|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
Norway "Goes Racist Sexist Xenophobic"
Norway building a fence at Russian border
Government says the fence is necessary to stop refugees crossing into the country.
The Norwegian government has announced it will erect a fence at a Russian border post to deter migrants from entering via the Arctic route.
The 200 meter long and 3.5-meter high steel fence will be erected within coming weeks at the Storskog border point to block entry to Norway through a forest at the Schengen zone’s exterior border, Reuters reported.
Deputy Justice Minister Ove Vanebo defended the move, saying: “The gate and the fence are responsible measures,” the news agency reported.
Are they going to make Russia pay for it?
http://www.politico.eu/article/norway-building-a-fence-at-russian-border/
|
On August 27 2016 01:22 Sent. wrote:Norway "Goes Racist Sexist Xenophobic" Show nested quote +Norway building a fence at Russian border
Government says the fence is necessary to stop refugees crossing into the country.
The Norwegian government has announced it will erect a fence at a Russian border post to deter migrants from entering via the Arctic route.
The 200 meter long and 3.5-meter high steel fence will be erected within coming weeks at the Storskog border point to block entry to Norway through a forest at the Schengen zone’s exterior border, Reuters reported.
Deputy Justice Minister Ove Vanebo defended the move, saying: “The gate and the fence are responsible measures,” the news agency reported. Are they going to make Russia pay for it? http://www.politico.eu/article/norway-building-a-fence-at-russian-border/
What refugees? Syrian?
|
Yes, it's in the rest of article you lazy 
While 5,500 refugees, most from Syria, crossed into Norway last year, none have done so this year, according to the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration, raising questions about the necessity of the fence, Reuters reported.
Russia maintains a fence along its 196-kilometer-long border with Norway and has thus far not complained about the Norway’s plan to build its own.
|
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_ITALY_QUAKE_THE_LATEST?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-08-26-12-44-16 Italian authorities say the death toll in central Italy's devastating earthquake has risen to 278.
Civil protection officials gave the updated toll at a briefing Friday afternoon, adding that 238 other people caught up in the quake were rescued.
The death toll in the Arquata area of the earthquake zone has stabilized with 49 dead hailing from the region. Firefighting official Bruno Frattasi says there are no more people there unaccounted for, and efforts now were making sure all the dead were returned to their loved ones.
The situation remains more uncertain in the Amatrice area, where the vast majority of earthquake dead have come from. The mayor estimates at least 15 more people remain unaccounted for there.
|
Like all women in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, I was forced to veil when visiting that country. Born Muslim, raised by pluralist Muslim parents, I had never been compelled to cover my hair. Arriving in the Kingdom, though, I could not — by law — go out in public without concealing my entire body, save face and hands, in a flowing black abaya. So when I recently saw a burkini-clad Muslim woman forcibly stripped in France, in the name of secular democracy, her objectification by a Western democracy reminded me of my own by the Saudi theocracy.
France’s objectification of this Muslim woman and, through her, all Muslim women, is an incredible act of humiliation of all Muslim womanhood. While, as an observing Muslim, I argued in favor of French president Nicolas Sarkozy’s 2011 ban of the niqab — wearing this face veil is now punishable by fine in France — the public stripping of a Muslim woman neither preserves the secular space nor builds unity among French citizenry, when France is particularly brittle following a spate of Islamist terror attacks. One has to ask: Is France, home to more Muslims than any other nation in Europe, deliberately seeking to instigate widespread hostilities against Muslims symbolized by veiled women? Does France yearn to trigger civil unrest?
This obscenity of the burkini-ban enforcement aside, as an observing Muslim woman I still stand by banning the niqab in all public spaces, whether in France or indeed any country, Muslim or not. Exposing the visage promotes security and human connection at a time when both are imperiled. Being able to identify everyone and know one another’s intention and demeanor in public spaces is imperative to a cohesive society. Further, eliminating the niqab removes a polarizing symbol of neo-orthodox Islam from the public space: Only Islamists mandate that women wear a face veil, distorting the Quran from the origins of Islam.
[...]
