Austria bans foreign donations for Mosques, requires Imams to speak German

[Derec]

Austria has official religions?

Yeah, what's up with that?
I heard that in Germany people pay church tax or something. Even atheists have to pay it. Now imagine paying money to another official religion - islam.

There is a church tax in that the state is tasked with collecting taxes to finance certain recognized religions. However you have to be a member of a particular church - mostly Catholic or Lutheran (Evangelisch) and the only way an atheist would have to pay it is if he chose to become or stay a member of a church on behalf of which church tax is collected. Austria has something similar, except they do not call it a tax.

 

[Derec]

Enlighten us. When exactly was Haider the leader of Austria?

He helped form a coalition government (2002 and 2003) where he played an important leadership role (information that was available in the link).

He was the leader (Landeshauptmann, literally "state captain") of an Austrian state (Carinthia). His party was in a federal coalition but he had to resign as party chairman for that to happen and played no role in the coalition government.
So there is no sense in which he can be said to have been the leader of Austria like you claimed.

 

[laughing dog]

He helped form a coalition government (2002 and 2003) where he played an important leadership role (information that was available in the link).

He was the leader (Landeshauptmann, literally "state captain") of an Austrian state (Carinthia). His party was in a federal coalition but he had to resign as party chairman for that to happen and played no role in the coalition government.

The link indicates otherwise. His party was in the coalition because of his presence and popularity in Austria. In essence, the EU forced his resignation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/2000-02/01/010r-020100-idx.html). That doesn't happen to people who are not leaders.

So there is no sense in which he can be said to have been the leader of Austria like you claimed.

I should have written "a leader". To claim he had no leadership roles or influence is a smokescreen.

 

[Derec]

The link indicates otherwise. In essence, the EU forced his resignation.

How is that in conflict with "he had to resign"?

I should have written "a leader". To claim he had no leadership roles or influence is a smokescreen.

Yes, you should have. The leader implies being the main guy.

 

[Turambar]

He helped form a coalition government (2002 and 2003) where he played an important leadership role (information that was available in the link).

I really do now know why you are obsessed with Haider, as if he was somehow special just because he was Austrian instead of any other nationality. He was a right wing politician that used fear and xenophobia to win votes. Most of those votes came from rural constituents too far away from the cosmopolitan cities to comprehend what is going on in the world.

You wanna know which other contemporary conservative leaders have used the same strategy to win votes amongst rural people in their countries?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin

I see little difference in ideology between them and Haider.

 

[laughing dog]

He helped form a coalition government (2002 and 2003) where he played an important leadership role (information that was available in the link).

I really do now know why you are obsessed with Haider, as if he was somehow special just because he was Austrian instead of any other nationality.

I am not obsesses with anyone. I used Haidar as a recent example of Austrian anti-semitism to show that Austria is not a representative sample of European sentiment towards Jews.

He was a right wing politician that used fear and xenophobia to win votes. Most of those votes came from rural constituents too far away from the cosmopolitan cities to comprehend what is going on in the world.

You wanna know which other contemporary conservative leaders have used the same strategy to win votes amongst rural people in their countries?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin

Bush did not have a history of praising Nazism or making dubious statements about Jews. Haidar did.

I see little difference in ideology between them and Haider.

Okay.

 

[Jayjay]

No. Read for comprehension. It's not my job to do Clive's work for him, so my response was based on what he posted. I don't have a definitive stance on Norway's policies, because it doesn't appear that that's even relevant here.

It would be incredibly naive to think that the Saudi millionaires are somehow detached from the good graces of the royal family and the clerics. It's entirely possible that the contributions to mosques abroad are just business as usual to stay on the positive side of the clerical institutions. These are not the average Saudis by a long shot, they are part of the country's power elite. I'd rather save my sympathy for the millions of victims of religious violence that they are responsible for.

The source of the funding should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

It is ludicrous to suggest that an across-the-board ban on all funding from all Saudi citizens is a fair and equitable solution.

It's not all funding, the appoval is only required for large donations. And if the source of funding is Saudi Arabia, and denied on that basis, that is making a case-by-case evaluation. Your trying to equate Saudi millionaires and their wahhabist cronies as the downtrodden masses is what's ridiculous.

Sure, it's possible that the money was actually coming from Saudi citizens and the millionaire or the instance giving the funding is just the fund-raiser and not the source. The original motivation might even be perfectly innocous, such as building the northermost mosque in the world. But so what? They are not Norwegian citizens, and wahhabist mosques do more harm than good, whether the average Saudi realizes this or not. If the Saudis who fund these mosques abroad, millionaires or not, are so unfairly treated by lack of religious freedoms they should look in a mirror and fix their own country first.

Oh, and so now we're back to assigning blame to everyone who happens to belong to a certain group and holding them accountable for the actions of other people.

Last time, you were trying to blame all of Europe's Muslims for the actions of people who shoot up the offices of cartoonists. Now you're blaming everyone who happens to be of a certain nationality (Saudi) for the problems with their government, which is a monarchy where average citizens have hardly any say over anything.

And the worst part is that you don't even see what's wrong with this.

It seems that just like you did on that other thread, when you run out of facts, you'll resort to gross mispresentations. I am not "blaming" the average Saudi citizens, they are the victims. But they are not victimized by Norway's or Austria's policies about foreign funding, they are victimized by the clerics and the power elite of their own country. The fact that they don't have any say in the matter is precisely my point.

