But if it is - if a fundamentalist extremist cult decides that shaking hands with women is a signifier of loyalty to the cult - I see no reason that we shouldn’t use that test to let people tell us who they are.
Exactly.
And no problem simultaneously admitting someone to citizenship if they have bona fide reasons for something similar - say a germaphobe who dislikes shaking hands with anyone of either sex, but will do it with a glove on, say.
I’m wondering ifl he were Christian, he would have been quizzed about my views of the punishments dictated in the Biblical canon. Somehow I doubt that would have happened. I’m also wondering if the official who quizzed him about his religious beliefs thinks those German citizens who do not shake hands with members of the opposite gender should lose German citizenship.
No, I’m not defending misogyny here, but rather condemning an obviously, IMHO, religiously based test which, AFAIK is not permitted under German law.
According to the above, he wasn’t asked about what the Quran or whatever said about those punishments, he was asked about what he thought. I think if you asked a Christian whether someone should be stoned to death for adultery and that Christian said yes, he would have a similarly hard time getting citizenship.
But is this line actually the law? Was it clearly the case that shaking hands was a condition of citizenship?
I mean, it is an interesting question, though. Would a Christian even have been asked? Are Christian immigrants from, say, the US regularly asked about their views on same-sex marriage?
How do you understand the term “according to Islamic canon”?
Look, I’m not trying to defend the fundamentalist misogynist nut, nor trying to dictate German immigration laws. But the guy was a legal resident of Germany since 2012 (according to article). Seems those were reasonable questions to ask when considering giving him legal residence status.
Having reread the article more carefully, it’s possible he became more fundamentalist in the interim. It does beg the questions of whether naturalized citizenship may be denied based on similar fundamentalist values.
From the above, it looks like he refused to directly answer questions about some of the more extreme aspects of Sharia, and having sex with 9 year-olds.
A Christian probably would not be asked the same questions.
Probably not, but that’s because sexual orientation is not (yet) covered by the “liberal democratic basic order” that every candidate must conform to.
watnow?
Thanks.
If this had happened in the US, it appears the man could have gone on to the Vice-Presidency.
Also … apropos of nothing …
In 1857, even spitting was considered intolerable
Which is exactly why it’s wrong. You’ve just described a religious test for citizenship. And that violates the man’s human rights. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right. His religious beliefs, no matter what they are, are not relevant.
Only religious practices can be relevant–if they cause harm. But you don’t have any sign of the guy performing any harmful religious acts. The only religious act in question is not shaking hands, which harms no one.
And, yes, I know many atheists hate religion. But I continue to point out that freedom of religion is the only reason why atheism is not illegal. Historically, it was seen as a dangerous belief.
Freedom of religion is listed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
for a reason. These countries should not be able to treat even a non-citizen differently because of their religious beliefs.
And this nonsense is exactly why I had sympathy for the “handshake is forcing your culture on others” aspect. Because, in these cases, it very much seems to be. There are even laws that are cited that are about having a cultural value. And those cultural values generally align with what one ethnicity says–those who were “ethnically” German or “ethnically” French made the rules for everyone. Yuck.
I will note that ultra-Orthodox Jews have similar rules regarding touching women who are not their wives or family members, even with handshakes. Do those folks get denied citizenship for refusing to shake hands?
Huh? The Germans make the rules for German citizenship and the French make the rules for French citizenship. Who do you think should be making them, Americans?
Which does not answer my question.
From what I can tell, this is the straight dope. Thanks.
Google Translation of the “guiding principles” of the ruling itself:
Respect for the [liberal democratic basic order] requires that the naturalization applicant unconditionally accepts the powers of the democratically legitimized legislature to legislate, even if the state law is in contradiction to (supposed or actual) religious commandments.
[…]
Inadequate lip service is given, for example, if the naturalization applicant avoids clear answers to questions from the court that allow conclusions to be drawn about his understanding of Islam and his attitude to the [liberal democratic basic order].
He was subject to the extra scrutiny because the government identified him as a member of this Islamic Community of Germany, which the government says is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, which the government says wants to establish a dictatorial or totalitarian system of government and is not committed to the principles of self-determination, freedom of speech, or equality of people. He was not rejected because of mere association with this religious community, he was rejected because the government claims that he puts religion before the liberal democratic basic order. They think his excuse about making a promise to his wife is a lie, and present arguments to that effect (for example, he is a doctor in a public hospital and regularly has to touch women).
The religious test, specific to Islam, was administered before the handshake thing. He took the religious test, gave vague answers, and was cleared for naturalization. Then he went to pick up the certificate and refused the handshake, then the government went back and said, ‘nevermind, now we think you were lying about your committment to the liberal democratic basic order’.
~Max