As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The integration of immigrants and forced secularism, how far is too far?

245

Posts

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    [quote="21stCentury;27787805"

    This isn't the topic at hand, but AFAIK, the language laws don't prevent people from speaking any language. They mostly legislate who can go to anglophone schools and signage. And you have to understand, before they Law 101 was passed, there were swaths of Montreal that were just... Anglophones-only. Hell, there are still a lot of places in

    Edit: But this isn't the Language Laws debate Thread... So let's not... like, debate language laws. They're not perfect, but they're not 100% horrible.[/quote]

    Language laws are an extremely popular form of discrimination. Just because it's Canadian doesn't make it right.

  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Learn the Language, follow the Law, Don't complain about the Concrete Pigs (concrete blocs used to cordon of roads are called Concrete Pigs in Finland), and we're good on the integration part as far as i am concerned.
    Secularism is kinda more difficult, but as long as you don't try to force others to follow your religion (or break the laws) i will merely silently sneer at you for following a religion, but try to force me to obey your religious rules and there will be trouble.

    If only Finland didn't follow a bigoted old bullshit language law like the forced Swedish language education, there might be something to say.

    Personally, I think a country needs to be secular to the point where a government official cannot promote any single religion, and religions are not given special privileges over people of other religious traditions or people lacking such convictions, we're good. Feel free to practice your religion, as long as it doesn't break existing secular law. If it does, there needs to be a curbstomp to discourage such entitled bullshit. Otherwise, live and let live.

  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    edited August 2013
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Learn the Language, follow the Law, Don't complain about the Concrete Pigs (concrete blocs used to cordon of roads are called Concrete Pigs in Finland), and we're good on the integration part as far as i am concerned.
    Secularism is kinda more difficult, but as long as you don't try to force others to follow your religion (or break the laws) i will merely silently sneer at you for following a religion, but try to force me to obey your religious rules and there will be trouble.

    If only Finland didn't follow a bigoted old bullshit language law like the forced Swedish language education, there might be something to say.

    What can i say, the language law stays because the Swedish party is happy to vote for anything up to, and possibly including, genocide (joking, kinda) as long as the forced Swedish education stays, and every other party finds it too useful to have a cheap and easy to use rubber stamp votes.

    But anyway, my Learn the Language stance is less about cultural superiority (and i am quite happy to claim Finnish culture to be superior to any other if asked :p), but of practicality, people need to communicate, and being able to speak with people outside the immigrant community helps not only with finding jobs, but also with dealing with government officials.
    Also, if everyone can speak the language, they are less reliant with their immediate families, making it harder to do things like spousal abuse and forced marriages.

    Not a magic bullet, but every little bit helps.

    Nyysjan on
  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    Imposing some sort of required knowledge of the common law and language in a country is necessary. I wouldn't expect to survive too well in a foreign country without trying to learn the local language, or act according to the local laws. That's kind of obvious. Not to many people, but something I'd hold self-evident.

    Some people are pretty opposed to the idea of accommodating to the majority in any issue, even if it's an issue of practicality like communication. I don't see why any language majority should bend over backwards to appease the language/cultural minorities. As long as they're dealt with fairly, I see no problem(this does not mean that it's "fair" to expect the language majority to learn the minority language(s), as that's just imposing extra obstacles on a large subset of people for no real reason). I wouldn't expect to live in France and expect all the services and so forth to be tailored to a language of my choice, or get to act according to the laws of my native land regardless of the laws of the country I reside in. The same stands for any country I can think of, although I wouldn't move to some places due to other reasons.

    The quebecois stance on making people learn French is potentially a smart move, as I can definitely see how immigrants in French-majority areas could be segregated(in part due to their own choice) due to the language barrier, and should in theory encourage integration to the community. I don't know enough about the situation to really comment on it though.

  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Western coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderator mod
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    Imposing some sort of required knowledge of the common law and language in a country is necessary. I wouldn't expect to survive too well in a foreign country without trying to learn the local language

    If the latter is true, why is the former required?

    Which is to say, if people aren't going to survive too well without learning the language, why bother imposing laws about it? Surely if people really need it, it'll happen without laws, and if they don't, the laws aren't necessarily in their best interests.

  • MuzzmuzzMuzzmuzz Registered User regular
    Instead of beating immigrants with a stick, yelling at them to learn the language, why not give them incentives to learn yours? Tax breaks for going to school, or subsidized learning? And even if the first generation doesn't pick up the language, usually the second generation (aside from extremely insular communities) has picked up your language, (kids want to fit in with their peers) as well as their mother tounge.

    Hence, while a majority of Canadians only speak 1 language, immigrants from Quebec can speak usually 3, (English, French, and their Mother Tongue.)


    Regarding the new law though, in it's pure form, I would totally support it. Unfortunately, it cherry picks which 'cultures' it deems unacceptable. Christianity, and probably Judaism will stay but anything else will probably be banned.

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    I've been of the opinion for a while that Quebec gets away with stuff that no one should be getting away with. There is very much an institutionalized xenophobia that is disguised as 'protecting' Quebecois culture. We should not be accepting this.

    Language laws that prevent people from speaking their native language are the very definition of xenophobia and racism and it's shameful that a Canadian province is allowed have such laws on the books.

    This isn't the topic at hand, but AFAIK, the language laws don't prevent people from speaking any language. They mostly legislate who can go to anglophone schools and signage. And you have to understand, before they Law 101 was passed, there were swaths of Montreal that were just... Anglophones-only. Hell, there are still a lot of places in Montreal where you English is the majority language.

