popular vote, in a "Democratic year".
Big flipping deal. Walter Mondale picked up 40.6% of the vote in the biggest electoral landslide in the history of the nation. McCain beat him by an incredibly impressive 5.1%
To put that in perspective, Nader got a little over half of that in 2000 (2.74%).
Many journalists (especially lib ones) when asked will say they are "independent". They don't want it to appear they have a bias. However, everyone has biases. Why not just admit them? It frankly makes no sense that you would report on politics yet have no opinion on politics.
Amazing how few stories I see of the plight of the unemployed/homeless. When Reagan was Prez, supposedly we were all on the verge of being homeless...at least that was the media's claim. Impartial indeed.
I never look at web sites like Free Republic, and never intend to, so I was more than a little alarmed to learn from commenters above that assassination talk is commonplace in those quarters. I do hope the Secret Service is monitoring them closely, and also 538 for that matter, with posters like this vile person "Ocho".
I think the Secret Service needs to focus more energy on not allowing random people into state dinners or letting foreign reporters throw shoes at the Prez than monitoring the trolls in the blogosphere.
Paul,
I never read that crap either. I don't read the trolls on 538, even. I use a troll-blocking greasemonkey script to redact all their comments automatically. Keeps my blood pressure down that way.
Most of the truly obnoxious posters are probably very young teenage boys having fun by slamming everybody's buttons. Half odf them don,t even understand what they're typing-the exact same person that posts a death threat against Obama here will log onto Free Republic and post a death threat against Palin there. And on both pages, the screens light up with agast people posting urgent pleas for the moderator to block that troll and call secret service immediately. They get a good laugh out of it, and that's all that matters to them.
If it annoys you, block them.There really is no way to perma-block them-they can just sign on using a proxy server and a sock-puppet account as soon as you block their existing IP or account. Or both. Takes less that 5 minutes to completely subvert any attempt the moderator can make to shut em out.
They go away for a little while after everybody ignores them long enough, but they come back like a week later.
So, I'm not saying the Swiss vote was very flattering to their self-image as a tolerant nation.
However, you've got to understand that we in Western Europe live in much more homogenous societies than you do in the States. Why, for example, would people ever accept 63 % as the top tax bracket (as here in Denmark), if they didn't feel responsible for the guy next door? Multiple studies have been conducted on this and they show that people accept high taxation IF - and only IF - they can 'relate' to their surrounding society. Thus, a multicultural society is not only a 'change', but threatens the Western European model. Not that this is necessarily bad, but it does explain a lot of the hostility.
The level of trust in Scandinavia is extremely high by international standards, too. This stems from, again, relatively homogenous societies who have lived peacefully with each other for many, many generations now. This, too, is something a lot of us are hesitant to give up...
... because we know we will have to: Every single night cars are burned somewhere in Denmark. This is to-tal-ly unheard of here, but has arrived with the Arab immigrants. They publicly say they are 'bored' and feel alienated from society - therefore, they need more money. This is not my interpretation, this is a quote from yesterday's news.
Also, our journalists at Jyllands Posten, who printed the Mohammad drawings still work under police protection - for using the Freedom of Speech, which is practically unlimited in Denmark.
So, I'm not saying minarets should be banned. I am saying, though, that to gain rights in a society, you will have to fulfil your duties. And at the moment, our Muslim friends in virtually all of Western Europe are doing nothing but wanting the society model they allegedly fled from.
brian said...
Many journalists (especially lib ones) when asked will say they are "independent". They don't want it to appear they have a bias. However, everyone has biases. Why not just admit them? It frankly makes no sense that you would report on politics yet have no opinion on politics.
Given your expressions of what classifies as "liberal" I find you an extremely poor judge. :) I don't doubt that for Shaquille Rashaun O'Neal he finds himself constantly in the company of tiny people midget. Only he's propably smart enough, willing to go out there and find the information, to understand that it's him.
Amazing how few stories I see of the plight of the unemployed/homeless. When Reagan was Prez, supposedly we were all on the verge of being homeless...at least that was the media's claim. Impartial indeed.
Covering homelessness is so passe :) But wait, wasn't there some mini-scandal about a CA TV station juicing up a homeless camp/unemployment story? It is indeed a sad state that homelessness has largely become "meh". Although sure there are lots of homeless stories, they are just of the reposession angle. You must have you head up your butt not to hear any of those. :)
@Casper
Was the quote in English or is that just a paraphrase instead of a paraphrase + translation? Because yeah, having a hard time getting a job in a capitalistic society tends to get people really owly. :)
Here we see the vicious cycle of racism and of not completely grokking the society you emigrate to.
Hi Nate,
just one question: you say that higher exposure to Muslims might actually lead to greater fears. But how would you explain that the great majorities in Switzerland for the ban were in the rural areas, where there aren't any Muslims, let alone minarets? In contrast, in the big cities, home to many immigrants, the "yes" vote was much smaller. So actual, every-day life exposure to Muslims seems to have the opposite effect, doesn't it?
@jacob.dueringer
Agreed. It seems more to be close but not close enough.
Caspar said...
I am saying, though, that to gain rights in a society, you will have to fulfil your duties.
That's a bit incompatible with the definition of "rights", then, isn't it? That would make them "privileges." "Rights" are things you get simply from being a human being.
