France bans Muslim public prayers
Offline http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/france-bans-public-muslim-prayers/story-e6frg6so-1226138737349
MUSLIMS will be banned from praying outdoors in France from today in the latest move by officials to remove Islam from the public sphere.
The ban, announced by the government yesterday, infuriated French Muslim leaders, one of whom accused President Sarkozy's government of treating them like cattle.
They say that Muslims, who pray outdoors only because of a lack of space in mosques in France, feel stigmatised.
But Claude Gueant, the Interior Minister, said that the sight of hundreds of people gathering in the streets of Paris and other cities for Friday prayers was "shocking".
It comes after laws to prohibit pupils from wearing headscarves in schools and women from wearing the niqab, the full Muslim veil, in public.
Mr Gueant described outlawing street prayers as the latest brick in the wall that is shoring up the secular nature of the French state. He said that he had nothing against Islam, but wanted it out of the public eye.
"Street prayers must stop because they hurt the feelings of many of our compatriots who are shocked by the occupation of the public space for a religious practice," he said.
Police could be asked to arrest Muslims who continue to pray in the street, Mr Gueant warned, but officials will initially try to persuade them to move into a mosque.
Debate has focused on the Goutte d'Or district in northern Paris. Dozens and sometimes hundreds of Muslims pray in the surrounding streets.
Marine Le Pen, the leader of the National Front, was accused of racism when she said that the worship amounted to an "occupation" - a word that for many French is associated with the Nazi invasion during the Second World War.
But the government now appears to be on the same wavelength, with Mr Gueant agreeing that street prayers would "upset" his fellow countrymen.
He said that officials had made available a disused fire station in the Goutte d'Or with room for 2700 people for a rent of €30,000 ($A40,330) a year.
But Muslim leaders said that the site would be open to worshippers only on Fridays.
Mohamed Salah Hamza, imam at a mosque in the Goutte d'Or district, said: "We are not cattle. Our demands have not entirely been satisfied."
He said that he feared worshippers would continue to pray outside.
"I am in an uncomfortable position and I am afraid there will be a climate of anarchy," he said.
THE TIMES
I mean really? The Interior Minister has nothing against Islam, but he doesn't want to see it?
- Login to post comments
*best villain voice* Excellent.
I believe your signature would be relevant here
Naw, this is France we're talking about. I'm very interested to see how this all plays out over there.
Call it an experiment.
Plus it will take some of the focus of the Muslim extremists off the US of A.
I never thought I'd root for France but I am now.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
I say Three Cheers for France.
Wish some of our politicians had balls like the French.
These stated reasons are stupid. But on the other hand, France does have a long tradition of enforcing much stricter secularism than other countries. Initially, it was to eliminate the influence of Catholicism, and it worked, though I have strong reservations about how far they might go to enforce it.
The hijab/niqab thing was in line with this tradition. I'm not sure what laws/codes the tradition is based on, nor how broadly they apply to the general public sphere (as opposed to merely the gov't). So, I don't know whether this outdoor prayer thing fits in with the legal traditions or not. But perhaps it does.
If it does, then it's stupid to try to make the case that you're doing it because it's 'shocking' or might 'upset' someone. Just say, "Hey, these are our laws, and they can suck it."
If the tradition doesn't cover non-gov't related public religious ceremonies, then it's still stupid to use the shock-upset excuse. Either way.
However, this response is equally stupid. "Our demands?!" WTF?! Doesn't this guy realize he sounds like a terrorist? Holy fuck, what an idiot.
Edit: I should also mention that there have been serious problems with religious mob behaviour in certain regions of France. Partly this is France's own making, because they do not make enough efforts to accept immigrants as equals, and tend to shun them and divert them into backwater communities, where Islam simply takes over. In Canada, we as a culture tend to be far more accepting of immigrants as individual people, and welcome them if they choose to become citizens. And then they become Canadians, and their children become Canadians, and everybody's happy, more or less, certainly more than in France. (Yes, there is still discrimination, but not nearly as bad, and it is often limited to language barriers; children of immigrants tend to experience far less discrimination.) We certainly don't shun them or isolate them.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
God fucking damn it. For everything that Europe gets right, like pay gap and education and living standards, they have their heads up their asses on this issue. So the way to convince Muslims to be non-violent is to tell them they cant pray in public?