    Thing is, if we don't prevent immigrants from learning English, they won't learn French and, as it happens, they'll just never leave their little communities in Montreal, which, i hope you agree, is kinda reductive and bad. It really reduces their opportunities.

    Edit: But this isn't the Language Laws debate Thread... So let's not... like, debate language laws. They're not perfect, but they're not 100% horrible.

    I consider the issues completely intertwined as it's all about immigration, but okay, we'll pretend that yelling at immigrants to learn French (English!) or go back where they came from isn't 100% horrible.

    There needs to be a balance between allowing religious expression and maintaining a recognizable uniform for representatives of public works and emergency services. That is, I can understand the argument against, say, a police officer wearing a turban instead of a policeman's cap, but the rest of the uniform is unique enough that I think it should be allowed.

    There is also the side of public safety. Veils should not be permitted for photographs of any kind of government ID because the point is to make the person identifiable. An ID with no picture is not an ID. If veils are permitted, we may as well stop requiring photographs for government ID. I understand this will exclude some people from participating in much of society, but this is that rare case where the public good outweighs the personal restriction.

    There needs to be a line separating individual expression from organizational expression, as has been said. Restricting all kinds of individual expression is pretty heinous, so long as that individual expression isn't hampering a person's duties.
    Re: veils and ID.

    I am going to have to disagree with you there. The point of the photo on the ID is to look like you would any time you go out. If a person is always going were a veil it makes sense to just have them wear it.

    I mean, different cultures have different ideas about what is modest. I would be against taking naked photos of everyone for a ID and outside of a pressing need (I haven't heard of veils causing problems) I don't see how making people of other cultures violate their idea of modesty is any different.

  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    edited August 2013
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    Imposing some sort of required knowledge of the common law and language in a country is necessary. I wouldn't expect to survive too well in a foreign country without trying to learn the local language

    If the latter is true, why is the former required?

    Which is to say, if people aren't going to survive too well without learning the language, why bother imposing laws about it? Surely if people really need it, it'll happen without laws, and if they don't, the laws aren't necessarily in their best interests.

    You'd think so. It's not true for all people though. Sometimes insular communities form, and they tend to descend into poverty because people don't have the basic skills that would enable them to get employment. From there it turns into a vicious circle, where said community feels victimized by the rest of the society. This tends to turn out badly.

    Of course, that doesn't always happen. Some people integrate just fine. It's a matter of originating culture as well. It's really a too complex an issue to distill into a few paragraphs though.
    Muzzmuzz wrote: »
    Instead of beating immigrants with a stick, yelling at them to learn the language, why not give them incentives to learn yours? Tax breaks for going to school, or subsidized learning? And even if the first generation doesn't pick up the language, usually the second generation (aside from extremely insular communities) has picked up your language, (kids want to fit in with their peers) as well as their mother tounge.

    Hence, while a majority of Canadians only speak 1 language, immigrants from Quebec can speak usually 3, (English, French, and their Mother Tongue.)


    Regarding the new law though, in it's pure form, I would totally support it. Unfortunately, it cherry picks which 'cultures' it deems unacceptable. Christianity, and probably Judaism will stay but anything else will probably be banned.

    Depending on where you live, some places actually do this. Language courses are organized and encouraged, supporting learning etc. It does generally work.

    Rhan9 on
  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    edited August 2013
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Re: veils and ID.

    I am going to have to disagree with you there. The point of the photo on the ID is to look like you would any time you go out. If a person is always going were a veil it makes sense to just have them wear it.

    I mean, different cultures have different ideas about what is modest. I would be against taking naked photos of everyone for a ID and outside of a pressing need (I haven't heard of veils causing problems) I don't see how making people of other cultures violate their idea of modesty is any different.

    Then for someone to use someone else's ID, they just need a similar looking veil. What's the point of the photo?

    EDIT: I can't wear sunglasses, or a hat in a photo ID, even if I wear sunglasses and a hat every time I go out. (I do wear sunglasses every day, even when its cloudy)

    Nova_C on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Cantelope wrote: »
    I'm all for forced secularism. Almost every private sector job I've ever worked at would not make accommodations for someone who wanted to wear religious garb to work, even if it was Christian. If I had come in with religious anything symbols it would have been a show stopper. It creates an oppressive atmosphere, especially if it's your boss who is wearing the religious garb. My last two bosses have been mormons, and I'm in a mormon heavy occupation, in an area where the mormon church is growing. If they were allowed to I'd be seeing mormon specific art/imagery everywhere. How do I know this? Because at my previous job that had happened before I worked there and it caused a lot of problems so that they had to ban pretty much any kind of image you could imagine so that it included the mormon specific stuff. Basically, they had to ban decorating your office because people were abusing the privilege and using it to make people feel uncomfortable.


    When the eight hour work day started thousands of cultures started to die, and as we come into the modern workforce we must give more and more of our past cultural identities in order to be accepted and to thrive in today's modern work environment. The reason most white Americans are just some kind of amorphous "white people," is because to compete and stay competitive in a modern economy they had to sacrifice most everything that was uniquely part of the culture that they came from. People who were unwilling to do this got left behind. Culture takes a lot of time to develop and maintain, and that time must be spent with people who grew up with either that culture or a similar one. Modern life is not friendly to older cultures, and we should expect to see them die out as time goes on.


    You must understand, that competition is about a lot more than how hard you work. It's about what your willing to sacrifice. It's a lot easier to sacrifice social norms and ideas and a way of being that comes from a far off place than it is to do just about anything else that will make you more competitive. You really don't have to force secularism though, modern life has been created in such a way that it will eventually force almost all people to look and act in a small subset of manners that is foreign to most people, or to leave modern society. The latter option does not seem possible any longer.