It's no more of a disgrace than anything else governments normally do. Austrian government requires that school curriculum includes German language, Austrian national history, and so on. Austrian government requires that government agencies provide services in German. I would wager that Austria might have laws about tax-breaks for non-profit organizations, if they can prove their beneficiality to society, or financing laws (like Norway) that put some limits on foreign funding in certain areas. This kind of measures are hardly disgraceful, they aren't even controversial. Almost every country in the world has such laws.

Furthermore, requiring mosques to teach in German helps recent immigrants in learnign the language and integrating to society. The funding is not really an issue, as the law also grants Islamic community to collect tax from its members, like the Christian denominations in Austria do. So far the only perceived problem with the law is uneven treatment with official Christian churches, but A) the Christian churches probably are already using German-translation of the bible and are domestically funded, and B) the whole notion of government having "state religions" is about having some sects having special status, so complaining about treating different sects differently under the law is a bit hypocritical. Sure it would be better if same restrictions were also imposed on Christian churches, but I don't think failing to do so can be described as a disgrace by any stretch of the word.

Stop whitewashing what's happening here.

The Austrian government is not applying these measures to immigrants, they are applying them to Muslims. Immigrant =/= Muslim. Nor are Muslims the only people likely to come to Austria with language barriers, or build houses of worship using texts written in a foreign language, nor are they the only group that might conceivably seek funding for such projects from overseas.

And they are not forcing all religious institutions, even new ones, to "prove their beneficiality;" they are only forcing mosques to do so. The lawmakers could have applied this broadly, but they didn't. They targeted Muslims and Muslims exclusively.

I brought up immigrants because they are usually the most vulnerable groups, and because recent immigrants might be ones who are drawn to non-German speaking, foreign-funded mosques and therefore most affected by the law. The muslims who've lived in Austria for generations probably already speak fluent German and have adopted Austrian cultural values, and are therefore less affected by the law.

Again you try to downplay the fact that the law grants Islam a privileged status as a religious society (together with Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox churches) with numerous benefits that smaller sects don't have. I already admitted that it would be better to apply the restrictions across the board from point of view of consistency and to make the law more acceptable, and to resolve the constitutional problems involved with that uneven treatment. But it's not the outrage that you try to make it, because the very idea of giving some religions a privileged recognition compared to others is by definition discriminatory towards other sects.

So how the fuck is this just business as usual? It is a blatantly obvious attempt at singling out Austrian Muslims, to show them who's the boss and that they are going to be forced to play by different rules than everyone else. This is a clear-cut, unequivocal case of discrimination. And I think the reason you won't acknowledge that is that you don't actually have a problem with it.

You're right, I don't have a problem with it, and no reasonable person should. Apart from the minor issue of treating it differently from the other three officially recognized religious societies, this isn't any more outrageous or disgraceful than, say, government setting standards for accrediting private schools or non-profit organizations.

The law is still being debated as far as I know, and there is a possibility of constitutional challenge, but the basic principle is sound if it were applied to all religious societies.

 

[Warpoet]

It's not all funding, the appoval is only required for large donations.

Produce a source showing what the threshold is for a "large donation."

And if the source of funding is Saudi Arabia, and denied on that basis, that is making a case-by-case evaluation. Your trying to equate Saudi millionaires and their wahhabist cronies as the downtrodden masses is what's ridiculous.

Again, you toss out tired and idiotic stereotypes as though they were fact, and then have the gall to accuse others of being the ones not thinking clearly.

There are over 100,000 "millionaire" households in Saudi Arabia, and probably many more actual millionaires.

And you are trying to tell us that it's perfectly reasonable to label all of them as wahhabist fanatics, because they're Saudis, and banning them from making large donations is "case-by-case," because the case is that they're Saudis, and fuck Saudis. Especially rich Saudis, those motherfuckers.

Such forward, progressive thinking.

It seems that just like you did on that other thread, when you run out of facts, you'll resort to gross mispresentations.

Not really. The commonality between both threads is what I just said: you are trying (and failing) to blame people for things they're not responsible for, and then pretending that that's not what you're doing. Anyone who doubts this can go read the other thread and see for themselves.

I am not "blaming" the average Saudi citizens, they are the victims.

You just got done ranting about how Saudis who donate money overseas, "millionaires or not," ought to "fix" their own country before they expect fair treatment from any others. Forgot about that already?

But they are not victimized by Norway's or Austria's policies about foreign funding, they are victimized by the clerics and the power elite of their own country. The fact that they don't have any say in the matter is precisely my point.

Actually, it cripples your insinuation that it's their responsibility to "fix" their own country, and that it's fair to ban them across the board from contributing money.

I brought up immigrants because they are usually the most vulnerable groups, and because recent immigrants might be ones who are drawn to non-German speaking, foreign-funded mosques and therefore most affected by the law.

Muslims aren't the only people who immigrate to Austria. The 2011 census shows that the former Yugoslavia is the largest country of origin for immigrants. Serbian is as widely spoken as Turkish. There are lot of Turkish immigrants, but most Turks don't attend mosque, so your "might" is a pretty tenuous one. And none of the other immigrant groups, even those speaking languages other than German, are being forced to do so in their houses of worship.

So, not only is this a poor (and anti-democratic) means of promoting "integration," that's not the real reason anyway. Austria would not be denying Muslims the ability to receive foreign funding, or forcing them to meet vague standards of "positivity," if it merely wanted to improve the German skills of its Muslim population. It wants to control what kind of ideas Muslims can and cannot express openly. And it's becoming increasingly clear that you're OK with that.

