In defense of Europe in general, it’s a different place than America. Most people in France are well, French. Most people in Germany are, er, German. They aren’t a nation set up around an ideal, they are a nation in terms of race, which makes them fundamentally different from America, which is an idea. Anyone can be an American. While anyone can be a French or German citizen, that’s different from actually being French or German.
I think that to a great extent, nations founded on a concept of a common heritage and common language deserve greater deference when it comes to defending that heritage from outsiders.
Religious freedom doesn’t cause conflict; religious freedom is the only thing that allows people of different religions to live together in anything resembling peace and harmony. And given human nature and the nature of religious claims, absent some kind of really ferocious Inquisition, any society will inevitably include people belonging to different religious groups, as even in an initially religiously homogenous society, sooner or later the Reformed Pastafarians will split off from the Orthodox Pastafarians, and then the Reformed Pastafarians will divide into the Reformed Pastafarians (Spaghettiists) and the Reformed Pastafarians (Vermicellians).
The other irony is that by combating the threat of Islamic illiberalism by these means, the Swiss make it more likely, not less, that any Muslims living among them will embrace illiberal forms of Islam.
The President of France is named…Sarkozy. Is a he member of the French “race”?
I didn’t say the Swiss decision was undemocratic; I said that magellan01’s position was undemocratic (as well as illiberal)–which it is is because he seeks to empower the state to privilege the rights of some citizens (and people) over others and of majority cultures over minority cultures. Using the state to that end, especially where religion is concerned, is undemocratic.
I don’t think you’ll find that I said that the vote was unfair. It appears to have been procedurally correct.
Exactly, Mr. Excellent. But for the very same reason, empowering the state to provide unequal privileges to some cultures and some citizens (or people) is undemocratic as well as illiberal. And, yes, a decision rendered democratically–if it is a decision about using the state’s power unequally–can produce undemocratic effects. That is why functional democracies provide constitutional protections as you (and several others) have already noted at various points in this thread.
I agree. However, a side note. I’m no expert on the Swiss constitution whatsoever. But I would not be surprised if it has similar checks given the peculiar composition of Switzerland. I would not be surprised, in other words, if this decision ends up being contested through the Swiss courts (there is already mention in the NYT article about the violation of human rights treaties to which Switzerland is signatory).
That is quite simply historically inaccurate. The people we now call “French” are a diverse lot including Franks, Bretons, Normans, Basques and so on. There is not one single race of French people. Or a single race of Germans, for that matter.
The French constitution suggests otherwise. The very first article makes it clear that there is to be no different treatment on the basis of “origin, race or religion”.
Well you certainly couldn’t include Switzerland in that category.
Well for one thing, Switzerland isn’t a nation founded on a common language (as I see ruadh has noted above).
For another, you are suggesting that there be deference for only one component of polities founded as liberal democracies (some as republics, some as constitutional monarchies): the principle of nationality defined as common heritage. But no country that saw citizenship or even nationality in terms of common heritage exclusively could ever allow immigration in the first place.
But Europe has if anything been moving in the direction of greater internationalism and cosmopolitanism (through the European Union especially) up until this crisis over Islam (which is in complicated ways also a crisis over economic globalization–even though it appears to be about Muslims alone).
The latter crisis has ignited nationalisms, ethnocentrisms, and religious particularism against the more universalist human foundations for polity (within as well as across nations) which have made Europe a progressive continent in the postwar period.
So you are in a sense saying, “I think the most the most reactionary elements of Europe and of the nations within Europe should be given more deference than the least reactionary ones.” But why should they?
And why should the Muslim citizens of Switzerland, who compose about 6 percent of the population IIRC, be considered “outsiders”?
**The President of France is named…Sarkozy. Is a he member of the French “race”? **
I didn’t imply that nations based on a common heritage should keep out those not part of that race. Only that such nations deserve greater understanding when they take measures to preserve that heritage.
A future America that is not white is still America. A Muslim France is not France, and I doubt it would even be called France anymore. And before anyone objects to that statement, think about if the Nazis had won and the Polish race was extinct. Would Poland be Poland if the population was all German?
The French constitution suggests otherwise. The very first article makes it clear that there is to be no different treatment on the basis of “origin, race or religion”.