    All else being equal between two individuals who are competing, the one that is willing to sacrifice more will win. Such is the nature of competition. Culture is a liability, one that you must be willing to discard on the altar of capitalism if you hope to climb the ladder of prosperity.

    Oh good, so people from cultures and religions that do not have specific imagery or dress requirements get an unfair advantage. Awesome.

    The turbans we are talking about are an absolute requirement* and could take many highly qualified people out of the labor pool in many jobs. Unless it presents a safety concern a business is putting itself at a competitive disadvantage.

    Allowing bullshit that does not impact the job to determine hiring, retention and promotions produces bad results, even if you leave out that you are harming people.

    *I only have limited direct knowledge from visiting a temple once so please correct me if I am wrong.

    I would think this would be an argument for less religious paraphernalia and dress in the workplace, as that creates an environment where those not of the dominant religion in that workplace are seen as outsiders or are made to feel as such.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    I've been of the opinion for a while that Quebec gets away with stuff that no one should be getting away with. There is very much an institutionalized xenophobia that is disguised as 'protecting' Quebecois culture. We should not be accepting this.

    Language laws that prevent people from speaking their native language are the very definition of xenophobia and racism and it's shameful that a Canadian province is allowed have such laws on the books.

    This isn't the topic at hand, but AFAIK, the language laws don't prevent people from speaking any language. They mostly legislate who can go to anglophone schools and signage. And you have to understand, before they Law 101 was passed, there were swaths of Montreal that were just... Anglophones-only. Hell, there are still a lot of places in Montreal where you English is the majority language.

    Thing is, if we don't prevent immigrants from learning English, they won't learn French and, as it happens, they'll just never leave their little communities in Montreal, which, i hope you agree, is kinda reductive and bad. It really reduces their opportunities.

    Edit: But this isn't the Language Laws debate Thread... So let's not... like, debate language laws. They're not perfect, but they're not 100% horrible.

    The language laws actually do work to suppress languages that aren't french. That's their entire point.

  • FireflashFireflash Montreal, QCRegistered User regular
    And these language laws are terrible. If Montreal is gravitating towards having more and more people speaking english, then let it happen. We shouldn't be fighting a natural evolution of languages spoken.
    We're surrounded by english speakers from all sides, and money speaks in English. It's the language that can be understood by people from all over the world. And I'm saying that as a native french speaker that still speaks in french most of the time in his day to day life.

    PSN: PatParadize
    Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
    Steam Friend code: 45386507
  • PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    edited August 2013
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    Imposing some sort of required knowledge of the common law and language in a country is necessary. I wouldn't expect to survive too well in a foreign country without trying to learn the local language

    If the latter is true, why is the former required?

    Which is to say, if people aren't going to survive too well without learning the language, why bother imposing laws about it? Surely if people really need it, it'll happen without laws, and if they don't, the laws aren't necessarily in their best interests.

    Laws are great excuses to learn things your parents don't want you to learn. Natives already have some mandatory education in the local language, though there's somewhat less for them left to learn in school.

    Rhan9 wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    Imposing some sort of required knowledge of the common law and language in a country is necessary. I wouldn't expect to survive too well in a foreign country without trying to learn the local language

    If the latter is true, why is the former required?

    Which is to say, if people aren't going to survive too well without learning the language, why bother imposing laws about it? Surely if people really need it, it'll happen without laws, and if they don't, the laws aren't necessarily in their best interests.

    You'd think so. It's not true for all people though. Sometimes insular communities form, and they tend to descend into poverty because people don't have the basic skills that would enable them to get employment. From there it turns into a vicious circle, where said community feels victimized by the rest of the society. This tends to turn out badly.

    Of course, that doesn't always happen. Some people integrate just fine. It's a matter of originating culture as well. It's really a too complex an issue to distill into a few paragraphs though.

    Reminds me of how tense some areas are in Spain.

    PLA on
  • PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    edited August 2013
    Nothing here.

    PLA on
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Cantelope wrote: »
    I'm all for forced secularism. Almost every private sector job I've ever worked at would not make accommodations for someone who wanted to wear religious garb to work, even if it was Christian. If I had come in with religious anything symbols it would have been a show stopper. It creates an oppressive atmosphere, especially if it's your boss who is wearing the religious garb. My last two bosses have been mormons, and I'm in a mormon heavy occupation, in an area where the mormon church is growing. If they were allowed to I'd be seeing mormon specific art/imagery everywhere. How do I know this? Because at my previous job that had happened before I worked there and it caused a lot of problems so that they had to ban pretty much any kind of image you could imagine so that it included the mormon specific stuff. Basically, they had to ban decorating your office because people were abusing the privilege and using it to make people feel uncomfortable.


    When the eight hour work day started thousands of cultures started to die, and as we come into the modern workforce we must give more and more of our past cultural identities in order to be accepted and to thrive in today's modern work environment. The reason most white Americans are just some kind of amorphous "white people," is because to compete and stay competitive in a modern economy they had to sacrifice most everything that was uniquely part of the culture that they came from. People who were unwilling to do this got left behind. Culture takes a lot of time to develop and maintain, and that time must be spent with people who grew up with either that culture or a similar one. Modern life is not friendly to older cultures, and we should expect to see them die out as time goes on.


    You must understand, that competition is about a lot more than how hard you work. It's about what your willing to sacrifice. It's a lot easier to sacrifice social norms and ideas and a way of being that comes from a far off place than it is to do just about anything else that will make you more competitive. You really don't have to force secularism though, modern life has been created in such a way that it will eventually force almost all people to look and act in a small subset of manners that is foreign to most people, or to leave modern society. The latter option does not seem possible any longer.


