FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Extremists in Germany
Extremists in Germany
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Extremist ideology in Germany are talking of banning a democraticly elected party. What is playing out here.. " Is this the AFD party? It seems their support is growing still and there are elections in both Germany and possibly EU (not totally sure on that). I think the AFD are entering both and as both use PR or similar then they could certainly rock the boat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I’ve read, the AFD have mooted repatriation of ‘foreigners’ even if they hold German citizenship? If true, that’s a disgusting policy that should indeed be worthy of banning. " It becomes interesting when discussion of popular topics itself is banned. Discussing topics "in secret" is also interesting. Germany is very, very raw when it comes to ethnic cleansing, or anything that smells like it. It's also a great political football for both sides, now. The right can simultaneously distance itself from the extremists whilst castigating the left for silencing legitimate discussion. The left can portray the right as Nazis. Fun times. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There has been a report, but as of yet, there has been no evidence. Feels like this could be straight out of the lefts playbook. " Or it could equally be a valid report, which should be taken seriously, given its importance. I agree that parties shouldn’t be banned willy-nilly, but if evidence appears that verifies the claim - that would be solid grounds for an electoral ban, IMO. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There has been a report, but as of yet, there has been no evidence. Feels like this could be straight out of the lefts playbook. Or it could equally be a valid report, which should be taken seriously, given its importance. I agree that parties shouldn’t be banned willy-nilly, but if evidence appears that verifies the claim - that would be solid grounds for an electoral ban, IMO. " I'm not saying don't take the report seriously. I'm saying there should be no talk of any ban until evidence is presented. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There has been a report, but as of yet, there has been no evidence. Feels like this could be straight out of the lefts playbook. Or it could equally be a valid report, which should be taken seriously, given its importance. I agree that parties shouldn’t be banned willy-nilly, but if evidence appears that verifies the claim - that would be solid grounds for an electoral ban, IMO. I'm not saying don't take the report seriously. I'm saying there should be no talk of any ban until evidence is presented. " I’d agree with that, totally. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I’ve read, the AFD have mooted repatriation of ‘foreigners’ even if they hold German citizenship? If true, that’s a disgusting policy that should indeed be worthy of banning." From what I read, the story is that some AfD members had a meeting at which repatriation was discussed. There's no suggestion that it is official, or even proposed, AfD policy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I’ve read, the AFD have mooted repatriation of ‘foreigners’ even if they hold German citizenship? If true, that’s a disgusting policy that should indeed be worthy of banning. From what I read, the story is that some AfD members had a meeting at which repatriation was discussed. There's no suggestion that it is official, or even proposed, AfD policy." And as such, banning them with no evidence would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. But I’m sure we’d all agree that anyone who genuinely supports the repatriation of legal citizens should probably be kept away from mainstream politics, no? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I’ve read, the AFD have mooted repatriation of ‘foreigners’ even if they hold German citizenship? If true, that’s a disgusting policy that should indeed be worthy of banning. From what I read, the story is that some AfD members had a meeting at which repatriation was discussed. There's no suggestion that it is official, or even proposed, AfD policy. And as such, banning them with no evidence would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. But I’m sure we’d all agree that anyone who genuinely supports the repatriation of legal citizens should probably be kept away from mainstream politics, no? " windrush was exactly that and yet some of the architects of that policy are still plying their trade in the house's.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I’ve read, the AFD have mooted repatriation of ‘foreigners’ even if they hold German citizenship? If true, that’s a disgusting policy that should indeed be worthy of banning. From what I read, the story is that some AfD members had a meeting at which repatriation was discussed. There's no suggestion that it is official, or even proposed, AfD policy. And as such, banning them with no evidence would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. But I’m sure we’d all agree that anyone who genuinely supports the repatriation of legal citizens should probably be kept away from mainstream politics, no? windrush was exactly that and yet some of the architects of that policy are still plying their trade in the house's. "How old are these architects? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I’ve read, the AFD have mooted repatriation of ‘foreigners’ even if they hold German citizenship? If true, that’s a disgusting policy that should indeed be worthy of banning. From what I read, the story is that some AfD members had a meeting at which repatriation was discussed. There's no suggestion that it is official, or even proposed, AfD policy. And as such, banning them with no evidence would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. But I’m sure we’d all agree that anyone who genuinely supports the repatriation of legal citizens should probably be kept away from mainstream politics, no? " Citizen ship should never be retrospectively withdrawn unless for extreme cases if when one group strongly disagrees with the merits of the Citizenship bring granted in the first place. However Questioning the rational and criteria of Citizenship should always be up for debate and amendment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who is talking of banning whom? And panthers any evidence that they are wanting a banning ? Whoever they are. " are there. Not panthers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I’ve read, the AFD have mooted repatriation of ‘foreigners’ even if they hold German citizenship? If true, that’s a disgusting policy that should indeed be worthy of banning. From what I read, the story is that some AfD members had a meeting at which repatriation was discussed. There's no suggestion that it is official, or even proposed, AfD policy. And as such, banning them with no evidence would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. But I’m sure we’d all agree that anyone who genuinely supports the repatriation of legal citizens should probably be kept away from mainstream politics, no? windrush was exactly that and yet some of the architects of that policy are still plying their trade in the house's.
How old are these architects?"I was responding to the previous poster Tom, that the UK has been there and done it in regards to deporting/repatriating legal invited guest's to their country of birth for lack of documentation. It started in 2010 and hit the headlines in 2018, another scandal. tuts and rolls eyes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But I’m sure we’d all agree that anyone who genuinely supports the repatriation of legal citizens should probably be kept away from mainstream politics, no?" Kept away by people not voting for them, I agree. Kept away by being banned, I disagree. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was responding to the previous poster Tom, that the UK has been there and done it in regards to deporting/repatriating legal invited guest's to their country of birth for lack of documentation." The lack of documentation meant that the state believed they were foreign criminals, and deportation of foreign criminals isn't an unpleasant policy. No one involved in any of the Windrush scandal cases thought that people were being back to Jamaica because of the colour of their skin. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But I’m sure we’d all agree that anyone who genuinely supports the repatriation of legal citizens should probably be kept away from mainstream politics, no? Kept away by people not voting for them, I agree. Kept away by being banned, I disagree." I firmly believe that anyone espousing such views should not be allowed to stand for election. Anti-immigration is one thing, ethnic cleaning is another. Mayhap some are more accepting of such ideology than I am, but that’s their own shortcoming, not mine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But I’m sure we’d all agree that anyone who genuinely supports the repatriation of legal citizens should probably be kept away from mainstream politics, no?" "Kept away by people not voting for them, I agree. Kept away by being banned, I disagree." "I firmly believe that anyone espousing such views should not be allowed to stand for election." Then you're part of the problem. Banning people from saying things doesn't make them change their attitudes, it just makes them resentful, and causes them to seek out others that will allow them to say those things. Banning things that you don't like is an excellent way to make sure that those that do like it will organise against you. "Anti-immigration is one thing, ethnic cleaning is another. Mayhap some are more accepting of such ideology than I am, but that’s their own shortcoming, not mine." I don't have to be accepting of an ideology to think that someone should be allowed to have it. The best way to defeat things like racism is to expose them, and show people how ugly they are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But I’m sure we’d all agree that anyone who genuinely supports the repatriation of legal citizens should probably be kept away from mainstream politics, no? Kept away by people not voting for them, I agree. Kept away by being banned, I disagree. I firmly believe that anyone espousing such views should not be allowed to stand for election. Then you're part of the problem. Banning people from saying things doesn't make them change their attitudes, it just makes them resentful, and causes them to seek out others that will allow them to say those things. Banning things that you don't like is an excellent way to make sure that those that do like it will organise against you. Anti-immigration is one thing, ethnic cleaning is another. Mayhap some are more accepting of such ideology than I am, but that’s their own shortcoming, not mine. I don't have to be accepting of an ideology to think that someone should be allowed to have it. The best way to defeat things like racism is to expose them, and show people how ugly they are." When you give a platform to a literal N@zi (which I think we’d all agree that such views are), then you’re running the risk of actual N@zis gaining power and enacting actual N@zi policies. Yes, ideally we can defeat people with words and logic, but some views are too abhorrent to be given a platform to. Apologies if that’s not warm and fluffy enough for you, but that’s the way it is, unless you want to run the risk of views as odious as that as gaining enough support to take power. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But I’m sure we’d all agree that anyone who genuinely supports the repatriation of legal citizens should probably be kept away from mainstream politics, no? Kept away by people not voting for them, I agree. Kept away by being banned, I disagree. I firmly believe that anyone espousing such views should not be allowed to stand for election. Then you're part of the problem. Banning people from saying things doesn't make them change their attitudes, it just makes them resentful, and causes them to seek out others that will allow them to say those things. Banning things that you don't like is an excellent way to make sure that those that do like it will organise against you. Anti-immigration is one thing, ethnic cleaning is another. Mayhap some are more accepting of such ideology than I am, but that’s their own shortcoming, not mine. I don't have to be accepting of an ideology to think that someone should be allowed to have it. The best way to defeat things like racism is to expose them, and show people how ugly they are. When you give a platform to a literal N@zi (which I think we’d all agree that such views are), then you’re running the risk of actual N@zis gaining power and enacting actual N@zi policies. Yes, ideally we can defeat people with words and logic, but some views are too abhorrent to be given a platform to. Apologies if that’s not warm and fluffy enough for you, but that’s the way it is, unless you want to run the risk of views as odious as that as gaining enough support to take power. " “Sorry you’re being kicked out of the country, I know you’re legally here and everything, and I know you’ve done nothing wrong, and you started a business and employed people, and have been an upstanding member of our society, but you were born elsewhere, and we have to respect the views of the n@zis after all” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But I’m sure we’d all agree that anyone who genuinely supports the repatriation of legal citizens should probably be kept away from mainstream politics, no? Kept away by people not voting for them, I agree. Kept away by being banned, I disagree. I firmly believe that anyone espousing such views should not be allowed to stand for election. Then you're part of the problem. Banning people from saying things doesn't make them change their attitudes, it just makes them resentful, and causes them to seek out others that will allow them to say those things. Banning things that you don't like is an excellent way to make sure that those that do like it will organise against you. Anti-immigration is one thing, ethnic cleaning is another. Mayhap some are more accepting of such ideology than I am, but that’s their own shortcoming, not mine. I don't have to be accepting of an ideology to think that someone should be allowed to have it. The best way to defeat things like racism is to expose them, and show people how ugly they are. When you give a platform to a literal N@zi (which I think we’d all agree that such views are), then you’re running the risk of actual N@zis gaining power and enacting actual N@zi policies. Yes, ideally we can defeat people with words and logic, but some views are too abhorrent to be given a platform to. Apologies if that’s not warm and fluffy enough for you, but that’s the way it is, unless you want to run the risk of views as odious as that as gaining enough support to take power. “Sorry you’re being kicked out of the country, I know you’re legally here and everything, and I know you’ve done nothing wrong, and you started a business and employed people, and have been an upstanding member of our society, but you were born elsewhere, and we have to respect the views of the n@zis after all”" All this talk of nazis and ethnic cleansing when there's been only been some random persons suggestion of that is wild. "Of course everyone who has German citizenship is part of our people," said Alice Weidel, the AfD's co-leader and its most recognisable face. That doesn't sound very much like they want to remove anyone with citizenship. As I said before, this sounds straight out of the lefts playbook, it appears you've fallen for it hook, line and sinker. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But I’m sure we’d all agree that anyone who genuinely supports the repatriation of legal citizens should probably be kept away from mainstream politics, no? Kept away by people not voting for them, I agree. Kept away by being banned, I disagree. I firmly believe that anyone espousing such views should not be allowed to stand for election. Then you're part of the problem. Banning people from saying things doesn't make them change their attitudes, it just makes them resentful, and causes them to seek out others that will allow them to say those things. Banning things that you don't like is an excellent way to make sure that those that do like it will organise against you. Anti-immigration is one thing, ethnic cleaning is another. Mayhap some are more accepting of such ideology than I am, but that’s their own shortcoming, not mine. I don't have to be accepting of an ideology to think that someone should be allowed to have it. The best way to defeat things like racism is to expose them, and show people how ugly they are. When you give a platform to a literal N@zi (which I think we’d all agree that such views are), then you’re running the risk of actual N@zis gaining power and enacting actual N@zi policies. Yes, ideally we can defeat people with words and logic, but some views are too abhorrent to be given a platform to. Apologies if that’s not warm and fluffy enough for you, but that’s the way it is, unless you want to run the risk of views as odious as that as gaining enough support to take power. “Sorry you’re being kicked out of the country, I know you’re legally here and everything, and I know you’ve done nothing wrong, and you started a business and employed people, and have been an upstanding member of our society, but you were born elsewhere, and we have to respect the views of the n@zis after all” All this talk of nazis and ethnic cleansing when there's been only been some random persons suggestion of that is wild. "Of course everyone who has German citizenship is part of our people," said Alice Weidel, the AfD's co-leader and its most recognisable face. That doesn't sound very much like they want to remove anyone with citizenship. As I said before, this sounds straight out of the lefts playbook, it appears you've fallen for it hook, line and sinker. " I wasn’t talking specifically about the AFD, I was talking about others who apparently spoke at this event. Some of us have done more than a skim reading about this topic… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But I’m sure we’d all agree that anyone who genuinely supports the repatriation of legal citizens should probably be kept away from mainstream politics, no? Kept away by people not voting for them, I agree. Kept away by being banned, I disagree. I firmly believe that anyone espousing such views should not be allowed to stand for election. Then you're part of the problem. Banning people from saying things doesn't make them change their attitudes, it just makes them resentful, and causes them to seek out others that will allow them to say those things. Banning things that you don't like is an excellent way to make sure that those that do like it will organise against you. Anti-immigration is one thing, ethnic cleaning is another. Mayhap some are more accepting of such ideology than I am, but that’s their own shortcoming, not mine. I don't have to be accepting of an ideology to think that someone should be allowed to have it. The best way to defeat things like racism is to expose them, and show people how ugly they are. When you give a platform to a literal N@zi (which I think we’d all agree that such views are), then you’re running the risk of actual N@zis gaining power and enacting actual N@zi policies. Yes, ideally we can defeat people with words and logic, but some views are too abhorrent to be given a platform to. Apologies if that’s not warm and fluffy enough for you, but that’s the way it is, unless you want to run the risk of views as odious as that as gaining enough support to take power. “Sorry you’re being kicked out of the country, I know you’re legally here and everything, and I know you’ve done nothing wrong, and you started a business and employed people, and have been an upstanding member of our society, but you were born elsewhere, and we have to respect the views of the n@zis after all” All this talk of nazis and ethnic cleansing when there's been only been some random persons suggestion of that is wild. "Of course everyone who has German citizenship is part of our people," said Alice Weidel, the AfD's co-leader and its most recognisable face. That doesn't sound very much like they want to remove anyone with citizenship. As I said before, this sounds straight out of the lefts playbook, it appears you've fallen for it hook, line and sinker. I wasn’t talking specifically about the AFD, I was talking about others who apparently spoke at this event. Some of us have done more than a skim reading about this topic… " Yes some of us have. What makes you think you know more than others? Your 'apparently spoke at the event' says all we need to know. There are zero facts YET, but you've fallen for it already. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But I’m sure we’d all agree that anyone who genuinely supports the repatriation of legal citizens should probably be kept away from mainstream politics, no? Kept away by people not voting for them, I agree. Kept away by being banned, I disagree. I firmly believe that anyone espousing such views should not be allowed to stand for election. Then you're part of the problem. Banning people from saying things doesn't make them change their attitudes, it just makes them resentful, and causes them to seek out others that will allow them to say those things. Banning things that you don't like is an excellent way to make sure that those that do like it will organise against you. Anti-immigration is one thing, ethnic cleaning is another. Mayhap some are more accepting of such ideology than I am, but that’s their own shortcoming, not mine. I don't have to be accepting of an ideology to think that someone should be allowed to have it. The best way to defeat things like racism is to expose them, and show people how ugly they are. When you give a platform to a literal N@zi (which I think we’d all agree that such views are), then you’re running the risk of actual N@zis gaining power and enacting actual N@zi policies. Yes, ideally we can defeat people with words and logic, but some views are too abhorrent to be given a platform to. Apologies if that’s not warm and fluffy enough for you, but that’s the way it is, unless you want to run the risk of views as odious as that as gaining enough support to take power. “Sorry you’re being kicked out of the country, I know you’re legally here and everything, and I know you’ve done nothing wrong, and you started a business and employed people, and have been an upstanding member of our society, but you were born elsewhere, and we have to respect the views of the n@zis after all” All this talk of nazis and ethnic cleansing when there's been only been some random persons suggestion of that is wild. "Of course everyone who has German citizenship is part of our people," said Alice Weidel, the AfD's co-leader and its most recognisable face. That doesn't sound very much like they want to remove anyone with citizenship. As I said before, this sounds straight out of the lefts playbook, it appears you've fallen for it hook, line and sinker. I wasn’t talking specifically about the AFD, I was talking about others who apparently spoke at this event. Some of us have done more than a skim reading about this topic… Yes some of us have. What makes you think you know more than others? Your 'apparently spoke at the event' says all we need to know. There are zero facts YET, but you've fallen for it already. " No, I’ve been consistent throughout. If evidence arises that individuals in a party have spoken in favour of such views, they should be banned from mainstream politics, but at present, talking of banning is premature. Can you point out where I’ve diverted from that view? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But I’m sure we’d all agree that anyone who genuinely supports the repatriation of legal citizens should probably be kept away from mainstream politics, no? Kept away by people not voting for them, I agree. Kept away by being banned, I disagree. I firmly believe that anyone espousing such views should not be allowed to stand for election. Then you're part of the problem. Banning people from saying things doesn't make them change their attitudes, it just makes them resentful, and causes them to seek out others that will allow them to say those things. Banning things that you don't like is an excellent way to make sure that those that do like it will organise against you. Anti-immigration is one thing, ethnic cleaning is another. Mayhap some are more accepting of such ideology than I am, but that’s their own shortcoming, not mine. I don't have to be accepting of an ideology to think that someone should be allowed to have it. The best way to defeat things like racism is to expose them, and show people how ugly they are. When you give a platform to a literal N@zi (which I think we’d all agree that such views are), then you’re running the risk of actual N@zis gaining power and enacting actual N@zi policies. Yes, ideally we can defeat people with words and logic, but some views are too abhorrent to be given a platform to. Apologies if that’s not warm and fluffy enough for you, but that’s the way it is, unless you want to run the risk of views as odious as that as gaining enough support to take power. “Sorry you’re being kicked out of the country, I know you’re legally here and everything, and I know you’ve done nothing wrong, and you started a business and employed people, and have been an upstanding member of our society, but you were born elsewhere, and we have to respect the views of the n@zis after all” All this talk of nazis and ethnic cleansing when there's been only been some random persons suggestion of that is wild. "Of course everyone who has German citizenship is part of our people," said Alice Weidel, the AfD's co-leader and its most recognisable face. That doesn't sound very much like they want to remove anyone with citizenship. As I said before, this sounds straight out of the lefts playbook, it appears you've fallen for it hook, line and sinker. " which bit is the left playbook ? Saying that the secret/private meeting took place ? Or the agenda and what was discussed? Or using the meeting and the agenda to suggest the AFT is banned ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But I’m sure we’d all agree that anyone who genuinely supports the repatriation of legal citizens should probably be kept away from mainstream politics, no? Kept away by people not voting for them, I agree. Kept away by being banned, I disagree. I firmly believe that anyone espousing such views should not be allowed to stand for election. Then you're part of the problem. Banning people from saying things doesn't make them change their attitudes, it just makes them resentful, and causes them to seek out others that will allow them to say those things. Banning things that you don't like is an excellent way to make sure that those that do like it will organise against you. Anti-immigration is one thing, ethnic cleaning is another. Mayhap some are more accepting of such ideology than I am, but that’s their own shortcoming, not mine. I don't have to be accepting of an ideology to think that someone should be allowed to have it. The best way to defeat things like racism is to expose them, and show people how ugly they are. When you give a platform to a literal N@zi (which I think we’d all agree that such views are), then you’re running the risk of actual N@zis gaining power and enacting actual N@zi policies. Yes, ideally we can defeat people with words and logic, but some views are too abhorrent to be given a platform to. Apologies if that’s not warm and fluffy enough for you, but that’s the way it is, unless you want to run the risk of views as odious as that as gaining enough support to take power. “Sorry you’re being kicked out of the country, I know you’re legally here and everything, and I know you’ve done nothing wrong, and you started a business and employed people, and have been an upstanding member of our society, but you were born elsewhere, and we have to respect the views of the n@zis after all” All this talk of nazis and ethnic cleansing when there's been only been some random persons suggestion of that is wild. "Of course everyone who has German citizenship is part of our people," said Alice Weidel, the AfD's co-leader and its most recognisable face. That doesn't sound very much like they want to remove anyone with citizenship. As I said before, this sounds straight out of the lefts playbook, it appears you've fallen for it hook, line and sinker. which bit is the left playbook ? Saying that the secret/private meeting took place ? Or the agenda and what was discussed? Or using the meeting and the agenda to suggest the AFT is banned ? " Using a meeting that some things were spoken about, suggesting what those things were without evidence and announcing those things to the public. This has created the left to get out and protest (massive shock). Now were hearing that people don't