Far from her beaches, France in this toxic climate has lost its bearings. It is now penalizing not only Muslim women, but France’s Muslim and Jewish children. In the name of secularism, some schools deliberately serve pork. Claiming laïcité, the state goes out of its way to deny young Muslim and Jewish children food, refusing to offer non-pork options. Children go hungry. Sarkozy himself recently, in announcing his 2017 presidential bid, has promised pork menus, in an opportunistic move to pilfer from opponent Marine Le Pen’s voting base. Welcome to secularism gone rogue.
[...]
Decent op-ed about the burkini debacle
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439394/burkini-france-controversy
|
well yea it's nothing new that the view of americans about laîcité and how to deal with communities is different from the french, burkini ban aside
|
On August 27 2016 01:22 Sent. wrote:Norway "Goes Racist Sexist Xenophobic" Show nested quote +Norway building a fence at Russian border
Government says the fence is necessary to stop refugees crossing into the country.
The Norwegian government has announced it will erect a fence at a Russian border post to deter migrants from entering via the Arctic route.
The 200 meter long and 3.5-meter high steel fence will be erected within coming weeks at the Storskog border point to block entry to Norway through a forest at the Schengen zone’s exterior border, Reuters reported.
Deputy Justice Minister Ove Vanebo defended the move, saying: “The gate and the fence are responsible measures,” the news agency reported. Are they going to make Russia pay for it? http://www.politico.eu/article/norway-building-a-fence-at-russian-border/
Reading "migrants entering via the Arctic route" feels so surreal
|
Claiming laïcité, the state goes out of its way to deny young Muslim and Jewish children food, refusing to offer non-pork options
Yeah, it must be shocking to read about the State telling parents who want to force their sons into their religion to do on their own and not at the state expense. That's how you get creationism in schools.
|
You can eat kosher meat and still believe in evolution. That's like two things you can do at the same time even
|
On August 27 2016 03:48 Nyxisto wrote:
You can eat kosher meat and still believe in evolution. That's like two things you can do at the same time even
Obviously. Who said the contrary ? Or do you think i am being literal ?
Maybe it's my bias, that i had a lefty friend in school, who was forced to write with his right hand by force (literally), or some who were repeatdly pointed as abominations because they weren't baptized. Thanks to the extensive laws to protect religion (in this case, catholic christianism) make me despise anything that tries to force state institutions which should be a-religious to give in on parent's choice to indoctrinate their sons into their respective religions. No parent should be allowed to force the state to give them those tools, and every inch counts.
|
We can stop bullying in schools for whatever reason.
We can stop abuse in schools for whatever reason.
We don’t need to force kids to eat food they don’t want eat. The reasons they don’t want to eat it doesn’t matter.
Part of living in a secular culture is accepting that people can practice their religion freely. Asking for a non-pork option is not more cumbersome for the state than if the child was allergic to pork. The only reason to force them to eat pork is to assure they don’t go to school any more.
|
How is respecting people's religious food customs in school even remotely related to the content of what you teach. That's two completely unrelated things. You can't just create a slippery slope where literally every religious action offends you so much that you're trying to get rid of it. We've religious freedoms in Europe. That means that you're not only entitled to pray in your living room but that you can also freely practise your religion. This of course also includes, within reasonable bounds, the public sphere and the workplace. A school or an office isn't some place where you have to put your whole identity aside.
|
On August 27 2016 05:27 Plansix wrote:
We can stop bullying in schools for whatever reason.
We can stop abuse in schools for whatever reason.
We don’t need to force kids to eat food they don’t want eat. The reasons they don’t want to eat it doesn’t matter.
Part of living in a secular culture is accepting that people can practice their religion freely. Asking for a non-pork option is not more cumbersome for the state than if the child was allergic to pork. The only reason to force them to eat pork is to assure they don’t go to school any more.
I am talking about teachers, not other students. I see i didn't get my point across, apologies. I already said that i disagree with allowing parents to indoctrinate their children, but since we can't stop it, the next thing we can do is to keep the state as clean about it as possible. Free religion should be really a free decission, and the state shouldn't be expected to give to even the smallest thing to accomodate religions, if you truly want free religion to work. The comparison on a sickness to a belief is a wrong analogy imo.
I understand why you would think that such position is excessive, i just happen to disagree, probably because of my own context.