The muslims who've lived in Austria for generations probably already speak fluent German and have adopted Austrian cultural values,

More probablies, maybes and speculation. As if this were grounds for stripping people of their rights, or the state is justified in intruding on said rights in order to police Muslims' "values."

and are therefore less affected by the law.

Except for the whole problem of being forced to demonstrate a “positive approach towards society and the state," or lose the licensing for their organizations, and no longer being able to receive external funding that they might be reliant upon.

But you don't care about any of that, do you?

Again you try to downplay the fact that the law grants Islam a privileged status as a religious society (together with Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox churches) with numerous benefits that smaller sects don't have. I already admitted that it would be better to apply the restrictions across the board from point of view of consistency and to make the law more acceptable, and to resolve the constitutional problems involved with that uneven treatment. But it's not the outrage that you try to make it, because the very idea of giving some religions a privileged recognition compared to others is by definition discriminatory towards other sects.

No, because the government does not have the resources to staff every hospital or government institution with "clerics" from every religion, or provide specialized lunches to match the dietary restrictions of every single religion.

Your suggestion that the discretion in how those kinds of privileges are handed out is discrimination on par with this, or that said privileges are somehow equal to, or a fair trade off for, the kind of restrictions being imposed, is nonsensical.

You're right, I don't have a problem with it, and no reasonable person should. Apart from the minor issue of treating it differently from the other three officially recognized religious societies,

That is not a minor issue. It is a critically important one. The Austrian government is trying to unilaterally "Germanize" one segment of its population, and has given itself the power to effectively squelch religious expression it doesn't like by instituting nebulous standards of "positivity."

So no, this isn't some minor issue, Jayjay, it's a huge fucking problem and it sets a terrible precedent.

The law is still being debated as far as I know, and there is a possibility of constitutional challenge, but the basic principle is sound if it were applied to all religious societies.

It would still be a government overreach if that were the case, but it's not. The fact that it's not should be cause for widespread outrage, but it isn't for you and apparently a lot of others, because ensuring that Muslims receive fair and equal treatment under the law obviously isn't something you see as a priority.

 

[Frikki]

I'm not convinced banning foreign funding is the right move. I haven't looked into the pros and cons that much, so I could be persuaded. Regardless, the singling out of Mosques rather than banning foreign funding for all non-profit and religious organizations, if that is the right route to take, is unfortunate and discriminatory.

The thing is the problem is with the mosques. Why ban more than you need to?

Well thousands of children were raped in Catholic churches.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The thing is the problem is with the mosques. Why ban more than you need to?

Well thousands of children were raped in Catholic churches.

Can you single out the ones that are the problem, though?

 

[Jayjay]

Produce a source showing what the threshold is for a "large donation."

The information is not easily available, i.e. couldn't find it in English with a quick Google search. But what's the relevance? The money in this case is in the millions, and the article says that the amount matters. It's you who wants to pretend that there is a victim there apart from some Saudi Arabian fat-cat millionaire's hurt feelings, not me. If you can find a counter-example, feel free to do so, but I'm not going to do your home work for you.

And if the source of funding is Saudi Arabia, and denied on that basis, that is making a case-by-case evaluation. Your trying to equate Saudi millionaires and their wahhabist cronies as the downtrodden masses is what's ridiculous.

Again, you toss out tired and idiotic stereotypes as though they were fact, and then have the gall to accuse others of being the ones not thinking clearly.

There are over 100,000 "millionaire" households in Saudi Arabia, and probably many more actual millionaires.

And you are trying to tell us that it's perfectly reasonable to label all of them as wahhabist fanatics, because they're Saudis, and banning them from making large donations is "case-by-case," because the case is that they're Saudis, and fuck Saudis. Especially rich Saudis, those motherfuckers.

Now you are getting it. Jist because they are millionaires, doesn't mean they can do whatever the fuck they want. Building a lavish mosque abroad (or at least Norway) happens to be one of those things. And yes, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that if a person donates millions of dollars towards building a mosque, he probably is doing it from either religious reasons or to appease a religious authority. Being from Saudi Arabia, that's most likely going to be wahhabist flavor.

And yet, if Norway rejects his donation, he can build a mosque almost anywhere else in the world. Heck, he could certainly build his goddamn mosque in Saudi Arabia. There is no victim in this story even though you try to frame the poor, desolute Saudi multimillionaire as one. Fuck him and his blood-soaked money.

It seems that just like you did on that other thread, when you run out of facts, you'll resort to gross mispresentations.

Not really. The commonality between both threads is what I just said: you are trying (and failing) to blame people for things they're not responsible for, and then pretending that that's not what you're doing. Anyone who doubts this can go read the other thread and see for themselves.

Indeed, and not everyone shares your reading-comprehension problems.

I am not "blaming" the average Saudi citizens, they are the victims.

You just got done ranting about how Saudis who donate money overseas, "millionaires or not," ought to "fix" their own country before they expect fair treatment from any others. Forgot about that already?

I was merely being thorough, and considering the possibility that maybe some of the money came from poor or middle-class Saudis by way of fund raising. And the same reasoning applies as to the millionaires: what right do they have to try to fuck with other countries? If there is such a person, he's either being victimized by his rulers who swindled him of his money, or he is a willing accomplice in the system. The comment refers to that improbable scenario, improbable and outlandish as it might be.