I'm all for public events sanctioned by government being neutral, but if a group of ANYONE is simply out in public, and it is not sanctioned by the government, why the fuck are they doing this?
This is insane. You cant legislate morality and to try to silence people like this is scary, not just for Muslims, but should scare anyone who values a secular government. After all the oppression Europe suffered from in the dark ages and under Hitler, you'd think that they'd have a little more compassion.
Mark France off my list of places to visit.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Go France for getting secularism right. At least someone is.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Not picking on any one individual here (Brian), but taking the side of the praying-Muslim-mobs is ridiculous, imo.
It IS offensive to non-Muslims, atheists included. I wouldn't want to have my path blocked by a Muslim-praying-mob any more than I would an xtian-praying-mob. Neither belong on the public streets. If they want to pray, they can do it at home in a closet like the good book says to do.
Freedom of speech and freedom of expression do have their limits. Some countries are more accommodating than others, but still, they all have certain restrictions.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
Of course he's going to take the side of muslims... Christian majority populations being hard on Islam happens to be one of his Great Moral Crises™ that he'll often rant about to the point of cliche, but as it happens he's right about this one issue. Secularism isn't a means to undermine religious practices in general, including ones you may happen to be uncomfortable with. Secularism is (by at least one dictionary definition) a means to level the political playing field of numerous religions within a country. It's something that we Americans are slow to catch up on, thanks to centuries of European colonization. Europe seems quick to catch up on it, because they are finally tiring of the mass migrations out of the undeveloped, less-than-modern world just so everyone can have their slice of the welfare pie, the same way we Americans are tired of Mexico opportunistically using our (dwindling) prosperity as their system of welfare.
As the push for mass economic migration to 'greener pastures' becomes more apparent, so does the radical measures necessary to stop said migration. I think it's fairly safe to wager that humanitarianism is going into decline as well, as the oasis of state charity dries up, the most economically troubled nations' populations explode, and Europe's and North America's natives get tired of sharing with the rest of the world. Yeah, I see this move on France's part as being one of the many direct consequences of this relatively recent cultural trend.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
All right Watcher, natural and Sandy consider this:
Say Obama bans the public display of atheism. That is no public display of atheist billboards, no atheist t-shirts [like "thank god I'm an atheist" or RRS shirts] all to keep secularism of America. America WAS founded on secular principles and on securalism.
If that happens, I won't blame the Christians, I'll blame people like you.
People need to realize that secular does NOT mean atheism, or no religion period. It means to get religion out of GOVERNMENT, not out of people's lives period.
In order for France to be consistent, they would have to also ban the public display of atheism such as t-shirts and billboards etc...
and Sandy it offends you? So what? You don't have a right to not be offended, and they have freedom of speech.
I would also like to point out that prayer is NOT a predictor of Muslim extremism.
Ok, what if America Bans atheists from public displays or speech?
What they are doing is SICK and as fascist as Iran. How the fuck anyone can cheer oppression is beyond me.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Did you not just post most of what I got through saying, or am I imagining things?
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
How could France, or anyone BAN the display of atheism. Just walking down the street without makeing the sign of the cross would be a display of atheism. Just saying Hello without a preamble of prayer is a display of atheism.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
If America bans atheists, they would be promoting religion, in direct VIOLATION of the constitution. Allowing prayer in a publicly owned place also Violates the constitution. I know this happens in the States but it is not suppose to.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Cites, or it didn't happen.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
No it doesn't unless the prayer is sancitoned by the the government, i.e it is required in the place. This is not the case. Somebody praying in a public place isn't the government promoting religion, any more than somebody wearing a Walmart shirt in public place is the government promoting Walmart. The government forcing crosses on state capitals is different between a Muslim praying in a park.
A law like this should be struck down on grounds that it hinders freedom of speech. Freedom of speech applies in ALL public places. ESPECIALLY those owned by the government.
In other words, seperation of church and state goes both ways. How do people not get this?
I would like to point out that oppression of any people IS a predictor of extremism. They're kicking a hornet's nest.
I'm so tired of this waiting for the next attack by muzzie extremists. I'm so tired of us invading muslim countries and saying we're not at war with Islam. It's just lip service. Islam is easily pervertable to create Muslim extremists. Way too easily. So I say fuck it. Let's just do WWIII and get it done with.
