BF2S Forums Grat news! Germany finally goes against its own laws in favor of Islam

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope, I think the Constitution is fine, what I think the problem is, is people like you, who want to interpret its good intentions and meaning to include a religion that has a core value that goes against it.

The words are plain, simple and leave little to the imagination in terms of interpretation. So put up or shut up. You would have been better advised to have designed a consitution like we have in Ireland which recognises the role of Christianity in shaping our laws and institutions. Put a consitutional amendment to the house or just continue to bitch about it and have people laugh at the pointlessness of your bitching. I doubt very much that restriction on freedom of religion would ever pass senate, congress or referendum.

While you're at it send an American version of this to Congress too:

8.1 The Irish language as the national language is the first official language.

8.2 The English language is recognised as a second official language.

Edit: Actually I am mistaken. An amendment to our constitution passed by referendum deleted the following article -

"The State recognises the special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church as the guardian of the Faith professed, by the great majority of the citizens."

So basically, you agree with me then. You are simply wallering in the fact that as anti-US, you love what is happening to our country, and think we deserve it, and want to make sure that, that irony is in our face.

I can appreciate that, if I hated the US, I would feel the same as you.

Last edited by lowing (2008-04-11 05:43:01)

lowing wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

I guess what lowing is implying is that there is a "american" culture or value system that goes beyond the basic provisions of the constitution and the bill of rights. for example, as far as I know, the constitution doesn't give a state religion, or an official state language; yet, the US are predominantly christian/catholic, and the main language is english.

On the cultural level, there are things like Halloween, Valentine's Day, NASCAR racing, rodeo, Spring break, Football, etc...

small things that make up the core of what America is.

The question is, what level of integration/assimilation is desirable ? Would it be sufficient for the immigrants to learn the language, and follow the laws of the land ? Or would you want them to give up their old religion, and language, and traditions, too ?

Nope, simply learn the language, follow the laws, and stop bitching about Americans and our way of life, and try and change it.

Like I said and STILL can not get any play, as an American, I would not get away with what immigrants to America, are getting away with. I would be considered an arrogant and self centered, typical American if I went to your country with my" American" attitude and started making demands on your society would I not?

again, that would probably depend on huch much those "demands" are compatible with the laws of the land and the constitution. Because those are the ones that ultimately matter.

Of course there will always be people who complain, and demand that the status quo be upheld. The case in the OP is actually a good example of that. The courts haven't even taken a final decision, yet people are already bitching and moaning. The fact of the matter is, it may be totally legal and constitutional for muslims to be allowed to pray in school. And we will know, once our top courts have given their verdict.
Don't like it ? Vote for legislation against it.
I realize that parts of our legislation don't take into consideration the large amount of immigrants living among us today. Most of that legislation was created decades ago, when the immigration issue wasn't even a real "issue".
I guess that is all part of the change that occures naturally when we expose our societies to other cultures.

You can make the language a prerequisite for immigration, and enforce the laws of the land. What you can't do, however, is make them adapt culturally. That happens either naturally, or it doesn't.

lowing wrote:

Cam, you know damn well I meant, our foreign policy, our history for hypocrisy. I really didn't mean Chicago or Mt fuckin Rushmore or some shit.

We are being clobbered and taken advantage of, by our own trust, freedom and tolerance, and you love it, so how about YOU cut the bullshit.

The bottom line is this lowing: you aren't enforcing your own fucking laws and you have a two-party system of governance that won't do jackshit about the kind of things you're complaining about. It's time for you or somebody to become an activist or something. You aren't actually complaining about Muslims or Mexicans, your complaining about the ineptitude of your government. If laws were enforced it wouldn't matter if your country got overrun by Zoroastrians, Buddhists, martians or whatever - Mexicans and Muslims would not be a problem.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-11 06:04:29)

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. then we are not talking about the same thing

2. bullshit, Americans are considered arrogant and self centered by the rest of the world, and in any other thread, I would be considered just that if I spouted off about how the rest of the world should cater to us as Americans, and you know it.

3. I am not considering myself a victim, I am merely stating the obvious.

Sorry, misunderstanding on No.2 there, I thought you meant demand that everyone coming to your country should learn English and so on.

A Freudian mis-reading perhaps!?

I don't give a shit if anyone that comes to America learns English or not. Just don't EXPECT us to go out of our way to accomadate anyone in THEIR language.

That's perfectly understandable...it would be like someone expecting to be able to program a Flash website while not being able to actually understand Actionscript.

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Oh yeah I hate it so much....

So much so I worked and lived there for 4 months in 1999, have visited thrice since and regard Chicago as one of my favourite modern cities out of all of those I've visited (beaten only by Hong Kong).

I am pro-freedom of religion lowing (within a boundary of 'as long as it doesn't hurt others'). I think the principles enshrined in your consitution are more or less good, are progressive and set an example for other nascent democracies. So cut your fucking shit.

Cam, you know damn well I meant, our foreign policy, our history for hypocrisy. I really didn't mean Chicago or Mt fuckin Rushmore or some shit.

We are being clobbered and taken advantage of, by our own trust, freedom and tolerance, and you love it, so how about YOU cut the bullshit.

Honestly ? That's one of the downsides I am prepared to accept for living in an open, tolerant, free, and democratic society.

They are exactly the downsides, you should not have to accept. Being taken advantage of your generosity your trust, your tolerance and your freedoms is frustrating enough, but to have people that live here get rich over interpreting our laws to be used against us.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

You are correct, everything you said here is true.

