|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Also, let us not forget to include Israel among the countries with a state religion where those of other faiths are second-class citizens. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ytuque
Joined: 29 Jan 2008
Location: I drink therefore I am!
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
| You said the constitution contains a list of words prohibited. It does not. Try reading what I wrote and not pretending I wrote something I did not. |
You are correct and I was incorrect. The Malaysian government not the constitution has the list of banned words such as "Allah." However, their justification is the Malaysian constitution which grants a superior status to Islam. My mistake was taking a quote form a uni professor when I should have just gone to the source.
However, I still reject the idea that their is freedom of religion in Malaysia as many Indian or Chinese residents will confirm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kazakhstan is clearly not tolerant of minority religions - though it's been forced by international pressure to back off some from its persecution of Hindus/Krishnas. http://www.kazakhkrishna.com/en-main/[/url] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Also, let us not forget to include Israel among the countries with a state religion where those of other faiths are second-class citizens. |
|
Well, I'm gonna have to go along with bascasper at least partly on this. If you want to get married in Israel, it has to be a Jewish ceremony, and Conservative or Reformed need not apply.
| Quote: |
Irina Plotnikov cannot marry the man she loves, Shmuel Cohen, even though she is Jewish according to halakha (Jewish religious law). A rabbinic court in Jerusalem ruled recently that even though Plotnikov is Jewish, she is not eligible to marry a Cohen since her father is not Jewish. According to Jewish tradition, people with the surname Cohen are descendants of the priests that served in the Temple in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago.
The couple were shocked by the court's verdict. "None of the rabbis had told us there might be a problem," Plotnikov says.
|
| Quote: |
When the couple registered at the rabbinate, the marriage registrar referred Plotnikov to a rabbinic court for a process for ascertaining Jewishness. This is a procedure which all immigrants from the FSU are required to undergo if they want to marry.
After presenting documents and hearing testimony from witnesses on Plotnikov's behalf, the rabbinic court confirmed that Plotnikov is Jewish and single and ruled that "she can be married in accordance with Jewish tradition, except to a Cohen."
Since civil marriage and non-Orthodox religious marriage in Israel are not legally recognized, the sole option remaining to the couple is to wed overseas. Cohen says that he's afraid to tell his religious family about the rabbinic court's ruling. "I've never gone abroad, but to marry Irina I will be delighted to go. I respect the religious world, but there's a limit to how far I am willing for our privacy to be invaded."
|
Haaretz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Well, I'm gonna have to go along with bascasper at least partly on this. If you want to get married in Israel, it has to be a Jewish ceremony, and Conservative or Reformed need not apply. |
Christians marry in Israel in a Christian ceremony, Muslims in Israel marry in a Muslim ceremony. And none of that indicates non-Jews are "2nd class citizens." It indicates a rather stupid system of family law, IMHO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Well, I'm gonna have to go along with bascasper at least partly on this. If you want to get married in Israel, it has to be a Jewish ceremony, and Conservative or Reformed need not apply. |
Christians marry in Israel in a Christian ceremony, Muslims in Israel marry in a Muslim ceremony. And none of that indicates non-Jews are "2nd class citizens." It indicates a rather stupid system of family law, IMHO. |
You might be right about that(at least as it applies to Muslims). Nevertheless, it remains the case that non-Othrodox Jewish marriages(along with civil marriages), are not legally recognized in Israel. Which strikes me as making non-Orthodox Jews, at least, into second-class citizens as far as the marriage laws go.
| Quote: |
| Since civil marriage and non-Orthodox religious marriage in Israel are not legally recognized, the sole option remaining to the couple is to wed overseas. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
From the Wikipedia article Marriage In Israel...
| Quote: |
Since 1953, the rabbinate has only approved religious marriages in Israel conducted in accordance with the Orthodox interpretation of halakha. The changes were applauded by religious Jews, but have been criticized by secular Jews since they were instituted. The only exception to these arrangements was that marriages entered into abroad were recognised as valid in Israel.