You’re missing the point. France is a liberal democracy than welcomes immigrants. Of course it will treat them the same, as France should. However, any threat to France’s national character is likely to be dealt with should it arise. The Muslim population is increasing. That is unsustainable if France is to continue to be French. Switzerland is doing what it feels it has to do, and there are politicians in every European nation that want even more drastic steps. And these aren’t just fringe parties, they win substantial votes.
Mostly, because there should be a right to freedom of thought. It doesn’t matter that religions are counter productive; you shouldn’t be able to just ban people from believing it. I would also expect that kind of ban to be ineffective and very prone to abuse against the religious - but perhaps that would be OK, since it would automatically make them criminals. :rolleyes:
I’m perfectly OK with a stronger influence against some of the more dangerous and stupid aspects of religion, using legal methods too if those aspects directly endanger others, but as for the OP, this kind of symbolic politics against a “problem” that barely even exists in Switzerland is just a backhanded attempt at discouraging muslims from living there. It’s just big “fuck off, we don’t like your kind around here” against muslims, pretending to be something else.
No country that saw citizenship or even nationality in terms of common heritage exclusively could ever allow immigration in the first place.
Not at all. Even some of the most racist Arab nations allow immigration, but that doesn’t mean they’d let say, Indian Hindus take over the United ARAB Emirates.
So you are in a sense saying, "I think the most the most reactionary elements of Europe and of the nations within Europe should be given more deference than the least reactionary ones."
Actually I think Europeans deserve more deference to defend what is “European” than Americans do to defend whatever the heck we consider “American”. The only thing that is American is our concept of liberty. America is a nation of immigrants. Europe is a continent filled with white people who have lived there for thousands of years, and have been essentially Christian for about 1500 years.
Now when it comes to other cultures, those of us who consider ourselves progressive often lament how they disappear or get assimilated into more modern cultures. We feel that something has been lost. Wouldn’t it be an even greater tragedy to lose the culture of Galileo, Leonardo Da Vinci, Descartes, and Beethoven?
What religion must one be in order to be French? Were the Huguenots French? Was Captain Dreyfus French?
The Nazis planned to subjugate and physically exterminate the Polish people. While Polish national identity is bound up with the Catholic Church for many people, I don’t think you could say “Poland is dead!” if a majority of Poles happened to convert to Pentecostalism.
:rolleyes: “Liberty” is hardly a concept unique to America. And America has just as much a distinct national culture as anywhere else.
That culture is already long lost, if you insist on using such a narrow definition of culture. Switzerland + Islam would be far less different from present Switzerland than the modern West compared to the era of Galileo.
What religion must one be in order to be French? Were the Huguenots French? Was Captain Dreyfus French?
Maybe I’m just not explaining myself. France, being a liberal democracy, welcomes all religions, as it should. But France is a Christian nation in character and has been for 1200 years, as long as Arabia has been Muslim.
When the Muslims controlled Spain, it was called Andalusia. When Spain became totally Catholic in the 15th century, its character changed. Even its name changed. Spain is not Andalusia. Likewise, if Germany conquered and settled France, it wouldn’t be France.
While Polish national identity is bound up with the Catholic Church for many people, I don’t think you could say “Poland is dead!” if a majority of Poles happened to convert to Pentecostalism.
No, as long as Poland is filled with Poles, it’s Poland. If Poland became filled with Germans or Russians instead, it wouldn’t be Poland, nor would it be called Poland.
France could still be France if it was Muslim, provided that the majority of Muslims were also French. If they weren’t French, they’d probably change the name, finding it offensive. France would literally cease to exist.
"Liberty" is hardly a concept unique to America. And America has just as much a distinct national culture as anywhere else.
Well, what liberty means to America is unique, I believe, but that’s another discussion. As for America’s culture, yes, we have a unique culture, but it’s not bound up in race or religion. A black man is as American as a white man or a Hispanic man. I don’t believe it’s the same thing in Europe, and every immigrant I’ve spoken to who first emigrated to Europe before coming to America confirms this. Being a German or French citizen isn’t the same as being German or French. They are two totally different things. There are German and French Americans. Leaving those countries, even if it was generations ago, doesn’t make them any less German or French. Likewise, a Chinese person moving to Italy isn’t Italian. He’s Chinese with Italian citizenship.
