Trump's days

[Lendo]

Yes, silly me, I think that the fact that almost 1% of Americans are incarcerated means that, well, almost 1% of Americans are not free. That seems pretty obvious. However, I never suggested we are less free than Iran or China -- simply that we could enjoy greater freedom than we actually do enjoy.

The reality is that all laws limit freedom. That's the ONLY thing that they do, and the only thing they CAN do. Property laws, for example, limit the freedom to walk on God's Green Earth (it might constitute trespassing). Of course although laws specifically limit freedom, they may also enhance freedom -- laws prohibiting assault might free people from being beaten by random strangers. Nonetheless, laws clearly limit freedom -- they are enforced by such dramatic limits on freedom as billy clubs, handcuffs, and prisons.

The notion that immigrants must assimilate, bowing to the customs, laws, and mores of the dominant culture doesn't sit very well with us Americans, who, after all, failed to adopt Native American religions, laws, customs, and economic systems when we emigrated to this continent. Many Americans (and most Trump supporters) think we were justified in maintaining our European religions, laws, and political systems; we thought them superior to those of the Natives. I guess not, according to Lendo and Magnocrat.

Laws, mores, customs, languages and religions change and evolve. One spur to that change is immigration -- new languages, new customs, and new religions have an impact on the dominant world view. Sometimes this impact spurs positive change; sometimes negative change. The notion that we should never change is ridiculous, though. So is the notion that draconian bans on immigration (which clearly limit individual freedom of movement) somehow enhance human liberty. Such bans might enhance the welfare of protected and advantaged citizens; they might promote homogeneity and hence prevent discord; but they so clearly limit human liberty that only complex and abstruse arguments can suggest otherwise.

A fair law does not limit our Freedom. Because of the single fact that "Freedom" is not doing everything we want. Freedom means being capable of acting and living under our rights. Since we don't have the right to assault, to steal or to murder, the laws that limit our actions concerning that crimes do not limit our Freedom, because we don't have the right to act like that. On the contrary, those laws are meant to protect the other people's Freedom: the freedom of the one's who are the victims of those wrong actions, and the Freedom of the society that needs to know that crimes and bad actions have consequences, and we have not to live in fear. So, if one million americans are in jail, i will suppose that's because they weren't capable of living under the rules that a civilized society recquires to function in a healthy way, and that criminals being put behind bars it's a good sign.

Concerning to immigrants, i do not think that an immigrant has to become a copy of the citizen of the country he immigrates to. And i don't think that an immigrant has to abandone his beliefs or convictions because he immigrated. So, an hindu or a jew immigrant has not to abandone his religious beliefs because he immigrated. But an immigrant has to respect the culture, the customs and the law of the country that welcomed him. That he has to do, for sure. Because just like indians have the right to practice their customs, traditions and religion, just like algerians have the right to have their traditions, customs and religion, so the western societies have the right to have their own culture, traditions, customs and political understandings. An immigrant does not have the right to impose his culture to the society that welcomes him. An immigrant does not have the right that the society that welcomed him acts differently because of his beliefs. Every country has it's culture, and every state has to protect and promote it's own culture, it's culture and History, the ones that are related to the citizens of the country and state. Respecting and tolerating, obviously, differences. That's why european countries have mosques, because they accept difference. But when a muslim community established itself in a french neighborhood and says "European women does not get in here because they wear unholy clothes", that they can not do. When a muslim community outside Marseille says "We demand segregated swimming pools because men and women can not mix themselves because it's unholy" it's the French State obligation to answer "No". Because it's against our values, against our civilized and modern society. A free and civilized society has not to be submited to the anacronic and barbaric demands of an immigrant community.

Concerning to the illegal immigrants, this is not even a question. There's not even a debate here. A State has the right an the obligation to set up a sustainable and reasonable immigration politic. For economic, political, safety and sustainability reasons. A State has the right and the obligation to decide if someone can get in or not the country. And, obviously, has the right and the obligation to take action concerning the illegal immigrants. Otherwise, the most developed countries would become completely unsustainable, since would become the destiny of millions and millions of people from poor and underdeveloped countries. Which already happens. And see the results of that in France and Great Britain. We can learn a lot with the empiric experience.