Some muslim group is going to do an attack on France in some manner. And they are going to publicize their hand in doing so, pointing out this very law. And if it creates a full blown war with the end result of France being extremely anti-muslim, I'm all for it.
Fuck Islam.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Well your Canadian butt can blame me all you want. I'm not rooting for America to ban public Muslim prayer or anything about religion. It would be an extreme violation of our Constitution. I would never quietly tolerate that HERE. This is France we're talking about.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Sandy has every right to be offended. And you don't have the right to tell her she doesn't.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
This is the type of gun-ho attitude that I despise. Like I said over and over, the atheist movement is NOT contributing to solving these problems with this kind of gun-ho attitude.
http://www.amazon.com/Talking-Enemy-Brotherhood-Making-Terrorists/dp/0061344907
I never said she couldn't be offended, I said that isn't a good enough reason to ban it.
I said she didn't have a right to not get offended, in other words just finding something offensive does not mean she can ban it.
I despise pacifists that want to lay down and just let someone walk all over them. So I guess we're just going to have to deal with those aspects of each other.
Oh. Yeah, you're right. My bad. What a difference one word makes, eh?
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Prove that they do, and you don't.
WTF do you think you know about Europeans, anyways?
Convince???
The word is 'dictate'.
There is a 'dictate' to be non-violent.
Period.
It's not up for negotiation.
No, it's not. And saying it is doesn't make it so, no matter how many times you repeat it.
Abolishing the 'free pass' for hate speech and manifestos of murder and genocide under the guise of 'religion' is long overdue.
WTF have you been?
It is legislated.
Strawman.
Nowhere does it say they must be silent.
Compassion????
For this kind of 'spiritual worldview'??
Methinks you need to get a dictionary and look up the word 'tyranny', to understand the distinction between Hitler and this French mandate against public practice of violent doctrines on their soil.
You obviously don't know many French people. They don't want to see ignorant people in their country.
The moment Muslims demonstrate that their 'native lands' not only tolerate the 'infidel', but legally defend the rights of the infidel to publically practice apostacy on Muslim soil, that'll be the day you have a real fucking point to make.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
St.Patrick's Day Parade, Easter parades, Several Latino festivals with parades, Ten commandments posted in court houses. All sanctioned [parade permits] by some level of government or other. Any Santa Claus parade qualifys but that is fast becoming secular.
Here in Canada we DO NOT have a constituional guaruntee of seperation. In fact a hot topic in Toronto right now is a protest against allowing Muslim prayers in Public school cafaterias on Fridays. Right now the school board allows it, but a collection of Hindu, Jews, Christian and atheist groups are trying to put an end to it.
Another hot topic in Toronto [3 yrs +] is the Toronto District Seperate School Board [Catholic schools] couldn't balance their budget so the Province took over the day to day managment of all finance. Why not the city of Toronto collects the assessments [taxes] from the local Catholics and the province throws in the rest.
Tell me what chance could that situation have happened in the U.S. of A.?
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Guess what... we that live just to the south of Canada do not have as much of a guarantee of separation as many of us -including federal judges, AKA judicial activism- commonly assume we do. The Establishment Clause says that the Legislative Branch can't make laws regarding religion. The Free excercise clause says the Feds can't limit its expression.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Another words, the US's protections against a fusion of religion and state are constitutionally piss-poor, even with all the amendments passed after the 10th. Of course, case law may or may not add to that piss-poor level of protection; I'm not particularly inclined to research it. Just like I am not inclined to research ANYTHING regarding law because I am neither a lawyer nor a law professor. So feel free to be pedantic with this claim as much as any of you wish.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Bravo, redneF!
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
Or, if they were barbers, bank tellers, or Bozo wannabes. No one has the right to interfere with or inconvenience the public in general.
Freedom of speech? Ever hear of public nuisance laws? I can say whatever I want and as loud as I want, as long as it doesn't disturb my neighbor.
I find gangs of Muslims praying in public streets disturbing.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
As Mark Twain observed, Man is a human animal some place between the angels and the French.
I have no idea what is going on in France. Here in the US I have worked with and done business with and socialized with Muslims in both DC and Tampa. I only noticed one praying standing, turned away, head tilted upwards. It was explain with a casual remark to the effect, in the head is good enough. These folks were from SE Asia with Pakistan the furthest west.