feel safe blah, blah. We've seen this play out too many times for it to be coincidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But I’m sure we’d all agree that anyone who genuinely supports the repatriation of legal citizens should probably be kept away from mainstream politics, no? Kept away by people not voting for them, I agree. Kept away by being banned, I disagree. I firmly believe that anyone espousing such views should not be allowed to stand for election. Then you're part of the problem. Banning people from saying things doesn't make them change their attitudes, it just makes them resentful, and causes them to seek out others that will allow them to say those things. Banning things that you don't like is an excellent way to make sure that those that do like it will organise against you. Anti-immigration is one thing, ethnic cleaning is another. Mayhap some are more accepting of such ideology than I am, but that’s their own shortcoming, not mine. I don't have to be accepting of an ideology to think that someone should be allowed to have it. The best way to defeat things like racism is to expose them, and show people how ugly they are. When you give a platform to a literal N@zi (which I think we’d all agree that such views are), then you’re running the risk of actual N@zis gaining power and enacting actual N@zi policies. Yes, ideally we can defeat people with words and logic, but some views are too abhorrent to be given a platform to. Apologies if that’s not warm and fluffy enough for you, but that’s the way it is, unless you want to run the risk of views as odious as that as gaining enough support to take power. “Sorry you’re being kicked out of the country, I know you’re legally here and everything, and I know you’ve done nothing wrong, and you started a business and employed people, and have been an upstanding member of our society, but you were born elsewhere, and we have to respect the views of the n@zis after all” All this talk of nazis and ethnic cleansing when there's been only been some random persons suggestion of that is wild. "Of course everyone who has German citizenship is part of our people," said Alice Weidel, the AfD's co-leader and its most recognisable face. That doesn't sound very much like they want to remove anyone with citizenship. As I said before, this sounds straight out of the lefts playbook, it appears you've fallen for it hook, line and sinker. I wasn’t talking specifically about the AFD, I was talking about others who apparently spoke at this event. Some of us have done more than a skim reading about this topic… Yes some of us have. What makes you think you know more than others? Your 'apparently spoke at the event' says all we need to know. There are zero facts YET, but you've fallen for it already. No, I’ve been consistent throughout. If evidence arises that individuals in a party have spoken in favour of such views, they should be banned from mainstream politics, but at present, talking of banning is premature. Can you point out where I’ve diverted from that view? " The thread and talk of banning is re. afd. The others don't come into it. You've diverted by talking about nazis and ethnic cleansing through hearsay. You've already made your mind up not knowing the evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But I’m sure we’d all agree that anyone who genuinely supports the repatriation of legal citizens should probably be kept away from mainstream politics, no? Kept away by people not voting for them, I agree. Kept away by being banned, I disagree. I firmly believe that anyone espousing such views should not be allowed to stand for election. Then you're part of the problem. Banning people from saying things doesn't make them change their attitudes, it just makes them resentful, and causes them to seek out others that will allow them to say those things. Banning things that you don't like is an excellent way to make sure that those that do like it will organise against you. Anti-immigration is one thing, ethnic cleaning is another. Mayhap some are more accepting of such ideology than I am, but that’s their own shortcoming, not mine. I don't have to be accepting of an ideology to think that someone should be allowed to have it. The best way to defeat things like racism is to expose them, and show people how ugly they are. When you give a platform to a literal N@zi (which I think we’d all agree that such views are), then you’re running the risk of actual N@zis gaining power and enacting actual N@zi policies. Yes, ideally we can defeat people with words and logic, but some views are too abhorrent to be given a platform to. Apologies if that’s not warm and fluffy enough for you, but that’s the way it is, unless you want to run the risk of views as odious as that as gaining enough support to take power. “Sorry you’re being kicked out of the country, I know you’re legally here and everything, and I know you’ve done nothing wrong, and you started a business and employed people, and have been an upstanding member of our society, but you were born elsewhere, and we have to respect the views of the n@zis after all” All this talk of nazis and ethnic cleansing when there's been only been some random persons suggestion of that is wild. "Of course everyone who has German citizenship is part of our people," said Alice Weidel, the AfD's co-leader and its most recognisable face. That doesn't sound very much like they want to remove anyone with citizenship. As I said before, this sounds straight out of the lefts playbook, it appears you've fallen for it hook, line and sinker. I wasn’t talking specifically about the AFD, I was talking about others who apparently spoke at this event. Some of us have done more than a skim reading about this topic… Yes some of us have. What makes you think you know more than others? Your 'apparently spoke at the event' says all we need to know. There are zero facts YET, but you've fallen for it already. No, I’ve been consistent throughout. If evidence arises that individuals in a party have spoken in favour of such views, they should be banned from mainstream politics, but at present, talking of banning is premature. Can you point out where I’ve diverted from that view? The thread and talk of banning is re. afd. The others don't come into it. You've diverted by talking about nazis and ethnic cleansing through hearsay. You've already made your mind up not knowing the evidence. " Nazis and ethnic cleansing with the individuals named in that report is categorically not hearsay, Sellmer in particular has been quite open about his beliefs. So once again, because I obviously didn’t make myself clear enough when I agreed with you earlier - at present, talking of banning parties is premature, but if evidence arises that serious discussion has taken place on such policy, it would become a valid conversation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But I’m sure we’d all agree that anyone who genuinely supports the repatriation of legal citizens should probably be kept away from mainstream politics, no? Kept away by people not voting for them, I agree. Kept away by being banned, I disagree. I firmly believe that anyone espousing such views should not be allowed to stand for election. Then you're part of the problem. Banning people from saying things doesn't make them change their attitudes, it just makes them resentful, and causes them to seek out others that will allow them to say those things. Banning things that you don't like is an excellent way to make sure that those that do like it will organise against you. Anti-immigration is one thing, ethnic cleaning is another. Mayhap some are more accepting of such ideology than I am, but that’s their own shortcoming, not mine. I don't have to be accepting of an ideology to think that someone should be allowed to have it. The best way to defeat things like racism is to expose them, and show people how ugly they are. When you give a platform to a literal N@zi (which I think we’d all agree that such views are), then you’re running the risk of actual N@zis gaining power and enacting actual N@zi policies. Yes, ideally we can defeat people with words and logic, but some views are too abhorrent to be given a platform to. Apologies if that’s not warm and fluffy enough for you, but that’s the way it is, unless you want to run the risk of views as odious as that as gaining enough support to take power. “Sorry you’re being kicked out of the country, I know you’re legally here and everything, and I know you’ve done nothing wrong, and you started a business and employed people, and have been an upstanding member of our society, but you were born elsewhere, and we have to respect the views of the n@zis after all” All this talk of nazis and ethnic cleansing when there's been only been some random persons suggestion of that is wild. "Of course everyone who has German citizenship is part of our people," said Alice Weidel, the AfD's co-leader and its most recognisable face. That doesn't sound very much like they want to remove anyone with citizenship. As I said before, this sounds straight out of the lefts playbook, it appears you've fallen for it hook, line and sinker. I wasn’t talking specifically about the AFD, I was talking about others who apparently spoke at this event. Some of us have done more than a skim reading about this topic… Yes some of us have. What makes you think you know more than others? Your 'apparently spoke at the event' says all we need to know. There are zero facts YET, but you've fallen for it already. No, I’ve been consistent throughout. If evidence arises that individuals in a party have spoken in favour of such views, they should be banned from mainstream politics, but at present, talking of banning is premature. Can you point out where I’ve diverted from that view? The thread and talk of banning is re. afd. The others don't come into it. You've diverted by talking about nazis and ethnic cleansing through hearsay. You've already made your mind up not knowing the evidence. Nazis and ethnic cleansing with the individuals named in that report is categorically not hearsay, Sellmer in particular has been quite open about his beliefs. So once again, because I obviously didn’t make myself clear enough when I agreed with you earlier - at present, talking of banning parties is premature, but if evidence arises that serious discussion has taken place on such policy, it would become a valid conversation. " Seller isn't and won't be running in Germany, the AFD have since cut ties with senior aide who was in attendance. It's easy to chuck a couple of names in and then mix that up with Nazis and ethnic cleansing. 25 members have called for a ban and 300k have taken to the streets. As I said, we've seen this play out too many times for it to be a coincidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry I appear to have forgotten the rules of the forum. The gatekeepers here are in charge of exactly when conversation may expand beyond the narrow remit of the thread title. Everyone else must absolutely keep to the boundaries of the gatekeepers definition and scope of topic." Who said you couldn't divert? You asked where you did and I showed you, didn't say you couldn't... I know you don't like being challenged but you don't need to cry about it  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry I appear to have forgotten the rules of the forum. The gatekeepers here are in charge of exactly when conversation may expand beyond the narrow remit of the thread title. Everyone else must absolutely keep to the boundaries of the gatekeepers definition and scope of topic. Who said you couldn't divert? You asked where you did and I showed you, didn't say you couldn't... I know you don't like being challenged but you don't need to cry about it "I didn’t divert at all - that’s the thing. There appears to have been a meeting, at which present there was reported to have been at least one prominent AFD member, and several alt-right figures, including neo-Nazis who are open about ‘remigration’ Is that presently reason to ban the AFB? No. Is it reason to ban any individual from standing? No. Might it prove to be so if further evidence is found? Potentially, yes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But I’m sure we’d all agree that anyone who genuinely supports the repatriation of legal citizens should probably be kept away from mainstream politics, no? Kept away by people not voting for them, I agree. Kept away by being banned, I disagree. I firmly believe that anyone espousing such views should not be allowed to stand for election. Then you're part of the problem. Banning people from saying things doesn't make them change their attitudes, it just makes them resentful, and causes them to seek out others that will allow them to say those things. Banning things that you don't like is an excellent way to make sure that those that do like it will organise against you. Anti-immigration is one thing, ethnic cleaning is another. Mayhap some are more accepting of such ideology than I am, but that’s their own shortcoming, not mine. I don't have to be accepting of an ideology to think that someone should be allowed to have it. The best way to defeat things like racism is to expose them, and show people how ugly they are. When you give a platform to a literal N@zi (which I think we’d all agree that such views are), then you’re running the risk of actual N@zis gaining power and enacting actual N@zi policies. Yes, ideally we can defeat people with words and logic, but some views are too abhorrent to be given a platform to. Apologies if that’s not warm and fluffy enough for you, but that’s the way it is, unless you want to run the risk of views as odious as that as gaining enough support to take power. “Sorry you’re being kicked out of the country, I know you’re legally here and everything, and I know you’ve done nothing wrong, and you started a business and employed people, and have been an upstanding member of our society, but you were born elsewhere, and we have to respect the views of the n@zis after all” All this talk of nazis and ethnic cleansing when there's been only been some random persons suggestion of that is wild. "Of course everyone who has German citizenship is part of our people," said Alice Weidel, the AfD's co-leader and its most recognisable face. That doesn't sound very much like they want to remove anyone with citizenship. As I said before, this sounds straight out of the lefts playbook, it appears you've fallen for it hook, line and sinker. I wasn’t talking specifically about the AFD, I was talking about others who apparently spoke at this event. Some of us have done more than a skim reading about this topic… Yes some of us have. What makes you think you know more than others? Your 'apparently spoke at the event' says all we need to know. There are zero facts YET, but you've fallen for it already. No, I’ve been consistent throughout. If evidence arises that individuals in a party have spoken in favour of such views, they should be banned from mainstream politics, but at present, talking of banning is premature. Can you point out where I’ve diverted from that view? The thread and talk of banning is re. afd. The others don't come into it. You've diverted by talking about nazis and ethnic cleansing through hearsay. You've already made your mind up not knowing the evidence. Nazis and ethnic cleansing with the individuals named in that report is categorically not hearsay, Sellmer in particular has been quite open about his beliefs. So once again, because I obviously didn’t make myself clear enough when I agreed with you earlier - at present, talking of banning parties is premature, but if evidence arises that serious discussion has taken place on such policy, it would become a valid conversation. Seller isn't and won't be running in Germany, the AFD have since cut ties with senior aide who was in attendance. It's easy to chuck a couple of names in and then mix that up with Nazis and ethnic cleansing. 25 members have called for a ban and 300k have taken to the streets. As I said, we've seen this play out too many times for it to be a coincidence." When the names you’re chucking in are actual nazis, then yes, it’s easy to mix them up with Nazis. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But I’m sure we’d all agree that anyone who genuinely supports the repatriation of legal citizens should probably be kept away from mainstream politics, no? Kept away by people not voting for them, I agree. Kept away by being banned, I disagree. I firmly believe that anyone espousing such views should not be allowed to stand for election. Then you're part of the problem. Banning people from saying things doesn't make them change their attitudes, it just makes them resentful, and causes them to seek out others that will allow them to say those things. Banning things that you don't like is an excellent way to make sure that those that do like it will organise against you. Anti-immigration is one thing, ethnic cleaning is another. Mayhap some are more accepting of such ideology than I am, but that’s their own shortcoming, not mine. I don't have to be accepting of an ideology to think that someone should be allowed to have it. The best way to defeat things like racism is to expose them, and show people how ugly they are. When you give a platform to a literal N@zi (which I think we’d all agree that such views are), then you’re running the risk of actual N@zis gaining power and enacting actual N@zi policies. Yes, ideally we can defeat people with words and logic, but some views are too abhorrent to be given a platform to. Apologies if that’s not warm and fluffy enough for you, but that’s the way it is, unless you want to run the risk of views as odious as that as gaining enough support to take power. “Sorry you’re being kicked out of the country, I know you’re legally here and everything, and I know you’ve done nothing wrong, and you started a business and employed people, and have been an upstanding member of our society, but you were born elsewhere, and we have to respect the views of the n@zis after all” All this talk of nazis and ethnic cleansing when there's been only been some random persons suggestion of that is wild. "Of course everyone who has German citizenship is part of our people," said Alice Weidel, the AfD's co-leader and its most recognisable face. That doesn't sound very much like they want to remove anyone with citizenship. As I said before, this sounds straight out of the lefts playbook, it appears you've fallen for it hook, line and sinker. I wasn’t talking specifically about the AFD, I was talking about others who apparently spoke at this event. Some of us have done more than a skim reading about this topic… Yes some of us have. What makes you think you know more than others? Your 'apparently spoke at the event' says all we need to know. There are zero facts YET, but you've fallen for it already. No, I’ve been consistent throughout. If evidence arises that individuals in a party have spoken in favour of such views, they should be banned from mainstream politics, but at present, talking of banning is premature. Can you point out where I’ve diverted from that view? The thread and talk of banning is re. afd. The others don't come into it. You've diverted by talking about nazis and ethnic cleansing through hearsay. You've already made your mind up not knowing the evidence. Nazis and ethnic cleansing with the individuals named in that report is categorically not hearsay, Sellmer in particular has been quite open about his beliefs. So once again, because I obviously didn’t make myself clear enough when I agreed with you earlier - at present, talking of banning parties is premature, but if evidence arises that serious discussion has taken place on such policy, it would become a valid conversation. Seller isn't and won't be running in Germany, the AFD have since cut ties with senior aide who was in attendance. It's easy to chuck a couple of names in and then mix that up with Nazis and ethnic cleansing. 25 members have called for a ban and 300k have taken to the streets. As I said, we've seen this play out too many times for it to be a coincidence. When the names you’re chucking in are actual nazis, then yes, it’s easy to mix them up with Nazis. " Of course it is. Just as its easy to chuck in a name to create fuss, whether that name was present or not. Show us the evidence (not you, obviously) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How trustworthy are correctiv? " They’ve won several awards, but not sure that means much tbf. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When you give a platform to a literal N@zi (which I think we’d all agree that such views are), then you’re running the risk of actual N@zis gaining power and enacting actual N@zi policies. Yes, ideally we can defeat people with words and logic, but some views are too abhorrent to be given a platform to. Apologies if that’s not warm and fluffy enough for you, but that’s the way it is, unless you want to run the risk of views as odious as that as gaining enough support to take power." You're not a fan of democracy then. I don't want a neo-Nazi party gaining seats in my country, but I also don't want to live in a country which bans all the things that the current government doesn't like. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When you give a platform to a literal N@zi (which I think we’d all agree that such views are), then you’re running the risk of actual N@zis gaining power and enacting actual N@zi policies. Yes, ideally we can defeat people with words and logic, but some views are too abhorrent to be given a platform to. Apologies if that’s not warm and fluffy enough for you, but that’s the way it is, unless you want to run the risk of views as odious as that as gaining enough support to take power. You're not a fan of democracy then. I don't want a neo-Nazi party gaining seats in my country, but I also don't want to live in a country which bans all the things that the current government doesn't like." Nazi’s and democracy aren’t bedfellows. You’re absolutely right that I would want Nazis (actual Nazis) banned. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whether you like AfD's views or not, banning them is definitely not going to help? They have a massive support now. What to they think these supporters will do if the party is banned? Maybe for once, the left should actually listen to people and debate instead of pushing their ideologies using authoritarianism?" Nobody is seriously talking about AFD being banned. But anyone (individual or party) espousing beliefs in ethnic cleansing should be, no? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whether you like AfD's views or not, banning them is definitely not going to help? They have a massive support now. What to they think these supporters will do if the party is banned? Maybe for once, the left should actually listen to people and debate instead of pushing their ideologies using authoritarianism? Nobody is seriously talking about AFD being banned. But anyone (individual or party) espousing beliefs in ethnic cleansing should be, no? " What do you think the outcome of that would be? The bigger problem is why is AfD getting so much support. By banning them, you haven't really solved the root cause. So you have a huge proportion of disgruntled voters whose party of choice has just been banned. It won't end well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whether you like AfD's views or not, banning them is definitely not going to help? They have a massive support now. What to they think these supporters will do if the party is banned? Maybe for once, the left should actually listen to people and debate instead of pushing their ideologies using authoritarianism? Nobody is seriously talking about AFD being banned. But anyone (individual or party) espousing beliefs in ethnic cleansing should be, no? What do you think the outcome of that would be? The bigger problem is why is AfD getting so much support. By banning them, you haven't really solved the root cause. So you have a huge proportion of disgruntled voters whose party of choice has just been banned. It won't end well." But AFD won’t be banned. And nobody here has suggested they should be - unless of course they’re taken over by the sort of characters allegedly at this meeting. (Which is highly unlikely to happen) In theory, if a neo-Nazi party gained power in the UK, and enacted policies repatriating foreigners with British citizenship, should we accept it? Should we shrug and say ‘ah well, that’s the system’? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whether you like AfD's views or not, banning them is definitely not going to help? They have a massive support now. What to they think these supporters will do if the party is banned? Maybe for once, the left should actually listen to people and debate instead of pushing their ideologies using authoritarianism? Nobody is seriously talking about AFD being banned. But anyone (individual or party) espousing beliefs in ethnic cleansing should be, no? What do you think the outcome of that would be? The bigger problem is why is AfD getting so much support. By banning them, you haven't really solved the root cause. So you have a huge proportion of disgruntled voters whose party of choice has just been banned. It won't end well. But AFD won’t be banned. And nobody here has suggested they should be - unless of course they’re taken over by the sort of characters allegedly at this meeting. (Which is highly unlikely to happen) In theory, if a neo-Nazi party gained power in the UK, and enacted policies repatriating foreigners with British citizenship, should we accept it? Should we shrug and say ‘ah well, that’s the system’? " But your argument was AfD should be banned for espousing ethnic cleansing? Any party suggesting ethnic cleansing is deplorable. But if such a party is actually attracting too many voters, the party is just a symptom and not the disease. You need to look at why so many people ended up supporting them in the first place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whether you like AfD's views or not, banning them is definitely not going to help? They have a massive support now. What to they think these supporters will do if the party is banned? Maybe for once, the left should actually listen to people and debate instead of pushing their ideologies using authoritarianism? Nobody is seriously talking about AFD being banned. But anyone (individual or party) espousing beliefs in ethnic cleansing should be, no? What do you think the outcome of that would be? The bigger problem is why is AfD getting so much support. By banning them, you haven't really solved the root cause. So you have a huge proportion of disgruntled voters whose party of choice has just been banned. It won't end well. But AFD won’t be banned. And nobody here has suggested they should be - unless of course they’re taken over by the sort of characters allegedly at this meeting. (Which is highly unlikely to happen) In theory, if a neo-Nazi party gained power in the UK, and enacted policies repatriating foreigners with British citizenship, should we accept it? Should we shrug and say ‘ah well, that’s the system’? But your argument was AfD should be banned for espousing ethnic cleansing? Any party suggesting ethnic cleansing is deplorable. But if such a party is actually attracting too many voters, the party is just a symptom and not the disease. You need to look at why so many people ended up supporting them in the first place. " No, I’ve not argued that AFD should be banned, not once. And I’d like your answer to my hypothetical situation - Would you accept a neo-Nazi party winning power and enacting ethnic cleansing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whether you like AfD's views or not, banning them is definitely not going to help? They have a massive support now. What to they think these supporters will do if the party is banned? Maybe for once, the left should actually listen to people and debate instead of pushing their ideologies using authoritarianism? Nobody is seriously talking about AFD being banned. But anyone (individual or party) espousing beliefs in ethnic cleansing should be, no? What do you think the outcome of that would be? The bigger problem is why is AfD getting so much support. By banning them, you haven't really solved the root cause. So you have a huge proportion of disgruntled voters whose party of choice has just been banned. It won't end well. But AFD won’t be banned. And nobody here has suggested they should be - unless of course they’re taken over by the sort of characters allegedly at this meeting. (Which is highly unlikely to happen) In theory, if a neo-Nazi party gained power in the UK, and enacted policies repatriating foreigners with British citizenship, should we accept it? Should we shrug and say ‘ah well, that’s the system’? But your argument was AfD should be banned for espousing ethnic cleansing? Any party suggesting ethnic cleansing is deplorable. But if such a party is actually attracting too many voters, the party is just a symptom and not the disease. You need to look at why so many people ended up supporting them in the first place. No, I’ve not argued that AFD should be banned, not once. And I’d like your answer to my hypothetical situation - Would you accept a neo-Nazi party winning power and enacting ethnic cleansing? " This is what you said - "But anyone (individual or party) espousing beliefs in ethnic cleansing should be, no? " If it's not AfD you are talking about, it's irrelevant to the current topic. As for your hypothetical question, I wouldn't morally accept a neo-Nazi party winning election. At the same time, banning them isn't a solution to the problem. It may even make things worse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whether you like AfD's views or not, banning them is definitely not going to help? They have a massive support now. What to they think these supporters will do if the party is banned? Maybe for once, the left should actually listen to people and debate instead of pushing their ideologies using authoritarianism? Nobody is seriously talking about AFD being banned. But anyone (individual or party) espousing beliefs in ethnic cleansing should be, no? What do you think the outcome of that would be? The bigger problem is why is AfD getting so much support. By banning them, you haven't really solved the root cause. So you have a huge proportion of disgruntled voters whose party of choice has just been banned. It won't end well. But AFD won’t be banned. And nobody here has suggested they should be - unless of course they’re taken over by the sort of characters allegedly at this meeting. (Which is highly unlikely to happen) In theory, if a neo-Nazi party gained power in the UK, and enacted policies repatriating foreigners with British citizenship, should we accept it? Should we shrug and say ‘ah well, that’s the system’? But your argument was AfD should be banned for espousing ethnic cleansing? Any party suggesting ethnic cleansing is deplorable. But if such a party is actually attracting too many voters, the party is just a symptom and not the disease. You need to look at why so many people ended up supporting them in the first place. No, I’ve not argued that AFD should be banned, not once. And I’d like your answer to my hypothetical situation - Would you accept a neo-Nazi party winning power and enacting ethnic cleansing? This is what you said - "But anyone (individual or party) espousing beliefs in ethnic cleansing should be, no? " If it's not AfD you are talking about, it's irrelevant to the current topic. " A prominent member of AFD was apparently at this meeting along with several neo-Nazis and others of their ilk - and has thankfully been dealt with, it seems. