Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[BjornP]

Get out.

Maybe there are some heretics somewhere that mutilate their daughters' vaginas, but in Christianity you are not supposed to fuck with your body (or those of anybody else) in such a way that you remove function for no immediate health reason. The Church is not even cool with women getting hysterectomies outside of extreme medical cases.

Most of the Christians in Africa are Catholic.

A brief search shows the only group who does this are the Copts, probably because they live in a crazy Muslim country. They don't even get a choice in male circumcision from what I have read, so it wouldn't surprise me one bit if Dr. Ahmed just automatically removes the

I did not say, indicate, or assume that "Christianity" practises FGM. Copts do. For all I know, it's pre-Christian. Copts place alot of emphasis on their ancient Egyptian past. Ancient Egyptians practised FGM. But it may also be inspired by the customs of the conquering religion. I don't know if Assyrian Christians, Chaldeans, Melkites or any other Christian minorities in majority Muslim countries practise FGM, though.

For the purpose of this discussion, it really doesn't matter what Christianity is "supposed to do", StA. Sometimes culture trumps religion. You talk of "The Church". I assume you mean your Church, the Catholic. Well... the Copts are not part of your Church. They have their own pope. A criticism of their practises, is obviously not a criticism of Christians who I know don't practise FGM. I know too much Christian history to draw a stupid conclusion based in dumb logic like: "P1: Copts are Christian. P2: Copts practise FGM. Ergo: Christians practise FGM! *Derp!*" . I'm much, much, MUUUUUCH smarter than that and you know it, StA.

I'm not confident you can claim most African Christians are Catholic. Given how much African territory the British empire held, it makes sense that most of the continent's Christians (outside, the Copts and Ethiopia and Eritrea) is Protestant. Also, this:

Protestants in sub-Saharan African countries represent 35.9 percent of the continent's Christians, 21.4 percent for Catholics and 4.9 percent for Orthodox Christians.

http://www.theafricareport.com/News-Ana ... frica.html

If the world must be Christian... better one that worships God alone, not the ritualistic superstition, the gilded trappings, and usurped claim of divine authority of a foreign theocrat.

[BjornP]

BjornP: One thing that I have noticed about Europe is that they do not seem to place quite as high a premium on free speech as the United States. There are historical reasons for this I guess, such as the holocaust, but it is kind of worrying when you see a high trust society, that does puts many asterisks on freedom of expression, letting in large numbers of people who have minimal interest in this freedom anyway. I think this will also lead to problems for you guys.

The merkel journalist incident is well known, but I have read numerous articles where people will be arrested in the UK for making fun of the dead on twitter, or "hate speech." Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany and possibly some other Euro Countries which ironically might interfere with muslims
free speech rights. You live in Europe. Do you see a scenario where saying anything critical about Islam will fall under the umbrella of "Hate Speech?" I realize that this issue is more nuanced than I'm making it out to be, but I think this will be nothing but trouble.
Also, what is your opinion on Geert Wilders?

European countries differ in the degree of freedom of speech. Only three or four European countries including Russia have anti-Holocaust denial laws. What you need to remember and consider, is that immigrants neither have the numbers, or the political power, or in most cases any sympathy among the general public for conservative Islamic values. The limitations on free speech in Europe are Old European values, not a result of new, Islamic immigration or even "leftist" thinking. The current right-wing government in Denmark has introduced alot of laws aimed against Islamic radicalism. Laws that look good to the nationalists, that send the right "we're against Islamic extremism" signals...but which also will limit freedom of speech.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/07/eur ... eech-fail/

I do support some of the limitations on freedom of speech that we have, and that you don't. Such as the right of defense attornyes to petition the courts to effect a "naming ban" for a defendent (forfeits automatically if found guilty), same as the right for victims of serious crimes not to be named. I believe strongly in personal dignity, and having your name dragged through the media as a suspect if you're not convincted is undignifying. And I support the law against inciting violence, as in calling for murder. But everything else... I'd like that gone. As the above article points to, though, we also have EU laws on free speech superceding national law. Which sucks if our laws are more permissable than EU's.

[Speaker to Animals]

I am pretty sure we could institute bans on naming defendants in the US without running afoul of the Constitution. We already ban naming accusers and minors.

[heydaralon]

BjornP: One thing that I have noticed about Europe is that they do not seem to place quite as high a premium on free speech as the United States. There are historical reasons for this I guess, such as the holocaust, but it is kind of worrying when you see a high trust society, that does puts many asterisks on freedom of expression, letting in large numbers of people who have minimal interest in this freedom anyway. I think this will also lead to problems for you guys.