Were I to guess what it going on I would note almost all of them came from Algeria and there was a two decade long war of independence. The friction is still there. There is open friction between the Muslims from Algeria and the Jews from Algeria because the Jews sided with France in the war. (I have nothing against self interest but don't whine when it bites you in the butt.)
Maybe Algerians do not accept "in your head is good enough" but maybe also they are making a political point of being obnoxious about it. I have no idea. I know the French have made of fetish of their Egalite so perhaps they are the cause.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
You assume I actually support France's super-strict secularism. I don't. I only said it worked to remove the influence of Catholicism. Just cuz it worked doesn't mean it's good. In fact, I said I have strong reservations about how far they might go to enforce it. In other words, they managed to get this far without resorting to draconianism, but I don't trust them to deal with this Muslim thing very well. Oh, and the stated reasons are still stupid. Either way.
So,
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Nobody wins WWIII. It's not a viable option. Assuming I was even pro-war, which I'm not. (In case Cpt gets the uncontrollable urge to misinterpret me again.)
There are better ways to deal with problems like this, and none of them require war or oppression.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
There's that blanket condemnation again. Who is this 'atheist movement' you speak of? And how do you know they are all uniformly (or even anywhere close to some majority or plurality) in favour of a 'gun-ho' attitude?
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
It's incredibly offensive to me that you think you have a right to not be offended! How dare you! Have you no decency?
To the extent that these laws have to do with mere 'offensiveness', they are unjust laws. In fact, they are the most offensive laws I can think of!
To the extent that they are about public safety (e.g. public intoxication, I can see that as possibly legit), I have no problem with them. (edit: re-phrasing for clarity.)
I do too, but I would never use that as the reason to ban them. As you said earlier, if they are blocking the streets or causing some other problems, then that should be the reason to restrict them, and only to that extent. It should have nothing to do with our being 'offended' or not. That's why those stated reasons the politician gave were so stupid.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
I completely agree, Natural.
Imagine not one, not two, but thousands of those bombs going off. There are enough nuclear bombs in the US to wipe out humanity many times over.
I am not often an aging hippie, but..... give peace a chance.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
I used to live on a block with an overcrowded mosque in Belleville. I'm not saying that makes my opinion more valid but just that I have some personal experience. I don't think a ban is really necessary. It's just playing to the anti-immigrant right. This behavior is already not permitted it's called entrave à la circulation. You can't use conformity to the principle of laïcité as a club to beat people into an unchurched - or unmosqued as it were - way of life.
People aren't praying in the street though because they think it's the best place. They are doing it for lack of space in their places of worship. At the same time it's not the responsibility of a secular government to provide a mosque or of a secular society to allow the public street to become a mosque. According to CFCM 25% of French Muslims go to a mosque every week and that's a problem for the French Muslim community to address by renting space and building new mosques.There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Don't get me wrong, I think far too much of the middle east is still stuck in a dark ages and I do think ALL religions need to be verbally bitch slapped. But what frightens me is that GOVERNMENT and not free speech, is resorting to the same fascist tactics they rightly condemn middle eastern countries of.
Islam IS NOT a religion of peace, even if many Muslims do not subscribe to zealous tactics. But neither is Christianity, although it claims to be. Religions inherently cannot be peaceful to outsiders because outsiders are seen as a threat to the club.
Christianity does not escape this either. The dark ages were a prime example of Christian barbarity AND the God of the bible is just as bloodthirsty. Christianity however has had much longer exposure to secular governments that have kept a leash on it. If you stripped all western governments of their secular principles, it wouldn't be but a couple generations before Christianity would look the same as current Islam.
Humans cannot pragmatically force any religion out of existence via law. But what we can do with Islam is try to foster the same secular principles that have kept the leash on Christianity. What France is doing, is a real bad backslide, not for Christians or Muslims, but humanity as a whole. Oppression never works and long term it creates more division than it solves.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Merely praying on public property IS NOT A CRIME. That is the "free exorcise" part. A public school student has the right, for example, to pray before a test. What they nor the school can do is sanction a school endorsed prayer where others are held captive to the event or ostrasized by having to leave. But if they want to indvidually pray at their desk or out in the hallway. They can.
The First Amendment is an anti trust law, now yes, it is violated in the sense that Christians are played favorites to. But if applied as intended, "You either agree to let everyone do the same thing, or you agree to keep that setting neutral" And these things are decided on a case by case basis.