To quote Rousseau, "Man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains"
In a state of nature, the only laws are nature's laws. Gravity, evolution, inertia, causation-there are no courts for these. No lawyers, no loopholes. Nature's justice is administered blindly to every living and non-living thing. Money doesn't help you, primogeniture will not afford you special dispensation.
However, man's laws are not natural laws. We have added laws that do not exist in nature, for the purpose of allowing us to live in groups and in permanent settlements more easily. Laws protecting lofe and property, for example, make it possible to walk the streets with confidence, and without arms.
Nature's laws are inherent; man's laws are not. Therefore, one cannot say you have 'earned' rights. Earned from who? Do not become so arrogant as to presume that our legislators are equivalent to Nature. No, our legislators are merely human beings, equivalent to the people whom their laws target. You do not 'grant' or 'give' rights. Those rights were there since birth, as all men are born into a state of nature. If your laws happen to align properly with a man's natural rights, then you are not worthy of praise or condemnation. No gratitude need be expressed for you having pulled your head out of your ass.
Take the long view of history. In a few thousand years, this culture will be done, and another, as of yet unconcieved, culture will replace it. Long after people have forgotten our names, long after the worms have had us for lunch, how will the archaeologists remember America? Will they remember us as the new Athens, proponents of peace and human dignity? I hope so. And I hope that, if any record of our laws remains for the distant future's historians to examine, it will be some of our more humane, Solonic laws-and not the cruel Draconian ones.
They say that which survives is that which there were more of-so let's make a bey of laws that respect human dignity, so that the people of the distant future will think of us as highly dignified people.
Let,s show them that we lived as free as birds-in a state of Man that did not remove the rights granted in a state of nature.
Swiss minaret ban = demagoguery
The minarets, like the burqa, is harmless by itself –but it represents an ideology that is not. This belief, called Islam, can be directly linked to discrimination, hate and violence. Muslims tell us that Islam is about order, love and peace when their actions and scriptures tell us otherwise. Even the so-called “moderate” Muslims accept the terrible things written in the Quran and do not condemn the horrible things written in the Traditions.
Attorney
Moremony
Congratulations to the Stutter on learning the Copy and Paste function!
Now if only he would learn the difference between radical Islam (Muslim extremists) and regular Islam (your friendly, neighborhood Muslim).
I love how this gives Europe a taste of what we deal with here. As Casper mentions, Europe is way more homogenous than America. Sure socialism can work in a closed society like this. Not in one like America though, where people have less identification with their neighbor.
So much for the "enlightened" Europeans.
I was thinking of creating a similar test, but filling it in with bombings, kidnappings, rapes, murders of people right here in glorious america by white supremacists males between 17-40, but I am pretty sure you have read and know the story well. Yet we still issue permits in this country for the KKK to march!
your friendly, neighborhood muslim (american born and bred)
Anyone who reads this many comments down may be interested to learn that there is already a US Federal law specifically prohibiting state and local governments from banning minarets (or any other religious architecture).
It is called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. section 2000cc. One of its common effects is to allow Mormon temples to exceed height requirements that might otherwise be placed on their temple spires.
Nate: I don't know if you ever read this far down... but we probably have some American data on minarets. I know there was a controversy about this issue in Dearborn, Michigan several years back (as you may know, there are on the order of 100,000 Muslims or Arabs in the Detroit area, concentrated in the suburb of Dearborn). I'm guessing there have been some neighborhood issues in some place like NYC, as well. Worth some research. The point is, there are areas in the US where Muslims are already a significant minority if not a local majority, and we have data about how people have reacted. In the Detroit area, I believe, despite some hiccups, the relationship has been good.
Crap, my comment didn't show up.
Statler, your posts come across as very intolerant towards non-atheists, and especially Christians. Instead of assuming that every Christian or every on-atheist is an extremist, why don't you take the time to actually speak to some of us and ASK?
I despise, hate, and greatly fear the increasingly numerous and powerful theocrats who are trying to push their hateful agendas in this world. But don't equate all religious people with the extremists.
Religion is not evil. No individual religion is inherently intolerant or inherently violent. It is individuals who chose to be intolerant or violent. Just because there are Muslims, Christians, and Hindus who want to kill, imprison, or torture everyone who is not of their faith, doesn't mean that Islam, Christianity, or Hinduism is inherently intolerant or evil.
If you aren't trying to claim that all Christians are bigots, then I apologize for misinterpreting. But your posts definitely look that way, and that's how you're coming across.
Мультфильмы онлайн
bit
bit ilaçlama
bit ilaçlama
bit ilaçlama
bit ilaçlama
bit ilaçlama
bit ilaçlama
hamam böceği
hamam böceği
hamam böceği
hamam böceği
hamam böceği
hamam böceği
kalorifer böceği
kalorifer böceği
kalorifer böceği
kalorifer böceği
kalorifer böceği
kene ilaçlama
kene ilaçlama
kene ilaçlama
kene ilaçlama
kene ilaçlama
ilaçlama
ilaçlama
ilaçlama
ilaçlama
fare ilaçlama
fare ilaçlama
fare ilaçlama
fare ilaçlama
fare ilaçlama
fare ilaçlama
Post a Comment