While browsing the internet for a class project, I came across an interesting article on Islam, European democracy and the role of multiculturalism in western societies by French philosopher Pascal Bruckner:
- "[...] two directions lie open to us here. The first, inspired by the Anglo-Saxon tradition, stresses strict differences, basing itself on the respect for religious adherence. Here multicultural Canada is the key reference. The other, more French in inspiration, is based on an equally strict separation of church and state, and the subordination of beliefs to civil law. Even if both models are currently undergoing a crisis, as Timothy Garton Ash rightly notes, it seems to me that in all respects the principle of secularism remains the best compass."
The Europeans took the wrong path and there are lessons in their experience for all of us here in North America. We must not repeat those mistakes. That's a must, if we really want to save our country, traditions and democratic values that are being constantly threatened by the menace of radical Islam at home and abroad.
8 comments:
Pascal bruckner is quite an interesting person over here too, not saying things in political correctness ; anyways, in France for a few decades we used to watch how communautarism worked in UK, and this model was shown as a good exemple by our enlightened political men who didn't care anymays, cause they lived in chic Paris quaters ; and now we see how it creates more problems than our laïc egalitarism system ; here, an immigrant who wants to study and become someone in our society or abroad, it is possible for less costs than anywhere else ; and we are kind of people with no frustrating thought on sex, or religion, that meens we can meet anyone on that purpose, and it creates more understandings and commun sense
But yet groups like CAIR should be banned. They are hard pressed for these "hate-crime" laws in Congress to take away our very freedoms of speech, expression and the press. It's known as Litigation Jihad!
I agree with Winston... the Europeans took the wrong path. Europeans dismiss religion as irrelevant, and therefore have no defense against something like radical Islam. I think most Europeans dismiss religious fanatacism as "silliness" and think they can overcome it by simply tolerating it until the fanatics eventually "grow out of it".
Sorry, Nomad. When Europe lost it's religion it lost it's ability to understand religious people. Especially the most radical of them. This is a secular country in the US too, but we don't take any bullshit off people who have different beliefs than we do, because it offends us when their beliefs intrude upon our beliefs. We enforce the "personal" nature of religion on a social level. It'd just not cool to be "in your face" with other people on religious matters in the US. In Europe, I think most people will just nod and smile and think to themselves "What a silly person" - which is no way to handle a fanatic. No way at all.
"Modern France was formed in the struggle against the Catholic Church, and remains extremely sensitive to religious fanaticism. And I maintain that Jacques Chirac, supported by the commission headed by Bernhard Stasi, was right to put a law to parliament on the banning of religious symbols in school and public administrations. This initiative passed easily, with few opposing voices. Supporters included a majority of French Muslim women keen to safeguard their emancipation, among them Fadela Amara (news story), founder with Mohammed Abdi of the association "Ni putes, ni soumises" in the suburbs (more here).
"In conflicts between the weak and the strong, liberty helps suppress the weak, while the law protects them" said Abbé Grégoire at the time of the revolution. It's so true that many English, Dutch and German politicians, shocked by the excesses that the wearing of the Islamic veil has given way to, now envisage similar legislation curbing religious symbols in public space. The separation of the spiritual and corporeal domains must be strictly maintained, and belief must confine itself to the private realm." PB
we did not sympathise with the radical muslins, we made the laws to protect the majority of the moderates, and I can tell you a lot of them don't practice, and according to a poll, they feel quite well as french citizen ; and we are the nation who knows a lot about radicalism catholic religion was not that cool in our earlier times
london=islam abad
paris=algier
berlin=istanbul
amsterdam=beirut,maroce
bruxelle=gaza strip
ect.
are europeans still sleeping?
na, your the one that makes raccourcis ! tell me how many very white sleeping beauties youv got in your aeras ?
nomad,what do u mean with: raccourcis?? what is that?
the piont is not white or very white or beauty or...the point ist "the beast"....the islam!..i mean no radical islam,Islam in itself
who doesn´t accept the mentalitiy of "west", he should go back home.
he should go to islam abad,he should go back to algier,he should go back to istanbul,ect.. so easy is it madamme nomade
raccourci(s) means the shortest way to go somewhere, in this occurence, you seems to make equivalence between a western city and a magrebin or oriental one, what did you mean ? it is not clear
Post a Comment