Europe or America today shows huge christian influence. Not pagan, not muslim. I recognize the right of a country like Poland to oppose gay marriage, religiously and culturally, even if I might vote for it in France. I recognize the Irish the right to oppose opening mosques, even if EUROPE will likely accuse them of "discrimination". We are allowed to hold dear our past, our culture, and reject people who will later want to build mosques, keep women as housecares and so on. It might seem unfair, but it's the host's right to admit whoever it likes to.
You know very well what European civilization is, no point to do more hairsplitting. It's Europe, America, Australia, not Turkey, not Singapore, not Hong Kong.
Yes, hairsplitting, you'll likely find some more arguments, exceptions, abscons abstractions to counter-argument. That's what I call ideological stretching of a very clear and simple factual situation. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
Europe or America today shows huge christian influence.
True.
Not pagan,
Except for - oh, I don't know, Christmas trees, harvest festivals, a bunch of idioms, much of our everyday superstition, many of our festive rituals and much of our architectural tradition. Our entire legal tradition, inasmuch as one subscribes to the notion that European legal tradition owes more to Roman law than Enlightenment philosophy. And a great many of our stories, fairy tales and assorted anthropological baggage.
not muslim.
Except on Sicily, in much of Spain, in those parts of French culture influenced by Algerian immigrants during Napoleon II/III reign, the part of Eastern Europe that used to be in the Ottoman sphere of influence. And a couple of other bits and pieces that I can't recall off-hand.
Oh, and those parts of Europe that use Arabian algebra... which is, like, all of it.
I also note that you didn't object to my highlight of the secular Enlightenment influence. Is that an oversight or because you don't object to it?
We are allowed to hold dear our past, our culture, and reject people who will later want to build mosques, keep women as housecares and so on. It might seem unfair, but it's the host's right to admit whoever it likes to.
The whole "keeping women as housecares" thing has been a pretty ecumenical tradition...
If you think that that's not a part of the European Past(TM) that you want to hold near and dear, then you have a somewhat selective view of which parts of European history constitutes "our past." Specifically, you'd exclude pretty much half of everything that happened prior to - oh - 1968 or thereabout.
And I'll note that it was pinko commie subversive ideologues who put a stop to the women-as-housecares practise.
You know very well what European civilization is, no point to do more hairsplitting.
Why these appeals to "you know very well what I mean?" My assumptions about what your assumptions are do not a principle make. Suppose I'm stupid and ignorant and just landed on a space ship from Mars. How can I tell what European Culture is?
It's Europe, America, Australia, not Turkey, not Singapore, not Hong Kong.
Utah and Alabama are European culture? More European than Hong Kong? I disagree, but I'm curious to hear why you think they are.
Yes, hairsplitting, you'll likely find some more arguments, exceptions, abscons abstractions to counter-argument. That's what I call ideological stretching of a very clear and simple factual situation.
Maybe I'm hairsplitting. Maybe you're painting with an overly broad brush. Of course, the two are not mutually exclusive...
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
I never said the Christian influence was the only one.
No, but Sarko is, if you quote him correctly. The whole "Christianity has an important place in European history" phrase (and its derivatives) is a piece of sloganeering that goes back to the discussions around Lisbon 0.5 (a.k.a. the EU Constitution), and the explicit mention of Christianity therein. It is a straightforward adoption of a slogan that was used intensively by the then-current Pope and his minions, in a very explicitly exclusionary campaign that aimed to put Christianity in a legally privileged position relative to both other religions and Europe's strong secular tradition.
You may not be aware of that, so for you the message might sound entirely factual and innocuous. But I assure you that the Catholic fundagelicals have not forgotten that slogan, and they attach the above backstory to it.
It's actually an excellent example of the kind of dog-whistle politics that you earlier denied that Sarko was using.