[Ecurb]

First of all, you can define "freedom" in your own, idiosyncratic manner. Indeed, it is often the case that people define emotionally laden words like "freedom" or "liberty" in a manner that is compatible with their political views. However, the two million Americans in prison might think they are neither "free" nor "at liberty", whatever their crimes. "Free" means (among other things) freedom from bondage. But all laws are imposed by the threat of bondage. Surely "freedom" to walk where one chooses to walk is "freer" than being thrown in prison for walking where one chooses to walk (because one has trespassed).

This does not mean that laws are a bad thing. Certain limits on freedom are necessary, and most laws (I agree) function to serve the interests of society (although they limit freedom). I can have someone thrown in prison for driving my car without my permission -- which keeps my car available for me to drive, a convenience for which I paid good money.

Same with immigration. It's reasonable to have laws limiting immigration -- but those laws clearly limit the freedom of potential immigrants. This should be obvious. I'm not sure why it isn't, except that the words "freedom" and "liberty" have such positive connotations that some people cannot bear to think that they are limited by policies that they support.

As far as the moral obligation for immigrants to respect the culture, laws and religion of the nation to which they immigrate, I say: "Bosh!" They have no more obligation to respect those things than I do. I respect some of the laws, culture and religions of my native land, and lack respect for others -- like most reasonable, thinking people do. If I took a job in Saudi Arabia, I wouldn't respect some of their sexist laws (although I might obey them for fear of being beheaded). In fact, those of us who live in democratic states have a moral obligation to work to change those laws, mores, and cultural beliefs unworthy of our respect. Did immigrants to the U.S., when segregation was legal, when black citizens couldn't attend white public schools or drink at white drinking fountains, have an obligation to respect those laws? If one of the freedom fighter (note the name) who defied such laws was an immigrant, would he meet with your disapproval?

Islam does present an unusual problem for Western Democracies because Islam is both a religion and a political system. "Civil liberties" suggest guarantees against oppression by the majority; the separation of Church and State guaranteed by the Constitution in the U.S. is one such liberty. However, the greater danger in the West right now is a tyranny of the majority that oppresses Muslims, who are not yet in a position to have the majority vote. Even those (for example) who think it would benefit Western society to deny Muslims the right to immigrate might agree that the PRINCIPLE involved (denying access on the basis of religion) is problematic, and threatens the civil liberties to which I just referred.

[Lendo]

So, in order for you to prove your point, your are comparing the moral obligation to refuse an inmoral law to... the right of an immigrant to disrespect a fair law, imposing an unfair custom? That's kind of a paradox. No to say incoherent. The reason why a person has the right to oppose an unfair law, like the german people in 1930's and 1940's had to oppose the nazi laws, it's the same reason why we have the right not to attend immigrant demands that are uncivilized, inhumane and against our freedom. Against our society that, with all it's flaws, it's a modern, free and advanced society. Much more than the model of society that fundamentalist religious muslims are trying to impose in french, british, german, swedish and austrian cities.

"However, the greater danger in the West right now is a tyranny of the majority that oppresses Muslims". Do you really believe in what you just said? What tyranny does oppress muslims nowadays in the Western world? The nowadays problem is exactly the opposite: the fact that some muslim communities, under the rights and freedom the western countries garanteed them, are trying to impose a much less free society than the one we have today. The fact that some muslim communities do not understand that State and Religion do not have to be one and the same, the fact that some muslim communities believe they have the right to impose their beliefs, their customs, their traditions and their culture to other countries, other people, other States that have their own culture and traditions. Which is completely wrong.