How is respecting people's religious food customs in school even remotely related to the content of what you teach. That's two completely unrelated things. You can't just create a slippery slope where literally every religious action offends you so much that you're trying to get rid of it. We've religious freedoms in Europe. That means that you're not only entitled to pray in your living room but that you can also freely practise your religion. This of course also includes, within reasonable bounds, the public sphere and the workplace. A school or an office isn't some place where you have to put your whole identity aside.
You are creating a strawman, i didn't say it offends me (because it doesn't in the slightlest). And you perfectly know the relationship between both teaching and allowing religious customs has in common would be the space, i can't say that it will lead to that situation with a 100% guarantee, neither can you say the oppossite. It's not like its something new or that never happened on the long run. So yeah, i am very tight on not giving an inch to religions. But not muslim alone, just any religion.
|
It isn’t an analogy, it is showing the burden placed on the state, which is negligible. And you are creating a system where children will be marginalized by their religion. They won’t be able to eat the food at the school, so they will be required to bring it from home.
And finally, people won’t do it. Much like forcing women to strip at the beach in some misguided attempt to liberate them, no school staff is going to tell a Muslim or Jew child starve or eat pork. They are going to feed the kids. It is cruel to use the diet of children as some chess piece in a some culture war when the true goal of secularism is for everyone to co-exist and tolerate each other.
This sort of aggressive "secularism" is just spiteful and inhumane. It goes against the very idea of secularism and gets into the world of aggressive atheism the oppressive communists practiced. That the state will actively oppose any religious practice until people give up their religion or leave.
|
Oh they are able to eat food at the school. They just happen to have to bring their own. And as i said, i don't find marginalizing religious behaviours as something inherently bad. Only if it's poorly executed like the Burkini ban. Call it however you please, but i am not advocating for direct repression, just for the state relationship with its citizens to ignore religion.
|
On August 27 2016 03:24 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote + Claiming laïcité, the state goes out of its way to deny young Muslim and Jewish children food, refusing to offer non-pork options Yeah, it must be shocking to read about the State telling parents who want to force their sons into their religion to do on their own and not at the state expense. That's how you get creationism in schools.
While I firmly believe religious indoctrination in childhood is a major problem, I still think all these discussions about food and clothes are ridiculous and fail to get at the heart of the matter.
After a lot of thinking on the subject I realized that the one problem I see with Islam in Europe is how difficult it is to get rid of that particular religious identity. If no longer being a Muslim would be just as easy for people living in Western countries as no longer being Catholic or Protestant is, I would be more optimistic about the current developments in European societies. But as it is not, this is a sign that there is a major divide that cannot easily be crossed.
Part of the problem is that this divide is mirrored by the divide between the Muslim world and the Western world, a divide which is not only religious but also concerns cultural, political and national identity, and that is a very dangerous mixture.
|
On August 27 2016 06:16 Godwrath wrote:
Oh they are able to eat food at the school. They just happen to have to bring their own. And as i said, i don't find marginalizing religious behaviours as something inherently bad. Only if it's poorly executed like the Burkini ban. Call it however you please.
I’m from the US, so I don’t have to worry about whatever laws you push for. But as someone who is religious, I find push this form of enforced atheism as sinister as the in my country for school prayer. I don’t really see any difference.
|
I agree that early indoctrination (religious or not) is fairly obnoxious, but you can't punish the children for that, plus removing the possibility to eat something else will not stop the parental pressure. Besides, religion isn't the only reason menu substitutions are a good idea.
|
No, it's mostly for allergies. It's easy to accomodate for food, i am just making a dumb stand to point out that there has to be a line drawn somewhere early in life. The whole free religion concept that people tend to attempt to defend does not work because parents will force it upon their children. The burkini ban is stupid because that demographic already sailed and you won't gain anything alienating them.
But i don't know how you truly can find a system which won't indoctrinate one way or another.
|
On August 27 2016 06:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 06:16 Godwrath wrote:
Oh they are able to eat food at the school. They just happen to have to bring their own. And as i said, i don't find marginalizing religious behaviours as something inherently bad. Only if it's poorly executed like the Burkini ban. Call it however you please. I’m from the US, so I don’t have to worry about whatever laws you push for. But as someone who is religious, I find push this form of enforced atheism as sinister as the in my country for school prayer. I don’t really see any difference.
It's ridiculous. It also neglects the fact that ex-muslims usually still don't like to eat pork.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