The First Amendment IS abused by Christians in the sense that they have set up a monopoly and are played favorites to.
The First Amendment is an anti-trust law, not an anti-religion law. Jefferson's wall was about laws not being religiously based AND religious monopolies of power which was why "no religious test" was put in the oath of office. But "So help me God" at the end of the oath IS NOT a violation. It is not mandatory either, but it is not unconstitutional to end the oath with that.
I do wish more people would KNOW that politicians ARE NOT required to say "So Help Me God". And lots of people flipped out when Keith Elleson swore in on a Koran instead of a bible. THAT was constitutional too.
I do not think the way atheists should promote secularism is to support the oppression of those we disagree with and what France is doing is just as bad as what they accuse Iran of.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Yes.
I think those who are against it are horribly wrong and possibly ignorant. No freedoms are being repressed by this ban, which should be global. The freedoms of the majority were being oppressed by moslems coopting public space (sidewalks, parks, etc) for hours a day every day. To do nothing more than chant bs to an invisible friend. They're getting to take public property whenever they want and turn the public land into an unmistakable advertisement for moslems. There is NO FUCKING reason these people can't use their OWN fucking property for this shit.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Thanks for finding and posting that, cj. Although it's horrible to think about, it's good to be reminded about the reality of it from time to time.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
I agree with all your points, Brian. I just wanted to point out (which I tried earlier, but I guess I was far less clear about than I thought) that this kind of thing in France is not actually a new thing. They've been very very strict about religion for a long time (I don't know the actual history, but at least decades, possibly longer). So I wouldn't really call it a backslide. It's same-old same-old for them. But I do agree with you that it is flawed or worse. And I do agree it has the potential for big problems to come up in the near future. That's what I was trying to say in my first post.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Step right up! Step right up! Come and get your FREE exorcism today! Is your daughter back-talking
, projectile vomiting 
, head spinning around 
? Has your little angel become a whore of Satan 
? Our certified priests can say, "The power of Christ compels you!" over a hundred and FIFTY times a minute 
! You can't get that kind of compelling from the Vatican!
Step right up! Come and get your FREE exorcism!
(Sorry Bri, couldn't resist.)
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Blah, blah, blah.
Talk too much.
C'mon muzzies, let's do this.
The atheist see us. They hatin'.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Unless closing down one's borders counts as a form of "oppression". Let me put it this way; when you've created a higher level of prosperity, working conditions, an overabundance of so-called necessities and luxuries, massive opportunities for secondary and tertiary education, and so on and so forth, AKA a paradise for the middle and lower classes of a nation, you tend not to want to share that prosperity to feed, clean, medicate, and lubricate the gears and population of the rest of World. At least, you don't want to if you are wise, because if you aren't, you'll quickly lose that almost unnatural (pun!) level of utopian prosperity.
Believe it or not, the conditions and subsequent downfall of said prosperous hypothetical nation could actually describe the nation I am a citizen of today. For a time after WWII, we had something of a golden age here (at least, according to my school's history books and numerous people who actually lived that era) and immediately lost it when we simultaneously self-appointed ourselves as the World's biggest babysitter while an elite few devised ever more clever schemes to 'dethrone' and gut the lower and middle classes that were so important to the success of this once-great nation while staggeringly increasing their own wealth. I don't think America will ever see a peak like it did from 1945 to 1963. Nevertheless, numerous ideologies have been devised to somehow correct this dilemma that the US and UK finds itself in, and to a lesser extent, the remainder of Europe and some parts of Asia, none the least of which form the core tenants of Zeitgeist and Venus Project. So as it happens, a strong middle and lower class isn't in the interests of making profit. Slowly reverting towards a feudal enterprise, or even a 19th-century-esque model of economics however, is well within the interests of turning profit. Many places you can read about this, none the least of which are Brian37's predictable rants about the moral crises important to him; "monopolies of powers", "labels", "still stuck in utopian thinking", and of course "destruction of the middle class".
The point being, for starters... is that many of these new, open-borders-friendly ideologies will claim it is 'oppressive', or even "racist" to want to keep the national borders closed down, and it is somehow not for the native population to aggressively decide who gets to live within a set of national borders and who doesn't; that it is somehow antihumanistic to take such a course of action. Since I am a strong closed-borders advocate, there's really nothing I have yet to see from 'the other side' about this one problem... that includes selectively targeting public officials for supposedly politically incorrect/bigotted remarks about populations foreign to the 'States.