Ofcourse that immigrants have an obligation of respecting the culture of the country they immigrated to! Because every country has it's own culture, traditions and customs, and every country has the right to preserve it's identity and culture. Otherwise, it would be a dictatorship of the majority, or a dictatorship of the most powerful culture. Otherwise, the world would be this grey, empty and poor place in which everyone had the same culture, speak the same language, practice the same beliefs, have the same customs. And the beauty and richness of Humanity and the world it's exactly the opposite: the fact that many people have different cultures. So, when a person decides to immigrate to another country, that person has to understand that it's going to a different reality that it's own, to a different place in which people have their own culture and beliefs. And that the people of that country has the right to be different, specially in it's homeland. Those who are not willing to respect that difference and respect the other people's beliefs, it's not fit to live in another society. Not in a healthy, reasonable and correct way. And a State has the right to oppose that behavior of those who are not capable of accepting the function of the societies that welcome others. A State does not have to tolerate the intollerance thorwards the function against it's principles. Specially, when concerns human rights.

It's absurd for me that someone says that an immigrant community has the right to impose to a country the way of life of their country. It's just behond my understanding. Specially, when some posts ago you seemed so angry with what the europeans did to Native Americans. I guess you are just against cultural impositions... when made by white europeans.

[Ecurb]

So, in order for you to prove your point, your are comparing the moral obligation to refuse an inmoral law to... the right of an immigrant to disrespect a fair law, imposing an unfair custom?

No reasonable person disrespects "fair laws". However, people may differ as to what laws or customs are fair.

In addition, since this thread is entitled "Trump's Days", it refers specifically to the situation here in the U.S., where courts have found Trump's attempts to ban Muslim immigration unconstitutional. This specific situation is what I refer to when I suggest that even those whom might like the outcome (banning Muslims) might object to the principle (banning immigrants based on their religion).

It's absurd for me that someone says that an immigrant community has the right to impose to a country the way of life of their country. It's just behond my understanding. Specially, when some posts ago you seemed so angry with what the europeans did to Native Americans. I guess you are just against cultural impositions... when made by white europeans.

On the contrary, I think highly of the Great American Political Experiment (although I'll grant that some of the repression of Native Americans was unconscionable). I thought I made that clear when I suggested that many Americans might think they DID have the right to impose their own form of democracy, despite being immigrants. Where you get your notions about what I'm suggesting is unclear. It certainly isn't from anything that I have written.

By the way, when President Andrew Jackson ordered the Cherokees to relocate from Georgia and North Carolina to Oklahoma, the Supreme Court of the U.S.declared that order unconstitutional, thus protecting the human rights of the minority (the Cherokees). Jackson notoriously said, "The Supreme Court has made its decision, now let us see if they can enforce it." They couldn't. The result was the Trail of Tears, a march of the Cherokees to Oklahoma on which half of them died. Like Jackson, Trump seems to feel that his own desires, especially when backed by majority opinion, outweigh the guarantees of rights in the Constitution, as decided by the Judicial Branch of the Government.

One more point: like laws, "rights" limit freedom. That's because "rights' are nothing more than obligations on the part of other people. The "right to life" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence does not protect us from cancer or grizzly bears: it simply obliges other people (including our government) to refrain from killing us. Unfortunately, Jackson was free to ignore this right, despite Judicial admonitions, and Trump is attempting to ignore the right of people to practice whatever religion they want to practice without discrimination from the Government. However much some people deplore Islam, the principle is dangerous.

[Lendo]

Concerning to Trump's political project, it's a matter of Law, and interpretation of Law. I'm sure that with some ingenious and sneaky legal tactics, and a bit of political negotiation, Trump will be able to set up some type of immigration control on muslims. There's legal mechanisms, administrative mechanisms to get around law impositions, precisely because of situations like these. And with the most recent episodes, like the London attack, i think that some form of immigration policy will go threw. Not with the nature of the one that the Courts some much fought against, but some type of law. And by the way, i have no doubts that Trump's political project concerning muslims has ideological and personal motivations behond state's safety.

Speaking of the Andrew Jackson decision, that's not shocking. Because, as a famous law philosopher once said, "Courts are limited because they lack two important things: their own budgets, and their own armys". There will always be examples of political leaders that try to ignore the Law, and Justice (two different things). But i would like to think that in 2017 it's much more difficult for a President to ignore a court decision than it was in the early XIX century. In fact, i have no doubt in saying that in the Western World is virtually impossible for a government or a President to overlook a decision of a court. Today's societies simply do not tolerate that type of behavior from their leaders. And on that aspect, american civil society is one of the most active of them all. Sometimes, too much and for too little.

