Thanda
Well-Known Member
Do you agree with Saudi Arabia's intolerance?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Argh! Child Brides now Legal for Muslims in Germany and Denmark
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
Do you agree with Saudi Arabia's intolerance?
7
If my male partner of nearly 25 years and I decided to "immigrate" to Saudi Arabia, would you agree that the Saudis must recognize our marriage? It is, after all, how things are done here. Would you agree that Saudi Arabia had to take us, and let us do whatever we want? Give us money and housing and recognize our marriage and just get over their "culture"?
Or is it only religious people who get to inflict their culture and beliefs on foreigners?
Tom
I am a US citizen. I think Donald Trump will be a disaster as a president.
If my male partner of nearly 25 years and I decided to "immigrate" to Saudi Arabia, would you agree that the Saudis must recognize our marriage? It is, after all, how things are done here. Would you agree that Saudi Arabia had to take us, and let us do whatever we want? Give us money and housing and recognize our marriage and just get over their "culture"?
Or is it only religious people who get to inflict their culture and beliefs on foreigners?
Tom
I have never said that.
But it is better than any Islamic country I have ever heard about.
Tom
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Upholding standards of equality sometimes means others will not be able to freely practice their culture and religion. Especially if foreigners are petitioning for permission to brake the laws of their hosts and for their hosts to have fewer freedoms. We must not and cannot yield to such requests. We are having enough problems with Christians wanting their religious dogma as state law, giving us too many eroding rights and freedoms to have to contend with another religion attempting the same.
And, yes, there must be some serious efforts in holding firm against allowing the worst of Muslim culture to permeate Western culture, lest it will get very ugly for everyone involved when a tyrant is democratically elected and cramps down on rights so severely that even non-Muslims end up suffering.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
No. I don't. Nor do I agree we must cater to cultures that are the polar opposite of ours up to the point of censoring ourselves and allowing them to brake the law.
Ungrateful guests quickly overstay their welcome. If Muslim immigrants keep insisting their hosts make unreasonable accommodations for them, they're may potentially find themselves in a very ugly situation that is not going to end well for them. Our laws and ways are not their laws and ways. Either they can respect this, or they can leave. We shouldn't have to cater to Bronze Age and Medieval "morality" because it's someone's religion. We have made too much progress in breaking away from those oppressive and degrading Abrahamic religious laws to let another Abrahamic religion start promoting religion as law.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
With this not being the typical "Muslims are evil and violent" thread that ignores the larger picture, or the threads that like to pretend Christianity and the Bible are innocent and not a problem, and because it's not in need of a history lesson of how the West has been royally screwing the Middle East for well over 100 years now, I feel I can better insert my thoughts into this one, which that with the exception of a few Liberal Muslim states and groups, it is a culture that is fundamentally incompatible with our own. These immigrants are guests, and guests should be respectful towards their hosts. Me, I won't even consider asking a smoker to not smoke in their own home if I am a guest. There will be none in my own home, but I have a separate jacket and clothes to wear when I am visiting a smoker's house so my regular clothes don't absorb the stench (and I usually immediately shower and change clothes once I'm home).
I'm not trying to be a jerk and say "Muslim immigrants can get over it, learn to appreciate the gratitude extended towards them, or leave," but if they can't respect our ways, especially in places like Germany that have extended their hospitality towards a massive chunk of Syrian refuges, they can leave. We don't think like they do, we don't function like they do. Our laws are secular, our women are empowered, and we hold our freedoms of speech, religion, association, and press as some of our most sacred and cherished freedoms. If they don't want to accept this, the West is not the place for them. We're all still people, yes, but there is a difference between reasonable accommodations and unreasonable demands. Those making unreasonable demands who will not accept or respect that our very core and foundations of our cultures are radically different should move on.
Hello icehorse. It's been a while
I just want to know something then I'll leave, I promise. I'd like to know why you specifically say "forced marriage" and where did you get it from.
Thanks!
Thanda
Well-Known Member
In other words, yes you do agree with their intolerance - your long second paragraph was just a justification for why you are intolerant. I can imagine a Saudi Arabian giving the same justification, just swapping out religion, for faithlessness.
Thanda
Well-Known Member
Have you read my post #51 (which I quoted again for your convenience in post #114)? There I have very clearly set forth my views on the matter and I can't imagine you asking me these questions if you have read and understood what I wrote.
In short, though, a refugee (someone who was forced to flee) can either choose to integrate into the country - in which case he/she will become a regular immigrant and he/she will have to agree to comply with all the countries laws - or he/she can decide to remain a refugee (and live separately in some camp) and await an opportunity to return to his/her home country - in which case you would, within reason, be more flexible with them by, for example, allowing them to maintain their family structure (e.g. multiple wives (or husbands) and "child" brides/grooms).