    All else being equal between two individuals who are competing, the one that is willing to sacrifice more will win. Such is the nature of competition. Culture is a liability, one that you must be willing to discard on the altar of capitalism if you hope to climb the ladder of prosperity.

    Oh good, so people from cultures and religions that do not have specific imagery or dress requirements get an unfair advantage. Awesome.

    The turbans we are talking about are an absolute requirement* and could take many highly qualified people out of the labor pool in many jobs. Unless it presents a safety concern a business is putting itself at a competitive disadvantage.

    Allowing bullshit that does not impact the job to determine hiring, retention and promotions produces bad results, even if you leave out that you are harming people.

    *I only have limited direct knowledge from visiting a temple once so please correct me if I am wrong.

    I would think this would be an argument for less religious paraphernalia and dress in the workplace, as that creates an environment where those not of the dominant religion in that workplace are seen as outsiders or are made to feel as such.

    In practice, though, how often is this likely to happen?

    The issue with these laws is that they specifically target minority religious groups, in effect if not in principle.

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    edited August 2013
    Nova_C wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Re: veils and ID.

    I am going to have to disagree with you there. The point of the photo on the ID is to look like you would any time you go out. If a person is always going were a veil it makes sense to just have them wear it.

    I mean, different cultures have different ideas about what is modest. I would be against taking naked photos of everyone for a ID and outside of a pressing need (I haven't heard of veils causing problems) I don't see how making people of other cultures violate their idea of modesty is any different.

    Then for someone to use someone else's ID, they just need a similar looking veil. What's the point of the photo?

    EDIT: I can't wear sunglasses, or a hat in a photo ID, even if I wear sunglasses and a hat every time I go out. (I do wear sunglasses every day, even when its cloudy)

    But if someone ask you to take off your sunglasses you could do so without violating your standards of modesty, correct? And if you would never, under any circumstance take off your sunglasses then a shot of just your face wouldn't make you any easier to identify anyway.

    Like I said tho, if it becomes a problem where people in veils are abusing their right to free exercise we could revisit it but as of right now what you have is a small number of already isolated minorities could be more easily brought into society with only theoretical downsides.

    As an aside, I am trying to think of a way to use an ID like that that wouldn't just harm the person whose ID it was. Got anything?

    rockrnger on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    japan wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Cantelope wrote: »
    I'm all for forced secularism. Almost every private sector job I've ever worked at would not make accommodations for someone who wanted to wear religious garb to work, even if it was Christian. If I had come in with religious anything symbols it would have been a show stopper. It creates an oppressive atmosphere, especially if it's your boss who is wearing the religious garb. My last two bosses have been mormons, and I'm in a mormon heavy occupation, in an area where the mormon church is growing. If they were allowed to I'd be seeing mormon specific art/imagery everywhere. How do I know this? Because at my previous job that had happened before I worked there and it caused a lot of problems so that they had to ban pretty much any kind of image you could imagine so that it included the mormon specific stuff. Basically, they had to ban decorating your office because people were abusing the privilege and using it to make people feel uncomfortable.


    When the eight hour work day started thousands of cultures started to die, and as we come into the modern workforce we must give more and more of our past cultural identities in order to be accepted and to thrive in today's modern work environment. The reason most white Americans are just some kind of amorphous "white people," is because to compete and stay competitive in a modern economy they had to sacrifice most everything that was uniquely part of the culture that they came from. People who were unwilling to do this got left behind. Culture takes a lot of time to develop and maintain, and that time must be spent with people who grew up with either that culture or a similar one. Modern life is not friendly to older cultures, and we should expect to see them die out as time goes on.


    You must understand, that competition is about a lot more than how hard you work. It's about what your willing to sacrifice. It's a lot easier to sacrifice social norms and ideas and a way of being that comes from a far off place than it is to do just about anything else that will make you more competitive. You really don't have to force secularism though, modern life has been created in such a way that it will eventually force almost all people to look and act in a small subset of manners that is foreign to most people, or to leave modern society. The latter option does not seem possible any longer.


    All else being equal between two individuals who are competing, the one that is willing to sacrifice more will win. Such is the nature of competition. Culture is a liability, one that you must be willing to discard on the altar of capitalism if you hope to climb the ladder of prosperity.

    Oh good, so people from cultures and religions that do not have specific imagery or dress requirements get an unfair advantage. Awesome.

    The turbans we are talking about are an absolute requirement* and could take many highly qualified people out of the labor pool in many jobs. Unless it presents a safety concern a business is putting itself at a competitive disadvantage.

    Allowing bullshit that does not impact the job to determine hiring, retention and promotions produces bad results, even if you leave out that you are harming people.

    *I only have limited direct knowledge from visiting a temple once so please correct me if I am wrong.

    I would think this would be an argument for less religious paraphernalia and dress in the workplace, as that creates an environment where those not of the dominant religion in that workplace are seen as outsiders or are made to feel as such.

    In practice, though, how often is this likely to happen?

    The issue with these laws is that they specifically target minority religious groups, in effect if not in principle.

    I agree that's the problem with them.

    In practice is can happen all the time. Most of the time in, say, North America it's gonna be christians outnumbering non-christians, but it can also be, as the top quote here says, Mormons outnumbering non-mormons or any other religion.

    It's a hard issue to deal with.

  • PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    edited August 2013
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Re: veils and ID.

    I am going to have to disagree with you there. The point of the photo on the ID is to look like you would any time you go out. If a person is always going were a veil it makes sense to just have them wear it.

    I mean, different cultures have different ideas about what is modest. I would be against taking naked photos of everyone for a ID and outside of a pressing need (I haven't heard of veils causing problems) I don't see how making people of other cultures violate their idea of modesty is any different.