ALSO, a semiconventionally-fought WWIII may not be as far away from reality as you or Einstein think it is. It still won't be pretty, but the "weapons (it) will be fought with" will largely be determined by the availability of viable missile-defense systems. So instead of using ICBMs, we use unmanned nuclear bombers, dirty bombs, incredibly stable V-series agents, smallpox re-released and un-erradicated, or even a new strain of pox, etc. At this point in time, it appears it is easier for to develop new superweapons as opposed to developing a means to protect the intended target(s) from such an attack. That could change, and suddenly we're not where were in the cold, with two prominent sides afraid to attack each other for the odds that both will completely destroy civilization. Instead, we're back to WWI, and we each go to war thinking we are invincible against everyone else.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Obsolete info. This is classic Cold War fear jumping the gun again, and many of those "thousands" of bombs are so old and defective that it is questionable that they have any offensive use to them. Are some of the old 26 megaton bombs still working? Possibly, but enough to eradicate humans? Well... that's classified atm, and I don't think even Washington knows for sure how many of them function.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Deliberate ignorance.
So we can argue about whose citations are most accurate, whether nuclear winter would be generated, and how it would affect global climate and food production. Given that we haven't run the experiment, no one really knows the answer. I would just as soon skip the entire mess, thank you very much.
My husband's uncle actually worked on the Bikini Island experiment for Sandia Labs. What was detonated was a hydrogen bomb not the atomic bomb as was detonated in Japan during WWII. The complete information about that blast is still classified as far as I know. What little the uncle said is enough to give me nightmares. Imagine the effects are worse than the official military position. Now imagine it is even worse than that. You might be getting close to reality.
Even the wiki articles on hydrogen bombs or Bikini Island does not relate the complete effects of the detonation as related by this relative. All hearsay, I know. But I still would just as soon not have it tested.
edit: clarity -
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Again, what do the researchers have to say about the remaining functionality of these dated bombs? What about dated bombs vs. recently developed antimissile defenses? Are ABMs are as ineffective or effective as currently claimed?
I'm betting they don't know, either. In the end, it doesn't matter what you or I are willing to test. It simply matters what the people in control of the expensive toys in question are willing to develop, use, re-use, and retaliate against. My strong belief is that nuclear MAD will soon become an artifact of the past. The willingness to remain largely at peace may disappear as well, however I can't be so sure of that.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }
OK, time for the physics geek to come out.
There is no real distinction between an A bomb and an H bomb. There is a slow course of development from one idea to another.
@Kapkao: there was only one 26 megaton weapon ever tested. Nobody involved in the project expected it to be that powerful but there turned out to be physics that was not fully understood. Also, they do have an expiration date. The most critical component has a radioactive half life of 12 years. At any given moment, a third of them are out of service for rebuilding.
The scientific fact is that for the bombs dropped on Japan, you need to reach a specific concentration of the material. Once you get there, the bomb destroys itself. So for those first few bombs, only around 1% of the material that cost millions of dollars to make was actually used.
Yes, H bombs contain hydrogen (technically tritium and lithium (lithium becomes tritium in that environment)) However, the reason for doing that is to produce a shower of neutrons which increases the uranium burn up.
In the current standard 2.5 stage weapon, despite the hydrogen, nearly all of the explosive force comes from the uranium.
Just to make it clear, a 2.5 stage weapon has a case of depleted uranium. In that situation, it can participate in the BIG BOOM.
A 2.0 stage has an iron case. No contribution to the BOOM but it fails to contain the neutron flash. These are called Enhanced radiation weapons (ERW). Most people know them as Neutron bombs. They do not “kill people and leave buildings intact”. They are nukes and as such tend to destroy the places they are used. They are actually useless for cities so much as great for advancing lines of tanks. They do kill the people in the tanks but the tanks will be radioactive and thus useless after that.
Also, most people think of nukes as REALLY FREAKING BIG BOMBS. The reality is not so much. We do retain one megaton weapon in the arsenal but most of them are much smaller. Again, there is the matter of spending millions of dollars for a single bomb. If a crap load of TNT would do the job for less cash, then that is the way to go.
The fact happens to be that most nukes are on the small boom size. If you need more boom than you can fit on a regular bomber with standard TNT then load it with it 5 ton, 10 ton or 20 ton weapons. That is what is going om with the majority of the US arsenal.