While it's absolutely right that Saudis ought to fix their own country first, of course the elite share more blame, than the poor and powerless.

But they are not victimized by Norway's or Austria's policies about foreign funding, they are victimized by the clerics and the power elite of their own country. The fact that they don't have any say in the matter is precisely my point.

Actually, it cripples your insinuation that it's their responsibility to "fix" their own country, and that it's fair to ban them across the board from contributing money.

First, you haven't shown that any average Saudi is being banned from contributing money. I'm sure they can find some other way to depart from their riyals. Second, even if there was such a person, how is it an outrage that he gets to keep his money? It sucks for him to having to live under one of the world's shittiest countries, and he probably can't do anything about it, but he's not the one being harmed by Norway's or Austria's foreign funding limitations in any meaningful way.

I brought up immigrants because they are usually the most vulnerable groups, and because recent immigrants might be ones who are drawn to non-German speaking, foreign-funded mosques and therefore most affected by the law.

Muslims aren't the only people who immigrate to Austria. The 2011 census shows that the former Yugoslavia is the largest country of origin for immigrants. Serbian is as widely spoken as Turkish. There are lot of Turkish immigrants, but most Turks don't attend mosque, so your "might" is a pretty tenuous one. And none of the other immigrant groups, even those speaking languages other than German, are being forced to do so in their houses of worship.

Irrelevant. People not attending mosques probably don't care one way or the other what language the sermons are in or how they are financed. As for other immigrant groups, probably the churches they attend are already following a German translation of the Bible or Catechism or 50 Shades of Grey or whatever other holy books catholics have, so the legal disparity is a non-issue.

So, not only is this a poor (and anti-democratic) means of promoting "integration," that's not the real reason anyway. Austria would not be denying Muslims the ability to receive foreign funding, or forcing them to meet vague standards of "positivity," if it merely wanted to improve the German skills of its Muslim population. It wants to control what kind of ideas Muslims can and cannot express openly. And it's becoming increasingly clear that you're OK with that.

Yep. That's what I said didn't I? Religions are all about control, and what kind of ideas their adherents can or cannot express. You seem to take offense at the idea that it's the government that does so, but so what? Religions evolve with the times, and having to change to a German translation or jump through some hoops to get special privileges are not impinging on anyone's rights. Those who find it intolerable can continue to go to mosques that are not licensed by the government so it doesn't even hurt anyone's freedom of religion.

The muslims who've lived in Austria for generations probably already speak fluent German and have adopted Austrian cultural values,

More probablies, maybes and speculation. As if this were grounds for stripping people of their rights, or the state is justified in intruding on said rights in order to police Muslims' "values."

Nobody's rights are at stake. Some so far enjoyed privileges may be. But you keep trying to muddle the issue by shifting goal posts. I brought up immigrants because they are the ones who might be affected by sermons or Quran in German, and you bring up that there might be some non-immigrants who don't speak German either... but logically, since my entire argument was based on language skill and not immigration status, that's not a counter-argument, it's just pedantry. Completely irrelevant.

and are therefore less affected by the law.

Except for the whole problem of being forced to demonstrate a “positive approach towards society and the state," or lose the licensing for their organizations, and no longer being able to receive external funding that they might be reliant upon.

But you don't care about any of that, do you?

Of course not. They can fund themselves like the catholics do. The law grants them a right to collect a tax up to 1% of their members' income, that's an alternative source of funding right there. And as far as I know if they opt out of thelicensing, the mosques can continue to receive funding from wherever they want ... I think. But frankly, why should anyone care about organizations that have a negative approach towards society or the state? I think Austria is better off seeing those parts defunded.

Again you try to downplay the fact that the law grants Islam a privileged status as a religious society (together with Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox churches) with numerous benefits that smaller sects don't have. I already admitted that it would be better to apply the restrictions across the board from point of view of consistency and to make the law more acceptable, and to resolve the constitutional problems involved with that uneven treatment. But it's not the outrage that you try to make it, because the very idea of giving some religions a privileged recognition compared to others is by definition discriminatory towards other sects.

No, because the government does not have the resources to staff every hospital or government institution with "clerics" from every religion, or provide specialized lunches to match the dietary restrictions of every single religion.

Your suggestion that the discretion in how those kinds of privileges are handed out is discrimination on par with this, or that said privileges are somehow equal to, or a fair trade off for, the kind of restrictions being imposed, is nonsensical.

If it's not a fair trade-off, they can always opt out.

You're right, I don't have a problem with it, and no reasonable person should. Apart from the minor issue of treating it differently from the other three officially recognized religious societies,

That is not a minor issue. It is a critically important one. The Austrian government is trying to unilaterally "Germanize" one segment of its population, and has given itself the power to effectively squelch religious expression it doesn't like by instituting nebulous standards of "positivity."

So no, this isn't some minor issue, Jayjay, it's a huge fucking problem and it sets a terrible precedent.

The law is still being debated as far as I know, and there is a possibility of constitutional challenge, but the basic principle is sound if it were applied to all religious societies.

It would still be a government overreach if that were the case, but it's not. The fact that it's not should be cause for widespread outrage, but it isn't for you and apparently a lot of others, because ensuring that Muslims receive fair and equal treatment under the law obviously isn't something you see as a priority.

Muslims receive fair and equal treatment under the Austrian law. Religious societies do not, and I don't care about their "rights" one way or the other because they are made up bullshit anyway. It would be an outrage if a muslim's vote was half of christian vote, or if muslims weren't treated equally before the law, but having some regulation for government-licensed mosques that are slightly different from government-licensed churches, but not in any practical way, is not an outrage by any reasonable standard.