For last but very important, what's in question is not deploring Islam. Unleass i know i don't deplore Islam. I just deplore what some fundamentalist muslims communities are trying to do in Europe. There's a big difference. I would despise the same actions from hindus, jews or eskimos.

[Magnocrat]

It seems obvious to me that secular democracy is the very best of government systems and it is becoming better as time passes. It has pushed its own inherited religion,Christianity to broaden its moral outlook. Women priests and gay Bishops are appearing. Islam will be forced to change from within already women are uneasy in Saudi Arabia. The Berlin wall came down; rebellion rose up in Hungary and Poland.
We can be proud of our influence , the enlightenment started in Europe we must not go backwards.

[Lendo]

we must not go backwards.

That's what is scary right now: the fact that in the Western World there's people that apparently are willing to go backwards, do go back in time, to lose rights and freedom to succumb to the demands of a fundamentalist religious community under the argument of politically correctness, multiculturalism and tollerance. Which not only is wrong, but vert dangerous.

Ironicly, the same political sectors and the same people that are willing to make that civilizational regression of attending to the demands of the fundamentalist muslims in European cities are the very same political sectors and the very same people that fought so hard against the Christian and Catholic influence in society. A common and pathetic synthom of the european and western left (which includes the US): the hate and rage against their own cultural references and basis, and a blind and unreasonable tolerance and enthusiasm with everything that it's different and considered a minority. Even if it is a dangerous and fundamentalist minority, like the one that in France and Germany refuse to serve european citizens in their stores or that demand that in the neighborhoods where they live pork meat can not be sold.

It's common that some Left sectors of the US and Europe in general advogate, at the same time, a complete intolerance to every conservative element of Christianism but a sick tolerance to every element of other cultures and religions, even the most unhumain of them. It's a dangerous paradox to which the States and moderate political parties will have to find a solution to. And the civil society has to be active in the effort of not letting this understanding of society go threw.

[Ecurb]

Here in the U.S., the political influence of Christian Fundamentalists dwarfs that of Muslims. If any religious group threatens secular democracy, it isn't the Muslims. Christian Fundamentalism is less prevalent in Europe.

It seems to me that Christian Fundamentalism is not by nature right-wing. It became that way because of Communist atheism and its repression of Christianity. It was only natural that Christian Fundamentalists would object to leftist politics. With the collapse of world Communism, perhaps the Christian right may move to the center (although some issues, such as abortion, are preventing this).

[Lendo]

Christian Fundamentalism was never right-wing, and it's still not right-wing nowadays. Christian Fundamentalism, as a religious philosophy, his above the consideration Left vs Right and it preceeds that discussion by milleniums. And, most important of all, there's aspects of the fundamentalist christian speech that is completely incompatible with the right-wing speech, specially concerning property and economy. The Church Social Doctrine is profoundly critic to capitalism and today's concept of economy and property. We have just to have in mind how christians look at the concepts of richness and greed, of usury and land.

The right has adopted some of the speech of Christianism concerning social values and a conservative vision of society, but that's relatively recent. It became noticeable in the early XX century, with the rise of revolutionary and anti-religious socialist parties threw out all Europe and some anarchist movements in the US. In that contrast between the revolutionary and anti-religious philosophy of the socialists and the traditional philosophy of the liberals and the conservatives, the Church became attacked by the Left, and naturally the conservative and liberal (that time definition of liberal) parties became the political forces in which catholic and christian people got together, and the parties to which the Church leaned thorwards. And Communism was not atheist, it was deeply and violently anti-religious. There was an intense persecution to religions in countries that were ruled by left parties (like it happened in Portugal, in which churches were burned and priests were killed in the 1910's and what happened in France after the French Revolution with the jacobine rule) and in the Communist Block both christians and jews were persecuted in countries like Russia, Poland and Kazakhstan.