No, the freedom to publicly practice religion is what seems to cause the conflict.
If Muslims want buildings to congregate and practice their religious beliefs in - for god knows what reason that cannot be accomplished in an individual’s home - they should share the ones that are already there; same goes for Christians in predominantly Muslim countries.
Take France. France is a nation, but not just a nation, a people. The French people. They have been a people for at least 1200 years, united by a language, religion(to a lesser extent since the schism), and a culture.
America is a nation of immigrants a little more than 200 years old.
It shouldn’t be hard to see how they might view immigration issues and assimilation differently from us.
Well, OK, except that you said “A Muslim France is not France”. So it’s not Islam per se, it’s immigrants who happen to be Muslim. And yes, if 150 million Indonesians just upped and moved to France overnight, then “France” would presumably go the way of the Etruscans. The same would be true if 150 million Brazilians just upped and moved to France overnight, even though Brazil is a predominantly Catholic Christian country.
But as the example of President Sarkozy shows, immigrants (whose ancestors were not the Gauls) can nonetheless assimilate into being Frenchmen, since “French” is actually not a “racial” concept.
The question then becomes, what sorts of policies will persuade Muslim immigrants that their children can become French (Swiss, British, etc.)? I would say it’s not policies which tell Muslim immigrants that they cannot be both Muslims and be French (Swiss, British, etc.).
Well, OK, except that you said "A Muslim France is not France"
In practice, no, it wouldn’t be, because there’s no way very many ethnic French are going to convert. It’s hard enough to get Frenchmen into church, much less a mosque.
But as the example of President Sarkozy shows, immigrants (whose ancestors were not the Gauls) can nonetheless assimilate into being Frenchmen, since “French” is actually not a “racial” concept.
You’re right about Sarkozy and immigration, but French is a racial concept. There are a lot of Americans who are French. Saying French isn’t a racial concept is like saying being Arab isn’t a racial concept.
**The question then becomes, what sorts of policies will persuade Muslim immigrants that their children can become French (Swiss, British, etc.)? I would say it’s not policies which tell Muslim immigrants that they cannot be both Muslims and be French (Swiss, British, etc.). **
It has to work both ways. Europe’s not as enlightened about race as we are, to be sure(not saying we don’t need to improve, but America is more inclusive). However, Muslims aren’t very interested in assimilation and tend to have decidedly illiberal views that aren’t compatible with Western civilization.
The reason Europe is having these issues is primarily because Muslim immigrants DON’T want to assimilate. They want the benefits of living in the West without having to become Westerners.
Ridiculous. In societies like the United States where everyone is free to publicly practice their religions, there is a general harmony between different sects and religions. In societies where one religion is officially favored over those of minority groups, you get pogroms and riots (members of the officially-favored majority feel privileged over the “outsiders”, who aren’t true [whatevers] no matter how long they’ve lived there, and the majority religionists occasionally feel entitled to go and beat them up and take their stuff; these feelings are also highly susceptible to manipulation by power-hungry politicians with various agendas). In societies where minority religions are all but banned, like Saudi Arabia, you get simmering tensions, fears of religiously-based “fifth columns”, and the occasional riot.
No there aren’t. There are a lot of Americans who have French ancestry. They are American.
Arab is a pan-national racial identity. You can be a Syrian or a Moroccan Arab, concurrent with you living in Syria or Morocco. But what nationality is a Walloon (an ethnically French person living in Belgium)? Answer: they’re Belgian.
My Muslim neighbours in England are English, of Bangladeshi or Pakistani origin.
I agree. Heck, I’m on the fence on the veil-banning in France, for instance, but banning a certain type of architecture, even if it were a given that it is formally codified in Islam as representing the political power of that religion, is ridiculous.
I’d go even further than many in this thread to crack down on some forms of Islam in western Europe and even then it’s still ridiculous. There are some branches of Islamicism in western Europe that support the idea of imposing Sharia law on their country. I believe these branches should be marginalized, if not legally, then by their governments using the bully pulpit (which is why I am on the fence about veils.) But even banning minarets on those mosques would do nothing and could cause even more harm by (further) radicalizing the occupants.