On the other hand, the treatment of dissidents in Turkey is an outrage. The treatment of religious minorities in Saudi Arabia is an outrage. I find it ironic that you try to find some moral outrage in rather moderate laws of Austria and Norway, while whitewashing the shit that goes on in KSA and defending the oil sheiks and mullahs as some sort of victims in all this.

 

[Frikki]

Well thousands of children were raped in Catholic churches.

Can you single out the ones that are the problem, though?

Are you special?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Can you single out the ones that are the problem, though?

Are you special?

We have a subset of mosques that are the problem--the foreign ones. We can ban them without banning other mosques.

We have no such criteria to find the problem churches, though. How can you remove only those that are likely to have pedophile priests without removing them all?

 

[Warpoet]

The information is not easily available, i.e. couldn't find it in English with a quick Google search. But what's the relevance? The money in this case is in the millions, and the article says that the amount matters. It's you who wants to pretend that there is a victim there apart from some Saudi Arabian fat-cat millionaire's hurt feelings, not me. If you can find a counter-example, feel free to do so, but I'm not going to do your home work for you.

I don't need to do any "home work." I see nothing in the article about the amount. If you have a source that addresses this, produce it. It doesn't have to be in English. Otherwise, the evidence would suggest that the ban is across the board. And even if it's not, it's still ridiculous to suggest that someone ought to be discriminated against simply because they're rich and Saudi.

Now you are getting it. Jist because they are millionaires, doesn't mean they can do whatever the fuck they want. Building a lavish mosque abroad (or at least Norway) happens to be one of those things. And yes, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that if a person donates millions of dollars towards building a mosque, he probably is doing it from either religious reasons or to appease a religious authority. Being from Saudi Arabia, that's most likely going to be wahhabist flavor.

People can and should be allowed to do all manner of things, including donating money to religious institutions, unless there is a valid reason to prevent them from doing so.

Preventing governments from funding projects based on their human rights records is perfectly reasonable. Holding regular citizens accountable for said human rights records just because they're from there is not.

If a Christian fundamentalist from America is allowed to fund a church in Norway, then a Saudi millionaire should be allowed to fund a mosque, wahhabist or not (hint: being Saudi does not make a person a wahhabist). The only reason anyone would argue otherwise is xenophobia and anti-Muslim prejudice.

And yet, if Norway rejects his donation, he can build a mosque almost anywhere else in the world. Heck, he could certainly build his goddamn mosque in Saudi Arabia. There is no victim in this story even though you try to frame the poor, desolute Saudi multimillionaire as one. Fuck him and his blood-soaked money.

You just keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.

Do tell us some more how you aren't making crass generalizations and assigning collective blame, and how it's outrageous for anyone to accuse you of such.

Indeed, and not everyone shares your reading-comprehension problems.

See above. You have a very clear tendency to stereotype, label, and make all manner of assumptions about people, usually Muslims, and refuse to accept that those assumptions do not match reality.

That's readily apparent in both threads.

I was merely being thorough, and considering the possibility that maybe some of the money came from poor or middle-class Saudis by way of fund raising. And the same reasoning applies as to the millionaires: what right do they have to try to fuck with other countries? If there is such a person, he's either being victimized by his rulers who swindled him of his money, or he is a willing accomplice in the system. The comment refers to that improbable scenario, improbable and outlandish as it might be.

You have presented no evidence that it is improbable or outlandish. Average citizens donate money to various international projects all the time.

And moreover, being rich and Saudi does not make anyone guilty of anything, any more than being rich and any other nationality does. That you keep insisting on this as though it should be accepted at face value reinforces everything I've been saying and undermines your credibility. But it's also entirely consistent with your past behavior, namely collectively blaming Muslims for terrorism.

First, you haven't shown that any average Saudi is being banned from contributing money.

That's what the currently available evidence suggests, and until you come up with some evidence to the contrary that's what we're working off of.

I'm sure they can find some other way to depart from their riyals. Second, even if there was such a person, how is it an outrage that he gets to keep his money? It sucks for him to having to live under one of the world's shittiest countries, and he probably can't do anything about it, but he's not the one being harmed by Norway's or Austria's foreign funding limitations in any meaningful way.

Whether or not the policy causes demonstrable harm is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the policy is fair.

]Irrelevant. People not attending mosques probably don't care one way or the other what language the sermons are in or how they are financed.

So what?

As for other immigrant groups, probably the churches they attend are already following a German translation of the Bible or Catechism or 50 Shades of Grey or whatever other holy books catholics have, so the legal disparity is a non-issue.

More probablies, maybes and speculation. You need to do a lot better than that. We're talking about peoples' rights here.

Yep. That's what I said didn't I? Religions are all about control, and what kind of ideas their adherents can or cannot express. You seem to take offense at the idea that it's the government that does so, but so what? Religions evolve with the times, and having to change to a German translation or jump through some hoops to get special privileges are not impinging on anyone's rights. Those who find it intolerable can continue to go to mosques that are not licensed by the government so it doesn't even hurt anyone's freedom of religion.

Yes, forcing people to use another language in their houses of worship is a violation of their rights to free speech, particularly when only one group is being forced to do so.

People should not need to go to an unlicensed mosque to be able to practice in their language of choice.