    Then for someone to use someone else's ID, they just need a similar looking veil. What's the point of the photo?

    EDIT: I can't wear sunglasses, or a hat in a photo ID, even if I wear sunglasses and a hat every time I go out. (I do wear sunglasses every day, even when its cloudy)

    But if someone ask you to take off your sunglasses you could do so without violating your standards of modesty, correct? And if you would never, under any circumstance take off your sunglasses then a shot of just your face wouldn't make you any easier to identify anyway.

    If you don't take them off, you don't pass the identification. Problem solved.

    PLA on
  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Re: veils and ID.

    I am going to have to disagree with you there. The point of the photo on the ID is to look like you would any time you go out. If a person is always going were a veil it makes sense to just have them wear it.

    I mean, different cultures have different ideas about what is modest. I would be against taking naked photos of everyone for a ID and outside of a pressing need (I haven't heard of veils causing problems) I don't see how making people of other cultures violate their idea of modesty is any different.

    Then for someone to use someone else's ID, they just need a similar looking veil. What's the point of the photo?

    EDIT: I can't wear sunglasses, or a hat in a photo ID, even if I wear sunglasses and a hat every time I go out. (I do wear sunglasses every day, even when its cloudy)

    But if someone ask you to take off your sunglasses you could do so without violating your standards of modesty, correct? And if you would never, under any circumstance take off your sunglasses then a shot of just your face wouldn't make you any easier to identify anyway.

    Like I said tho, if it becomes a problem where people in veils are abusing their right to free exercise we could revisit it but as of right now what you have is a small number of already isolated minorities could be more easily brought into society with only theoretical downsides.

    As an aside, I am trying to think of a way to use an ID like that that wouldn't just harm the person whose ID it was. Got anything?

    I don't really see how an ID being useful in actually identifying a person would be problematic.

  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    FWIW the usual thing for veil wearing women in the event that ID needs to be checked is for it to be done by a female security officer out of public view. The ID itself still needs a picture of the person unveiled.

  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Re: veils and ID.

    I am going to have to disagree with you there. The point of the photo on the ID is to look like you would any time you go out. If a person is always going were a veil it makes sense to just have them wear it.

    I mean, different cultures have different ideas about what is modest. I would be against taking naked photos of everyone for a ID and outside of a pressing need (I haven't heard of veils causing problems) I don't see how making people of other cultures violate their idea of modesty is any different.

    Then for someone to use someone else's ID, they just need a similar looking veil. What's the point of the photo?

    EDIT: I can't wear sunglasses, or a hat in a photo ID, even if I wear sunglasses and a hat every time I go out. (I do wear sunglasses every day, even when its cloudy)

    But if someone ask you to take off your sunglasses you could do so without violating your standards of modesty, correct? And if you would never, under any circumstance take off your sunglasses then a shot of just your face wouldn't make you any easier to identify anyway.

    Like I said tho, if it becomes a problem where people in veils are abusing their right to free exercise we could revisit it but as of right now what you have is a small number of already isolated minorities could be more easily brought into society with only theoretical downsides.

    As an aside, I am trying to think of a way to use an ID like that that wouldn't just harm the person whose ID it was. Got anything?

    Of course it would harm the person. It's an easy method of identity theft, which society as a whole should be invested in preventing.

    In this case, if you make an exception for veils so that people can get passports, driver's licenses, firearms licenses and birth certificates where the only identifying mark is the color of the eyes, would you still require everyone else to have a fully unobstructed face for their various IDs?

  • PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    An ear must be visible in some places, no?

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Re: veils and ID.

    I am going to have to disagree with you there. The point of the photo on the ID is to look like you would any time you go out. If a person is always going were a veil it makes sense to just have them wear it.

    I mean, different cultures have different ideas about what is modest. I would be against taking naked photos of everyone for a ID and outside of a pressing need (I haven't heard of veils causing problems) I don't see how making people of other cultures violate their idea of modesty is any different.

    Then for someone to use someone else's ID, they just need a similar looking veil. What's the point of the photo?

    EDIT: I can't wear sunglasses, or a hat in a photo ID, even if I wear sunglasses and a hat every time I go out. (I do wear sunglasses every day, even when its cloudy)

    But if someone ask you to take off your sunglasses you could do so without violating your standards of modesty, correct? And if you would never, under any circumstance take off your sunglasses then a shot of just your face wouldn't make you any easier to identify anyway.

    Like I said tho, if it becomes a problem where people in veils are abusing their right to free exercise we could revisit it but as of right now what you have is a small number of already isolated minorities could be more easily brought into society with only theoretical downsides.

    As an aside, I am trying to think of a way to use an ID like that that wouldn't just harm the person whose ID it was. Got anything?

    Of course it would harm the person. It's an easy method of identity theft, which society as a whole should be invested in preventing.

    In this case, if you make an exception for veils so that people can get passports, driver's licenses, firearms licenses and birth certificates where the only identifying mark is the color of the eyes, would you still require everyone else to have a fully unobstructed face for their various IDs?
    Yes but it seems to me the person asking for the exemption is the person most harmed by the consequences of it. Unless I'm missing something, which is possible. I mean, most of the problems with having a less than ideal ID (which we are ok with as long as they uphold our norms) are made worse by having citizens without any ID.

    And yes, religious exemptions are exemptions. That's the idea. Can we accommodate minorities without causing greater harm to society as a whole? I am down with the idea that veils might be enough of a problem to warrant banning them in IDs (or everywhere) but the burden of proof should be on the people restricting religion.


  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    edited August 2013
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Re: veils and ID.