In recent years, with a clear division between Left and Right concerning to the type of society that each of the sides want, it became a political rule that the most conservative and traditional persons have more in common with the social vision of the right wing parties than with the left wing parties (which is considerably fracturing), and that conservative and traditional thinking has a cultural basis on christian/catholic values that are part of our culture for centuries. Many people in right-wing parties are not even people of faith, but they have those social values of the Catholic Church.

And it's true that Christian Fundamentalism is not relevant in Europe. On the contrary, today Europe as become a considerable atheist continent. Christian Fundamentalism is noticeable in some US states and in Latin American countries.

[Magnocrat]

We must distinguish between how all types of Christians behave in western society and what they claim to believe. Most lead normal ambitious lives too better themselves and their families they don't have property and goods in common as in the book of Acts. They are Christians in speak but normal action. The same applies to
westernised Muslims. Incidentally the same applies to socialists they still climb the ladder of ambition. It is natural part of human nature to be ambitious for ourselves and our families and stems from Darwins survival of the fittest.

[Magnocrat]

We are by nature tribal and our first allegiance is to family then to tribe or nation.
It is how natural selection has created us to survive. That means we find it very difficult to regard the whole of humanity as one tribe. We have engineered a pyramid of wealth with elites at the top and destitute at the bottom layer.
Go to any football match if you doubt our tribal nature , it often causes violence or even death. The society we have is a result of our evolutionary baggage as pointed by the evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker.

[Clopin]

The notion that immigrants must assimilate, bowing to the customs, laws, and mores of the dominant culture doesn't sit very well with us Americans, who, after all, failed to adopt Native American religions, laws, customs, and economic systems when we emigrated to this continent.

Bolded - Speak for yourself, not for 'us Americans'.

As for the Native American example, I wonder how you can be ignorant regarding the point you're actually making. Where I grew up (Banff Alberta) there's a native reserve called Morley about 40 minutes away, where my mom used to teach. Living conditions 'on the res' aren't great, but what's worse are the standards of education, and the rampant social problems like drug and alcohol addiction, child abuse, child negligence, fetal alcohol syndrome, obesity, depression, and suicide. It's not unusual for kids to be illiterate in high-school, and the entire place is B-L-E-A-K. What you're suggesting in your post is that mass "immigration" (in fact it was more like a conquest) by Europeans to the Americas was savagely destructive to the Native American peoples and their traditional way of life, and so, because of this, you expect me to accept that this absolute and total destruction and supersession of one people by another can, and should, happen again with the argument that: "well, 500 years ago people who had the same skin colour as I do began a process which resulted in the almost complete eradication of an entire continent of people and so I shouldn't protest if the same happens to me, my family, and my descendants today." Are you out of your ****ing mind?

Many Americans (and most Trump supporters) think we were justified in maintaining our European religions, laws, and political systems; we thought them superior to those of the Natives.

I dunno about superior to those of the Natives, but superior to those of the Arab and North African world? Absolutely; it would be hard to not be superior to that pile of **** they call a culture.

So is the notion that draconian bans on immigration (which clearly limit individual freedom of movement) somehow enhance human liberty. Such bans might enhance the welfare of protected and advantaged citizens; they might promote homogeneity and hence prevent discord; but they so clearly limit human liberty that only complex and abstruse arguments can suggest otherwise.

Who gives a **** about overall human liberty? The nation and its institutions exist to protect the citizens. I don't want human liberty if it means people can break into my house where my wife and children are asleep (not that I have a wife or children), and I don't care a whit about the supposed liberty (which only exists in your mind) of people to enter into a country illegally. Private property exists. Deal with it you Marxist ****. How many illiterate third world Muslim 'refugees' are you putting up on your own property right now? Zero, you ****.

Such bans might enhance the welfare of protected and advantaged citizens; they might promote homogeneity and hence prevent discord

Sounds pretty good to me. And the only trade off is some ******* who wants to turn Western Europe into a caliphate governed according to religious law won't be able to do so? Where do I sign up!?