At this point, you aren't even attempting to put up an argument to justify any of this. You're just saying that you don't give a fuck.

Nobody's rights are at stake. Some so far enjoyed privileges may be.

Free speech and freedom of religion are not privileges.

But you keep trying to muddle the issue by shifting goal posts. I brought up immigrants because they are the ones who might be affected by sermons or Quran in German, and you bring up that there might be some non-immigrants who don't speak German either... but logically, since my entire argument was based on language skill and not immigration status, that's not a counter-argument, it's just pedantry. Completely irrelevant.

What are you even on about? The fact that, say, Christian immigrants can still come to Austria and practice in their language of choice means that the government is discriminating against Muslims. As does the fact that Muslim who already live in Austria must conform to these rules, but non-Muslims don't.

Hardly irrelevant. It's the entire point, and despite lots of bluster you haven't once addressed it in any meaningful way.

Of course not. They can fund themselves like the catholics do. The law grants them a right to collect a tax up to 1% of their members' income, that's an alternative source of funding right there. And as far as I know if they opt out of thelicensing, the mosques can continue to receive funding from wherever they want ... I think. But frankly, why should anyone care about organizations that have a negative approach towards society or the state? I think Austria is better off seeing those parts defunded.

Licensing and funding are not one and the same. Muslim institutions could already receive licensing. Now they have to meet the government's bullshit "positivity" standards in order to maintain it.

No other religious groups have to do this.

Hence, it's discrimination. And no amount of deflection or redirection on your part is going to make that go away.

If it's not a fair trade-off, they can always opt out.

Yeah, and lose their licensing.

Again, you can keep dodging this inconvenient fact as much as you want. It's not going away.

Muslims receive fair and equal treatment under the Austrian law.

Textbook doublespeak.

Religious societies do not, and I don't care about their "rights" one way or the other because they are made up bullshit anyway. It would be an outrage if a muslim's vote was half of christian vote, or if muslims weren't treated equally before the law, but having some regulation for government-licensed mosques that are slightly different from government-licensed churches, but not in any practical way, is not an outrage by any reasonable standard.

It is not "slightly" different. It is massively different, because on top of the discriminatory language and funding restrictions, the government is giving itself the power to more or less shut down Muslim religious institutions that it doesn't like, and only the Muslim ones.

And yes, it's an outrage.

On the other hand, the treatment of dissidents in Turkey is an outrage. The treatment of religious minorities in Saudi Arabia is an outrage. I find it ironic that you try to find some moral outrage in rather moderate laws of Austria and Norway, while whitewashing the shit that goes on in KSA and defending the oil sheiks and mullahs as some sort of victims in all this.

You are talking out of your ass. I didn't whitewash anything. I simply reject your emotive, nonsensical insistence that anyone who happens to be Saudi is automatically responsible for everything the Saudi government does.

When we have people coming here and defending discrimination in Muslim countries, they'll probably be dogpiled on immediately. But if it actually does happen, let me know and I'll happily chime in.

I abhor discrimination no matter who the perpetators are, or the victims. You, on the other hand, seem more than willing to downplay discrimination when it's Muslims on the receiving end, because as you've told us, you don't give a fuck.

 

[Jayjay]

I don't need to do any "home work." I see nothing in the article about the amount. If you have a source that addresses this, produce it. It doesn't have to be in English.

It was mentioned in the article that was the source of that article (and linked therein), at VG. For your convenience, here is a translation from some blog:

The Saudi Arabian government and wealthy Saudi individuals want to build mosques in Norway for tens of millions. They are legally entitled to do so, according to Norwegian law for financially supporting religious communities, but the large sum means that the government will have to approve the financial support.

I thought your question was about what the "large sum" was. That I don't know, and it's not relevant to the argument unless you can show otherwise.

 

[Warpoet]

Without an actual number it doesn't mean much. 10,000 U.S. dollars could be considered a "large sum," but still within the range of what a non-millionaire could donate.

But regardless of what the number is, the idea that it's somehow fair and reasonable to prevent someone from donating it for no reason other than their being wealthy enough to do so, and from Saudi Arabia, is ridiculous.

 

[Jayjay]

Now you are getting it. Jist because they are millionaires, doesn't mean they can do whatever the fuck they want. Building a lavish mosque abroad (or at least Norway) happens to be one of those things. And yes, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that if a person donates millions of dollars towards building a mosque, he probably is doing it from either religious reasons or to appease a religious authority. Being from Saudi Arabia, that's most likely going to be wahhabist flavor.

People can and should be allowed to do all manner of things, including donating money to religious institutions, unless there is a valid reason to prevent them from doing so.

Preventing governments from funding projects based on their human rights records is perfectly reasonable. Holding regular citizens accountable for said human rights records just because they're from there is not.

If a Christian fundamentalist from America is allowed to fund a church in Norway, then a Saudi millionaire should be allowed to fund a mosque, wahhabist or not (hint: being Saudi does not make a person a wahhabist). The only reason anyone would argue otherwise is xenophobia and anti-Muslim prejudice.

Again, we are not talking about "regular people", but multimillionaires. And we are not talking about any country, but a place where wahhabism is the official flavor and freedom of religion doesn't exist. It's very likely that anyone who gets to be a millionaire in Saudi Arabia, and is making hefty donations to build mosques abroad, is going to adhere to the wahhabist creed. But wahhabist or not, that's not the relevant part... them being representatives of the country that tramples people's rights is. You want the Saudi elite to be evaluated on an individual basis, and enjoy the same rights as any Norwegian or European person, but you don't mind that SAudi Arabia itself doesn't allow equal rights to foreigners or even Saudi citizens of different creeds? This is a country where you could get a death penalty from smuggling in a bible, and you want the world to be outraged about Norway or Austria.