    I am going to have to disagree with you there. The point of the photo on the ID is to look like you would any time you go out. If a person is always going were a veil it makes sense to just have them wear it.

    I mean, different cultures have different ideas about what is modest. I would be against taking naked photos of everyone for a ID and outside of a pressing need (I haven't heard of veils causing problems) I don't see how making people of other cultures violate their idea of modesty is any different.

    Then for someone to use someone else's ID, they just need a similar looking veil. What's the point of the photo?

    EDIT: I can't wear sunglasses, or a hat in a photo ID, even if I wear sunglasses and a hat every time I go out. (I do wear sunglasses every day, even when its cloudy)

    But if someone ask you to take off your sunglasses you could do so without violating your standards of modesty, correct? And if you would never, under any circumstance take off your sunglasses then a shot of just your face wouldn't make you any easier to identify anyway.

    Like I said tho, if it becomes a problem where people in veils are abusing their right to free exercise we could revisit it but as of right now what you have is a small number of already isolated minorities could be more easily brought into society with only theoretical downsides.

    As an aside, I am trying to think of a way to use an ID like that that wouldn't just harm the person whose ID it was. Got anything?

    Of course it would harm the person. It's an easy method of identity theft, which society as a whole should be invested in preventing.

    In this case, if you make an exception for veils so that people can get passports, driver's licenses, firearms licenses and birth certificates where the only identifying mark is the color of the eyes, would you still require everyone else to have a fully unobstructed face for their various IDs?
    Yes but it seems to me the person asking for the exemption is the person most harmed by the consequences of it. Unless I'm missing something, which is possible. I mean, most of the problems with having a less than ideal ID (which we are ok with as long as they uphold our norms) are made worse by having citizens without any ID.

    And yes, religious exemptions are exemptions. That's the idea. Can we accommodate minorities without causing greater harm to society as a whole? I am down with the idea that veils might be enough of a problem to warrant banning them in IDs (or everywhere) but the burden of proof should be on the people restricting religion.


    An ID that's useless for actually identifying you should carry the consequence of not being accepted as valid ID. They're free to have any ID they want, but everyone else is free to not consider it valid if it doesn't work as proof if identity.

    Rhan9 on
  • PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    edited August 2013
    Like, ID isn't a pretty bow everybody gets because it's fair that everybody has a pretty bow. It's an identity-document. For documenting identities.
    You can have one that doesn't, but then it doesn't.

    PLA on
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited August 2013
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Learn the Language, follow the Law, Don't complain about the Concrete Pigs (concrete blocs used to cordon of roads are called Concrete Pigs in Finland), and we're good on the integration part as far as i am concerned.
    Secularism is kinda more difficult, but as long as you don't try to force others to follow your religion (or break the laws) i will merely silently sneer at you for following a religion, but try to force me to obey your religious rules and there will be trouble.

    I basically agree, so long as you realize how much of your own culture is influenced by religion, instead of sneering.

    I assume you work through Christmas and return any presents?

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited August 2013
    PLA wrote: »
    Like, ID isn't a pretty bow everybody gets because it's fair that everybody has a pretty bow. It's an identity-document. For documenting identities.
    You can have one that doesn't, but then it doesn't.

    This is a non-issue. All you have to do is have ID rules that follow the way (massively repressive) religious states work. Especially since you just decreed that strict Muslim women aren't allowed ID, only the men. Which isn't exactly the best outcome possible.

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    edited August 2013
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Learn the Language, follow the Law, Don't complain about the Concrete Pigs (concrete blocs used to cordon of roads are called Concrete Pigs in Finland), and we're good on the integration part as far as i am concerned.
    Secularism is kinda more difficult, but as long as you don't try to force others to follow your religion (or break the laws) i will merely silently sneer at you for following a religion, but try to force me to obey your religious rules and there will be trouble.

    I basically agree, so long as you realize how much of your own culture is influenced by religion, instead of sneering.

    I assume you work through Christmas?

    Christmas is a poor example, since it's a far older cultural construction based on various pagan practices, especially in the Nordic countries where it's known by some version of the word 'Yule'. Most holidays celebrated there tend to be just renamed pagan holidays with next to no religious connotation apart from marking the various equinoxes.

    Rhan9 on
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited August 2013
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Learn the Language, follow the Law, Don't complain about the Concrete Pigs (concrete blocs used to cordon of roads are called Concrete Pigs in Finland), and we're good on the integration part as far as i am concerned.
    Secularism is kinda more difficult, but as long as you don't try to force others to follow your religion (or break the laws) i will merely silently sneer at you for following a religion, but try to force me to obey your religious rules and there will be trouble.

    I basically agree, so long as you realize how much of your own culture is influenced by religion, instead of sneering.

    I assume you work through Christmas?

    Christmas is a poor example, since it's a far older cultural construction based on various pagan practices, especially in the Nordic countries where it's known by some version of the word 'Yule'.

    No, it's an excellent example, since you just seemed to forget that paganism is a religion too.

    No cultural artifact is purely religious. But we Westerners need to see its massive influence on our own society, rather than just doing some textbook Othering.

    Edit: you edited :-) I think that 'next to no" is extremely subjective. And perhaps irrelevant. It is, as a simple fact, based on religion. I think if you don't stick to the facts of its history, rather than how religious it feels to a member of that culture, you can be blinded to the strong influence of religion on your culture.

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Learn the Language, follow the Law, Don't complain about the Concrete Pigs (concrete blocs used to cordon of roads are called Concrete Pigs in Finland), and we're good on the integration part as far as i am concerned.
    Secularism is kinda more difficult, but as long as you don't try to force others to follow your religion (or break the laws) i will merely silently sneer at you for following a religion, but try to force me to obey your religious rules and there will be trouble.