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the broader topic of extremists in politics, it’s very easy to say ‘we shouldn’t ban them’, but by not banning them you’re explicitly accepting the fact that they could potentially (however unlikely) gain power. I’m not pretending that I have the answer - I’m not sure there is a correct answer - but I’d not accept a neo-Nazi party leading the U.K, even in the unlikely event that they were elected correctly. " I'd agree that I wouldn't want that party in power here in the UK. However, if they were democratically elected, then I'd be questioning why I'm out of touch with the electorate. We have a choice to accept it, fight it (legally) or leave. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the broader topic of extremists in politics, it’s very easy to say ‘we shouldn’t ban them’, but by not banning them you’re explicitly accepting the fact that they could potentially (however unlikely) gain power. I’m not pretending that I have the answer - I’m not sure there is a correct answer - but I’d not accept a neo-Nazi party leading the U.K, even in the unlikely event that they were elected correctly. " What should we do about Marxist parties? That ideology is as extremist as Nazism. If we go down the route of banning the parties, would you be happy banning them too. As I mentioned before, if a Nazi party gains too much support, the country is fucked already. Banning a party isn't going to help. It's like people believing that taking a time machine and killing Hitler much earlier would stop Nazism. It would not. Someone else would have taken Hitler's place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the broader topic of extremists in politics, it’s very easy to say ‘we shouldn’t ban them’, but by not banning them you’re explicitly accepting the fact that they could potentially (however unlikely) gain power. I’m not pretending that I have the answer - I’m not sure there is a correct answer - but I’d not accept a neo-Nazi party leading the U.K, even in the unlikely event that they were elected correctly. What should we do about Marxist parties? That ideology is as extremist as Nazism. If we go down the route of banning the parties, would you be happy banning them too. As I mentioned before, if a Nazi party gains too much support, the country is fucked already. Banning a party isn't going to help. It's like people believing that taking a time machine and killing Hitler much earlier would stop Nazism. It would not. Someone else would have taken Hitler's place." National Action were banned in the U.K - I forgot that. Though never an official party, I believe. More of an action group with political ideals. They’d not have been allowed to stand though under the rules that parties have to adhere to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the broader topic of extremists in politics, it’s very easy to say ‘we shouldn’t ban them’, but by not banning them you’re explicitly accepting the fact that they could potentially (however unlikely) gain power. I’m not pretending that I have the answer - I’m not sure there is a correct answer - but I’d not accept a neo-Nazi party leading the U.K, even in the unlikely event that they were elected correctly. " This is exactly what needs to be addressed by a clear, well-defined and generally agreed constitution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But I’m sure we’d all agree that anyone who genuinely supports the repatriation of legal citizens should probably be kept away from mainstream politics, no? Kept away by people not voting for them, I agree. Kept away by being banned, I disagree." Yes. 
As soon as you start banning political party's then democracy is dead. Let the ballot box decide.
As for AFD they are not as black as they are painted. Right wing? Yes, but far right? No.
The problem in Germany (I live there BTW) is that the current so called "traffic light" government is useless and the popularity of the coalition party's is in a death spiral.
There are many other examples but the foreign minister (Green) cocks something up on almost a weekly basis. On a trip to Denmark she couldn't even name the capital city without a prompt.
The shadow of Merkel is still hanging over CDU/CSU but they are starting to (slowly) recover.
AFD have stepped into the vacuum and are polling very well, especially in the old East Germany, where in some parts they are polling over 30%. Nationally they are now well over 20%. I think trying to ban a party with that much support would be, at best, foolhardy.
As a comparison the 3 governing party's are nowhere near and are running scared. SPD (think Labour) are stuck around 13/14%. FDP (think Lib Dems) are averaging 4/5% (under 5% means they get no MP's at all) And the Greens are hovering around 12/14%.
There is no planned federal election this year but the bickering inside the coalition seems to be getting worse. So the government could collapse and force an early election. We will see.
Interesting will be the EU elections this year and there are at least a couple of state elections coming up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know a lot on the left want a more representative voting system but I look at Germany and other countries and can't help think that a first past the post voting system does tend to stop extremes of both the left and the right.."
Yes the current government in Germany is a complete dogs breakfast.
FPTP may not be perfect but I still think it is the "least worst" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the broader topic of extremists in politics, it’s very easy to say ‘we shouldn’t ban them’, but by not banning them you’re explicitly accepting the fact that they could potentially (however unlikely) gain power. I’m not pretending that I have the answer - I’m not sure there is a correct answer - but I’d not accept a neo-Nazi party leading the U.K, even in the unlikely event that they were elected correctly. This is exactly what needs to be addressed by a clear, well-defined and generally agreed constitution." This seems very much like the paradox of tolerance. For a tolerant society to survive, it can't be tolerant towards the intolerant. Similarly, if we have a democratically elected party that wants to get rid of democracy itself, how do solve the problem? But I believe constitution isn't going to solve the problem either. Who will be the enforcer of the constitution if a vast majority of the people do not respect the constitution anymore? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is exactly what needs to be addressed by a clear, well-defined and generally agreed constitution. This seems very much like the paradox of tolerance. For a tolerant society to survive, it can't be tolerant towards the intolerant. Similarly, if we have a democratically elected party that wants to get rid of democracy itself, how do solve the problem? But I believe constitution isn't going to solve the problem either. Who will be the enforcer of the constitution if a vast majority of the people do not respect the constitution anymore?" Nothing will help if 90% of a country wants to kill off 10%. A democracy has the right to vote itself into a monarchy or any other form of rule. Democracy is just a method, not a goal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the broader topic of extremists in politics, it’s very easy to say ‘we shouldn’t ban them’, but by not banning them you’re explicitly accepting the fact that they could potentially (however unlikely) gain power. I’m not pretending that I have the answer - I’m not sure there is a correct answer - but I’d not accept a neo-Nazi party leading the U.K, even in the unlikely event that they were elected correctly. " you say you wouldnt accept a neo nazi party being elected in this country im just curious how you wouldnt accept it if they had been elected,i dont vote but still have to accept whatever party are voted in, and if a neo nazi party was elected i dont think you would be able to criticise them anyway,i meen its not likley to happen anyway | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know a lot on the left want a more representative voting system but I look at Germany and other countries and can't help think that a first past the post voting system does tend to stop extremes of both the left and the right..
Yes the current government in Germany is a complete dogs breakfast.
FPTP may not be perfect but I still think it is the "least worst""The most compelling case for PR is for those in constituencies where the party they like has no chance of winning. I'd say that's more true in Scotland, there are those who are appalled by the Tories and dislike the notion of independence. In an SNP/Tory marginal, what are they to do? I have great sympathy for them. But I don't think it outweighs the negatives that PR would introduce. The 2009 European election saw an actual Holocaust denier lead his party to something like 950k votes and his denial was well known. Similarly, I think in Britain while there are lots of very small (and quite funny) left-wing parties, they would most probably coalesce around one party. Given the EHRC report into antisemitism in the Labour Party found, "serious failings in the Labour Party leadership", I don't think it would take a genius what sort of person would be lured into such a party. Is that sort of political climate one people really want? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the broader topic of extremists in politics, it’s very easy to say ‘we shouldn’t ban them’, but by not banning them you’re explicitly accepting the fact that they could potentially (however unlikely) gain power. I’m not pretending that I have the answer - I’m not sure there is a correct answer - but I’d not accept a neo-Nazi party leading the U.K, even in the unlikely event that they were elected correctly. you say you wouldnt accept a neo nazi party being elected in this country im just curious how you wouldnt accept it if they had been elected,i dont vote but still have to accept whatever party are voted in, and if a neo nazi party was elected i dont think you would be able to criticise them anyway,i meen its not likley to happen anyway" I’d use whatever means I could, social media, rallies/protests, join with other likeminded individuals and groups to fight their promotion. And if that failed, I’d pack a bag and leave the country. I wouldn’t live under such a govt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know a lot on the left want a more representative voting system but I look at Germany and other countries and can't help think that a first past the post voting system does tend to stop extremes of both the left and the right.. " I've always felt that PR would give voice to those who feel they are being cancelled, or ignored or side-lined. . Yes, some of those views may be abhorrent to me, but I think it's time such views were held up to scrutiny in a PR-based system. Because only then will they face proper democratic consideration. . And believe me, some of those views are so unpalatable, said parties will destroy themselves because the scrutiny will be severe and damning. . There is no need to cancel anyone, if you give them enough rope to hang themselves, and this is what will happen. And no one will be able to cry they were cancelled when you gave them every opportunity. . Personally, if it results in 10,15,20 parties having to form coalitions, I'm all for that. Because everyone is represented, and 10,15,20 parties all counter-balance each other. . The current method of giving 50 people on a coach a choice between fish and chips, curry, or McDonalds is archaic, because the winner of the vote only goes to 1 place to eat. The rest have to put up and shut up. A coalition would see choices and options afforded to all the little groups on the coach, and you'd horse-trade to fulfil as many people's wants as possible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd suggest it might do them well to understand why right-wing parties are polling so well, rather than try to ban them, that'll achieve the opposite of what they're actually trying. " Sowing and enflaming division is what keeps the puppeteers at the helm. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. " Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship." I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know a lot on the left want a more representative voting system but I look at Germany and other countries and can't help think that a first past the post voting system does tend to stop extremes of both the left and the right.. I've always felt that PR would give voice to those who feel they are being cancelled, or ignored or side-lined. . Yes, some of those views may be abhorrent to me, but I think it's time such views were held up to scrutiny in a PR-based system. Because only then will they face proper democratic consideration. . And believe me, some of those views are so unpalatable, said parties will destroy themselves because the scrutiny will be severe and damning. . There is no need to cancel anyone, if you give them enough rope to hang themselves, and this is what will happen. And no one will be able to cry they were cancelled when you gave them every opportunity. . Personally, if it results in 10,15,20 parties having to form coalitions, I'm all for that. Because everyone is represented, and 10,15,20 parties all counter-balance each other. . The current method of giving 50 people on a coach a choice between fish and chips, curry, or McDonalds is archaic, because the winner of the vote only goes to 1 place to eat. The rest have to put up and shut up. A coalition would see choices and options afforded to all the little groups on the coach, and you'd horse-trade to fulfil as many people's wants as possible. " Your coach analogy is perfect for highlighting the the issue of PR. Lots of choices on the table, it takes forever to go through them all, the cost and time for the coach spirals and its got that late in the day many have lost their appetites for what they had originally asked for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just seen the Antifa march through Kiel carrying banners saying kill AFD voters. That country has some problems right now. " This is the problem with extremism. They’re symbiotic - without one the other can’t exist. The extreme left need the extreme right in order to survive. Tommy Robinson needs extreme Islam. Trump needs illegal migrants. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. " 
Keep digging, it suits you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out.
Keep digging, it suits you"No, I’m intrigued to hear why you think a religious group should be treated the same as a political party with specific power goals. I’m all ears. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. " What's the difference? Religions are also ideologies at the end of the day. Some religious practices are more terrible than others. If I start a new religion tomorrow and say that the way to attain immortality is to kill the atheists, would you say it's the same as other religions and fight for freedom to practice my religion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. What's the difference? Religions are also ideologies at the end of the day. Some religious practices are more terrible than others. If I start a new religion tomorrow and say that the way to attain immortality is to kill the atheists, would you say it's the same as other religions and fight for freedom to practice my religion?" Which religion is a threat to life? You’re taking about extremist/terror groups - not religions. And terror groups can be proscribed/banned at present. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out.
Keep digging, it suits you
No, I’m intrigued to hear why you think a religious group should be treated the same as a political party with specific power goals.
I’m all ears. "Lostindreams put it far better than I would above here, looking forward to hearing your thoughts... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out.
Keep digging, it suits you
No, I’m intrigued to hear why you think a religious group should be treated the same as a political party with specific power goals.
I’m all ears.
Lostindreams put it far better than I would above here, looking forward to hearing your thoughts... "No, I specifically asked for your thoughts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out.
Keep digging, it suits you
No, I’m intrigued to hear why you think a religious group should be treated the same as a political party with specific power goals.
I’m all ears.
Lostindreams put it far better than I would above here, looking forward to hearing your thoughts...
No, I specifically asked for your thoughts."I gave you my thoughts and they have not changed nor the question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone wants to ban Islam based upon some of their teaching’s treatment of women, acts of terror or abuse of children, then you’re gonna have to ban every religion for the same reason. Unless of course you accept that religion per se isn’t dangerous, and only extremist interpretations are worrysome - which I think we’d all agree with. And if that’s how you feel, you probably shouldn’t support a blanket ban of a single religion, right? " Why are you singling out Islam? The question is why do you green light religion to do whatever they want, but you are happy to single out political parties? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out.
Keep digging, it suits you
No, I’m intrigued to hear why you think a religious group should be treated the same as a political party with specific power goals.
I’m all ears.
Lostindreams put it far better than I would above here, looking forward to hearing your thoughts...
No, I specifically asked for your thoughts.
I gave you my thoughts and they have not changed nor the question.
"No you didn’t, you said ‘keep digging’ and then ‘what that other fella said’ It’s ok, I know you’re fond of making off-the-cuff remarks and not backing them up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out.
Keep digging, it suits you
No, I’m intrigued to hear why you think a religious group should be treated the same as a political party with specific power goals.
I’m all ears.
Lostindreams put it far better than I would above here, looking forward to hearing your thoughts...
No, I specifically asked for your thoughts.
I gave you my thoughts and they have not changed nor the question.
No you didn’t, you said ‘keep digging’ and then ‘what that other fella said’
It’s ok, I know you’re fond of making off-the-cuff remarks and not backing them up. "you could read the thread and see my comment above this one | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone wants to ban Islam based upon some of their teaching’s treatment of women, acts of terror or abuse of children, then you’re gonna have to ban every religion for the same reason. Unless of course you accept that religion per se isn’t dangerous, and only extremist interpretations are worrysome - which I think we’d all agree with. And if that’s how you feel, you probably shouldn’t support a blanket ban of a single religion, right? Why are you singling out Islam? The question is why do you green light religion to do whatever they want, but you are happy to single out political parties?" I’m singling out Islam because that’s what the AfD propose, as you’d know if you read the thread. And I’ve not given a green light for any religion to do whatever they want. I’ve specifically said that all religions should be treated with the same level of respect. And I am indeed happy to single out extremists, be they religious or political. So terror groups and neo-Nazis should be treated as such. They’re not representative of religion or politics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone wants to ban Islam based upon some of their teaching’s treatment of women, acts of terror or abuse of children, then you’re gonna have to ban every religion for the same reason. Unless of course you accept that religion per se isn’t dangerous, and only extremist interpretations are worrysome - which I think we’d all agree with. And if that’s how you feel, you probably shouldn’t support a blanket ban of a single religion, right? Why are you singling out Islam? The question is why do you green light religion to do whatever they want, but you are happy to single out political parties?" Point of order. This line of discussion followed on from bassplayer saying... "Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none." So a comment on AfD which is the purpose of the thread right? Carry on... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. What's the difference? Religions are also ideologies at the end of the day. Some religious practices are more terrible than others. If I start a new religion tomorrow and say that the way to attain immortality is to kill the atheists, would you say it's the same as other religions and fight for freedom to practice my religion? Which religion is a threat to life? You’re taking about extremist/terror groups - not religions. And terror groups can be proscribed/banned at present. " What we should do is realise not everyone in AfD is an extremist and therefore blame individuals rather than the party. Problem solved
As for banning the Burka, I'd go further and ban every single head covering in every single religion and/or ethnicity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone wants to ban Islam based upon some of their teaching’s treatment of women, acts of terror or abuse of children, then you’re gonna have to ban every religion for the same reason. Unless of course you accept that religion per se isn’t dangerous, and only extremist interpretations are worrysome - which I think we’d all agree with. And if that’s how you feel, you probably shouldn’t support a blanket ban of a single religion, right? Why are you singling out Islam? The question is why do you green light religion to do whatever they want, but you are happy to single out political parties? I’m singling out Islam because that’s what the AfD propose, as you’d know if you read the thread. And I’ve not given a green light for any religion to do whatever they want. I’ve specifically said that all religions should be treated with the same level of respect. And I am indeed happy to single out extremists, be they religious or political. So terror groups and neo-Nazis should be treated as such. They’re not representative of religion or politics. " I can see it gets very confusing when you start cherry picking what is okay and what isn't. I will leave it there, you are going around in circles. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. What's the difference? Religions are also ideologies at the end of the day. Some religious practices are more terrible than others. If I start a new religion tomorrow and say that the way to attain immortality is to kill the atheists, would you say it's the same as other religions and fight for freedom to practice my religion? Which religion is a threat to life? You’re taking about extremist/terror groups - not religions. And terror groups can be proscribed/banned at present. What we should do is realise not everyone in AfD is an extremist and therefore blame individuals rather than the party. Problem solved
As for banning the Burka, I'd go further and ban every single head covering in every single religion and/or ethnicity. "Those Oirish Nuns are coming for you Feisty! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. What's the difference? Religions are also ideologies at the end of the day. Some religious practices are more terrible than others. If I start a new religion tomorrow and say that the way to attain immortality is to kill the atheists, would you say it's the same as other religions and fight for freedom to practice my religion? Which religion is a threat to life? You’re taking about extremist/terror groups - not religions. And terror groups can be proscribed/banned at present. What we should do is realise not everyone in AfD is an extremist and therefore blame individuals rather than the party. Problem solved
As for banning the Burka, I'd go further and ban every single head covering in every single religion and/or ethnicity. "It is eminently sensible to oust the extremists in a party without banning the party, if possible to do so. And yeah, I’d happily see all religious paraphernalia, including head coverings banned in public - as long as all were treated the same and it wasn’t just aimed at one religion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone wants to ban Islam based upon some of their teaching’s treatment of women, acts of terror or abuse of children, then you’re gonna have to ban every religion for the same reason. Unless of course you accept that religion per se isn’t dangerous, and only extremist interpretations are worrysome - which I think we’d all agree with. And if that’s how you feel, you probably shouldn’t support a blanket ban of a single religion, right? Why are you singling out Islam? The question is why do you green light religion to do whatever they want, but you are happy to single out political parties? I’m singling out Islam because that’s what the AfD propose, as you’d know if you read the thread. And I’ve not given a green light for any religion to do whatever they want. I’ve specifically said that all religions should be treated with the same level of respect. And I am indeed happy to single out extremists, be they religious or political. So terror groups and neo-Nazis should be treated as such. They’re not representative of religion or politics. I can see it gets very confusing when you start cherry picking what is okay and what isn't. I will leave it there, you are going around in circles." I see your forum tactics haven’t changed a bit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. What's the difference? Religions are also ideologies at the end of the day. Some religious practices are more terrible than others. If I start a new religion tomorrow and say that the way to attain immortality is to kill the atheists, would you say it's the same as other religions and fight for freedom to practice my religion? Which religion is a threat to life? You’re taking about extremist/terror groups - not religions. And terror groups can be proscribed/banned at present. What we should do is realise not everyone in AfD is an extremist and therefore blame individuals rather than the party. Problem solved
As for banning the Burka, I'd go further and ban every single head covering in every single religion and/or ethnicity.