The merkel journalist incident is well known, but I have read numerous articles where people will be arrested in the UK for making fun of the dead on twitter, or "hate speech." Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany and possibly some other Euro Countries which ironically might interfere with muslims
free speech rights. You live in Europe. Do you see a scenario where saying anything critical about Islam will fall under the umbrella of "Hate Speech?" I realize that this issue is more nuanced than I'm making it out to be, but I think this will be nothing but trouble.
Also, what is your opinion on Geert Wilders?

European countries differ in the degree of freedom of speech. Only three or four European countries including Russia have anti-Holocaust denial laws. What you need to remember and consider, is that immigrants neither have the numbers, or the political power, or in most cases any sympathy among the general public for conservative Islamic values. The limitations on free speech in Europe are Old European values, not a result of new, Islamic immigration or even "leftist" thinking. The current right-wing government in Denmark has introduced alot of laws aimed against Islamic radicalism. Laws that look good to the nationalists, that send the right "we're against Islamic extremism" signals...but which also will limit freedom of speech.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/07/eur ... eech-fail/

I do support some of the limitations on freedom of speech that we have, and that you don't. Such as the right of defense attornyes to petition the courts to effect a "naming ban" for a defendent (forfeits automatically if found guilty), same as the right for victims of serious crimes not to be named. I believe strongly in personal dignity, and having your name dragged through the media as a suspect if you're not convincted is undignifying. And I support the law against inciting violence, as in calling for murder. But everything else... I'd like that gone. As the above article points to, though, we also have EU laws on free speech superceding national law. Which sucks if our laws are more permissable than EU's.

I'm on the fence about the trial stuff, though that is an interesting point. I would argue that freedom of expression is not as firmly grounded in Europe as the United States though, simply because most European countries have gone through a flurry of different governments in the last 100 years. Many of them have cycled through monarchies, czars, fascism , democracy, and communism in short periods of time. And the expansion of freedoms in much of Europe is far more recent and delicate than people would like to admit. The Portuguese got rid of Salazaar in 1974 I believe. The USSR lasted well into the late 80's. The British are among the only ones who have had an uninterrupted liberal past. People like to act like Human rights are settled because the EU made some declaration, but the EU is an infant compared to something like the Austro Hungarian empire which collapsed suddenly. Its quite possible that Austro Hungarian empire was far more robust than the EU will ever be.

[heydaralon]

Whatever happens with our courts, I think it is extremely important that you be able to know who your accuser is, and face them. That is one of the most important principles of a fair trial, and I believe with some of the college rape accusations we are starting to stray away from that. As long as these anonymity laws do not prevent you from properly defending yourself against the person accusing you, I don't have a problem with them.

[Speaker to Animals]

In actual criminal court, the names are not secret. There simply is a gag order about revealing a name to the public.

The Marxist kangaroo courts in universities are anathemas to human intelligence.

[TheOneX]

In actual criminal court, the names are not secret. There simply is a gag order about revealing a name to the public.

The Marxist kangaroo courts in universities are anathemas to human intelligence.

Making a policy of not releasing names to the public until after the trial could easily be done in the US without it being unconstitutional. Just if the press somehow go their hands on the names you would not be able to punish them for releasing that information under the Constitution. It just comes down to using contract law. First when government employees take a job they would have to agree to not release the names of anyone prior to or during a trial. Then you would also have a law saying an accuser has to sign a gag order prior to filing any accusations, and a defendant could not know who the accuser was prior to signing a gag order failure to sign a gag order would be considered admission of guilt. Any of their representatives would have to sign similar gag orders. If anyone breaks the gag order you would have the right to pursue civil recourse.

[TheReal_ND]

https://twitter.com/mamzellemousse/stat ... 0341320704

I don't know what they are saying but I think Marine is dishing out some bantz.

[heydaralon]

In actual criminal court, the names are not secret. There simply is a gag order about revealing a name to the public.

The Marxist kangaroo courts in universities are anathemas to human intelligence.

Making a policy of not releasing names to the public until after the trial could easily be done in the US without it being unconstitutional. Just if the press somehow go their hands on the names you would not be able to punish them for releasing that information under the Constitution. It just comes down to using contract law. First when government employees take a job they would have to agree to not release the names of anyone prior to or during a trial. Then you would also have a law saying an accuser has to sign a gag order prior to filing any accusations, and a defendant could not know who the accuser was prior to signing a gag order failure to sign a gag order would be considered admission of guilt. Any of their representatives would have to sign similar gag orders. If anyone breaks the gag order you would have the right to pursue civil recourse.

In your opinion, why would failure to sign a gag order be an admission of guilt? I agree that people should have a right to privacy, and in certain kinds of publicized trials, the press can be quite toxic, but that seems a bit much.

[Alexander PhiAlipson]