    I basically agree, so long as you realize how much of your own culture is influenced by religion, instead of sneering.

    I assume you work through Christmas?

    Christmas is a poor example, since it's a far older cultural construction based on various pagan practices, especially in the Nordic countries where it's known by some version of the word 'Yule'.

    No, it's an excellent example, since you just seemed to forget that paganism is a religion too.

    No cultural artifact is purely religious. But we Westerners need to see its massive influence on our own society, rather than just doing some textbook Othering.

    You're really lumping together a massive amount of heterogeneous cultural practices under "westerners".

  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Learn the Language, follow the Law, Don't complain about the Concrete Pigs (concrete blocs used to cordon of roads are called Concrete Pigs in Finland), and we're good on the integration part as far as i am concerned.
    Secularism is kinda more difficult, but as long as you don't try to force others to follow your religion (or break the laws) i will merely silently sneer at you for following a religion, but try to force me to obey your religious rules and there will be trouble.

    I basically agree, so long as you realize how much of your own culture is influenced by religion, instead of sneering.

    I assume you work through Christmas?

    Christmas is a poor example, since it's a far older cultural construction based on various pagan practices, especially in the Nordic countries where it's known by some version of the word 'Yule'.

    No, it's an excellent example, since you just seemed to forget that paganism is a religion too.

    No cultural artifact is purely religious. But we Westerners need to see its massive influence on our own society, rather than just doing some textbook Othering.

    You're really lumping together a massive amount of heterogeneous cultural practices under "westerners".

    Not as heterogenous from the outside as they appear from the inside. But your point is a semantic quibble. Change the word Westerners to a more complex and accurate term if you want. I'm typing on an iPad, so short is best. It doesn't affect my point.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    edited August 2013
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Edit: you edited :-) I think that 'next to no" is extremely subjective. And perhaps irrelevant. It is, as a simple fact, based on religion. I think if you don't stick to the facts of its history, rather than how religious it feels to a member of that culture, you can be blinded to the strong influence of religion on your culture.

    Yeah, I was in the middle of editing it.

    As for what you're saying, what "it" are you referring to? Yule? Feel free to tell me the specific religious genesis of said holiday as it pertains to baltic pagans, and I might give consideration to your claimed "facts". Since they predate writing and recordkeeping, I'd be interested to find out where you got those facts.

    Sure, of course religions have influences on the culture. So fucking what? That alone is no justification for anything. It just feels like an irrelevant tangent to something as simple as whether an ID is objectively functional or not.

    EDIT: Did some editing because the post was kinda incoherent.

    Rhan9 on
  • PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    edited August 2013
    poshniallo wrote: »
    PLA wrote: »
    Like, ID isn't a pretty bow everybody gets because it's fair that everybody has a pretty bow. It's an identity-document. For documenting identities.
    You can have one that doesn't, but then it doesn't.

    This is a non-issue. All you have to do is have ID rules that follow the way (massively repressive) religious states work. Especially since you just decreed that strict Muslim women aren't allowed ID, only the men. Which isn't exactly the best outcome possible.

    You can have a document that doesn't actually help identify you. Then, that document doesn't help identify you. And then you don't get identified well. That's all.

    Edit: I have many documents that aren't very identifying. You can totally have documents like that, and some are even useful. They don't show what I look like, though. So, if that's what I need, they're less useful.

    PLA on
  • CantelopeCantelope Registered User regular
    edited August 2013
    @21st century


    I don't think it matters whether or not these changes are a good thing. I think that by structuring the labor market the way we have and not making any kind of guaranteed employment program we have ensured that this is the way things will be. You either do well enough to be employed and survive, or you get thrown onto the trash heap of society.


    My great grandfather immigrated here from Poland. My mom's family also immigrated from Poland only a generation earlier. my parents grew up knowing nothing of Poland, it's language, or it's culture. I've talked to a lot of third generation Hispanic immigrants, it's pretty much the same. After a generation or two in the US it's very common for there to become a huge divide between the generations. A kid that goes to school in the public school system here will have such a different experience that their culture has already been altered in a significant way, so much that it becomes extremely hard for them to relate to their grandparents, and as life goes on the experiences and advice of their parents becomes less useful because of how fast life has been changing. This works to wedge the divide even further.



    I think it's an absolute tragedy that we don't get together as a society to have a real conversation about the way things should be. What we don't understand is that things are different than they once were, and those differences are having a profound impact on our lives, and the way we behave. And I really don't know whether or not a lot of this stuff is good or bad, it simply is, and the way I see it, it's going to cause a lot of people to choose between an authentic cultural heritage, and some modern still developing culture that will not teach you much of anything. It will simply allow you to navigate the new social scene, one that is still developing and not well understood even by those that are participating in it.

    Cantelope on
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Edit: you edited :-) I think that 'next to no" is extremely subjective. And perhaps irrelevant. It is, as a simple fact, based on religion. I think if you don't stick to the facts of its history, rather than how religious it feels to a member of that culture, you can be blinded to the strong influence of religion on your culture.

    Yeah, I was in the middle of editing it.

    As for what you're saying, what "it" are you referring to? Yule? Feel free to tell me the specific religious genesis of said holiday as it pertains to baltic pagans, and I might give consideration to your claimed "facts". Since they predate writing and recordkeeping, I'd be interested to find out where you got those facts.

    Sure, of course religions have influences on the culture. So fucking what? That alone is no justification for anything. It just feels like an irrelevant tangent to something as simple as whether an ID is objectively functional or not.

