Well Herr Monk, congratulations on being able to wait 4 posts before conceding defeat and resorting to insults.

A final solution? How smart.

---

--------------------------------------------------

"We do not have to visit a madhouse to find disordered minds; our planet is the mental institution of the universe."

I maintain. The 'new' law is just reemphasizing a law that dates back to 1804. Maybe AP reporters should dig deeper

instead of trying desperatly to get a 'scoop'.

You insist on equating Muslims and Northern Africans. This is sad. I would expect better from someone who usually

makes intelligent remarks (being a new poster does not mean I have lurked in the past).

The birth rates for 'whites' or northern africans are not very different. I agree that they are too low and will likely

create significant problems in the future with France's social security system of another era.

---

--------------------------------------------------

"We do not have to visit a madhouse to find disordered minds; our planet is the mental institution of the universe."

"I would express that as a religion of secularism, or even radical secularism.

The concept makes a lot of sense if you think about it. "

Only if you are willing to butcher the meanings of the words "secular" and "religion." Just a because a policy bans something, doesn't make that policy a "religion."

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Yes, there are policies that date back to Napolean along the lines you suggest. No doubt about that.

A new law by the French Parliment was passed making their enforcement rather draconian. You can say nothing has changed, but that is simply not the case.

It targeted the Muslims without question, but picked up some collateral damage to other religions along the way just to be arguably secular.

I do agree that just because something is in the AP doesn't mean it has any basis in reality. In this case though, the reporting is accurate.

If you want a country that is demographically screwed though, you are living in it. I take no pleasure in that fact given that half of my ancestors left from Germany 115 years ago. A fertility rate of 1.39 babies per woman is not going to maintain the country. On a percentage basis Germany has about 2/3rds as many immigrants as the US, yet its population has peaked.

It is pretty hard to look around Europe and not conclude that secular societies are in the process of self destructing. All the philosophical and moral superiority means nothing if society implodes as a consequence.

The German case is a lot worse. No doubt about that. But, we are doing at least twice as good as Japan.

I know it does not mean much. If you look at southern Europe, the problems are the same, this despite Religion

being a lot more present. I do not think that secularism is the cause for the low birth rates in Europe.

This is a problem. I do agree.

As for the French law. Yes it did target muslims because it was the only group that did not want to respect this

specific law.



You did not address the point concerning birth rates and ethnicity in the US

---

--------------------------------------------------

"We do not have to visit a madhouse to find disordered minds; our planet is the mental institution of the universe."

You can say nothing has changed, but that is simply not the case."

It's not that nothing has changed, just that this law was passed to clarify and enforce older laws that were vague enough to allow for varying interpretations. Although the head scarves got the press, it's pretty obvious that a lot of other things were banned as well. I'd be willing to bet that Yarmulkes are as important to strict Jews as hijabs are to strict Muslims. I really don't see the problem. If I understand the law correctly, from talking to various Frenchmen who seem to have kept up, it also bans religious displays or practices in school. For instance, Muslims can't insist on the curriculum being interrupted so they can pray during the day, or Christian fundamentalists can't decide on their own that they won't attend classes that teach evolution. also, the law only applies to govt funded schools. Sounds like Separation of Church and State, just like we're supposed to have here.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

We are not in great shape demographically either. Our population is getting older, but our population is going to continue to grow indefinitely.

We are not without our ethnic problems, but we really have zero religious problems, and we are doing a good job of integrating our immigrants, though not as good as in the past.

Being white, I would prefer a country that has a majority that looks like me. Far more important however, is that we have a majority that thinks like me. By that I mean a majority that values religous and economic freedom, democracy and capitalism.

Even in majority Hispanic Dade County Florida, the majority culture is Hispanic and the majority language is Spanish. Do not make the mistake that it is a foreign enclave, however. They value freedom, democracy and capitalism more than most native Americans. That immigrant attitude is the future and the past of America.

You can call it separation of church and state if you want. Such a law would, fortunately, not pass constitutional muster here.

I call it imposition of the state religion of secularism.

"You can call it separation of church and state if you want"

I will because that's what it is, not because that's what I want it to be.

"Such a law would, fortunately, not pass constitutional muster here. "

Yes, because our Constitution is not the same as the French. Our version of Separation of Church and State is not very strong. All our Constitution says is that we can't pass a law establishing a national religion and that we can't pass a law prohibiting the exercise of religion. I guess one could argue that "restricting" and "prohibiting" might not be the same thing, but that's an argument for some lawyer in some court someday.

"I call it imposition of the state religion of secularism."

Ok, but that sounds pretty dumb. Is our Constitution the imposition of our state religion of democracy?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

You call it dumb if you like. But if you think it through, the consequences of viewing the description my way pretty well match up with reality. Quibble with the semantics as you choose.

From you, Sr. Von Goethe, that is a compliment, as you were incapable of even one post with employing insults and disinformation. As for conceding defeat, I do indeed, for as you know, the Germans are either at your feet or at your throat, and I do not care to waste any energy putting such an obvious troll on his knees.


I had also thought you long since dead, so it was quite a surprise to find you creating a screen name on Slowtwitch just Saturday. I wonder what your other names have been here?

"You call it dumb if you like."

I like.

"Quibble with the semantics as you choose. "

I just love it when people decide that adhering to the actual definitions of words instead of made up ones is "semantics." Last I checked, people don't go to secular churches. They don't believe that secularity is the way to everlasting life. They don't think secularity explains man's existence. Secular means "not relating to or concerned with religion." It's really not that difficult.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"Being white, I would prefer a country that has a majority that looks like me."