Those Oirish Nuns are coming for you Feisty!"They can have partial coverings, providing enough of their face is shown for ID purposes. Only in public of course. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone wants to ban Islam based upon some of their teaching’s treatment of women, acts of terror or abuse of children, then you’re gonna have to ban every religion for the same reason. Unless of course you accept that religion per se isn’t dangerous, and only extremist interpretations are worrysome - which I think we’d all agree with. And if that’s how you feel, you probably shouldn’t support a blanket ban of a single religion, right? Why are you singling out Islam? The question is why do you green light religion to do whatever they want, but you are happy to single out political parties? I’m singling out Islam because that’s what the AfD propose, as you’d know if you read the thread. And I’ve not given a green light for any religion to do whatever they want. I’ve specifically said that all religions should be treated with the same level of respect. And I am indeed happy to single out extremists, be they religious or political. So terror groups and neo-Nazis should be treated as such. They’re not representative of religion or politics. I can see it gets very confusing when you start cherry picking what is okay and what isn't. I will leave it there, you are going around in circles." If I could be arsed I’d carefully re-read every post but the general gist I picked up was bassplayer saying he would ban or is against extremism per se, be that political or religious. So not sure he has been going in circles on this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone wants to ban Islam based upon some of their teaching’s treatment of women, acts of terror or abuse of children, then you’re gonna have to ban every religion for the same reason. Unless of course you accept that religion per se isn’t dangerous, and only extremist interpretations are worrysome - which I think we’d all agree with. And if that’s how you feel, you probably shouldn’t support a blanket ban of a single religion, right? Why are you singling out Islam? The question is why do you green light religion to do whatever they want, but you are happy to single out political parties? Point of order. This line of discussion followed on from bassplayer saying... Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. So a comment on AfD which is the purpose of the thread right? Carry on... "I said why are religions green lighted, and not political parties. No mention of which religion, I'm talking about religion and politics. He keeps referring back to Islam, that is not the question... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. What's the difference? Religions are also ideologies at the end of the day. Some religious practices are more terrible than others. If I start a new religion tomorrow and say that the way to attain immortality is to kill the atheists, would you say it's the same as other religions and fight for freedom to practice my religion? Which religion is a threat to life? You’re taking about extremist/terror groups - not religions. And terror groups can be proscribed/banned at present. What we should do is realise not everyone in AfD is an extremist and therefore blame individuals rather than the party. Problem solved
As for banning the Burka, I'd go further and ban every single head covering in every single religion and/or ethnicity.
Those Oirish Nuns are coming for you Feisty!
They can have partial coverings, providing enough of their face is shown for ID purposes. Only in public of course. "So a hijab would be ok? That’s not all head coverings! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. What's the difference? Religions are also ideologies at the end of the day. Some religious practices are more terrible than others. If I start a new religion tomorrow and say that the way to attain immortality is to kill the atheists, would you say it's the same as other religions and fight for freedom to practice my religion? Which religion is a threat to life? You’re taking about extremist/terror groups - not religions. And terror groups can be proscribed/banned at present. What we should do is realise not everyone in AfD is an extremist and therefore blame individuals rather than the party. Problem solved
As for banning the Burka, I'd go further and ban every single head covering in every single religion and/or ethnicity.
Those Oirish Nuns are coming for you Feisty!
They can have partial coverings, providing enough of their face is shown for ID purposes. Only in public of course. "It’s what’s under the habit that matters  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone wants to ban Islam based upon some of their teaching’s treatment of women, acts of terror or abuse of children, then you’re gonna have to ban every religion for the same reason. Unless of course you accept that religion per se isn’t dangerous, and only extremist interpretations are worrysome - which I think we’d all agree with. And if that’s how you feel, you probably shouldn’t support a blanket ban of a single religion, right? Why are you singling out Islam? The question is why do you green light religion to do whatever they want, but you are happy to single out political parties? Point of order. This line of discussion followed on from bassplayer saying... Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. So a comment on AfD which is the purpose of the thread right? Carry on...
I said why are religions green lighted, and not political parties. No mention of which religion, I'm talking about religion and politics.
He keeps referring back to Islam, that is not the question... "I can explain it to you (as Birldn has) but I can understand it for you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone wants to ban Islam based upon some of their teaching’s treatment of women, acts of terror or abuse of children, then you’re gonna have to ban every religion for the same reason. Unless of course you accept that religion per se isn’t dangerous, and only extremist interpretations are worrysome - which I think we’d all agree with. And if that’s how you feel, you probably shouldn’t support a blanket ban of a single religion, right? Why are you singling out Islam? The question is why do you green light religion to do whatever they want, but you are happy to single out political parties? Point of order. This line of discussion followed on from bassplayer saying... Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. So a comment on AfD which is the purpose of the thread right? Carry on...
I said why are religions green lighted, and not political parties. No mention of which religion, I'm talking about religion and politics.
He keeps referring back to Islam, that is not the question... "You are moving goalposts. It feels like you are trying to score points. Bassplayer was commenting on AfD policy which singles out Islam. You then extrapolated that. On this occasion I think you are being tricksy. Mrs B will spank you later | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. What's the difference? Religions are also ideologies at the end of the day. Some religious practices are more terrible than others. If I start a new religion tomorrow and say that the way to attain immortality is to kill the atheists, would you say it's the same as other religions and fight for freedom to practice my religion? Which religion is a threat to life? You’re taking about extremist/terror groups - not religions. And terror groups can be proscribed/banned at present. What we should do is realise not everyone in AfD is an extremist and therefore blame individuals rather than the party. Problem solved
As for banning the Burka, I'd go further and ban every single head covering in every single religion and/or ethnicity.
Those Oirish Nuns are coming for you Feisty!
They can have partial coverings, providing enough of their face is shown for ID purposes. Only in public of course.
So a hijab would be ok? That’s not all head coverings! "I should've said FACE coverings. I'm not against head coverings. I have no objection with the Hijab. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. What's the difference? Religions are also ideologies at the end of the day. Some religious practices are more terrible than others. If I start a new religion tomorrow and say that the way to attain immortality is to kill the atheists, would you say it's the same as other religions and fight for freedom to practice my religion? Which religion is a threat to life? You’re taking about extremist/terror groups - not religions. And terror groups can be proscribed/banned at present. " You are talking about religious practices, some of which are terrible and can be banned if we democratically believe so. Some parts of India had a terrible religious practice where a widowed woman has to kill herself in her husband's funeral. It was rightfully banned because it was terrible. Just because it's a religion, you can't let them do anything you want. Face-coverings for women is a practice based on a misogynistic ideology that women showing skin are not "pure", usually forced on the women by men in the families. If a country decides it doesn't align with their values, they can ban it. If you think that misogyny is totally fine if it's done in the name of religion, let us know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone wants to ban Islam based upon some of their teaching’s treatment of women, acts of terror or abuse of children, then you’re gonna have to ban every religion for the same reason. Unless of course you accept that religion per se isn’t dangerous, and only extremist interpretations are worrysome - which I think we’d all agree with. And if that’s how you feel, you probably shouldn’t support a blanket ban of a single religion, right? Why are you singling out Islam? The question is why do you green light religion to do whatever they want, but you are happy to single out political parties? Point of order. This line of discussion followed on from bassplayer saying... Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. So a comment on AfD which is the purpose of the thread right? Carry on...
I said why are religions green lighted, and not political parties. No mention of which religion, I'm talking about religion and politics.
He keeps referring back to Islam, that is not the question...
I can explain it to you (as Birldn has) but I can understand it for you. "You say I'm predictable, you still have the same lines. I'm sure there is a strike missing you somewhere, toodles | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. What's the difference? Religions are also ideologies at the end of the day. Some religious practices are more terrible than others. If I start a new religion tomorrow and say that the way to attain immortality is to kill the atheists, would you say it's the same as other religions and fight for freedom to practice my religion? Which religion is a threat to life? You’re taking about extremist/terror groups - not religions. And terror groups can be proscribed/banned at present. What we should do is realise not everyone in AfD is an extremist and therefore blame individuals rather than the party. Problem solved
As for banning the Burka, I'd go further and ban every single head covering in every single religion and/or ethnicity.
Those Oirish Nuns are coming for you Feisty!
They can have partial coverings, providing enough of their face is shown for ID purposes. Only in public of course.
So a hijab would be ok? That’s not all head coverings!
I should've said FACE coverings. I'm not against head coverings. I have no objection with the Hijab. "But you are a total moderate compared to AfD and live in the UK not Germany right? Just checking | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone wants to ban Islam based upon some of their teaching’s treatment of women, acts of terror or abuse of children, then you’re gonna have to ban every religion for the same reason. Unless of course you accept that religion per se isn’t dangerous, and only extremist interpretations are worrysome - which I think we’d all agree with. And if that’s how you feel, you probably shouldn’t support a blanket ban of a single religion, right? Why are you singling out Islam? The question is why do you green light religion to do whatever they want, but you are happy to single out political parties? Point of order. This line of discussion followed on from bassplayer saying... Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. So a comment on AfD which is the purpose of the thread right? Carry on...
I said why are religions green lighted, and not political parties. No mention of which religion, I'm talking about religion and politics.
He keeps referring back to Islam, that is not the question...
You are moving goalposts. It feels like you are trying to score points. Bassplayer was commenting on AfD policy which singles out Islam. You then extrapolated that. On this occasion I think you are being tricksy. Mrs B will spank you later "I assume Notme was referring to Bassplayers happiness to ban political parties (ie. AfD) if he decides they're 'terrorists/fascists/racists etc. But doesn't share the sentiment for religious groups who he decides there's only 'extremists' and not all. Nice way to pile-on btw | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone wants to ban Islam based upon some of their teaching’s treatment of women, acts of terror or abuse of children, then you’re gonna have to ban every religion for the same reason. Unless of course you accept that religion per se isn’t dangerous, and only extremist interpretations are worrysome - which I think we’d all agree with. And if that’s how you feel, you probably shouldn’t support a blanket ban of a single religion, right? Why are you singling out Islam? The question is why do you green light religion to do whatever they want, but you are happy to single out political parties? Point of order. This line of discussion followed on from bassplayer saying... Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. So a comment on AfD which is the purpose of the thread right? Carry on...
I said why are religions green lighted, and not political parties. No mention of which religion, I'm talking about religion and politics.
He keeps referring back to Islam, that is not the question...
You are moving goalposts. It feels like you are trying to score points. Bassplayer was commenting on AfD policy which singles out Islam. You then extrapolated that. On this occasion I think you are being tricksy. Mrs B will spank you later "Nope, he was very clear yesterday what political parties should be removed / banned, and today all religions can do what they want. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. What's the difference? Religions are also ideologies at the end of the day. Some religious practices are more terrible than others. If I start a new religion tomorrow and say that the way to attain immortality is to kill the atheists, would you say it's the same as other religions and fight for freedom to practice my religion? Which religion is a threat to life? You’re taking about extremist/terror groups - not religions. And terror groups can be proscribed/banned at present. What we should do is realise not everyone in AfD is an extremist and therefore blame individuals rather than the party. Problem solved
As for banning the Burka, I'd go further and ban every single head covering in every single religion and/or ethnicity.
Those Oirish Nuns are coming for you Feisty!
They can have partial coverings, providing enough of their face is shown for ID purposes. Only in public of course.
So a hijab would be ok? That’s not all head coverings!
I should've said FACE coverings. I'm not against head coverings. I have no objection with the Hijab.
But you are a total moderate compared to AfD and live in the UK not Germany right? Just checking "Why do AfD want face coverings banned? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone wants to ban Islam based upon some of their teaching’s treatment of women, acts of terror or abuse of children, then you’re gonna have to ban every religion for the same reason. Unless of course you accept that religion per se isn’t dangerous, and only extremist interpretations are worrysome - which I think we’d all agree with. And if that’s how you feel, you probably shouldn’t support a blanket ban of a single religion, right? Why are you singling out Islam? The question is why do you green light religion to do whatever they want, but you are happy to single out political parties? Point of order. This line of discussion followed on from bassplayer saying... Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. So a comment on AfD which is the purpose of the thread right? Carry on...
I said why are religions green lighted, and not political parties. No mention of which religion, I'm talking about religion and politics.
He keeps referring back to Islam, that is not the question...
You are moving goalposts. It feels like you are trying to score points. Bassplayer was commenting on AfD policy which singles out Islam. You then extrapolated that. On this occasion I think you are being tricksy. Mrs B will spank you later
I assume Notme was referring to Bassplayers happiness to ban political parties (ie. AfD) if he decides they're 'terrorists/fascists/racists etc. But doesn't share the sentiment for religious groups who he decides there's only 'extremists' and not all.
Nice way to pile-on btw "That is exactly what I meant and it does feel a little heavier than normal.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. What's the difference? Religions are also ideologies at the end of the day. Some religious practices are more terrible than others. If I start a new religion tomorrow and say that the way to attain immortality is to kill the atheists, would you say it's the same as other religions and fight for freedom to practice my religion? Which religion is a threat to life? You’re taking about extremist/terror groups - not religions. And terror groups can be proscribed/banned at present. You are talking about religious practices, some of which are terrible and can be banned if we democratically believe so. Some parts of India had a terrible religious practice where a widowed woman has to kill herself in her husband's funeral. It was rightfully banned because it was terrible. Just because it's a religion, you can't let them do anything you want. Face-coverings for women is a practice based on a misogynistic ideology that women showing skin are not "pure", usually forced on the women by men in the families. If a country decides it doesn't align with their values, they can ban it. If you think that misogyny is totally fine if it's done in the name of religion, let us know." Nobody is saying that religion can do what they want. Literally nobody. And are face coverings always forced upon the woman? Or do some women choose to cover themselves? (I suspect you know the answer to that). Here’s the crux that you’ve missed - I’m not arguing that face coverings are right, or that banning some practices is wrong. I’m arguing that the blanket ban proposed by the AfD (Burka and call to prayer) are unfair acts based upon singling out an individual religion based upon prejudice. Do we have any recent incidents in history where a religion has been singled out? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nope, he was very clear yesterday what political parties should be removed / banned, and today all religions can do what they want. " This is why you’re impossible to deal with. Because you invent nonsense like this. Find me where I said ‘all religions can do what they want’, and if you can’t, you can apologise and tell the forum you were wrong. Agreed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nope, he was very clear yesterday what political parties should be removed / banned, and today all religions can do what they want. This is why you’re impossible to deal with. Because you invent nonsense like this. Find me where I said ‘all religions can do what they want’, and if you can’t, you can apologise and tell the forum you were wrong. Agreed?" This is what you said - "If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. " We are yet to hear how they are different and why they have to be treated differently. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nope, he was very clear yesterday what political parties should be removed / banned, and today all religions can do what they want. This is why you’re impossible to deal with. Because you invent nonsense like this. Find me where I said ‘all religions can do what they want’, and if you can’t, you can apologise and tell the forum you were wrong. Agreed? This is what you said - "If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. " We are yet to hear how they are different and why they have to be treated differently." I have already tilted at this - a political group is essentially an activist outlet aimed at gaining power and enforcing their world view onto those regardless of whether they agree with it or not. They want to enforce policy on society. A religious group also has power, but within the confines of their group, not on broader society. They’re also bound by the laws set within you nation in which they practice, with (theoretically) no opportunity to control or set laws, unlike a political party. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone wants to ban Islam based upon some of their teaching’s treatment of women, acts of terror or abuse of children, then you’re gonna have to ban every religion for the same reason. Unless of course you accept that religion per se isn’t dangerous, and only extremist interpretations are worrysome - which I think we’d all agree with. And if that’s how you feel, you probably shouldn’t support a blanket ban of a single religion, right? Why are you singling out Islam? The question is why do you green light religion to do whatever they want, but you are happy to single out political parties? Point of order. This line of discussion followed on from bassplayer saying... Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. So a comment on AfD which is the purpose of the thread right? Carry on...
I said why are religions green lighted, and not political parties. No mention of which religion, I'm talking about religion and politics.
He keeps referring back to Islam, that is not the question...
You are moving goalposts. It feels like you are trying to score points. Bassplayer was commenting on AfD policy which singles out Islam. You then extrapolated that. On this occasion I think you are being tricksy. Mrs B will spank you later
I assume Notme was referring to Bassplayers happiness to ban political parties (ie. AfD) if he decides they're 'terrorists/fascists/racists etc. But doesn't share the sentiment for religious groups who he decides there's only 'extremists' and not all.
Nice way to pile-on btw "We really need to get an accepted definition of pile on. I think humorously (well I thought it was funny) commenting on the ebb and flow of a discussion is not really a pile on. Is it? Jumping in to attack someone and gang up on them so their opinion is marginalised because they are outnumbered would count as a pile on I would say. Yes/No? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone wants to ban Islam based upon some of their teaching’s treatment of women, acts of terror or abuse of children, then you’re gonna have to ban every religion for the same reason. Unless of course you accept that religion per se isn’t dangerous, and only extremist interpretations are worrysome - which I think we’d all agree with. And if that’s how you feel, you probably shouldn’t support a blanket ban of a single religion, right? Why are you singling out Islam? The question is why do you green light religion to do whatever they want, but you are happy to single out political parties? Point of order. This line of discussion followed on from bassplayer saying... Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. So a comment on AfD which is the purpose of the thread right? Carry on...
I said why are religions green lighted, and not political parties. No mention of which religion, I'm talking about religion and politics.
He keeps referring back to Islam, that is not the question...
You are moving goalposts. It feels like you are trying to score points. Bassplayer was commenting on AfD policy which singles out Islam. You then extrapolated that. On this occasion I think you are being tricksy. Mrs B will spank you later
Nope, he was very clear yesterday what political parties should be removed / banned, and today all religions can do what they want.
"You still aren’t getting out of your spanking | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone wants to ban Islam based upon some of their teaching’s treatment of women, acts of terror or abuse of children, then you’re gonna have to ban every religion for the same reason. Unless of course you accept that religion per se isn’t dangerous, and only extremist interpretations are worrysome - which I think we’d all agree with. And if that’s how you feel, you probably shouldn’t support a blanket ban of a single religion, right? Why are you singling out Islam? The question is why do you green light religion to do whatever they want, but you are happy to single out political parties? Point of order. This line of discussion followed on from bassplayer saying... Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. So a comment on AfD which is the purpose of the thread right? Carry on...
I said why are religions green lighted, and not political parties. No mention of which religion, I'm talking about religion and politics.
He keeps referring back to Islam, that is not the question...
You are moving goalposts. It feels like you are trying to score points. Bassplayer was commenting on AfD policy which singles out Islam. You then extrapolated that. On this occasion I think you are being tricksy. Mrs B will spank you later
I assume Notme was referring to Bassplayers happiness to ban political parties (ie. AfD) if he decides they're 'terrorists/fascists/racists etc. But doesn't share the sentiment for religious groups who he decides there's only 'extremists' and not all.