Besides, what makes you think that a Christian fundy millionaire from the US would be permitted to donate millions to build churches in Norway either? You are making unwarranted assumptions, and labeling entire country of Norway as xenophobic and anti-muslim because of your own prejudice - you want to see boogie men of evil infidels around every corner persecuting righteous muslims around the world.

And yet, if Norway rejects his donation, he can build a mosque almost anywhere else in the world. Heck, he could certainly build his goddamn mosque in Saudi Arabia. There is no victim in this story even though you try to frame the poor, desolute Saudi multimillionaire as one. Fuck him and his blood-soaked money.

You just keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.

Do tell us some more how you aren't making crass generalizations and assigning collective blame, and how it's outrageous for anyone to accuse you of such.

Indeed, and not everyone shares your reading-comprehension problems.

See above. You have a very clear tendency to stereotype, label, and make all manner of assumptions about people, usually Muslims, and refuse to accept that those assumptions do not match reality.

That's readily apparent in both threads.

No, what'a apparent is your constant misrepresentations and strawmen. I am blaming the saudi millionaires who fund mosques, for funding mosques. I'm blaming the leaders of Saudi Arabia (not the regular folks) for the sorry state of their country. It's you who's constantly pretending that I'm saying something I'm not.

The same thing happened in the other thread (of which you clearly still have a chip in your shoulder, for bringing it up): I repeatedly said that the blame is not on the regular muslims, but the ring leaders and the influence makers. But when you've decided that you are being oppressed by an infidel, you just can't let go of that delusion.

I was merely being thorough, and considering the possibility that maybe some of the money came from poor or middle-class Saudis by way of fund raising. And the same reasoning applies as to the millionaires: what right do they have to try to fuck with other countries? If there is such a person, he's either being victimized by his rulers who swindled him of his money, or he is a willing accomplice in the system. The comment refers to that improbable scenario, improbable and outlandish as it might be.

You have presented no evidence that it is improbable or outlandish. Average citizens donate money to various international projects all the time.

And moreover, being rich and Saudi does not make anyone guilty of anything, any more than being rich and any other nationality does. That you keep insisting on this as though it should be accepted at face value reinforces everything I've been saying and undermines your credibility.

Ok, show me the average citizen who is hurt? Where is the victim? It's outlandish and improbable because you can't find any single person who would be seriously harmed by Norway's or Austria's foreign funding regulations. Only a few butt-hurt imams who can't get their toys.

I'll say it again: being rich and trying to build a mosque, will make one guilty of trying to build a mosque. A useless endeavor at best, a despicable attempt at brainwashing vulnerable people at worst. It's not an issue of condeming every Saudi millionaire for just being from Saudi Arabia, it's about condeming those asshats who can't find any better use for their money than fund mosques. I have absolutely no problem with Saud millionaires funding worthwhile endeavours and I doubt even Norway would object to someone from Saudi Arabia building, say, a secular hospital in Norway.

First, you haven't shown that any average Saudi is being banned from contributing money.

That's what the currently available evidence suggests, and until you come up with some evidence to the contrary that's what we're working off of.

What evidence suggests it? Do tell. As far as I can tell, we both only know what we glean from clumsy translations of the two articles in Norwegian press, and that doesn't mention anything about average Saudis being affected.

I'm sure they can find some other way to depart from their riyals. Second, even if there was such a person, how is it an outrage that he gets to keep his money? It sucks for him to having to live under one of the world's shittiest countries, and he probably can't do anything about it, but he's not the one being harmed by Norway's or Austria's foreign funding limitations in any meaningful way.

Whether or not the policy causes demonstrable harm is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the policy is fair.

It's unfair, that some people get to be born or live in free western democracies like Norway, while some are stuck in hellholes like Saudi Arabia. The world ultimately isn't a very fair place to be. But if Norway's policies aren't harming anyone (and likely, is a net benefit to both KSA and Norway), at least they are not adding to that unfairness.

]Irrelevant. People not attending mosques probably don't care one way or the other what language the sermons are in or how they are financed.

So what?

As for other immigrant groups, probably the churches they attend are already following a German translation of the Bible or Catechism or 50 Shades of Grey or whatever other holy books catholics have, so the legal disparity is a non-issue.

More probablies, maybes and speculation. You need to do a lot better than that. We're talking about peoples' rights here.

If a person is a nominal muslim, and doesn't attend the mosque, what difference does it make to him what language the sermons in that mosque are? If a person speaks German, how are his rights being trampled by having to listen to a sermon in German or that his mosque uses a German translation of the Koran?

If we assume that a person's religious freedom includes right to receive religious preaching in his own language if he so wishes, for these people that right is not being imfringed in any serious manner... in the first case because he doesn't attend the mosque anyway, and in the second case because he is indeed receiving sermon in his own language, German. This isn't speculation, but fairly obvious deductive reasoning. So that's why I initially addressed the only one group who might have some issue with the language: recent immigrants who attend mosque but don't speak German.

I shouldn't have to explain this stuff to you like I would to a five year old, but now that I have, I realize that your reaction to it will probably be the same of a snarky five year old also.

