I think Denmark is right about this.

[Ben Kenobi]

its an idealogical stance that views even horribly wrong ones should be tolerated. and that its the crimes u need to arrest ppl for

Well said yavoon.

Let the radical Imams in. Arrest them and deport them if they commit crimes.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ramo
It's sad that so many people believe that it's ok to oppress people one disagrees with.

How is declining to allow people you consider likely to be enemies to become citizens of your country oppression? It's a buyers market for immigrants, one can't take them all. So the government in this instance takes only those who are most likely to benefit the citizens of the country, which is after all their job.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed

I personally started off as a socialist in my adolocence. After a while I was persuaded to add feminist beliefs to my system.

Out of the frying pan and into the fire.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed

Edward Said's thoroughly excellent Orientalism.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Cruddy
I think they're right... but why just limit it to Muslims?

Why not ban all visitors and immigrants who advocate violence?

BINGO!

So, what evidence will they consider to determine whether or not a potential immigrant is "radical"?

Oh well, lets just err on the safe side, we have to protect ourselves.

This is clearly prejudicial legislation, which will inevitably be applied in a prejudicial manner.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
Anyone read "Why I am not a Muslim" by Ibn Warraq? It's written by a (ex-)muslim and basically it says that Islam is f.u.b.a.r.

I think the Western world should do more to fight Islamism, at least in our own countries. The question is how? I hope and think it can be done within a democratic frame work.

Anyone read the scores of books written by disaffected Christians?

I think we should do more to persecute Christians, but rest assures, all persecution of individual's religious freedom will be done democratically and for their own good.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Azazel


If you think that I am going to respect other people's opinions just because they exist, sorry.

Not respect their opinion. Respect their right to HAVE their own opinion.

I am saying that religion is bad, and the muslims are the only ones from the monotheists seriously clinging on to theirs.

a) They have no right to try and change the rules of our society, just because their imaginary friends said so.

Uh, we all have a right to try to change the rules of our society...

b) They have no right to infest the brains of their kids with that filth.

What filth?

The difference is, Jews DID integrate into French society on the french society's terms, the moment they were declared equal.

This is preposterous. How do you define integration? The Jews, in communities throughout the world and throughout history, do not integrate. Which, btw, is their choice, their right, and I respect that.

Yes. but the change of the european society from a deeply religious one to an almost completely secular one was ground-breaking. This will not be the case with Islam. It's not as if secular society is something unheard of. It's right next door. They're constantly exposed to it, but see it through a filter of deep conservatism, and superiority. I am glad that you agree that this change is necessary, but do we just let this pot stir itself, and wait for a thousand years of a wrong, and opressive society?

By that logic, Christianity should have been banned 1000 years ago.

I never said that all muslims pose a threat, or that anyone should go on a crusade. I am saying that our own societies must be protected against this scourge.

Not a threat, but a scourge we must be protected from. Gee, thanks for clearing that up. I feel so much better...

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by our_man
It's amazing that people are opposing Denmarks stance in this. The people that defend radical imams and their rhetoric just can't seem to understand that these people are a danger to our society.

The people here who oppose Denmark's stance are not defending radical imans. They are pointing out the flaws in the APPROACH that Denmark is taking.

The secular Muslims can see that these people are a threat, so why are there still people defending them?

secular Muslims?

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

[The Mad Viking]

How will this legislation work out in real life?

Well, let me give you an analogy.

With the recent upgrade in "security" boarding commercial aircraft, items banned from carry-on baggage & personal effects include scissors and nail files.

On a recent flight I saw a five year-old lose her 2" long, entirely plastic scissors to the security guard.

And my nail-clippers were confiscated.

(I couldn't harm a mouse with my nail-clippers. But I could have taken my 6" aluminum chassis pen and shoved it through the security guys eyeball and into his brain.)

Extrapolate.

You will end up many banning perfectly safe, reasonable muslims. And others who are actually dangerous will get through.

It will give the fear-driven xenophobic public a little, false flavour of security. It will tell the Muslim community that you hate them. And for those who are friends, relatives etc. of the people wrongly barred from entry, you will stir up resentment that can olny fan the flames you seek to extinguish.

[Ramo]

How is declining to allow people you consider likely to be enemies to become citizens of your country oppression? It's a buyers market for immigrants, one can't take them all.

I happen to think that immigration barriers are fundamentally unjust.

So the government in this instance takes only those who are most likely to benefit the citizens of the country, which is after all their job.

If it's the job of the state to deny people with disagreeable political opinions the freedom of movement, why shouldn't it be the job of the state to deny people with disagreeable political opinions the freedom of speech?

Not too long ago, people with my political ideology were considered enemies and banned from coming to this country.

[our_man]

~~~

[The Mad Viking]

our man:

Okay, you are just using the word wrong.

Secular means "having nothing to do with religion".

So you can't have a secular muslim; it's an oxymoron.

A secular state is one that keeps the state separate from religion. So you mean muslims who believe in a secular state.

Look, Denmark can set their immigration law anyway they like.

I think it is a bad law that will not achieve what it sets out to do; worse, it may exacerbate the very problem it purports to solve. I think it will be bad for muslims and bad for Danes.

[our_man]

~~~

[The Mad Viking]

Well, you might think that two words with the same root have the exact same meaning, but they don't.

We already have seen a difference in the interpretation between Islam and Islamism. (personally, I don't know about that one)

But after you went to your dictionary, I'm quite sure you read that "secular", the word you used in your post, means exactly what I said - not having any connection with religion.

Secularism, a MOVEMENT, (-ism) to make or keep political affairs/the state secular, is not the same thing.

You could just have thanked me for the enlightenment.

[our_man]

~~~