My problem with you is you think my grievances are unfounded, bigoted, and racist and you argue along those lines, insinuating I am a Nazi and I endorse genocide, ghettoes, and every other vial institution of the 3rd Reich

Now you're just being silly for the sake of being silly. I say that if freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion and the rule of law as set out in your constitution are maintained and guaranteed forevermore then you would not have any problems whatsoever: even if 60% of your population were Muslim (rather fanciful hypothesis). It's upholding your laws and constitution that is critical.

Ok, Yeah, I guess you never insinuated I was a bigot or a racist or compared me to Hitler over my opinions on issues such as these.

As for the rest, I already agreed.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Now you're just being silly for the sake of being silly. I say that if freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion and the rule of law as set out in your constitution are maintained and guaranteed forevermore then you would not have any problems whatsoever: even if 60% of your population were Muslim (rather fanciful hypothesis). It's upholding your laws and constitution that is critical.

Ok, Yeah, I guess you never insinuated I was a bigot or a racist or compared me to Hitler over my opinions on issues such as these.

As for the rest, I already agreed.

Nobody actually believes you are a bona fide Nazi, they just feel you have underlying fascist tendencies. Don't take it to heart. And you are a bigot - you agreed on that yourself.

In the proper context Cam, we all are.

Well, you can accept it, GB taxpayers I guess can to


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/arti … article.do

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Well, you can accept it, GB taxpayers I guess can to


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/arti … article.do

"Yesterday the Court of Appeal said Qatada could stay because evidence used against him in any prosecution in his native Jordan may have been obtained by torture - a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights."

Should have played by the rules and made sure they nailed him legitimately. Silly boys.

Well good thing they are gunna pay him and release him, I don't see a problem with that at all. Torture terrorists for info that saves innocent lives? Yeah, I can think of worse things. Like weeds in my yard.

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

"Yesterday the Court of Appeal said Qatada could stay because evidence used against him in any prosecution in his native Jordan may have been obtained by torture - a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights."

Should have played by the rules and made sure they nailed him legitimately. Silly boys.

Well good thing they are gunna pay him and release him, I don't see a problem with that at all. Torture terrorists for info that saves innocent lives? Yeah, I can think of worse things. Like weeds in my yard.

I love the way you are the great defender of the free world in your arguments and yet you wholeheartedly advocate tactics of terror and pain...let's not even get into how credible the information gleaned from torture actually is (torture worked a treat during the troubles in Northern Ireland!). As someone who had relatives locked up for no good reason during internment and have heard all about the torture used during that particular 'war on terror' I can quite happily say fuck America if they want to disregard human rights. If they want to stand up for what they believe in then I'm behind them in tackling Islamic extremism.

I don't see why this cunt is getting benefits though, that is stupid and points to policies that possibly need to be greatly revised.

I am all for human rights, I simply do not count people that target women and children as human. Go ahead ask me how I feel about child molesters rights. Or better yet ask me how I feel about Jeffery Dahlmers human rights.
Again, I couldn't give 2 flyin' fucks about human rights for animals. As a matter of fact I would support human rights for a fuckin' dog before I endorse treating murderers of women and children as human.  If I didn't make myself clear enough I will try again when you condemn my post as Hitleresque or monsterous

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

I love the way you are the great defender of the free world in your arguments and yet you wholeheartedly advocate tactics of terror and pain...let's not even get into how credible the information gleaned from torture actually is (torture worked a treat during the troubles in Northern Ireland!). As someone who had relatives locked up for no good reason during internment and have heard all about the torture used during that particular 'war on terror' I can quite happily say fuck America if they want to disregard human rights. If they want to stand up for what they believe in then I'm behind them in tackling Islamic extremism.

I don't see why this cunt is getting benefits though, that is stupid and points to policies that possibly need to be greatly revised.

I am all for human rights, I simply do not count people that target women and children as human. Go ahead ask me how I feel about child molesters rights. Or better yet ask me how I feel about Jeffery Dahlmers human rights.
Again, I couldn't give 2 flyin' fucks about human rights for animals. As a matter of fact I would support human rights for a fuckin' dog before I endorse treating murderers of women and children as human.  If I didn't make myself clear enough I will try again when you condemn my post as Hitleresque or monsterous

That's all very well if you have a 100% success rate at only detaining guilty people...what about the innocent people?

Have a read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Four

Hmmmmmmmmm, are you saying it is "fine and well" that we torture GUILTY terrorists then? Ones that are without question guilty? Be careful. Because I say hell yes. How 'bout you?

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

That's all very well if you have a 100% success rate at only detaining guilty people...what about the innocent people?

Have a read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Four

Hmmmmmmmmm, are you saying it is "fine and well" that we torture GUILTY terrorists then? Ones that are without question guilty? Be careful. Because I say hell yes. How 'bout you?

No, it's not fine because sooner or later you're going to torture someone who is innocent and then you are the terrorist.

Ehhhhhh, everyone is guilty of something

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

No, it's not fine because sooner or later you're going to torture someone who is innocent and then you are the terrorist.

Ehhhhhh, everyone is guilty of something

Don't be such an idiot lowing, that's probably what those Saudi's were saying to themselves as they were flying those planes into the world trade centre.

Read that wiki link I gave you...they were innocent and they were tortured for bogus confessions and had large chunks of their lives taken from them. Giuseppe Conlon was comopletely innocent but died in prison for something he didn't do.

I read it, but my question is this? If they had nothing to do with nothing, why were they picked up in the first place? I am sure there was a real reason to suspect if they were going to be bothered to arrest them. I am guess though.