The point is there are ways to uphold and protect your laws and culture without being a d*** about it.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
What young child would willingly want to go live with an older guy? Seriously.Hello icehorse. It's been a while
I just want to know something then I'll leave, I promise. I'd like to know why you specifically say "forced marriage" and where did you get it from.
Thanks!
I don't think this question fits in the context of my question to icehorse's comment. He said "consensual sex between teenagers" in his context which means he approves teenagers have consent. If they do, then who are we to decide they don't willingly want to go live with an older guy. My question is bound to that context. Also "older" is a gradable adjective. It does not necessarily mean a half year old girl with a 120 year old guy, you know. I don't mind marrying an older lady.
I do not approve of child marriage and I think I know how you feel when you jumped in. And I agree with you in it. All there is to it is that I want to know what icehorse's view exactly is posting that comment to @oldbadger . I also clearly said to him that I want to know "some thing" in what he said then I'd leave.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Really, what message does it send when a tenant of Satanism is to be a respectful guest when in another's lair, but many Muslim immigrants are making unreasonable demands of their own host?
Saudi intolerance brings up a question of where does one even begin? No alcohol, no singing and dancing, women must be covered up and they can't drive, and foreigners who break their laws will not be asked or told to leave, but rather punished, possible even killed. Here, a Muslim can say (though I know they wouldn't, it's just an example) "screw Jesus," and while some may be offended there are zero legal repercussions. If you go to Saudi Arabia, Iran, or a number of other Muslim nations and say "screw Muhammad," you will not survive the day. It is this intolerance and Bronze Age barbarism that we cannot allow within our own culture. Nor can we yield to demands of censorship. If they can't accept and respect that we do things different, they need to move on.
Or, there is the alternative, which is to keep making so many unreasonable demands those of the host nation get fed up with it to the point they elect someone who's "going to do something about it." We're already seeing the early stages of it, putting us in a precarious situation. We, the Western host nations, can only do so much. However, it is squarely on the shoulder's on moderate and liberal Muslims to bridge the gaps between Western culture and incoming Middle Eastern Muslim culture. They are going to have to work their asses off, and, yes, even criticize other Muslims and the practices of their homelands. For if things get too much worse, these moderate and liberal Muslims are likely to be facing the same consequences as immigrant Muslims who wouldn't respect the ways of their host country. Given the covered up rapes and now these issues of child-brides, I don't see Merkel retaining her position, and her predecessor probably won't be as friendly, welcoming, or tolerant.
That is a false equivalency. We have rights and liberties that are bestowed upon us, with many of those such as freedom of speech being a common right throughout the West. However, when an immigrant requests that we limit our own rights because that's just not how they do things back home, that is an unreasonable demand. If they cannot accept and respect that we are legally allowed to both criticize and **** talk Islam, that our artists are legally protected when making images of Muhammad, that we do not allow for child-brides or forced/arranged marriages, and that our laws are Secular, they should go because we should not be expected to change ourselves on the account of their culture that makes it extremely dangerous for a woman to report rape because it's likely she will be stoned as an adulterer.
Saudi intolerance brings up a question of where does one even begin? No alcohol, no singing and dancing, women must be covered up and they can't drive, and foreigners who break their laws will not be asked or told to leave, but rather punished, possible even killed. Here, a Muslim can say (though I know they wouldn't, it's just an example) "screw Jesus," and while some may be offended there are zero legal repercussions. If you go to Saudi Arabia, Iran, or a number of other Muslim nations and say "screw Muhammad," you will not survive the day. It is this intolerance and Bronze Age barbarism that we cannot allow within our own culture. Nor can we yield to demands of censorship. If they can't accept and respect that we do things different, they need to move on.
Or, there is the alternative, which is to keep making so many unreasonable demands those of the host nation get fed up with it to the point they elect someone who's "going to do something about it." We're already seeing the early stages of it, putting us in a precarious situation. We, the Western host nations, can only do so much. However, it is squarely on the shoulder's on moderate and liberal Muslims to bridge the gaps between Western culture and incoming Middle Eastern Muslim culture. They are going to have to work their asses off, and, yes, even criticize other Muslims and the practices of their homelands. For if things get too much worse, these moderate and liberal Muslims are likely to be facing the same consequences as immigrant Muslims who wouldn't respect the ways of their host country. Given the covered up rapes and now these issues of child-brides, I don't see Merkel retaining her position, and her predecessor probably won't be as friendly, welcoming, or tolerant.
Augustus
…
With Syrian refugees they can:
a) throw them into the sea
b) convince another country to voluntarily accept them (unlikely)
c) allow them to stay
They can't deport them to Syria as it is physically not possible and even if it was would result in large numbers being killed.