Nice way to pile-on btw
We really need to get an accepted definition of pile on. I think humorously (well I thought it was funny) commenting on the ebb and flow of a discussion is not really a pile on. Is it? Jumping in to attack someone and gang up on them so their opinion is marginalised because they are outnumbered would count as a pile on I would say. Yes/No? "Every single time without fail you say 'it was banter'. You actually jumped in and specifically targeted Notme and 'ganged up', I think that constitutes a pile-on. I'll probably be wrong because you're always right | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. What's the difference? Religions are also ideologies at the end of the day. Some religious practices are more terrible than others. If I start a new religion tomorrow and say that the way to attain immortality is to kill the atheists, would you say it's the same as other religions and fight for freedom to practice my religion? Which religion is a threat to life? You’re taking about extremist/terror groups - not religions. And terror groups can be proscribed/banned at present. You are talking about religious practices, some of which are terrible and can be banned if we democratically believe so. Some parts of India had a terrible religious practice where a widowed woman has to kill herself in her husband's funeral. It was rightfully banned because it was terrible. Just because it's a religion, you can't let them do anything you want. Face-coverings for women is a practice based on a misogynistic ideology that women showing skin are not "pure", usually forced on the women by men in the families. If a country decides it doesn't align with their values, they can ban it. If you think that misogyny is totally fine if it's done in the name of religion, let us know. Nobody is saying that religion can do what they want. Literally nobody. And are face coverings always forced upon the woman? Or do some women choose to cover themselves? (I suspect you know the answer to that). Here’s the crux that you’ve missed - I’m not arguing that face coverings are right, or that banning some practices is wrong. I’m arguing that the blanket ban proposed by the AfD (Burka and call to prayer) are unfair acts based upon singling out an individual religion based upon prejudice. Do we have any recent incidents in history where a religion has been singled out? " In case you didn't know, many other countries have banned face coverings, in some cases by left wing parties. The reason is that it is based on a misogynistic ideology that "good" women should not show their skin. If you take this ideology to its logical conclusion, it means that women who don't cover everything are "bad" women. There are many backward societies where men use this as an excuse to commit atrocities against women. So the parties decided, we do not want their countries to go in that direction. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. What's the difference? Religions are also ideologies at the end of the day. Some religious practices are more terrible than others. If I start a new religion tomorrow and say that the way to attain immortality is to kill the atheists, would you say it's the same as other religions and fight for freedom to practice my religion? Which religion is a threat to life? You’re taking about extremist/terror groups - not religions. And terror groups can be proscribed/banned at present. You are talking about religious practices, some of which are terrible and can be banned if we democratically believe so. Some parts of India had a terrible religious practice where a widowed woman has to kill herself in her husband's funeral. It was rightfully banned because it was terrible. Just because it's a religion, you can't let them do anything you want. Face-coverings for women is a practice based on a misogynistic ideology that women showing skin are not "pure", usually forced on the women by men in the families. If a country decides it doesn't align with their values, they can ban it. If you think that misogyny is totally fine if it's done in the name of religion, let us know. Nobody is saying that religion can do what they want. Literally nobody. And are face coverings always forced upon the woman? Or do some women choose to cover themselves? (I suspect you know the answer to that). Here’s the crux that you’ve missed - I’m not arguing that face coverings are right, or that banning some practices is wrong. I’m arguing that the blanket ban proposed by the AfD (Burka and call to prayer) are unfair acts based upon singling out an individual religion based upon prejudice. Do we have any recent incidents in history where a religion has been singled out? In case you didn't know, many other countries have banned face coverings, in some cases by left wing parties. The reason is that it is based on a misogynistic ideology that "good" women should not show their skin. If you take this ideology to its logical conclusion, it means that women who don't cover everything are "bad" women. There are many backward societies where men use this as an excuse to commit atrocities against women. So the parties decided, we do not want their countries to go in that direction." And if a nation chooses to ban face coverings, that’s fine, as long as they don’t say ‘these religious face coverings are ok, but those Islamic ones aren’t’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nope, he was very clear yesterday what political parties should be removed / banned, and today all religions can do what they want. This is why you’re impossible to deal with. Because you invent nonsense like this. Find me where I said ‘all religions can do what they want’, and if you can’t, you can apologise and tell the forum you were wrong. Agreed? This is what you said - "If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. " We are yet to hear how they are different and why they have to be treated differently. I have already tilted at this - a political group is essentially an activist outlet aimed at gaining power and enforcing their world view onto those regardless of whether they agree with it or not. They want to enforce policy on society. A religious group also has power, but within the confines of their group, not on broader society. They’re also bound by the laws set within you nation in which they practice, with (theoretically) no opportunity to control or set laws, unlike a political party." A religious group has power only within the confines of their group? Have you even read history? Just because we have a some laws that doesn't allow them, it doesn't mean that they will stop having power. There are so many countries which used to have laws like we have now and have been taken over by religions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. What's the difference? Religions are also ideologies at the end of the day. Some religious practices are more terrible than others. If I start a new religion tomorrow and say that the way to attain immortality is to kill the atheists, would you say it's the same as other religions and fight for freedom to practice my religion? Which religion is a threat to life? You’re taking about extremist/terror groups - not religions. And terror groups can be proscribed/banned at present. You are talking about religious practices, some of which are terrible and can be banned if we democratically believe so. Some parts of India had a terrible religious practice where a widowed woman has to kill herself in her husband's funeral. It was rightfully banned because it was terrible. Just because it's a religion, you can't let them do anything you want. Face-coverings for women is a practice based on a misogynistic ideology that women showing skin are not "pure", usually forced on the women by men in the families. If a country decides it doesn't align with their values, they can ban it. If you think that misogyny is totally fine if it's done in the name of religion, let us know. Nobody is saying that religion can do what they want. Literally nobody. And are face coverings always forced upon the woman? Or do some women choose to cover themselves? (I suspect you know the answer to that). Here’s the crux that you’ve missed - I’m not arguing that face coverings are right, or that banning some practices is wrong. I’m arguing that the blanket ban proposed by the AfD (Burka and call to prayer) are unfair acts based upon singling out an individual religion based upon prejudice. Do we have any recent incidents in history where a religion has been singled out? In case you didn't know, many other countries have banned face coverings, in some cases by left wing parties. The reason is that it is based on a misogynistic ideology that "good" women should not show their skin. If you take this ideology to its logical conclusion, it means that women who don't cover everything are "bad" women. There are many backward societies where men use this as an excuse to commit atrocities against women. So the parties decided, we do not want their countries to go in that direction. And if a nation chooses to ban face coverings, that’s fine, as long as they don’t say ‘these religious face coverings are ok, but those Islamic ones aren’t’ " Even if AfD comes to power, the law isn't going to state anything explicitly about Islam. It will just say face coverings. So you will be happy with that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nope, he was very clear yesterday what political parties should be removed / banned, and today all religions can do what they want. This is why you’re impossible to deal with. Because you invent nonsense like this. Find me where I said ‘all religions can do what they want’, and if you can’t, you can apologise and tell the forum you were wrong. Agreed? This is what you said - "If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. " We are yet to hear how they are different and why they have to be treated differently. I have already tilted at this - a political group is essentially an activist outlet aimed at gaining power and enforcing their world view onto those regardless of whether they agree with it or not. They want to enforce policy on society. A religious group also has power, but within the confines of their group, not on broader society. They’re also bound by the laws set within you nation in which they practice, with (theoretically) no opportunity to control or set laws, unlike a political party. A religious group has power only within the confines of their group? Have you even read history? Just because we have a some laws that doesn't allow them, it doesn't mean that they will stop having power. There are so many countries which used to have laws like we have now and have been taken over by religions." That’s why I said theoretically. Ideally church and state would always remain separate. And yes, I’ve read history. I’m not sure the AfD have, else they wouldn’t be so keen to punish an individual religion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. What's the difference? Religions are also ideologies at the end of the day. Some religious practices are more terrible than others. If I start a new religion tomorrow and say that the way to attain immortality is to kill the atheists, would you say it's the same as other religions and fight for freedom to practice my religion? Which religion is a threat to life? You’re taking about extremist/terror groups - not religions. And terror groups can be proscribed/banned at present. You are talking about religious practices, some of which are terrible and can be banned if we democratically believe so. Some parts of India had a terrible religious practice where a widowed woman has to kill herself in her husband's funeral. It was rightfully banned because it was terrible. Just because it's a religion, you can't let them do anything you want. Face-coverings for women is a practice based on a misogynistic ideology that women showing skin are not "pure", usually forced on the women by men in the families. If a country decides it doesn't align with their values, they can ban it. If you think that misogyny is totally fine if it's done in the name of religion, let us know. Nobody is saying that religion can do what they want. Literally nobody. And are face coverings always forced upon the woman? Or do some women choose to cover themselves? (I suspect you know the answer to that). Here’s the crux that you’ve missed - I’m not arguing that face coverings are right, or that banning some practices is wrong. I’m arguing that the blanket ban proposed by the AfD (Burka and call to prayer) are unfair acts based upon singling out an individual religion based upon prejudice. Do we have any recent incidents in history where a religion has been singled out? In case you didn't know, many other countries have banned face coverings, in some cases by left wing parties. The reason is that it is based on a misogynistic ideology that "good" women should not show their skin. If you take this ideology to its logical conclusion, it means that women who don't cover everything are "bad" women. There are many backward societies where men use this as an excuse to commit atrocities against women. So the parties decided, we do not want their countries to go in that direction. And if a nation chooses to ban face coverings, that’s fine, as long as they don’t say ‘these religious face coverings are ok, but those Islamic ones aren’t’ Even if AfD comes to power, the law isn't going to state anything explicitly about Islam. It will just say face coverings. So you will be happy with that?" Their policy is explicitly about the Burqua and Islamic Call to Prayer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nope, he was very clear yesterday what political parties should be removed / banned, and today all religions can do what they want. This is why you’re impossible to deal with. Because you invent nonsense like this. Find me where I said ‘all religions can do what they want’, and if you can’t, you can apologise and tell the forum you were wrong. Agreed? This is what you said - "If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. " We are yet to hear how they are different and why they have to be treated differently. I have already tilted at this - a political group is essentially an activist outlet aimed at gaining power and enforcing their world view onto those regardless of whether they agree with it or not. They want to enforce policy on society. A religious group also has power, but within the confines of their group, not on broader society. They’re also bound by the laws set within you nation in which they practice, with (theoretically) no opportunity to control or set laws, unlike a political party. A religious group has power only within the confines of their group? Have you even read history? Just because we have a some laws that doesn't allow them, it doesn't mean that they will stop having power. There are so many countries which used to have laws like we have now and have been taken over by religions. That’s why I said theoretically. Ideally church and state would always remain separate. And yes, I’ve read history. I’m not sure the AfD have, else they wouldn’t be so keen to punish an individual religion." If you read history you would be able to tie religion and politics together.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nope, he was very clear yesterday what political parties should be removed / banned, and today all religions can do what they want. This is why you’re impossible to deal with. Because you invent nonsense like this. Find me where I said ‘all religions can do what they want’, and if you can’t, you can apologise and tell the forum you were wrong. Agreed? This is what you said - "If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. " We are yet to hear how they are different and why they have to be treated differently. I have already tilted at this - a political group is essentially an activist outlet aimed at gaining power and enforcing their world view onto those regardless of whether they agree with it or not. They want to enforce policy on society. A religious group also has power, but within the confines of their group, not on broader society. They’re also bound by the laws set within you nation in which they practice, with (theoretically) no opportunity to control or set laws, unlike a political party. A religious group has power only within the confines of their group? Have you even read history? Just because we have a some laws that doesn't allow them, it doesn't mean that they will stop having power. There are so many countries which used to have laws like we have now and have been taken over by religions. That’s why I said theoretically. Ideally church and state would always remain separate. And yes, I’ve read history. I’m not sure the AfD have, else they wouldn’t be so keen to punish an individual religion. If you read history you would be able to tie religion and politics together...." Have you found the bit where I said all religions can do as they please yet? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. What's the difference? Religions are also ideologies at the end of the day. Some religious practices are more terrible than others. If I start a new religion tomorrow and say that the way to attain immortality is to kill the atheists, would you say it's the same as other religions and fight for freedom to practice my religion? Which religion is a threat to life? You’re taking about extremist/terror groups - not religions. And terror groups can be proscribed/banned at present. You are talking about religious practices, some of which are terrible and can be banned if we democratically believe so. Some parts of India had a terrible religious practice where a widowed woman has to kill herself in her husband's funeral. It was rightfully banned because it was terrible. Just because it's a religion, you can't let them do anything you want. Face-coverings for women is a practice based on a misogynistic ideology that women showing skin are not "pure", usually forced on the women by men in the families. If a country decides it doesn't align with their values, they can ban it. If you think that misogyny is totally fine if it's done in the name of religion, let us know. Nobody is saying that religion can do what they want. Literally nobody. And are face coverings always forced upon the woman? Or do some women choose to cover themselves? (I suspect you know the answer to that). Here’s the crux that you’ve missed - I’m not arguing that face coverings are right, or that banning some practices is wrong. I’m arguing that the blanket ban proposed by the AfD (Burka and call to prayer) are unfair acts based upon singling out an individual religion based upon prejudice. Do we have any recent incidents in history where a religion has been singled out? In case you didn't know, many other countries have banned face coverings, in some cases by left wing parties. The reason is that it is based on a misogynistic ideology that "good" women should not show their skin. If you take this ideology to its logical conclusion, it means that women who don't cover everything are "bad" women. There are many backward societies where men use this as an excuse to commit atrocities against women. So the parties decided, we do not want their countries to go in that direction. And if a nation chooses to ban face coverings, that’s fine, as long as they don’t say ‘these religious face coverings are ok, but those Islamic ones aren’t’ Even if AfD comes to power, the law isn't going to state anything explicitly about Islam. It will just say face coverings. So you will be happy with that? Their policy is explicitly about the Burqua and Islamic Call to Prayer." Can you point me to that please? I can only find 'face coverings'. You know the CDU also wanted a ban under Merkel? I didn't hear any uproar about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. What's the difference? Religions are also ideologies at the end of the day. Some religious practices are more terrible than others. If I start a new religion tomorrow and say that the way to attain immortality is to kill the atheists, would you say it's the same as other religions and fight for freedom to practice my religion? Which religion is a threat to life? You’re taking about extremist/terror groups - not religions. And terror groups can be proscribed/banned at present. You are talking about religious practices, some of which are terrible and can be banned if we democratically believe so. Some parts of India had a terrible religious practice where a widowed woman has to kill herself in her husband's funeral. It was rightfully banned because it was terrible. Just because it's a religion, you can't let them do anything you want. Face-coverings for women is a practice based on a misogynistic ideology that women showing skin are not "pure", usually forced on the women by men in the families. If a country decides it doesn't align with their values, they can ban it. If you think that misogyny is totally fine if it's done in the name of religion, let us know. Nobody is saying that religion can do what they want. Literally nobody. And are face coverings always forced upon the woman? Or do some women choose to cover themselves? (I suspect you know the answer to that). Here’s the crux that you’ve missed - I’m not arguing that face coverings are right, or that banning some practices is wrong. I’m arguing that the blanket ban proposed by the AfD (Burka and call to prayer) are unfair acts based upon singling out an individual religion based upon prejudice. Do we have any recent incidents in history where a religion has been singled out? In case you didn't know, many other countries have banned face coverings, in some cases by left wing parties. The reason is that it is based on a misogynistic ideology that "good" women should not show their skin. If you take this ideology to its logical conclusion, it means that women who don't cover everything are "bad" women. There are many backward societies where men use this as an excuse to commit atrocities against women. So the parties decided, we do not want their countries to go in that direction. And if a nation chooses to ban face coverings, that’s fine, as long as they don’t say ‘these religious face coverings are ok, but those Islamic ones aren’t’ Even if AfD comes to power, the law isn't going to state anything explicitly about Islam. It will just say face coverings. So you will be happy with that? Their policy is explicitly about the Burqua and Islamic Call to Prayer. Can you point me to that please? I can only find 'face coverings'. You know the CDU also wanted a ban under Merkel? I didn't hear any uproar about it." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37274201.amp | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. What's the difference? Religions are also ideologies at the end of the day. Some religious practices are more terrible than others. If I start a new religion tomorrow and say that the way to attain immortality is to kill the atheists, would you say it's the same as other religions and fight for freedom to practice my religion? Which religion is a threat to life? You’re taking about extremist/terror groups - not religions. And terror groups can be proscribed/banned at present. You are talking about religious practices, some of which are terrible and can be banned if we democratically believe so. Some parts of India had a terrible religious practice where a widowed woman has to kill herself in her husband's funeral. It was rightfully banned because it was terrible. Just because it's a religion, you can't let them do anything you want. Face-coverings for women is a practice based on a misogynistic ideology that women showing skin are not "pure", usually forced on the women by men in the families. If a country decides it doesn't align with their values, they can ban it. If you think that misogyny is totally fine if it's done in the name of religion, let us know. Nobody is saying that religion can do what they want. Literally nobody. And are face coverings always forced upon the woman? Or do some women choose to cover themselves? (I suspect you know the answer to that). Here’s the crux that you’ve missed - I’m not arguing that face coverings are right, or that banning some practices is wrong. I’m arguing that the blanket ban proposed by the AfD (Burka and call to prayer) are unfair acts based upon singling out an individual religion based upon prejudice. Do we have any recent incidents in history where a religion has been singled out? In case you didn't know, many other countries have banned face coverings, in some cases by left wing parties. The reason is that it is based on a misogynistic ideology that "good" women should not show their skin. If you take this ideology to its logical conclusion, it means that women who don't cover everything are "bad" women. There are many backward societies where men use this as an excuse to commit atrocities against women. So the parties decided, we do not want their countries to go in that direction. And if a nation chooses to ban face coverings, that’s fine, as long as they don’t say ‘these religious face coverings are ok, but those Islamic ones aren’t’ Even if AfD comes to power, the law isn't going to state anything explicitly about Islam. It will just say face coverings. So you will be happy with that? Their policy is explicitly about the Burqua and Islamic Call to Prayer. Can you point me to that please? I can only find 'face coverings'. You know the CDU also wanted a ban under Merkel? I didn't hear any uproar about it. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37274201.amp " That article says: "The party would ban foreign funding of mosques in Germany, ban the burka (full-body veil) and the Muslim call to prayer, and put all imams through a state vetting procedure. "Moderate" Muslims who accepted integration were "valued members of society", its argued, while suggesting that multiculturalism did not work." I was kinda hoping for a direct quote. However, the second paragraph specifically says the don't hate Islam. Unless I don't understand 'valued members of society'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nope, he was very clear yesterday what political parties should be removed / banned, and today all religions can do what they want. This is why you’re impossible to deal with. Because you invent nonsense like this. Find me where I said ‘all religions can do what they want’, and if you can’t, you can apologise and tell the forum you were wrong. Agreed? This is what you said - "If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. " We are yet to hear how they are different and why they have to be treated differently. I have already tilted at this - a political group is essentially an activist outlet aimed at gaining power and enforcing their world view onto those regardless of whether they agree with it or not. They want to enforce policy on society. A religious group also has power, but within the confines of their group, not on broader society. They’re also bound by the laws set within you nation in which they practice, with (theoretically) no opportunity to control or set laws, unlike a political party. A religious group has power only within the confines of their group? Have you even read history? Just because we have a some laws that doesn't allow them, it doesn't mean that they will stop having power. There are so many countries which used to have laws like we have now and have been taken over by religions. That’s why I said theoretically. Ideally church and state would always remain separate. And yes, I’ve read history. I’m not sure the AfD have, else they wouldn’t be so keen to punish an individual religion. If you read history you would be able to tie religion and politics together.... Have you found the bit where I said all religions can do as they please yet?" You said of religion: "I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment" You also said of political parties: "I firmly believe that anyone espousing such views should not be allowed to stand for election" "talking of banning parties is premature, but if evidence arises that serious discussion has taken place on such policy, it would become a valid conversation" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nope, he was very clear yesterday what political parties should be removed / banned, and today all religions can do what they want. This is why you’re impossible to deal with. Because you invent nonsense like this. Find me where I said ‘all religions can do what they want’, and if you can’t, you can apologise and tell the forum you were wrong. Agreed? This is what you said - "If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. " We are yet to hear how they are different and why they have to be treated differently. I have already tilted at this - a political group is essentially an activist outlet aimed at gaining power and enforcing their world view onto those regardless of whether they agree with it or not. They want to enforce policy on society. A religious group also has power, but within the confines of their group, not on broader society. They’re also bound by the laws set within you nation in which they practice, with (theoretically) no opportunity to control or set laws, unlike a political party. A religious group has power only within the confines of their group? Have you even read history? Just because we have a some laws that doesn't allow them, it doesn't mean that they will stop having power. There are so many countries which used to have laws like we have now and have been taken over by religions. That’s why I said theoretically. Ideally church and state would always remain separate. And yes, I’ve read history. I’m not sure the AfD have, else they wouldn’t be so keen to punish an individual religion. If you read history you would be able to tie religion and politics together.... Have you found the bit where I said all religions can do as they please yet? You said of religion: "I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment" You also said of political parties: "I firmly believe that anyone espousing such views should not be allowed to stand for election" "talking of banning parties is premature, but if evidence arises that serious discussion has taken place on such policy, it would become a valid conversation" " So again I ask: Have you found the bit where I said all religions can do as they please yet? