Disturbance in our lives

Remove all ads!

I see your point there Dendri. The education is poor. In Belgium it's just the same. Some politicians even suggested teaching THEIR language. Please, that must never be allowed.

Only my sentiment is that Turkey should be allowed to enter the European Union (or EU) just to stop the endless immigration and hopefully to shift the immi to emi. When Turkey is economically as good as our countries, immigration will definately stop. Putting a spot to that is one of the most important goals the EU should make work of.

 

In the UK there are hundreds of Muslim schools that teach in Arabic languages. The school I used to go to here when I was a kid used to have just white English kids and now it is a Muslim school with just Pakistanis and Bengalis. These kids are suppose to be British but they are no more British then chicken tika masala

 

such whingeing on immigration on this board...

if the EU wants the benefits of globalization, they had better accept the consequences.

@Dendri: everyone always brings up the burka'ed women who don't speak German after 40 years, but I still know a number of 2nd generation German Turks who speak, act, and think German, and yet are denied German citizenship even though they were born in Germany and have never been to Turkey. What do you propose doing with them? I mean, Germany wanted their Gastarbeiters in the first place, and their economy is now dependant on them. Would your solution be to replace the Turks with Greeks, Poles, Romanians, etc.? Funny, I've heard Germans complaining about these as well... Or does it all come down to the "shared Christian heritage..."

@Nizi.: In terms of Turkey being economically "up to our level", I think in most measurements Turkey is easily comparable to a number of the new EU members (the Baltic States, Romania, etc). And even if this does occur, aren't you advocating a "Fortress Europe" aimed toward excluding Africa and Asia? And doesn't Belgium in particular owe a great debt to Africa for its brutal colonization of the Congo, etc? Or is it OK to go in there, cause havoc and massacre hundreds of thousands, and then tell them oh, sorry, we're done here, but take a little aid money and everything's ok, right?

@Chandos: Nice Jefferson quotes...

 

The quotes are nice, but you are straying from the point. The problem is not about Kerry having any duty to the Catholic church. The problem is about Kerry claiming affiliation with the Catholic church.

So far as I am informed, there is no human right to claim affiliation with an organisation of your choice regardlessly of factual ties. If a politician wants to draw on the established support that the Church has in the society and so he claims to be Catholic, he is actually supposed to be Catholic, in communion with the Church as he publicly claims.

Everything else is a contrfactual claim.

Jefferson has nothing to do with that. Or should a politician be allowed to call myself a practicing Jew while acting in pork commercials? Or maybe he should lend his face and name to booze ads and claim to be a good, practicing Muslim?

I'm entirely positive that Jefferson would be supportive of freedom of association, therefore letting some religious organisation known as the Roman Catholic Church actually choose the criteria for membership and exercise them in practice.

Associations need to be protected and freedom of conscience cannot be interpreted so broadly (and completely unfoundedly) as to allow random people to claim association. In that sense it would infringe on the substance of freedom of association.

Freedom of association relies, essentially, upon choosing with whom you want to associate. Absent that, freedom of association is infringed. QED

Not only that, it would also, consequently, result in a generic breach of freedom of conscience. By forcing an organisation based upon a certain set of principles to tolerate membership of people who defy those principles, freedom of conscience would be violated in the sense that it would be dictated to the organisation what it should consider acceptable on the basis of its teaching. Therefore, it would at least dictate an interpretation of those teachings if not a change in their substance. Consequently, your proposed interpretation of the right to freedom of conscience is inconsistent with the substance of freedom of conscience. QED

Kerry has a choice: to stop voting against Catholic teachings or to stop claiming to be Catholic, receiving sacraments etc etc. It's brutal, but such is the life. You can be in favour of abortion and against it at the same time any more than you can be both black and white.

[ June 21, 2004, 00:33: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

You brought up his "moral" judgement in his voting record, and you claim that it is against the dogma of what the RCC demands in its so-called "moral teaching." That Kerry puts his loyality first to the American People, as their representative, and the Constitution is something that Jefferson would find agreeable. I, and many other Americans, could care less about what the RCC demands. As I mentioned, if anyone wants to have a dialogue on the separation of Church and State, as it relates to the politcal situation here in the US, I would be glad to comment further.

I would also add, that any elected official whose first loyalty is to a foreign State, which the Vatican is, should not swear an oath to uphold the laws of these United States, and its Constitution.

[ June 21, 2004, 01:06: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I again stress that no one tells Kerry how to vote. Consequently, no one forces Kerry to swear or uphold any oaths to Vatican. Is bold enough or should I also use italics, underline and caps?

The thing is: Kerry either is or isn't Catholic. Unfortunately for him, it's the Church, as any other organisation, who decides membership criteria. Therefore, if Kerry as a member of an organisation opposes it in public, the organisation has every right to revoke his membership. Without affecting his vote, even.

Of course, a thread has been opened.

[ June 21, 2004, 01:25: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Excellent, I will meet you there.

 

@ Bion

Maybe you can dismiss the "women who dont speak german after 40 years" just like that. I think its a problem. Especially since these women raised children.
That many Turks, of both genders btw, arent really interested in learning our language is telling just how interested they are in us. Not too much. I think thats why integration is doomed from the start, for Europe isnt a meltingpod like the U.S where you can move to and then just do your thing. It has a culture that Europeans identify themselves with. So a clash of cultures is what happens.

The scarfed women are a main peeve. It is seen as oppressive. Treatment of women in general is a source of irritation. Many Germans are angered by what some turkish women have to endure and dont accept that it happens on their soil, in their country. Just as they are angered by the contempt for our society and insolent behaviour of turks here. I am sure you have heard of the Mili Görüs and what they preach, yes?

Its not required of foreigners to 'think german', as you put it. They do not have to become german in any way. All thats asked for is them having some respect for our rules and start realizing they live in a country called Germany/Holland/France/Belgium/whatever.
Or else. You get what you give.
Its simple respect I miss in many turks.

Denied citizensphip? I dont think so. As far as I know they (turks who are born in Germany) can become german citizens but they have to give up their turkish nationality for it. Correct me if I am wrong.

I know of no widespread complaints about Greeks, Spaniards, Italians, Portugese. Actually, these groups are often used as an example that friendly relations can be established with 'foreigners' even if they uphold many of their cultural traits and retain ties with their homeland. Its something that many Germans are in fact grateful for, as it adds some spice to our own (sometimes quite german ) lifes. But then they are all Europeans whereas the turks are not. Perhaps much of the animosity, the tension is caused by a lack of shared values? Thats where the EU and Turkeys membership enters discussion.
And nö I dont want to replace no one. I wish for some respect and interest on both sides. Even though I think its too late for that.

 

Well, I understand the discomfort about how women are sometimes treated. But this doesn't just have to do with Turkish society. Most of the Turks who came to Germany were peasants from the countryside, so one should expect a bit of friction in fitting into city life.

But as to other nationalities, I've heard plenty of jokes along the lines of "kaum gestohlen, schon in Polen" to wonder just how comfortable Germans are with immigration in general. I mean, it's even tough to be from the West and live in the East and visa versa isn't it?