With regards to the underage marriage they can:
a) allow them to stay together
b) put the girl in a children's home or with a foster family (forcibly or voluntarily)
They were doing b) at first but then 2 girls tried to commit suicide so they allowed them to stay together in certain circumstances when it was seen as the lesser of 2 evils. It's hardly 'letting them do whatever they want'.
Most of the discussion seems to be about general immigration and general issues regarding the integration of migrant communities in the host society which have nothing really to do with this issue. Arguments that are valid in regard to that issue don't really work in regard to refugees who you cannot deport.
Child protection laws exist to protect children. If you believe that enforcing them is more harmful than allowing a few exceptions in very atypical circumstances then it seems ridiculous to harm and traumatise a child 'for their own good'. The girl always has the option of choosing to be rehoused if she wants to, and the authorities have the option of choosing to rehouse her if they feel it is in her best interests. Acting with the best interests of the child at heart is part of Western culture.
Also if they were legally obliged to allow them to stay together, then this would be, by definition, following the law of the land. Respect for legal norms is also part of Western culture.
Some countries changed the laws to prohibit this, others have not done so. No country changed their laws to allow it in the name of PC tolerance though.
Hello icehorse. It's been a while
I just want to know something then I'll leave, I promise. I'd like to know why you specifically say "forced marriage" and where did you get it from.
Thanks!
Hi Smart_Guy, Good to see you, no need to leave!
What we see in these various articles is always the situation of a young girl being married to an older man, right? It's never the other way around. We have to rule out economic reasons, because the people we're discussing here claim to be refugees, correct? So why is it that all these young girls marry older men, but we don't see young men marrying older women?
What would Algeria do? Why does Germany have any obligation to alter their laws and cultural norms to suit uninvited immigrants?
That is the fundamental issue I am objecting to. That somehow the ugliness in the Islamic world trumps the culture in countries where it doesn't have any sway.
Maybe Germany needs to alter it's laws so that merely showing up doesn't get you legal status. You must agree to a behavior code that abides by German law and culture or leave. Immediately.
Being a refugee from Syria doesn't get you accommodation that no Muslim country will give.
The fact that so many refugees want in to European countries means that the countries can be particular and put a bunch of restrictions and still easily help a ton of people who are willing. The refugees who refuse can choose somewhere else.
Tom
Thanda
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry you can't see through yourself:
You say
Saudi intolerance brings up a question of where does one even begin? No alcohol, no singing and dancing, women must be covered up and they can't drive, and foreigners who break their laws will not be asked or told to leave, but rather punished, possible even killed. Here, a Muslim can say (though I know they wouldn't, it's just an example) "screw Jesus," and while some may be offended there are zero legal repercussions.
With this I suppose you are trying to show how merciful and tolerant Americans are versus how intolerant Muslim nations are. Here's the thing though. if a Mulsim man marries a 13 year-old girl in America he will be charged with rape and put to jail for a very long time (Regardless of how the two of them feel about each other). Furthermore, should a Muslim man kill his sister for committing adultery in the US then, depending on the state he committed his crime, he will be killed. If the husband of a Mulsim women commits adultery in the US she has no recourse against either him or the woman who committed adultery, even if it destroys her family. So the freedoms and protections Mulsims enjoy in their own country they are denied them in America, in some cases on the penalty of death.
Now it is irrelevant whether you think their laws are good or not - your value system and their value system are entirely different. What matters here is that both you (the American people) and they have your principles, have codified your principles in law and are willing to punish, even by death, those who break those laws. So there is no moral high-ground to be claimed by anyone here. If the Muslims are intolerant then so are you. Whether you prefer your intolerance to theirs is irrelevant.
We are. But that is not the point.
The point is that people can do things their way in their country. But if they want to move to a different one they have the obligation to conform to the new country.
I don't think that this is the least bit unclear or unreasonable. If some aspect of western culture doesn't suit, go to a Muslim country. It's that simple.
Tom
Augustus
…
Algeria would accept over 400,000 of them. There are vastly more refugees in the Muslim world than in Europe, but worryingly people often fail to realise this.
Germany hasn't altered any laws to accommodate them.
How would you remove those who didn't comply? Push them out to sea in a boat? This is why I'm saying you can't remove them, you'd literally have to throw them into the sea.
You can criticise Germany for being too willing to accept them and not trying to prevent them from entering, but that was their choice. Once in the system then their hands are tied.
Maybe this is true, but that is not my understanding. My understanding is that the refugees generally pass through countries like Algeria on their way elsewhere, like Germany.
I don't claim to really know and I have seen dramatically different claims and figures.
But my bottom line remains. Why don't refugees stick to places that accommodate whatever is most important to them. If that is a marriage that is problematic in the host countries then go somewhere else.
How you get there is no more Germany's responsibility than how you got to Germany.
Tom