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nope, he was very clear yesterday what political parties should be removed / banned, and today all religions can do what they want. This is why you’re impossible to deal with. Because you invent nonsense like this. Find me where I said ‘all religions can do what they want’, and if you can’t, you can apologise and tell the forum you were wrong. Agreed? This is what you said - "If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. " We are yet to hear how they are different and why they have to be treated differently. I have already tilted at this - a political group is essentially an activist outlet aimed at gaining power and enforcing their world view onto those regardless of whether they agree with it or not. They want to enforce policy on society. A religious group also has power, but within the confines of their group, not on broader society. They’re also bound by the laws set within you nation in which they practice, with (theoretically) no opportunity to control or set laws, unlike a political party. A religious group has power only within the confines of their group? Have you even read history? Just because we have a some laws that doesn't allow them, it doesn't mean that they will stop having power. There are so many countries which used to have laws like we have now and have been taken over by religions. That’s why I said theoretically. Ideally church and state would always remain separate. And yes, I’ve read history. I’m not sure the AfD have, else they wouldn’t be so keen to punish an individual religion." Yeah theory and practice are two different things. The problem with many liberals in this country is that most haven't experienced religious oppression first hand. Given a chance, any religion would love to take political power. If "being within confines of its followers" is your argument to treat political parties and religions separately, it's a very week argument. If are within the confines of the followers of the religion, we wouldn't have death threats and riots for someone who is not following a religion drawing a picture. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. What's the difference? Religions are also ideologies at the end of the day. Some religious practices are more terrible than others. If I start a new religion tomorrow and say that the way to attain immortality is to kill the atheists, would you say it's the same as other religions and fight for freedom to practice my religion? Which religion is a threat to life? You’re taking about extremist/terror groups - not religions. And terror groups can be proscribed/banned at present. You are talking about religious practices, some of which are terrible and can be banned if we democratically believe so. Some parts of India had a terrible religious practice where a widowed woman has to kill herself in her husband's funeral. It was rightfully banned because it was terrible. Just because it's a religion, you can't let them do anything you want. Face-coverings for women is a practice based on a misogynistic ideology that women showing skin are not "pure", usually forced on the women by men in the families. If a country decides it doesn't align with their values, they can ban it. If you think that misogyny is totally fine if it's done in the name of religion, let us know. Nobody is saying that religion can do what they want. Literally nobody. And are face coverings always forced upon the woman? Or do some women choose to cover themselves? (I suspect you know the answer to that). Here’s the crux that you’ve missed - I’m not arguing that face coverings are right, or that banning some practices is wrong. I’m arguing that the blanket ban proposed by the AfD (Burka and call to prayer) are unfair acts based upon singling out an individual religion based upon prejudice. Do we have any recent incidents in history where a religion has been singled out? In case you didn't know, many other countries have banned face coverings, in some cases by left wing parties. The reason is that it is based on a misogynistic ideology that "good" women should not show their skin. If you take this ideology to its logical conclusion, it means that women who don't cover everything are "bad" women. There are many backward societies where men use this as an excuse to commit atrocities against women. So the parties decided, we do not want their countries to go in that direction. And if a nation chooses to ban face coverings, that’s fine, as long as they don’t say ‘these religious face coverings are ok, but those Islamic ones aren’t’ Even if AfD comes to power, the law isn't going to state anything explicitly about Islam. It will just say face coverings. So you will be happy with that? Their policy is explicitly about the Burqua and Islamic Call to Prayer. Can you point me to that please? I can only find 'face coverings'. You know the CDU also wanted a ban under Merkel? I didn't hear any uproar about it. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37274201.amp That article says: "The party would ban foreign funding of mosques in Germany, ban the burka (full-body veil) and the Muslim call to prayer, and put all imams through a state vetting procedure. "Moderate" Muslims who accepted integration were "valued members of society", its argued, while suggesting that multiculturalism did not work." I was kinda hoping for a direct quote. However, the second paragraph specifically says the don't hate Islam. Unless I don't understand 'valued members of society'." France right now is working on banning Imams from Saudi Arabia because they were instrumental in spreading extreme Wahabi views in Europe. I guess Macron is also a right wing fascist who must be banned from elections  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. What's the difference? Religions are also ideologies at the end of the day. Some religious practices are more terrible than others. If I start a new religion tomorrow and say that the way to attain immortality is to kill the atheists, would you say it's the same as other religions and fight for freedom to practice my religion? Which religion is a threat to life? You’re taking about extremist/terror groups - not religions. And terror groups can be proscribed/banned at present. You are talking about religious practices, some of which are terrible and can be banned if we democratically believe so. Some parts of India had a terrible religious practice where a widowed woman has to kill herself in her husband's funeral. It was rightfully banned because it was terrible. Just because it's a religion, you can't let them do anything you want. Face-coverings for women is a practice based on a misogynistic ideology that women showing skin are not "pure", usually forced on the women by men in the families. If a country decides it doesn't align with their values, they can ban it. If you think that misogyny is totally fine if it's done in the name of religion, let us know. Nobody is saying that religion can do what they want. Literally nobody. And are face coverings always forced upon the woman? Or do some women choose to cover themselves? (I suspect you know the answer to that). Here’s the crux that you’ve missed - I’m not arguing that face coverings are right, or that banning some practices is wrong. I’m arguing that the blanket ban proposed by the AfD (Burka and call to prayer) are unfair acts based upon singling out an individual religion based upon prejudice. Do we have any recent incidents in history where a religion has been singled out? In case you didn't know, many other countries have banned face coverings, in some cases by left wing parties. The reason is that it is based on a misogynistic ideology that "good" women should not show their skin. If you take this ideology to its logical conclusion, it means that women who don't cover everything are "bad" women. There are many backward societies where men use this as an excuse to commit atrocities against women. So the parties decided, we do not want their countries to go in that direction. And if a nation chooses to ban face coverings, that’s fine, as long as they don’t say ‘these religious face coverings are ok, but those Islamic ones aren’t’ Even if AfD comes to power, the law isn't going to state anything explicitly about Islam. It will just say face coverings. So you will be happy with that? Their policy is explicitly about the Burqua and Islamic Call to Prayer. Can you point me to that please? I can only find 'face coverings'. You know the CDU also wanted a ban under Merkel? I didn't hear any uproar about it. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37274201.amp That article says: "The party would ban foreign funding of mosques in Germany, ban the burka (full-body veil) and the Muslim call to prayer, and put all imams through a state vetting procedure. "Moderate" Muslims who accepted integration were "valued members of society", its argued, while suggesting that multiculturalism did not work." I was kinda hoping for a direct quote. However, the second paragraph specifically says the don't hate Islam. Unless I don't understand 'valued members of society'." This piece has a quote on the AfF’s thoughts on the call to prayer - https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/german-far-right-party-opposes-mosque-s-call-to-prayer-in-cologne/2391131 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nope, he was very clear yesterday what political parties should be removed / banned, and today all religions can do what they want. This is why you’re impossible to deal with. Because you invent nonsense like this. Find me where I said ‘all religions can do what they want’, and if you can’t, you can apologise and tell the forum you were wrong. Agreed? This is what you said - "If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. " We are yet to hear how they are different and why they have to be treated differently. I have already tilted at this - a political group is essentially an activist outlet aimed at gaining power and enforcing their world view onto those regardless of whether they agree with it or not. They want to enforce policy on society. A religious group also has power, but within the confines of their group, not on broader society. They’re also bound by the laws set within you nation in which they practice, with (theoretically) no opportunity to control or set laws, unlike a political party. A religious group has power only within the confines of their group? Have you even read history? Just because we have a some laws that doesn't allow them, it doesn't mean that they will stop having power. There are so many countries which used to have laws like we have now and have been taken over by religions. That’s why I said theoretically. Ideally church and state would always remain separate. And yes, I’ve read history. I’m not sure the AfD have, else they wouldn’t be so keen to punish an individual religion. If you read history you would be able to tie religion and politics together.... Have you found the bit where I said all religions can do as they please yet? You said of religion: "I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment" You also said of political parties: "I firmly believe that anyone espousing such views should not be allowed to stand for election" "talking of banning parties is premature, but if evidence arises that serious discussion has taken place on such policy, it would become a valid conversation" So again I ask: Have you found the bit where I said all religions can do as they please yet?" Parallels between religion and politics are pretty evident in leaders, structures, guiding principles, social strategies, and impact on individual lives. Both use rhetoric, rituals, and gatherings to secure a sense of belonging and shared identity among members. To say all religions must be treated equally and then go on in great depth how political parties can be banned, is green lighting the worst of the religious groups to continue to do what they want, even if it flies in the face of freedoms we take for granted and expect as humans! Segregation, being treated like second class citizens because of race, gender or social standing. Hapy to ban one and not the other? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. What's the difference? Religions are also ideologies at the end of the day. Some religious practices are more terrible than others. If I start a new religion tomorrow and say that the way to attain immortality is to kill the atheists, would you say it's the same as other religions and fight for freedom to practice my religion? Which religion is a threat to life? You’re taking about extremist/terror groups - not religions. And terror groups can be proscribed/banned at present. You are talking about religious practices, some of which are terrible and can be banned if we democratically believe so. Some parts of India had a terrible religious practice where a widowed woman has to kill herself in her husband's funeral. It was rightfully banned because it was terrible. Just because it's a religion, you can't let them do anything you want. Face-coverings for women is a practice based on a misogynistic ideology that women showing skin are not "pure", usually forced on the women by men in the families. If a country decides it doesn't align with their values, they can ban it. If you think that misogyny is totally fine if it's done in the name of religion, let us know. Nobody is saying that religion can do what they want. Literally nobody. And are face coverings always forced upon the woman? Or do some women choose to cover themselves? (I suspect you know the answer to that). Here’s the crux that you’ve missed - I’m not arguing that face coverings are right, or that banning some practices is wrong. I’m arguing that the blanket ban proposed by the AfD (Burka and call to prayer) are unfair acts based upon singling out an individual religion based upon prejudice. Do we have any recent incidents in history where a religion has been singled out? In case you didn't know, many other countries have banned face coverings, in some cases by left wing parties. The reason is that it is based on a misogynistic ideology that "good" women should not show their skin. If you take this ideology to its logical conclusion, it means that women who don't cover everything are "bad" women. There are many backward societies where men use this as an excuse to commit atrocities against women. So the parties decided, we do not want their countries to go in that direction. And if a nation chooses to ban face coverings, that’s fine, as long as they don’t say ‘these religious face coverings are ok, but those Islamic ones aren’t’ Even if AfD comes to power, the law isn't going to state anything explicitly about Islam. It will just say face coverings. So you will be happy with that? Their policy is explicitly about the Burqua and Islamic Call to Prayer. Can you point me to that please? I can only find 'face coverings'. You know the CDU also wanted a ban under Merkel? I didn't hear any uproar about it. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37274201.amp That article says: "The party would ban foreign funding of mosques in Germany, ban the burka (full-body veil) and the Muslim call to prayer, and put all imams through a state vetting procedure. "Moderate" Muslims who accepted integration were "valued members of society", its argued, while suggesting that multiculturalism did not work." I was kinda hoping for a direct quote. However, the second paragraph specifically says the don't hate Islam. Unless I don't understand 'valued members of society'. France right now is working on banning Imams from Saudi Arabia because they were instrumental in spreading extreme Wahabi views in Europe. I guess Macron is also a right wing fascist who must be banned from elections "Isn’t the proposed ban only on immams trained outside of France? (I.e not specific to Saudi) And as such, the religion in France is not being treated unfairly - they still practice as they did. Similar to how we placed restrictions on Abu Hamza’s mosque years ago. It’s about undoing extremism, not banning or hindering valid religious practice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. What's the difference? Religions are also ideologies at the end of the day. Some religious practices are more terrible than others. If I start a new religion tomorrow and say that the way to attain immortality is to kill the atheists, would you say it's the same as other religions and fight for freedom to practice my religion? Which religion is a threat to life? You’re taking about extremist/terror groups - not religions. And terror groups can be proscribed/banned at present. You are talking about religious practices, some of which are terrible and can be banned if we democratically believe so. Some parts of India had a terrible religious practice where a widowed woman has to kill herself in her husband's funeral. It was rightfully banned because it was terrible. Just because it's a religion, you can't let them do anything you want. Face-coverings for women is a practice based on a misogynistic ideology that women showing skin are not "pure", usually forced on the women by men in the families. If a country decides it doesn't align with their values, they can ban it. If you think that misogyny is totally fine if it's done in the name of religion, let us know. Nobody is saying that religion can do what they want. Literally nobody. And are face coverings always forced upon the woman? Or do some women choose to cover themselves? (I suspect you know the answer to that). Here’s the crux that you’ve missed - I’m not arguing that face coverings are right, or that banning some practices is wrong. I’m arguing that the blanket ban proposed by the AfD (Burka and call to prayer) are unfair acts based upon singling out an individual religion based upon prejudice. Do we have any recent incidents in history where a religion has been singled out? In case you didn't know, many other countries have banned face coverings, in some cases by left wing parties. The reason is that it is based on a misogynistic ideology that "good" women should not show their skin. If you take this ideology to its logical conclusion, it means that women who don't cover everything are "bad" women. There are many backward societies where men use this as an excuse to commit atrocities against women. So the parties decided, we do not want their countries to go in that direction. And if a nation chooses to ban face coverings, that’s fine, as long as they don’t say ‘these religious face coverings are ok, but those Islamic ones aren’t’ Even if AfD comes to power, the law isn't going to state anything explicitly about Islam. It will just say face coverings. So you will be happy with that? Their policy is explicitly about the Burqua and Islamic Call to Prayer. Can you point me to that please? I can only find 'face coverings'. You know the CDU also wanted a ban under Merkel? I didn't hear any uproar about it. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37274201.amp That article says: "The party would ban foreign funding of mosques in Germany, ban the burka (full-body veil) and the Muslim call to prayer, and put all imams through a state vetting procedure. "Moderate" Muslims who accepted integration were "valued members of society", its argued, while suggesting that multiculturalism did not work." I was kinda hoping for a direct quote. However, the second paragraph specifically says the don't hate Islam. Unless I don't understand 'valued members of society'. This piece has a quote on the AfF’s thoughts on the call to prayer - https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/german-far-right-party-opposes-mosque-s-call-to-prayer-in-cologne/2391131" And still no direct quote about banning the call to prayer. What's happened here is you've created a whole hornets nest on articles written BY OTHERS about AfD policies and can't even show us the policies or statements from AfD to back up any of these claims
I mean the call to prayer is fucking nonsense anyway, cant people tell the time?
Why don't you have anything to say about Merkel or Macron? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nope, he was very clear yesterday what political parties should be removed / banned, and today all religions can do what they want. This is why you’re impossible to deal with. Because you invent nonsense like this. Find me where I said ‘all religions can do what they want’, and if you can’t, you can apologise and tell the forum you were wrong. Agreed? This is what you said - "If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. " We are yet to hear how they are different and why they have to be treated differently. I have already tilted at this - a political group is essentially an activist outlet aimed at gaining power and enforcing their world view onto those regardless of whether they agree with it or not. They want to enforce policy on society. A religious group also has power, but within the confines of their group, not on broader society. They’re also bound by the laws set within you nation in which they practice, with (theoretically) no opportunity to control or set laws, unlike a political party. A religious group has power only within the confines of their group? Have you even read history? Just because we have a some laws that doesn't allow them, it doesn't mean that they will stop having power. There are so many countries which used to have laws like we have now and have been taken over by religions. That’s why I said theoretically. Ideally church and state would always remain separate. And yes, I’ve read history. I’m not sure the AfD have, else they wouldn’t be so keen to punish an individual religion. If you read history you would be able to tie religion and politics together.... Have you found the bit where I said all religions can do as they please yet? You said of religion: "I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment" You also said of political parties: "I firmly believe that anyone espousing such views should not be allowed to stand for election" "talking of banning parties is premature, but if evidence arises that serious discussion has taken place on such policy, it would become a valid conversation" So again I ask: Have you found the bit where I said all religions can do as they please yet? Parallels between religion and politics are pretty evident in leaders, structures, guiding principles, social strategies, and impact on individual lives. Both use rhetoric, rituals, and gatherings to secure a sense of belonging and shared identity among members. To say all religions must be treated equally and then go on in great depth how political parties can be banned, is green lighting the worst of the religious groups to continue to do what they want, even if it flies in the face of freedoms we take for granted and expect as humans! Segregation, being treated like second class citizens because of race, gender or social standing. Hapy to ban one and not the other? " So you’ve realised that you made a claim about me that was incorrect, and are now scrabbling rather than saying ‘sorry mate, I was wrong’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"democracy noun a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. Seems weird to want to ban a representative party in a democracy. If it’s what the people want, isn’t that democracy? " It's only democracy if they agree to your set morals | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. What's the difference? Religions are also ideologies at the end of the day. Some religious practices are more terrible than others. If I start a new religion tomorrow and say that the way to attain immortality is to kill the atheists, would you say it's the same as other religions and fight for freedom to practice my religion? Which religion is a threat to life? You’re taking about extremist/terror groups - not religions. And terror groups can be proscribed/banned at present. You are talking about religious practices, some of which are terrible and can be banned if we democratically believe so. Some parts of India had a terrible religious practice where a widowed woman has to kill herself in her husband's funeral. It was rightfully banned because it was terrible. Just because it's a religion, you can't let them do anything you want. Face-coverings for women is a practice based on a misogynistic ideology that women showing skin are not "pure", usually forced on the women by men in the families. If a country decides it doesn't align with their values, they can ban it. If you think that misogyny is totally fine if it's done in the name of religion, let us know. Nobody is saying that religion can do what they want. Literally nobody. And are face coverings always forced upon the woman? Or do some women choose to cover themselves? (I suspect you know the answer to that). Here’s the crux that you’ve missed - I’m not arguing that face coverings are right, or that banning some practices is wrong. I’m arguing that the blanket ban proposed by the AfD (Burka and call to prayer) are unfair acts based upon singling out an individual religion based upon prejudice. Do we have any recent incidents in history where a religion has been singled out? In case you didn't know, many other countries have banned face coverings, in some cases by left wing parties. The reason is that it is based on a misogynistic ideology that "good" women should not show their skin. If you take this ideology to its logical conclusion, it means that women who don't cover everything are "bad" women. There are many backward societies where men use this as an excuse to commit atrocities against women. So the parties decided, we do not want their countries to go in that direction. And if a nation chooses to ban face coverings, that’s fine, as long as they don’t say ‘these religious face coverings are ok, but those Islamic ones aren’t’ Even if AfD comes to power, the law isn't going to state anything explicitly about Islam. It will just say face coverings. So you will be happy with that? Their policy is explicitly about the Burqua and Islamic Call to Prayer. Can you point me to that please? I can only find 'face coverings'. You know the CDU also wanted a ban under Merkel? I didn't hear any uproar about it. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37274201.amp That article says: "The party would ban foreign funding of mosques in Germany, ban the burka (full-body veil) and the Muslim call to prayer, and put all imams through a state vetting procedure. "Moderate" Muslims who accepted integration were "valued members of society", its argued, while suggesting that multiculturalism did not work." I was kinda hoping for a direct quote. However, the second paragraph specifically says the don't hate Islam. Unless I don't understand 'valued members of society'. This piece has a quote on the AfF’s thoughts on the call to prayer - https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/german-far-right-party-opposes-mosque-s-call-to-prayer-in-cologne/2391131 And still no direct quote about banning the call to prayer. What's happened here is you've created a whole hornets nest on articles written BY OTHERS about AfD policies and can't even show us the policies or statements from AfD to back up any of these claims
I mean the call to prayer is fucking nonsense anyway, cant people tell the time?