Why?

No the concept of having a religion of trying to squash the effectiveness of religion is really quite simple. It has everything a religion has. It has zealots. These zealots have a philosophy. They try to impose it on others. They seek converts and try to indoctrinate others to their beliefs. They have their sacraments like abortion and government. They are intolerant of the opinions of others. They try to banish those conflicting opinions from the public discourse. They get quite strident and try to move society towards their beliefs and values.

Sorry, not seeing how radical secularism is substantively distinguishable from religion.

People always prefer to be members of the majority. They are more comfortable with people of similar backgrounds.

It takes a little thought to figure out what are the most essential elements of similar backgrounds. It doesn't take long to realize that how they think about basic values is way ahead of skin pigmentation or ancestoral heritage.

Feel free to quote me to me, but, next time, try to include the whole thought.

I didn't care about the other part of the statement, which you explained (the shared values). I cared solely about the racial aspect of the paragraph, hence I quoted exactly what I was inquiring about.

I wanted to know why you cared if whites are in the racial majority, so I asked, and quoted the relevant statement.

Edit: If you felt there was any implied attitude or derisiveness to my original question, there wasn't. I was legitimately interested in the racial comment as the rest of the statement about background/values could have been made without saying you wanted a white majority.

"No the concept of having a religion of trying to squash the effectiveness of religion is really quite simple."

The concept of a religion trying to squash the effectiveness of religon in general is a paradox.

"It has zealots."

Not everything with avid proponents is a religion.

"These zealots have a philosophy."

Not every philosophy qualifies as religion.

"They try to impose it on others."

Ok, but religion doesn't require imposed beliefs.

"They seek converts and try to indoctrinate others to their beliefs."

They seek to convince people that they are right. I do the same thing in almost every discussion of this forum. Doesn't mean each discussion is a religious one.

"They have their sacraments like abortion and government"

Abortion and government aren't sacraments. A Sacrament is a rite established by God as a channel for his grace. I think it's obvious that secularists don't view govt and abortion as the means to obtain God's grace.

"They are intolerant of the opinions of others."

Some secularists are, and some religious people are, and some Yankees fans are, etc, etc. Again, doens't make secularism a religion.

"They try to banish those conflicting opinions from the public discourse."

Ok, I'm not sure who you think you're describing, but neither religion nor secularism have it in their standard policy to keep anyone from talking about opposing positions. Some people from both groups probably share this trait, but that is a human flaw, not a quality of the institutions themselves.

"They get quite strident and try to move society towards their beliefs and values. "

As do any people who believe anything strongly. You get the same thing from environmentalists, conservatives, etc.

"Sorry, not seeing how radical secularism is substantively distinguishable from religion."

Oh, well, let me help you out. Secularism is about getting rid of religious influence in civil matters. Religion,...is not. If your only point is that any radical ideology can share some qualities, then congrats, you made an obvious point. However, secularism, even radical secularism, is an political or social ideology, not a religion.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Fair enough.

Likewise for you slowguy.

" They just forgot that normally, you use a soccer game, hockey game etc. as an excuse. Not a new year's eve party. "

you really beilive that? well maybe they are practicing for the world cup next summer, becouse looks to me the rate it is going, it's a long tournement rather than a game. It's interesting how you minimize the religious aspect which underlies these events.

OK. You are right. Islam is not a problem in Europe.

Riiiiiiiight!! Madrid. London. Theo van Gogh. I'm really beginning to think that Europe needs a modern-day Charles Martel to spring forth and command some sort of response to the issue of radical Islam in Europe. I'm not saying a military response (that's just hoping for too much), but I hope that some of the leadership in the EU and its constituent countries wakes up and smells the coffee before it's too late.

Neville Chamberlain was wrong waaay back then, and that sort of response is wrong today. That'll never change, because the enemy we're struggling against isn't fighting us to win some sort of concessions. They're fighting to eliminate us. Accepting dhimmitude isn't the answer.

T.

Where did I say that Islam was not a problem in Europe? Please, enlight me. Of course it is. What I said was that

you cannot equate Northern African immigrant with Muslim. Of course, as it is traditional on this forum, you only

read what you want to read and Monk feels compelled to insult me and to wave off any argument on the grounds

that he has 5K posts and I am a new poster (and old lurker). Does my arguments bear less weight because I

decide to post anonymously? They do according to Monk who calls me a troll when my posts were neither insulting, nor

'trolling'. I presented my point of view on the matter without feeling the need to insult anyone. Obviously ajfranke and I

disagree, yet, there is a discussion.

---

--------------------------------------------------

"We do not have to visit a madhouse to find disordered minds; our planet is the mental institution of the universe."

Your first post.

And? This is true. As long as you do not make a distinction between Northern African immigrants and Muslims, you

show that you do not really understand the problem France has. Yes, there is a problem with Islam. But these 400 cars

burnt had nothing to do with it. It's pure hooliganism, from mostly Northern African immigrant neighbourhood.

---

--------------------------------------------------

"We do not have to visit a madhouse to find disordered minds; our planet is the mental institution of the universe."

To be honest with you, I wish I could think like you, but I cant ! I can't becuase any time there is a problem with people of Muslim origin, be it an ethnic one, scio.economic one, the problem gets magnified 10 times compare with people of different believes. And I am not talking of the demographic aspect of it nessacerily. Why is that ? I would love to get your explanation for that.

"And" I know how a troll baits rather than discusses. "And" you are a troll. "And" have a nice day.