Jewish marriage and divorce in Israel is under the jurisdiction of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, which defines a person's Jewish status strictly according to halakha. The rabbinate's standards and interpretations in these matters are generally used by the Israeli Interior Ministry in registering marriages and divorces.
Halakhic and biblical restrictions on marriage are applied in Israel. So, for example, in Israel a kohen may not marry a convert to Judaism. In the article, �Not Jewish enough to marry a Cohen�,
Irina Plotnikov cannot marry the man she loves, Shmuel Cohen, even though she is Jewish according to halakha (Jewish religious law). A rabbinic court in Jerusalem ruled recently that even though Plotnikov is Jewish, she is not eligible to marry a Cohen since her father is not Jewish. According to Jewish tradition, people with the surname Cohen are descendants of the priests that served in the Temple in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago.[4]
Also, in Israel children of illegitimate unions are restricted as to who they can marry.
There are two related worries: intermarriage and illegitimacy. A child of marriages forbidden by Jewish law, or halacha (for example, unions between a kohen and a divorcee, between close relatives, or between a man and a previously married woman who did not undergo a halachic divorce) is considered a mamzer or chalal ("defiled" cohen). Mamzerim and their offspring, stigmatized with an irrevocable brand of illegitimacy, may marry only other mamzerim. A split in the nation, the argument goes, will follow: mamzerut will increase dramatically and it will be difficult to keep track of mamzerim to ensure they do not wed non-mamzer Jews.[5]
However, Israel does recognise civil or religious marriages entered into outside Israel. As a result, it is not uncommon for couples who may for some reason not be able (or chose not) to get married in Israel to travel overseas to get married.[6]. One out of every ten Israelis who married in 2000 did so abroad mainly because they could not marry in Israel. 2,230 couples who married abroad consisted of two Israeli partners, and another 3,660 couples consisted of one Israeli partner and one non-Israeli.[6]
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From Sign and Sight...
| Quote: |
The limits of tolerance in western constitutional states were set a long time ago. They end where tolerance becomes impossible, in the face of coercion or violence of any form including, of course, politically totalitarian aspirations. But this does not mean that religious communities have to be democratic to the core (the Catholic Church is not, even today) as long as they permit the right to leave. And this must be guaranteed by the constitutional state. The same naturally goes for all imperatives that oppress and infringe upon the rights of women, against which Hirsi Ali is so rightly fighting. And of course a western state community such as the European Union is allowed to require every Islamic country that wants to join its ranks, comprehensively to implement its enlightened Euro-American constitutional norms.
But to argue like Applebaum, Broder and Hirsi Ali is to resort to the sort of fundamentalist logic which "the west" (to use an expression that is back in fashion again) left behind it after many painful experiences, in historical terms, an amazingly short time ago. That 11 September 2001, indeed Islamic terrorism in general, now threatens to trigger relapses here at home, is one of many tragic consequences. The right answer would be to take pride in a constitution that upholds two-way tolerance, instead of only in our direction. "We will break them with our tolerance," one wise citizen said, shortly after September 11. Otherwise, they will break us with their intolerance.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2009/12/78-of-czechs-70-of-slovaks-oppose.htm
| Quote: |
78% of Czechs, 70% of Slovaks oppose minarets
Of those who want to ban minarets, a large majority (70% among Czechs, 80% among Slovaks) also want to ban mosques. This is actually a lower correlation than results in previous polls that asked both questions (96% among Belgians, 90% among the French).