Why don't you have anything to say about Merkel or Macron?"The manifesto was voted upon at the AfD conference. Information about it is freely available online from myriad sources, of which I’ve provided one already. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nope, he was very clear yesterday what political parties should be removed / banned, and today all religions can do what they want. This is why you’re impossible to deal with. Because you invent nonsense like this. Find me where I said ‘all religions can do what they want’, and if you can’t, you can apologise and tell the forum you were wrong. Agreed? This is what you said - "If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. " We are yet to hear how they are different and why they have to be treated differently. I have already tilted at this - a political group is essentially an activist outlet aimed at gaining power and enforcing their world view onto those regardless of whether they agree with it or not. They want to enforce policy on society. A religious group also has power, but within the confines of their group, not on broader society. They’re also bound by the laws set within you nation in which they practice, with (theoretically) no opportunity to control or set laws, unlike a political party. A religious group has power only within the confines of their group? Have you even read history? Just because we have a some laws that doesn't allow them, it doesn't mean that they will stop having power. There are so many countries which used to have laws like we have now and have been taken over by religions. That’s why I said theoretically. Ideally church and state would always remain separate. And yes, I’ve read history. I’m not sure the AfD have, else they wouldn’t be so keen to punish an individual religion. If you read history you would be able to tie religion and politics together.... Have you found the bit where I said all religions can do as they please yet? You said of religion: "I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment" You also said of political parties: "I firmly believe that anyone espousing such views should not be allowed to stand for election" "talking of banning parties is premature, but if evidence arises that serious discussion has taken place on such policy, it would become a valid conversation" So again I ask: Have you found the bit where I said all religions can do as they please yet? Parallels between religion and politics are pretty evident in leaders, structures, guiding principles, social strategies, and impact on individual lives. Both use rhetoric, rituals, and gatherings to secure a sense of belonging and shared identity among members. To say all religions must be treated equally and then go on in great depth how political parties can be banned, is green lighting the worst of the religious groups to continue to do what they want, even if it flies in the face of freedoms we take for granted and expect as humans! Segregation, being treated like second class citizens because of race, gender or social standing. Hapy to ban one and not the other? So you’ve realised that you made a claim about me that was incorrect, and are now scrabbling rather than saying ‘sorry mate, I was wrong’ " You talk some nonsense..... As I have said, and I will repeat again as per my last post, you are happy to allow religion to go unchecked but will happily ban a party because you don't like what they stand for. Hypocritical as is the norm with most liberal progressives. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"democracy noun a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. Seems weird to want to ban a representative party in a democracy. If it’s what the people want, isn’t that democracy? " So I give you the same question I’ve posed to others - if a hypothetical neo-Nazi party rose to power in the U.K, proposing polices about repatriation of foreign born U.K citizens, how would you respond? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"democracy noun a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. Seems weird to want to ban a representative party in a democracy. If it’s what the people want, isn’t that democracy? So I give you the same question I’ve posed to others - if a hypothetical neo-Nazi party rose to power in the U.K, proposing polices about repatriation of foreign born U.K citizens, how would you respond? " I wouldn’t support them Forget the hypothetical though. Is it a democracy if you can ban representatives? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. What's the difference? Religions are also ideologies at the end of the day. Some religious practices are more terrible than others. If I start a new religion tomorrow and say that the way to attain immortality is to kill the atheists, would you say it's the same as other religions and fight for freedom to practice my religion? Which religion is a threat to life? You’re taking about extremist/terror groups - not religions. And terror groups can be proscribed/banned at present. You are talking about religious practices, some of which are terrible and can be banned if we democratically believe so. Some parts of India had a terrible religious practice where a widowed woman has to kill herself in her husband's funeral. It was rightfully banned because it was terrible. Just because it's a religion, you can't let them do anything you want. Face-coverings for women is a practice based on a misogynistic ideology that women showing skin are not "pure", usually forced on the women by men in the families. If a country decides it doesn't align with their values, they can ban it. If you think that misogyny is totally fine if it's done in the name of religion, let us know. Nobody is saying that religion can do what they want. Literally nobody. And are face coverings always forced upon the woman? Or do some women choose to cover themselves? (I suspect you know the answer to that). Here’s the crux that you’ve missed - I’m not arguing that face coverings are right, or that banning some practices is wrong. I’m arguing that the blanket ban proposed by the AfD (Burka and call to prayer) are unfair acts based upon singling out an individual religion based upon prejudice. Do we have any recent incidents in history where a religion has been singled out? In case you didn't know, many other countries have banned face coverings, in some cases by left wing parties. The reason is that it is based on a misogynistic ideology that "good" women should not show their skin. If you take this ideology to its logical conclusion, it means that women who don't cover everything are "bad" women. There are many backward societies where men use this as an excuse to commit atrocities against women. So the parties decided, we do not want their countries to go in that direction. And if a nation chooses to ban face coverings, that’s fine, as long as they don’t say ‘these religious face coverings are ok, but those Islamic ones aren’t’ Even if AfD comes to power, the law isn't going to state anything explicitly about Islam. It will just say face coverings. So you will be happy with that? Their policy is explicitly about the Burqua and Islamic Call to Prayer. Can you point me to that please? I can only find 'face coverings'. You know the CDU also wanted a ban under Merkel? I didn't hear any uproar about it. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37274201.amp That article says: "The party would ban foreign funding of mosques in Germany, ban the burka (full-body veil) and the Muslim call to prayer, and put all imams through a state vetting procedure. "Moderate" Muslims who accepted integration were "valued members of society", its argued, while suggesting that multiculturalism did not work." I was kinda hoping for a direct quote. However, the second paragraph specifically says the don't hate Islam. Unless I don't understand 'valued members of society'. This piece has a quote on the AfF’s thoughts on the call to prayer - https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/german-far-right-party-opposes-mosque-s-call-to-prayer-in-cologne/2391131 And still no direct quote about banning the call to prayer. What's happened here is you've created a whole hornets nest on articles written BY OTHERS about AfD policies and can't even show us the policies or statements from AfD to back up any of these claims
I mean the call to prayer is fucking nonsense anyway, cant people tell the time?
Why don't you have anything to say about Merkel or Macron?
The manifesto was voted upon at the AfD conference. Information about it is freely available online from myriad sources, of which I’ve provided one already.
"You've provided nothing of the sort. As I said, I genuinely can't find it, so far I've just had a couple of articles which don't show a manifesto or any direct information. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nope, he was very clear yesterday what political parties should be removed / banned, and today all religions can do what they want. This is why you’re impossible to deal with. Because you invent nonsense like this. Find me where I said ‘all religions can do what they want’, and if you can’t, you can apologise and tell the forum you were wrong. Agreed? This is what you said - "If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. " We are yet to hear how they are different and why they have to be treated differently. I have already tilted at this - a political group is essentially an activist outlet aimed at gaining power and enforcing their world view onto those regardless of whether they agree with it or not. They want to enforce policy on society. A religious group also has power, but within the confines of their group, not on broader society. They’re also bound by the laws set within you nation in which they practice, with (theoretically) no opportunity to control or set laws, unlike a political party. A religious group has power only within the confines of their group? Have you even read history? Just because we have a some laws that doesn't allow them, it doesn't mean that they will stop having power. There are so many countries which used to have laws like we have now and have been taken over by religions. That’s why I said theoretically. Ideally church and state would always remain separate. And yes, I’ve read history. I’m not sure the AfD have, else they wouldn’t be so keen to punish an individual religion. If you read history you would be able to tie religion and politics together.... Have you found the bit where I said all religions can do as they please yet? You said of religion: "I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment" You also said of political parties: "I firmly believe that anyone espousing such views should not be allowed to stand for election" "talking of banning parties is premature, but if evidence arises that serious discussion has taken place on such policy, it would become a valid conversation" So again I ask: Have you found the bit where I said all religions can do as they please yet? Parallels between religion and politics are pretty evident in leaders, structures, guiding principles, social strategies, and impact on individual lives. Both use rhetoric, rituals, and gatherings to secure a sense of belonging and shared identity among members. To say all religions must be treated equally and then go on in great depth how political parties can be banned, is green lighting the worst of the religious groups to continue to do what they want, even if it flies in the face of freedoms we take for granted and expect as humans! Segregation, being treated like second class citizens because of race, gender or social standing. Hapy to ban one and not the other? So you’ve realised that you made a claim about me that was incorrect, and are now scrabbling rather than saying ‘sorry mate, I was wrong’ You talk some nonsense..... As I have said, and I will repeat again as per my last post, you are happy to allow religion to go unchecked but will happily ban a party because you don't like what they stand for. Hypocritical as is the norm with most liberal progressives. " I didn’t say any religion should be unchecked. Not once. You’ve invented that (again). I said that one religion shouldn’t be singled out and treated unfairly based upon prejudice. I’ve also said that extremists should be dealt with (regardless of what religion or activism they support). You’ve had an absolute ‘mare here, because you simply didn’t understand the point I made, and now you’re going to pretend you were right all along. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If someone wants to ban Islam based upon some of their teaching’s treatment of women, acts of terror or abuse of children, then you’re gonna have to ban every religion for the same reason. Unless of course you accept that religion per se isn’t dangerous, and only extremist interpretations are worrysome - which I think we’d all agree with. And if that’s how you feel, you probably shouldn’t support a blanket ban of a single religion, right? Why are you singling out Islam? The question is why do you green light religion to do whatever they want, but you are happy to single out political parties? Point of order. This line of discussion followed on from bassplayer saying... Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. So a comment on AfD which is the purpose of the thread right? Carry on...
I said why are religions green lighted, and not political parties. No mention of which religion, I'm talking about religion and politics.
He keeps referring back to Islam, that is not the question...
You are moving goalposts. It feels like you are trying to score points. Bassplayer was commenting on AfD policy which singles out Islam. You then extrapolated that. On this occasion I think you are being tricksy. Mrs B will spank you later
I assume Notme was referring to Bassplayers happiness to ban political parties (ie. AfD) if he decides they're 'terrorists/fascists/racists etc. But doesn't share the sentiment for religious groups who he decides there's only 'extremists' and not all.
Nice way to pile-on btw
We really need to get an accepted definition of pile on. I think humorously (well I thought it was funny) commenting on the ebb and flow of a discussion is not really a pile on. Is it? Jumping in to attack someone and gang up on them so their opinion is marginalised because they are outnumbered would count as a pile on I would say. Yes/No?
Every single time without fail you say 'it was banter'.
You actually jumped in and specifically targeted Notme and 'ganged up', I think that constitutes a pile-on. I'll probably be wrong because you're always right "Well referring to someone getting spanked with a seems pretty humorous to me!
On your last point I am glad you are learning | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. What's the difference? Religions are also ideologies at the end of the day. Some religious practices are more terrible than others. If I start a new religion tomorrow and say that the way to attain immortality is to kill the atheists, would you say it's the same as other religions and fight for freedom to practice my religion? Which religion is a threat to life? You’re taking about extremist/terror groups - not religions. And terror groups can be proscribed/banned at present. You are talking about religious practices, some of which are terrible and can be banned if we democratically believe so. Some parts of India had a terrible religious practice where a widowed woman has to kill herself in her husband's funeral. It was rightfully banned because it was terrible. Just because it's a religion, you can't let them do anything you want. Face-coverings for women is a practice based on a misogynistic ideology that women showing skin are not "pure", usually forced on the women by men in the families. If a country decides it doesn't align with their values, they can ban it. If you think that misogyny is totally fine if it's done in the name of religion, let us know. Nobody is saying that religion can do what they want. Literally nobody. And are face coverings always forced upon the woman? Or do some women choose to cover themselves? (I suspect you know the answer to that). Here’s the crux that you’ve missed - I’m not arguing that face coverings are right, or that banning some practices is wrong. I’m arguing that the blanket ban proposed by the AfD (Burka and call to prayer) are unfair acts based upon singling out an individual religion based upon prejudice. Do we have any recent incidents in history where a religion has been singled out? In case you didn't know, many other countries have banned face coverings, in some cases by left wing parties. The reason is that it is based on a misogynistic ideology that "good" women should not show their skin. If you take this ideology to its logical conclusion, it means that women who don't cover everything are "bad" women. There are many backward societies where men use this as an excuse to commit atrocities against women. So the parties decided, we do not want their countries to go in that direction. And if a nation chooses to ban face coverings, that’s fine, as long as they don’t say ‘these religious face coverings are ok, but those Islamic ones aren’t’ Even if AfD comes to power, the law isn't going to state anything explicitly about Islam. It will just say face coverings. So you will be happy with that? Their policy is explicitly about the Burqua and Islamic Call to Prayer. Can you point me to that please? I can only find 'face coverings'. You know the CDU also wanted a ban under Merkel? I didn't hear any uproar about it. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37274201.amp That article says: "The party would ban foreign funding of mosques in Germany, ban the burka (full-body veil) and the Muslim call to prayer, and put all imams through a state vetting procedure. "Moderate" Muslims who accepted integration were "valued members of society", its argued, while suggesting that multiculturalism did not work." I was kinda hoping for a direct quote. However, the second paragraph specifically says the don't hate Islam. Unless I don't understand 'valued members of society'. This piece has a quote on the AfF’s thoughts on the call to prayer - https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/german-far-right-party-opposes-mosque-s-call-to-prayer-in-cologne/2391131 And still no direct quote about banning the call to prayer. What's happened here is you've created a whole hornets nest on articles written BY OTHERS about AfD policies and can't even show us the policies or statements from AfD to back up any of these claims
I mean the call to prayer is fucking nonsense anyway, cant people tell the time?
Why don't you have anything to say about Merkel or Macron?
The manifesto was voted upon at the AfD conference. Information about it is freely available online from myriad sources, of which I’ve provided one already.
You've provided nothing of the sort. As I said, I genuinely can't find it, so far I've just had a couple of articles which don't show a manifesto or any direct information. "Did you find anything about conference voting on the manifesto which contained the section “Islam is not a part of Germany”? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"democracy noun a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. Seems weird to want to ban a representative party in a democracy. If it’s what the people want, isn’t that democracy? So I give you the same question I’ve posed to others - if a hypothetical neo-Nazi party rose to power in the U.K, proposing polices about repatriation of foreign born U.K citizens, how would you respond? I wouldn’t support them Forget the hypothetical though. Is it a democracy if you can ban representatives? " Would you accept their actions as part of democracy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"democracy noun a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. Seems weird to want to ban a representative party in a democracy. If it’s what the people want, isn’t that democracy? So I give you the same question I’ve posed to others - if a hypothetical neo-Nazi party rose to power in the U.K, proposing polices about repatriation of foreign born U.K citizens, how would you respond? I wouldn’t support them Forget the hypothetical though. Is it a democracy if you can ban representatives? Would you accept their actions as part of democracy? " I’d vote. That’s all I can do in a democracy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"democracy noun a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. Seems weird to want to ban a representative party in a democracy. If it’s what the people want, isn’t that democracy? So I give you the same question I’ve posed to others - if a hypothetical neo-Nazi party rose to power in the U.K, proposing polices about repatriation of foreign born U.K citizens, how would you respond? I wouldn’t support them Forget the hypothetical though. Is it a democracy if you can ban representatives? Would you accept their actions as part of democracy? I’d vote. That’s all I can do in a democracy " You can lobby. You can protest. You can even take direct action. I’d do all of the above against neo-Nazis. And if that failed I’d leave the country. I wonder how many would do the same. I like to think that millions would. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"democracy noun a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. Seems weird to want to ban a representative party in a democracy. If it’s what the people want, isn’t that democracy? So I give you the same question I’ve posed to others - if a hypothetical neo-Nazi party rose to power in the U.K, proposing polices about repatriation of foreign born U.K citizens, how would you respond? I wouldn’t support them Forget the hypothetical though. Is it a democracy if you can ban representatives? Would you accept their actions as part of democracy? I’d vote. That’s all I can do in a democracy You can lobby. You can protest. You can even take direct action. I’d do all of the above against neo-Nazis. And if that failed I’d leave the country. I wonder how many would do the same. I like to think that millions would. " That all sounds better to me than banning a party in a “democracy” If we want to ban parties, fine. But don’t call it a democracy. And don’t cry if in the future a party you want gets banned | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. What's the difference? Religions are also ideologies at the end of the day. Some religious practices are more terrible than others. If I start a new religion tomorrow and say that the way to attain immortality is to kill the atheists, would you say it's the same as other religions and fight for freedom to practice my religion? Which religion is a threat to life? You’re taking about extremist/terror groups - not religions. And terror groups can be proscribed/banned at present. You are talking about religious practices, some of which are terrible and can be banned if we democratically believe so. Some parts of India had a terrible religious practice where a widowed woman has to kill herself in her husband's funeral. It was rightfully banned because it was terrible. Just because it's a religion, you can't let them do anything you want. Face-coverings for women is a practice based on a misogynistic ideology that women showing skin are not "pure", usually forced on the women by men in the families. If a country decides it doesn't align with their values, they can ban it. If you think that misogyny is totally fine if it's done in the name of religion, let us know. Nobody is saying that religion can do what they want. Literally nobody. And are face coverings always forced upon the woman? Or do some women choose to cover themselves? (I suspect you know the answer to that). Here’s the crux that you’ve missed - I’m not arguing that face coverings are right, or that banning some practices is wrong. I’m arguing that the blanket ban proposed by the AfD (Burka and call to prayer) are unfair acts based upon singling out an individual religion based upon prejudice. Do we have any recent incidents in history where a religion has been singled out? In case you didn't know, many other countries have banned face coverings, in some cases by left wing parties. The reason is that it is based on a misogynistic ideology that "good" women should not show their skin. If you take this ideology to its logical conclusion, it means that women who don't cover everything are "bad" women. There are many backward societies where men use this as an excuse to commit atrocities against women. So the parties decided, we do not want their countries to go in that direction. And if a nation chooses to ban face coverings, that’s fine, as long as they don’t say ‘these religious face coverings are ok, but those Islamic ones aren’t’ Even if AfD comes to power, the law isn't going to state anything explicitly about Islam. It will just say face coverings. So you will be happy with that? Their policy is explicitly about the Burqua and Islamic Call to Prayer. Can you point me to that please? I can only find 'face coverings'. You know the CDU also wanted a ban under Merkel? I didn't hear any uproar about it. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37274201.amp That article says: "The party would ban foreign funding of mosques in Germany, ban the burka (full-body veil) and the Muslim call to prayer, and put all imams through a state vetting procedure. "Moderate" Muslims who accepted integration were "valued members of society", its argued, while suggesting that multiculturalism did not work." I was kinda hoping for a direct quote. However, the second paragraph specifically says the don't hate Islam. Unless I don't understand 'valued members of society'. This piece has a quote on the AfF’s thoughts on the call to prayer - https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/german-far-right-party-opposes-mosque-s-call-to-prayer-in-cologne/2391131 And still no direct quote about banning the call to prayer. What's happened here is you've created a whole hornets nest on articles written BY OTHERS about AfD policies and can't even show us the policies or statements from AfD to back up any of these claims
I mean the call to prayer is fucking nonsense anyway, cant people tell the time?
Why don't you have anything to say about Merkel or Macron?
The manifesto was voted upon at the AfD conference. Information about it is freely available online from myriad sources, of which I’ve provided one already.
You've provided nothing of the sort. As I said, I genuinely can't find it, so far I've just had a couple of articles which don't show a manifesto or any direct information.