=
I agree with Kapkao on this.
Natural, we grew up in the climate of the Cold War with the Soviet Union where we imagined WWIII being a nuclear holocaust.
Humanity can still have a world war right now with nobody using even a small tactical nuke. It's not only possible, it's realistic.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
K, Physics Geek... tell me, what are the numbers for accelerating a REALLY FREAKING BIG projectile using orbital magnetic rails into Earth? The projectile is as massive and roughly as dense as the Chicxulub Impact bolide, moving at about x km/s, where x is the velocity of a potential impactor the size that the Chicxulub bolide is currently estimated to be hurling towards Earth's surface.
Just out of curiosity...
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Speak for yourself. I would love to see that level of prosperity for the whole world. And I support efforts to share that, such as accepting immigrants as equal people, offering their children the same educational opportunities, equal access to housing, etc. Yes, we obviously don't want to dilute our own prosperity down to nothing, and I certainly would not advocate anything like naively opening a nation up for exploitation by anyone who wanders through. But humans are humans, people are people, equality is equality. It makes no sense to talk about human rights and equality if you're not totally serious about treating all people--even if they are not from your random geographical splotch of land--as equal people themselves.
You seem to think prosperity is something that requires 'giving up' if you 'give to others', but it does not have to be that way. Education and technology, for instance, like any idea, do not get lost when they are given to another. I tutor math and sciences. I have not lost any knowledge of math or science since I started doing this. In fact, as I write these words to you, I am 'giving' them to you (and anyone who cares to read them) free of charge, but I lose nothing. Not even my time, because I consider it time well-spent, and I enjoy it. I have not forgotten the word 'enjoy' just because I wrote it in the last sentence.
Information doesn't work like that. It is easily replicated.
And so much of the ills of the world are due to lack of information. Specifically, lack of education. I would say that's the number one problem in the world, even beating out over-population, because educated societies have far lower birth-rates and population densities. If we could (magically) instantly educate everyone in the world, the population levels would immediately take a sharp downward turn as people began to think more about their futures, improving their living conditions (with their newfound know-how), refraining from having too many kids (because they would realize it's an option, and know how to manage it), etc.
The only really limited resources are time, space, and energy. Immigration policies have to take these into account, of course, but that doesn't (shouldn't) stop us from reaching out to other world nations whose living conditions are worse than ours, and helping to provide them with the know-how to rebuild their own homelands.
What France could/should do differently:
What France shouldn't do/are doing wrong:
Remind me which country is yours again? Was it an Eastern European one, or did you move to the US, or am I confusing you with someone else?
As for the US: Its downfall has nothing to do with immigration, and everything to do with oligarchy and the dumbing down of its citizens with ever crumbling education (except for the elite).
As for Eastern Europe: Its weakness, again, has nothing to do with immigration, and much to do with its intolerance/isolation of immigrants. Beyond that, I don't know enough of the region, though I lived in Czech Republic for four years, and visited Russia, Slovakia, Serbia.
I would point to Canada as a quite good (definitely not perfect, by any means) model of how to integrate immigrants peacefully, and how to draw on the diversity that immigration provides. Our native population growth is below replacement levels. Without immigration, we would be shrinking. We actually like immigration (many of us, anyway. I do, for instance). You won't find Muslims praying in the street, or anything like that here. We have had some violence connected to Islam, but not in a group/mob way. Only isolated incidents here and there, more to do with internal Muslim conflicts than gov't/religion conflicts like in France. For example, one man is suspected to have killed his daughter in an honour killing. That was a while ago. I don't know the current status of the case, but it was clearly a Muslim-on-Muslim thing.
That's not my position, and not my argument, just so you know. I'm talking about how to manage immigration successfully.
I'm not interested in this topic, personally. When I see others use WWIII, and when I speak of WWIII, I am assuming they (and I) mean large scale nuclear warfare. This is more just a convention than anything.
My main problem with your line of reasoning is that it assumes, with no justification, that once a 'conventional' or 'super-weapon' WWIII begins, that that is the way it will end. War changes everything. World War even more so. IMO, it is not worth talking about it if you're not considering that it could lead to the end of our current civilization.
My line of reasoning strongly parallels Sam Harris' in The End of Faith.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Citation needed on the highlighted word.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!