For more surveys on minaret bans in Europe see:
* Belgium: Majority oppose mosques and minarets
* France: 41% oppose more mosques, 46% oppose minarets
* Austrians oppose minaret ban, Italians want one
* More polls on minaret bans |
But really, why are Europeans being so unsophisticated about millions of muslims preparing to demographically take over? That is SOOO last century. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
[url=http://www.signandsight.com/features/1970.html]"We will break them with our tolerance," one wise citizen said, shortly after September 11. Otherwise, they will break us with their intolerance.
|
[/quote]
Where does that person have tenure? Really. The stupid things people believe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
[url=http://www.signandsight.com/features/1970.html]"We will break them with our tolerance," one wise citizen said, shortly after September 11. Otherwise, they will break us with their intolerance.
|
|
Where does that person have tenure? Really. The stupid things people believe.[/quote]
Well, would you be able to provide an example of how any type of intolerance has made the west stronger against militant Islam? Just taking the issue on this thread, for example, I don't quite see how banning minarets is gonna make anyone think twice about joining up with the fundamentalists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Well, would you be able to provide an example of how any type of intolerance has made the west stronger against militant Islam? Just taking the issue on this thread, for example, I don't quite see how banning minarets is gonna make anyone think twice about joining up with the fundamentalists. |
The mineret ban is a wedge by the right. It has nothing to do with keeping muslims out of obedient mosques. It is about putting anti-islam sentiment into the public realm and making the expression of it more mainstream. The anti-muslim feelings will grow stronger and stronger and the expression of these feelings more and more bold. I'm afraid calling nativists bad names and giving 'moderate muslims' handjobs won't stop the course Europe is on.
The only way to make the west, and primarily western Europe stronger against islam is to not let them in. That's all. Swap. Egypt's Copts for the Dutch Moroccans. Like Greece and Turkey did. They have their dysfunctional little homes and Euros have theirs. No need to bring the civilization split home. I'm bored of this topic now. It's in the hands of history. Speaking of, can I throw out my copy of The End of History yet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The mineret ban is a wedge by the right. It has nothing to do with keeping muslims out of obedient mosques. It is about putting anti-islam sentiment into the public realm and making the expression of it more mainstream. The anti-muslim feelings will grow stronger and stronger and the expression of these feelings more and more bold. I'm afraid calling nativists bad names and giving 'moderate muslims' handjobs won't stop the course Europe is on.
|
Well, honestly, Mises. As someone who takes a generally libertarian stance on things, would you actually vote in favor of a nationwide minaret ban if such a referendum were held in Canada?
| Quote: |
| The only way to make the west, and primarily western Europe stronger against islam is to not let them in. That's all. |
I have to admit, even though I don't share your views on a blanket ban on Muslim immigration, such a policy would make more sense to me than a policy of letting them in, and then telling them that they don't have the same rights as everyone else in the country. I don't see how that can be justified, especially given that, as you say, the whole idea is really just to make certain opinions more mainstream, rather than addressing an immediate threat.
To me, it's like the difference between saying that Americans should not be allowed to bring guns into Canada(a policy I support), and saying that Americans now living legally in Canada should not be allowed to start lobby groups aimed at bringing about the elimination of all gun laws(a pretty clear violation of their Charter rights). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Well, honestly, Mises. As someone who takes a generally libertarian stance on things, would you actually vote in favor of a nationwide minaret ban if such a referendum were held in Canada? |
I'd vote against it. Or maybe not. Canada doesn't have a muslim future. We have an South Asian (some of whom are muslim, though not even close to a majority) and East Asian future (a nation of 4 solitudes). So, the median scores of tests will go up and we have too many engineers. Canada's problems (or lack of) are quite different than those in Holland or France. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, so since you think that the only effective program would be to either kick out all Muslims from Europe, or at least not allow any more in, is it your contention that the minaret ban is useful because it's the first step toward legitimizing those particular immigration policy goals?
And re: Greece and Turkey. I'm not overly familiar with that situation. Are you saying that Greek Muslims went to live in Turkey, and Turkish Christians went to live in Greece? If so, I don't know if that would be comparable to swapping Egyptian Copts for Dutch Morrocans. First of all, I'm assuming that most of the Greek Turks who relocated were of Turkish descent to begin with, whereas it's not clear that most Dutch Morrocans would want to go live in Egypt, or that the Egyptians would even want to take them. You can't really treat all countries sharing a religion as interchangable with one another. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