Did you find anything about conference voting on the manifesto which contained the section “Islam is not a part of Germany”?"Yep. Did you look beyond the headline? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was just doing some reading on AfD. It seems they’re another right wing party who want to impress restrictions on religious freedom, so long as the only religion affected is Islam. (Burka ban, call to prayer ban in public areas). - The same lowbrow shite we hear from the usual suspects over here. If you want to ban the wearing or religious paraphernalia, that’s great. Do it for all religions. Or do it for none. Why do religions get a green card from you to do whatever they want, but political parties can be singled out and banned? You are very strict in your dictatorship. I didn’t say religions get a green card, did I? I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment. If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. What's the difference? Religions are also ideologies at the end of the day. Some religious practices are more terrible than others. If I start a new religion tomorrow and say that the way to attain immortality is to kill the atheists, would you say it's the same as other religions and fight for freedom to practice my religion? Which religion is a threat to life? You’re taking about extremist/terror groups - not religions. And terror groups can be proscribed/banned at present. You are talking about religious practices, some of which are terrible and can be banned if we democratically believe so. Some parts of India had a terrible religious practice where a widowed woman has to kill herself in her husband's funeral. It was rightfully banned because it was terrible. Just because it's a religion, you can't let them do anything you want. Face-coverings for women is a practice based on a misogynistic ideology that women showing skin are not "pure", usually forced on the women by men in the families. If a country decides it doesn't align with their values, they can ban it. If you think that misogyny is totally fine if it's done in the name of religion, let us know. Nobody is saying that religion can do what they want. Literally nobody. And are face coverings always forced upon the woman? Or do some women choose to cover themselves? (I suspect you know the answer to that). Here’s the crux that you’ve missed - I’m not arguing that face coverings are right, or that banning some practices is wrong. I’m arguing that the blanket ban proposed by the AfD (Burka and call to prayer) are unfair acts based upon singling out an individual religion based upon prejudice. Do we have any recent incidents in history where a religion has been singled out? In case you didn't know, many other countries have banned face coverings, in some cases by left wing parties. The reason is that it is based on a misogynistic ideology that "good" women should not show their skin. If you take this ideology to its logical conclusion, it means that women who don't cover everything are "bad" women. There are many backward societies where men use this as an excuse to commit atrocities against women. So the parties decided, we do not want their countries to go in that direction. And if a nation chooses to ban face coverings, that’s fine, as long as they don’t say ‘these religious face coverings are ok, but those Islamic ones aren’t’ Even if AfD comes to power, the law isn't going to state anything explicitly about Islam. It will just say face coverings. So you will be happy with that? Their policy is explicitly about the Burqua and Islamic Call to Prayer. Can you point me to that please? I can only find 'face coverings'. You know the CDU also wanted a ban under Merkel? I didn't hear any uproar about it. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37274201.amp That article says: "The party would ban foreign funding of mosques in Germany, ban the burka (full-body veil) and the Muslim call to prayer, and put all imams through a state vetting procedure. "Moderate" Muslims who accepted integration were "valued members of society", its argued, while suggesting that multiculturalism did not work." I was kinda hoping for a direct quote. However, the second paragraph specifically says the don't hate Islam. Unless I don't understand 'valued members of society'. This piece has a quote on the AfF’s thoughts on the call to prayer - https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/german-far-right-party-opposes-mosque-s-call-to-prayer-in-cologne/2391131 And still no direct quote about banning the call to prayer. What's happened here is you've created a whole hornets nest on articles written BY OTHERS about AfD policies and can't even show us the policies or statements from AfD to back up any of these claims
I mean the call to prayer is fucking nonsense anyway, cant people tell the time?
Why don't you have anything to say about Merkel or Macron?
The manifesto was voted upon at the AfD conference. Information about it is freely available online from myriad sources, of which I’ve provided one already.
You've provided nothing of the sort. As I said, I genuinely can't find it, so far I've just had a couple of articles which don't show a manifesto or any direct information.
Did you find anything about conference voting on the manifesto which contained the section “Islam is not a part of Germany”?
Yep. Did you look beyond the headline?"The manifesto in English. Specifically mentioning the Burqua and Niquab, as well as the call to prayer. https://www.afd.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2017-04-12_afd-grundsatzprogramm-englisch_web.pdf | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The manifesto in English. Specifically mentioning the Burqua and Niquab, as well as the call to prayer. https://www.afd.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2017-04-12_afd-grundsatzprogramm-englisch_web.pdf " From the manifesto: "The AfD rejects the minaret as a symbol of Islamic supre- macy, as well as the muezzin call that proclaims that no god exists beside the Islamic Allah. Minaret and muezzin calls contradict a tolerant coexistence of religions, which the Christian churches of modernity do practice." They speak about co-existence... "The AfD demands the general prohibition of full-body veiling in public spaces and in the public service. The burqa or the niqab create barriers between the wearers of these garments and their surroundings, and thus impede cultural integration and social coexistence. A prohibition is necessary and, according to a judgement of the European Court of Justice, is lawful. Public servants should not wear a headscarf. At schools neither teachers nor students should be allowed to wear headscarves, thereby following the French model. The headscarf as a political-religious symbol of Muslim women’s submission to men negates integration efforts, equal rights for women and girls, and the unimpeded development of the individual." General prohibition.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Weirdly enough, all this talk of “would you support the nazis” The nazis did exactly this to political parties that didn’t like. Look up the enabling act of 1933 If we allow the banning of parties now, you have to plan for a future where the parties you want, the parties we need, are banned by the parties in power " If a party proposed extreme policies, then they should be dealt with. It is unthinkable that in the 21st century a western party could be elected based upon a policy in which legal citizens could be summarily repatriated. (That’s not an AfD policy, but from other extremists who were allegedly linked to the AfD - important context). How that situation would be dealt with would depend upon the specifics, but such a policy should categorically not be accepted by the electorate or indeed Parliament. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Weirdly enough, all this talk of “would you support the nazis” The nazis did exactly this to political parties that didn’t like. Look up the enabling act of 1933 If we allow the banning of parties now, you have to plan for a future where the parties you want, the parties we need, are banned by the parties in power If a party proposed extreme policies, then they should be dealt with. It is unthinkable that in the 21st century a western party could be elected based upon a policy in which legal citizens could be summarily repatriated. (That’s not an AfD policy, but from other extremists who were allegedly linked to the AfD - important context). How that situation would be dealt with would depend upon the specifics, but such a policy should categorically not be accepted by the electorate or indeed Parliament." By the looks of it then you don’t agree with the banning, just that parties policies should still be subjected to scrutiny and denied if they break the law | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The manifesto in English. Specifically mentioning the Burqua and Niquab, as well as the call to prayer. https://www.afd.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2017-04-12_afd-grundsatzprogramm-englisch_web.pdf From the manifesto: "The AfD rejects the minaret as a symbol of Islamic supre- macy, as well as the muezzin call that proclaims that no god exists beside the Islamic Allah. Minaret and muezzin calls contradict a tolerant coexistence of religions, which the Christian churches of modernity do practice." They speak about co-existence... "The AfD demands the general prohibition of full-body veiling in public spaces and in the public service. The burqa or the niqab create barriers between the wearers of these garments and their surroundings, and thus impede cultural integration and social coexistence. A prohibition is necessary and, according to a judgement of the European Court of Justice, is lawful. Public servants should not wear a headscarf. At schools neither teachers nor students should be allowed to wear headscarves, thereby following the French model. The headscarf as a political-religious symbol of Muslim women’s submission to men negates integration efforts, equal rights for women and girls, and the unimpeded development of the individual." General prohibition...." If it was *intended* as general prohibition, it wouldn’t contain specific Islamic references, nor be titled ‘Islam is not a part of Germany’. But you know that already. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nope, he was very clear yesterday what political parties should be removed / banned, and today all religions can do what they want. This is why you’re impossible to deal with. Because you invent nonsense like this. Find me where I said ‘all religions can do what they want’, and if you can’t, you can apologise and tell the forum you were wrong. Agreed? This is what you said - "If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. " We are yet to hear how they are different and why they have to be treated differently. I have already tilted at this - a political group is essentially an activist outlet aimed at gaining power and enforcing their world view onto those regardless of whether they agree with it or not. They want to enforce policy on society. A religious group also has power, but within the confines of their group, not on broader society. They’re also bound by the laws set within you nation in which they practice, with (theoretically) no opportunity to control or set laws, unlike a political party. A religious group has power only within the confines of their group? Have you even read history? Just because we have a some laws that doesn't allow them, it doesn't mean that they will stop having power. There are so many countries which used to have laws like we have now and have been taken over by religions. That’s why I said theoretically. Ideally church and state would always remain separate. And yes, I’ve read history. I’m not sure the AfD have, else they wouldn’t be so keen to punish an individual religion. If you read history you would be able to tie religion and politics together.... Have you found the bit where I said all religions can do as they please yet? You said of religion: "I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment" You also said of political parties: "I firmly believe that anyone espousing such views should not be allowed to stand for election" "talking of banning parties is premature, but if evidence arises that serious discussion has taken place on such policy, it would become a valid conversation" So again I ask: Have you found the bit where I said all religions can do as they please yet? Parallels between religion and politics are pretty evident in leaders, structures, guiding principles, social strategies, and impact on individual lives. Both use rhetoric, rituals, and gatherings to secure a sense of belonging and shared identity among members. To say all religions must be treated equally and then go on in great depth how political parties can be banned, is green lighting the worst of the religious groups to continue to do what they want, even if it flies in the face of freedoms we take for granted and expect as humans! Segregation, being treated like second class citizens because of race, gender or social standing. Hapy to ban one and not the other? So you’ve realised that you made a claim about me that was incorrect, and are now scrabbling rather than saying ‘sorry mate, I was wrong’ You talk some nonsense..... As I have said, and I will repeat again as per my last post, you are happy to allow religion to go unchecked but will happily ban a party because you don't like what they stand for. Hypocritical as is the norm with most liberal progressives. I didn’t say any religion should be unchecked. Not once. You’ve invented that (again). I said that one religion shouldn’t be singled out and treated unfairly based upon prejudice. I’ve also said that extremists should be dealt with (regardless of what religion or activism they support). You’ve had an absolute ‘mare here, because you simply didn’t understand the point I made, and now you’re going to pretend you were right all along. " twisting your own words until you feel you have dissolved the main point. What actually happened here, is your virtue signalling to drive home your point about banning political parties, which under challenge seems to have fell flat on its arse again.. I said yesterday you don't respect democracy and again you slip into that exact same place, strange how you always end up in the same place..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Weirdly enough, all this talk of “would you support the nazis” The nazis did exactly this to political parties that didn’t like. Look up the enabling act of 1933 If we allow the banning of parties now, you have to plan for a future where the parties you want, the parties we need, are banned by the parties in power If a party proposed extreme policies, then they should be dealt with. It is unthinkable that in the 21st century a western party could be elected based upon a policy in which legal citizens could be summarily repatriated. (That’s not an AfD policy, but from other extremists who were allegedly linked to the AfD - important context). How that situation would be dealt with would depend upon the specifics, but such a policy should categorically not be accepted by the electorate or indeed Parliament. By the looks of it then you don’t agree with the banning, just that parties policies should still be subjected to scrutiny and denied if they break the law " Ideally, yes - but there is a line somewhere - between extremists activists/terrorists and political parties. We’ve had proscribed groups all over the world (including the U.K), who would not be allowed to stand as politics parties based upon their beliefs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The manifesto in English. Specifically mentioning the Burqua and Niquab, as well as the call to prayer. https://www.afd.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2017-04-12_afd-grundsatzprogramm-englisch_web.pdf From the manifesto: "The AfD rejects the minaret as a symbol of Islamic supre- macy, as well as the muezzin call that proclaims that no god exists beside the Islamic Allah. Minaret and muezzin calls contradict a tolerant coexistence of religions, which the Christian churches of modernity do practice." They speak about co-existence... "The AfD demands the general prohibition of full-body veiling in public spaces and in the public service. The burqa or the niqab create barriers between the wearers of these garments and their surroundings, and thus impede cultural integration and social coexistence. A prohibition is necessary and, according to a judgement of the European Court of Justice, is lawful. Public servants should not wear a headscarf. At schools neither teachers nor students should be allowed to wear headscarves, thereby following the French model. The headscarf as a political-religious symbol of Muslim women’s submission to men negates integration efforts, equal rights for women and girls, and the unimpeded development of the individual." General prohibition.... If it was *intended* as general prohibition, it wouldn’t contain specific Islamic references, nor be titled ‘Islam is not a part of Germany’. But you know that already." Are the words 'general prohibition' in that statement? Unless you know (impossible) the intent, I'll take the written word
You really should go read the CDU manifesto from the same time. Or RE.
It's crazy that you don't want to single out one religion but are happy to single out one party. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nope, he was very clear yesterday what political parties should be removed / banned, and today all religions can do what they want. This is why you’re impossible to deal with. Because you invent nonsense like this. Find me where I said ‘all religions can do what they want’, and if you can’t, you can apologise and tell the forum you were wrong. Agreed? This is what you said - "If you can’t tell the difference between a religion and a political party then I’m not sure I can help you out. " We are yet to hear how they are different and why they have to be treated differently. I have already tilted at this - a political group is essentially an activist outlet aimed at gaining power and enforcing their world view onto those regardless of whether they agree with it or not. They want to enforce policy on society. A religious group also has power, but within the confines of their group, not on broader society. They’re also bound by the laws set within you nation in which they practice, with (theoretically) no opportunity to control or set laws, unlike a political party. A religious group has power only within the confines of their group? Have you even read history? Just because we have a some laws that doesn't allow them, it doesn't mean that they will stop having power. There are so many countries which used to have laws like we have now and have been taken over by religions. That’s why I said theoretically. Ideally church and state would always remain separate. And yes, I’ve read history. I’m not sure the AfD have, else they wouldn’t be so keen to punish an individual religion. If you read history you would be able to tie religion and politics together.... Have you found the bit where I said all religions can do as they please yet? You said of religion: "I said you can’t single out one religion for inferior treatment" You also said of political parties: "I firmly believe that anyone espousing such views should not be allowed to stand for election" "talking of banning parties is premature, but if evidence arises that serious discussion has taken place on such policy, it would become a valid conversation" So again I ask: Have you found the bit where I said all religions can do as they please yet? Parallels between religion and politics are pretty evident in leaders, structures, guiding principles, social strategies, and impact on individual lives. Both use rhetoric, rituals, and gatherings to secure a sense of belonging and shared identity among members. To say all religions must be treated equally and then go on in great depth how political parties can be banned, is green lighting the worst of the religious groups to continue to do what they want, even if it flies in the face of freedoms we take for granted and expect as humans! Segregation, being treated like second class citizens because of race, gender or social standing. Hapy to ban one and not the other? So you’ve realised that you made a claim about me that was incorrect, and are now scrabbling rather than saying ‘sorry mate, I was wrong’ You talk some nonsense..... As I have said, and I will repeat again as per my last post, you are happy to allow religion to go unchecked but will happily ban a party because you don't like what they stand for. Hypocritical as is the norm with most liberal progressives. I didn’t say any religion should be unchecked. Not once. You’ve invented that (again). I said that one religion shouldn’t be singled out and treated unfairly based upon prejudice. I’ve also said that extremists should be dealt with (regardless of what religion or activism they support). You’ve had an absolute ‘mare here, because you simply didn’t understand the point I made, and now you’re going to pretend you were right all along. twisting your own words until you feel you have dissolved the main point. What actually happened here, is your virtue signalling to drive home your point about banning political parties, which under challenge seems to have fell flat on its arse again.. I said yesterday you don't respect democracy and again you slip into that exact same place, strange how you always end up in the same place..... " You literally invented something that I didn’t say. Now you want to strut around like a pigeon on a chessboard, shitting everywhere and knocking the pieces over. It’s ok, everyone saw it. It was even pointed out to you, but you persisted | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The manifesto in English. Specifically mentioning the Burqua and Niquab, as well as the call to prayer. https://www.afd.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2017-04-12_afd-grundsatzprogramm-englisch_web.pdf From the manifesto: "The AfD rejects the minaret as a symbol of Islamic supre- macy, as well as the muezzin call that proclaims that no god exists beside the Islamic Allah. Minaret and muezzin calls contradict a tolerant coexistence of religions, which the Christian churches of modernity do practice." They speak about co-existence... "The AfD demands the general prohibition of full-body veiling in public spaces and in the public service. The burqa or the niqab create barriers between the wearers of these garments and their surroundings, and thus impede cultural integration and social coexistence. A prohibition is necessary and, according to a judgement of the European Court of Justice, is lawful. Public servants should not wear a headscarf. At schools neither teachers nor students should be allowed to wear headscarves, thereby following the French model. The headscarf as a political-religious symbol of Muslim women’s submission to men negates integration efforts, equal rights for women and girls, and the unimpeded development of the individual." General prohibition.... If it was *intended* as general prohibition, it wouldn’t contain specific Islamic references, nor be titled ‘Islam is not a part of Germany’. But you know that already. Are the words 'general prohibition' in that statement? Unless you know (impossible) the intent, I'll take the written word
You really should go read the CDU manifesto from the same time. Or RE.
It's crazy that you don't want to single out one religion but are happy to single out one party. "I’m challenging a policy from the party that this thread is about, am I not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The manifesto in English. Specifically mentioning the Burqua and Niquab, as well as the call to prayer. https://www.afd.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2017-04-12_afd-grundsatzprogramm-englisch_web.pdf From the manifesto: "The AfD rejects the minaret as a symbol of Islamic supre- macy, as well as the muezzin call that proclaims that no god exists beside the Islamic Allah. Minaret and muezzin calls contradict a tolerant coexistence of religions, which the Christian churches of modernity do practice." They speak about co-existence... "The AfD demands the general prohibition of full-body veiling in public spaces and in the public service. The burqa or the niqab create barriers between the wearers of these garments and their surroundings, and thus impede cultural integration and social coexistence. A prohibition is necessary and, according to a judgement of the European Court of Justice, is lawful. Public servants should not wear a headscarf. At schools neither teachers nor students should be allowed to wear headscarves, thereby following the French model. The headscarf as a political-religious symbol of Muslim women’s submission to men negates integration efforts, equal rights for women and girls, and the unimpeded development of the individual." General prohibition.... If it was *intended* as general prohibition, it wouldn’t contain specific Islamic references, nor be titled ‘Islam is not a part of Germany’. But you know that already. Are the words 'general prohibition' in that statement? Unless you know (impossible) the intent, I'll take the written word
You really should go read the CDU manifesto from the same time. Or RE.
It's crazy that you don't want to single out one religion but are happy to single out one party.
I’m challenging a policy from the party that this thread is about, am I not?
"You always moan when I try to keep threads on topic. Now that it suits | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just going to pose another question for the thread: Q. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy?" Yes, provided they stay within the confines of law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just going to pose another question for the thread: Q. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy?" I believe that any policy which is extreme in nature (such as repatriation of legal citizens) should be removed from manifestos - now this is a challenging task, because who decides what ‘extreme’ is? Who vets the policies proposed? Banning parties would be an extreme step - but we absolutely cannot have neo-Nazis or similar extremists having even a slim chance of gaining power and enacting extremism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just going to pose another question for the thread: Q. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Yes, provided they stay within the confines of law. " Ok. Good. Now what if their policies involve a commitment to change the law once elected to Govt? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just going to pose another question for the thread: Q. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy?" If a political party does not break the law of the land, or promotes the breaking of laws, yes. This is important, many people assume what a party stands for, take offence and demand an end to the party or the leader, without fully understanding or discussing rationally. In here you see reference to the Reform party as extreme, and right wing being thrown around like a dirty word, this is the level we have managed to drop to with liberal interference in everything we think and do. We also have laws that protect us from the extremism of political parties. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just going to pose another question for the thread: Q. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? I believe that any policy which is extreme in nature (such as repatriation of legal citizens) should be removed from manifestos - now this is a challenging task, because who decides what ‘extreme’ is? Who vets the policies proposed? Banning parties would be an extreme step - but we absolutely cannot have neo-Nazis or similar extremists having even a slim chance of gaining power and enacting extremism. " Emotionally I agree with you. But just for the purposes of a hopefully interesting discussion in this thread - if democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just going to pose another question for the thread: Q. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Yes, provided they stay within the confines of law. Ok. Good. Now what if their policies involve a commitment to change the law once elected to Govt?" A commitment to change the law would be noted and people can use their own brains to decide whether they agree with that or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just going to pose another question for the thread: Q. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? I believe that any policy which is extreme in nature (such as repatriation of legal citizens) should be removed from manifestos - now this is a challenging task, because who decides what ‘extreme’ is? Who vets the policies proposed? Banning parties would be an extreme step - but we absolutely cannot have neo-Nazis or similar extremists having even a slim chance of gaining power and enacting extremism. Emotionally I agree with you. But just for the purposes of a hopefully interesting discussion in this thread - if democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" This needs it's own thread | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just going to pose another question for the thread: Q. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? I believe that any policy which is extreme in nature (such as repatriation of legal citizens) should be removed from manifestos - now this is a challenging task, because who decides what ‘extreme’ is? Who vets the policies proposed? Banning parties would be an extreme step - but we absolutely cannot have neo-Nazis or similar extremists having even a slim chance of gaining power and enacting extremism. Emotionally I agree with you. But just for the purposes of a hopefully interesting discussion in this thread - if democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" Then ultimately I’d have to leave them on fascist island  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just going to pose another question for the thread: Q. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? I believe that any policy which is extreme in nature (such as repatriation of legal citizens) should be removed from manifestos - now this is a challenging task, because who decides what ‘extreme’ is? Who vets the policies proposed? Banning parties would be an extreme step - but we absolutely cannot have neo-Nazis or similar extremists having even a slim chance of gaining power and enacting extremism. Emotionally I agree with you. But just for the purposes of a hopefully interesting discussion in this thread - if democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy? Then ultimately I’d have to leave them on fascist island "For balance...”I’d have to leave them on fascist or communist island” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just going to pose another question for the thread: Q. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? I believe that any policy which is extreme in nature (such as repatriation of legal citizens) should be removed from manifestos - now this is a challenging task, because who decides what ‘extreme’ is? Who vets the policies proposed? Banning parties would be an extreme step - but we absolutely cannot have neo-Nazis or similar extremists having even a slim chance of gaining power and enacting extremism. " We have laws that govern political parties already. I suggest if you are looking for groups with political motivation that are extremists, you concentrate your effort on religious groups. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