For instance if had Sarkozy only spoken of duties and obligations (say, of immigrants) and not of "rights, but also duties", I would have not agreed. When his statements are balanced and factual (see also this phrase: we are a secular state, but that does not mean we are so in opposition to religions or to churches; or this one: a psychiatric hospital is not a prison, but still one should not be able to come and go as one pleases - approx.quot.), I cannot not agree with them. Frankly, I hoped for some criticism from the left, for the sake of safety - maybe they will see something I did not. No trace, alas, except slogans and outcries against the "dangerous monster". Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
Well yes, the factuality of the message seems quite obvious to me, and I made it a habit of being very careful before assigning conspiration theories to a statement. And then, instead of focusing on all possible malevolent implications of a phrase (which can sometimes be "discovered" in great numbers), I concentrate on the facts, if they are correct or not.
This is not a conspiracy theory, nor an attempt to fabricate malevolent connotations. The slogan is a direct plagiarisation of one of the chief slogans of a very recent campaign to undermine secular democracy in Europe.
Would you also scrupulously evaluate the truth or falsehood of the statement "arbeit macht frei" without attaching "frivolous" historical connotations to it and proposing "conspiracy theories" about the person using that slogan?
For instance if had Sarkozy only spoken of duties and obligations (say, of immigrants) and not of "rights, but also duties", I would have not agreed. When his statements are balanced and factual
The problem with that statement is that immigrants already have duties as well as rights. So either the statement is true but trivial (like saying "the sun goes up in the East, but it also goes down in the West"), or it is interesting, but alarming, because the emphasis on duties implies that he thinks that more attention should be paid to the duties of immigrants than to their rights (and/or to the duties of other citizens).
(see also this phrase: we are a secular state, but that does not mean we are so in opposition to religions or to churches;
Again, this can be true but trivial (the definition of a secular state is that it is not in support or opposition to churches). Or it can be interesting and problematic, because he conveniently leaves out half the definition, implying that he's not against the state supporting churches, only against the state opposing them.
or this one: a psychiatric hospital is not a prison, but still one should not be able to come and go as one pleases - approx.quot.),
Again, this doesn't pass the "duh!" test. No psychiatric hospital permits patients to come and go as they please if they are a danger to themselves or others - that would be a direct violation of medical ethics. So either he's stating complete banalities again, or he's implying that he wishes to impose restrictions that are not medically warranted.
You're perfectly free, of course, to imagine that Sarko spends his time uttering complete trivialities. I fail to see how that makes him an admirable politician, but hey, he's not my president anyway.
But I hardly think you can blame people for thinking that he actually has a point when he opens his mouth. And that if he doesn't come right out and tells us what his point is, we'll have to give our best guess.
Frankly, I hoped for some criticism from the left, for the sake of safety - maybe they will see something I did not. No trace, alas, except slogans and outcries against the "dangerous monster".
Slogans cannot be criticised with substance until and unless they are turned into actual policy. That's the whole rhetorical point of slogans - to provide a confirmation of one's "values" to core voters, that cannot be challenged on its merit, because it doesn't have any merit to be challenged on yet.
My point was to show things are more nuanced than simply saying Sarkozy is an ideological monster. We don't agree on positive discrimination for instance. He's also beginning to promote the idea that banks should provide cheap loans for the poor, without indicating who will have to cover the risk. The sloganeering part seems to be rather leftish. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
For instance, in France, secularism implies opposition to religion and church, for many historical reasons.
Bah! Even the most casual tourist can see that the Catholic Church holds a privileged position in French society - de facto if not de jure. If that's your definition of repression against the church, then you have a somewhat curious view of the legitimate role of religious groups in a democratic society.
My point was to show things are more nuanced than simply saying Sarkozy is an ideological monster.
I never said that Sarko was an ideological monster. I just pointed out to you that the slogans you cite give very reasonable cause for complaint and concern from the left, because they belie a right-wing ideological position. At least, if they mean anything at all - but let's be generous to Sarko and assume that he's not a total air-head (or at least that not all of his handlers are...).
As for the Catholic Church, they certainly hold a less privileged position than they do in most formerly Catholic countries... But they are hardly the oppressed dissidents that their own propaganda tries to paint them as.
There are more floating around the thread, but these will suffice as examples.