    EDIT: Did some editing because the post was kinda incoherent.

    My post was answering Nyyjsan's, not talking about ID. And continued a thread of discussion from the first page of this thread.

    The ID discussion I was trying to keep separate, to avoid confusion.

    Also, in my culture, 'so fucking what?' isn't an OK way to talk to people you aren't very close to. I'd appreciate it if you cut that out.

    You get the basic idea, right? That religion has influenced our culture, and that we think of our own culture as neutral, not noticing its history, while Othering foreigners?

    Is that something you deny happens?

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    PLA wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    PLA wrote: »
    Like, ID isn't a pretty bow everybody gets because it's fair that everybody has a pretty bow. It's an identity-document. For documenting identities.
    You can have one that doesn't, but then it doesn't.

    This is a non-issue. All you have to do is have ID rules that follow the way (massively repressive) religious states work. Especially since you just decreed that strict Muslim women aren't allowed ID, only the men. Which isn't exactly the best outcome possible.

    You can have a document that doesn't actually help identify you. Then, that document doesn't help identify you. And then you don't get identified well. That's all.

    Edit: I have many documents that aren't very identifying. You can totally have documents like that, and some are even useful. They don't show what I look like, though. So, if that's what I need, they're less useful.

    You don't think that any of these other nations and cultures have ID systems, then? Just us? Did you read japan's post?

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    Do you mean this post?
    japan wrote: »
    FWIW the usual thing for veil wearing women in the event that ID needs to be checked is for it to be done by a female security officer out of public view. The ID itself still needs a picture of the person unveiled.

    That the ID needs a picture of the person unveiled?

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Cantelope wrote: »
    @21st century


    I don't think it matters whether or not these changes are a good thing. I think that by structuring the labor market the way we have and not making any kind of guaranteed employment program we have ensured that this is the way things will be. You either do well enough to be employed and survive, or you get thrown onto the trash heap of society.


    My great grandfather immigrated here from Poland. My mom's family also immigrated from Poland only a generation earlier. my parents grew up knowing nothing of Poland, it's language, or it's culture. I've talked to a lot of third generation Hispanic immigrants, it's pretty much the same. After a generation or two in the US it's very common for there to become a huge divide between the generations. A kid that goes to school in the public school system here will have such a different experience that their culture has already been altered in a significant way, so much that it becomes extremely hard for them to relate to their grandparents, and as life goes on the experiences and advice of their parents becomes less useful because of how fast life has been changing. This works to wedge the divide even further.



    I think it's an absolute tragedy that we don't get together as a society to have a real conversation about the way things should be. What we don't understand is that things are different than they once were, and those differences are having a profound impact on our lives, and the way we behave. And I really don't know whether or not a lot of this stuff is good or bad, it simply is, and the way I see it, it's going to cause a lot of people to choose between an authentic cultural heritage, and some modern still developing culture that will not teach you much of anything. It will simply allow you to navigate the new social scene, one that is still developing and not well understood even by those that are participating in it.

    One of the nice things about the US is that it is chock full of cultural mutts who are incompetent at staying sacrosanct to any one culture - even one they've made up themselves. Whatever the culture is here, it doesn't have the millennia of practice that countries with more sedentary histories boast of and can more easily be displaced.

    This doesn't mean you cannot be interested in old cultures, just that you cannot start as an insider, and you can leave whenever you want. Sounds good to me.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Learn the Language, follow the Law, Don't complain about the Concrete Pigs (concrete blocs used to cordon of roads are called Concrete Pigs in Finland), and we're good on the integration part as far as i am concerned.
    Secularism is kinda more difficult, but as long as you don't try to force others to follow your religion (or break the laws) i will merely silently sneer at you for following a religion, but try to force me to obey your religious rules and there will be trouble.

    I basically agree, so long as you realize how much of your own culture is influenced by religion, instead of sneering.

    I assume you work through Christmas and return any presents?

    There is something to say for having national holidays for the benefit of the populace without giving consideration to one religion or another.

    I don't tie any religious shit to Christmas, for me it's just a holiday to see family. Working through it would be nonsensical, it's already a holiday anyway.



    I actually do believe that everyone should be entitled to get a few days of vacation for whatever religious practices they observe or even if they don't follow any religion. Just a bunch of days you get for easter or christmas or Eid Al-Fitr or just hanging with friends or whatever.

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    edited August 2013
    PLA wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    PLA wrote: »
    Like, ID isn't a pretty bow everybody gets because it's fair that everybody has a pretty bow. It's an identity-document. For documenting identities.
    You can have one that doesn't, but then it doesn't.

    This is a non-issue. All you have to do is have ID rules that follow the way (massively repressive) religious states work. Especially since you just decreed that strict Muslim women aren't allowed ID, only the men. Which isn't exactly the best outcome possible.

    You can have a document that doesn't actually help identify you. Then, that document doesn't help identify you. And then you don't get identified well. That's all.

    Edit: I have many documents that aren't very identifying. You can totally have documents like that, and some are even useful. They don't show what I look like, though. So, if that's what I need, they're less useful.

    But the thing is that we live in a culture where one can get almost anything done without any sort of picture at all. All you need is a social security number and some other information and fax or Internet connection and you can do almost everything. We except that why not another risk (carried almost exclusively by the person asking for the exception) to include a person in society.

    I mean, a veiled photo is going to give the exact same amount of information to someone as a unveiled one if the person is wearing a veil and doesn't take it off and it is going to be 100 percent better than the same person not having an ID at all. If the ID in question makes it so the holder receives extra scrutiny or places won't take it then that again is a risk to only to person asking for an exemption.

    rockrnger on
Sign In or Register to comment.