Yep. That's what I said didn't I? Religions are all about control, and what kind of ideas their adherents can or cannot express. You seem to take offense at the idea that it's the government that does so, but so what? Religions evolve with the times, and having to change to a German translation or jump through some hoops to get special privileges are not impinging on anyone's rights. Those who find it intolerable can continue to go to mosques that are not licensed by the government so it doesn't even hurt anyone's freedom of religion.

Yes, forcing people to use another language in their houses of worship is a violation of their rights to free speech, particularly when only one group is being forced to do so.

People should not need to go to an unlicensed mosque to be able to practice in their language of choice.

At this point, you aren't even attempting to put up an argument to justify any of this. You're just saying that you don't give a fuck.

Only one religious community has to be told to do so. The others are German-speaking already. And free speech goes out the window when you start taking government money... even in the US, which is fairly secular by any standard, have tax-exempt status for churches, but in exchange the churches cannot endorse political candidates. This isn't violating free speech, because they can always give up their privileges and speak as freely as they like. It's the same in Austria.

Nobody's rights are at stake. Some so far enjoyed privileges may be.

Free speech and freedom of religion are not privileges.

Neither of those is at stake. You can start your own mosque in Austria and preach in Klingon if you want, and nobody would stop you. Just don't expect to get licenced by the government.

But you keep trying to muddle the issue by shifting goal posts. I brought up immigrants because they are the ones who might be affected by sermons or Quran in German, and you bring up that there might be some non-immigrants who don't speak German either... but logically, since my entire argument was based on language skill and not immigration status, that's not a counter-argument, it's just pedantry. Completely irrelevant.

What are you even on about? The fact that, say, Christian immigrants can still come to Austria and practice in their language of choice means that the government is discriminating against Muslims. As does the fact that Muslim who already live in Austria must conform to these rules, but non-Muslims don't.

Hardly irrelevant. It's the entire point, and despite lots of bluster you haven't once addressed it in any meaningful way.

You need to go back and reread the thread. You seem to forget everything that was said before. The context here was my bringing up immigrants, and clearly, I did it because of the potential language barrier. You clearly want to argue about something else, but I already conceded several posts ago that in my opinion Christian churches should face the same limitations. So what's your problem here exactly? Just feel the need to keep whining about someting and getting the last word? You can have it.

Of course not. They can fund themselves like the catholics do. The law grants them a right to collect a tax up to 1% of their members' income, that's an alternative source of funding right there. And as far as I know if they opt out of thelicensing, the mosques can continue to receive funding from wherever they want ... I think. But frankly, why should anyone care about organizations that have a negative approach towards society or the state? I think Austria is better off seeing those parts defunded.

Licensing and funding are not one and the same. Muslim institutions could already receive licensing. Now they have to meet the government's bullshit "positivity" standards in order to maintain it.

No other religious groups have to do this.

Hence, it's discrimination. And no amount of deflection or redirection on your part is going to make that go away.

Except that if you had bothered to research the issue, you'd know that the other churches do have the same requirement of public benefit. As the law is still being debated, there aren't any precedents of any mosque's license being revoked due to bad attitude and no evidence whatsoever of discrimination.

If it's not a fair trade-off, they can always opt out.

Yeah, and lose their licensing.

Again, you can keep dodging this inconvenient fact as much as you want. It's not going away.

You can't have it both ways: if licensing is such a great benefit that mosques can't afford to give it up, then you can't claim that it's not a fair trade-off.

Muslims receive fair and equal treatment under the Austrian law.

Textbook doublespeak.

Religious societies do not, and I don't care about their "rights" one way or the other because they are made up bullshit anyway. It would be an outrage if a muslim's vote was half of christian vote, or if muslims weren't treated equally before the law, but having some regulation for government-licensed mosques that are slightly different from government-licensed churches, but not in any practical way, is not an outrage by any reasonable standard.

It is not "slightly" different. It is massively different, because on top of the discriminatory language and funding restrictions, the government is giving itself the power to more or less shut down Muslim religious institutions that it doesn't like, and only the Muslim ones.

And yes, it's an outrage.

Austrians can fix the language and unequality issues within their own legislature and constitutional court. The points you made are minor issues, and hardly deserve international widespread outrage. I would say that it's comparable to the debate over Obamacare's subsidies that the US Supreme Court is deciding... sure it might affect a lot of people in the US, but it's still an internal matter and hardly worthy of outrage around the world.

Austrian government can already revoke licenses of churches or mosques, of any religious affiliation, if they are deemed to not meet the standard of public benefit. I don't have any reason to think that the muslims are being singled out in this regard. Your whining over the specific wording seems manufactured outrage over a nothing.

On the other hand, the treatment of dissidents in Turkey is an outrage. The treatment of religious minorities in Saudi Arabia is an outrage. I find it ironic that you try to find some moral outrage in rather moderate laws of Austria and Norway, while whitewashing the shit that goes on in KSA and defending the oil sheiks and mullahs as some sort of victims in all this.

You are talking out of your ass. I didn't whitewash anything. I simply reject your emotive, nonsensical insistence that anyone who happens to be Saudi is automatically responsible for everything the Saudi government does.

When we have people coming here and defending discrimination in Muslim countries, they'll probably be dogpiled on immediately. But if it actually does happen, let me know and I'll happily chime in.

I abhor discrimination no matter who the perpetators are, or the victims. You, on the other hand, seem more than willing to downplay discrimination when it's Muslims on the receiving end, because as you've told us, you don't give a fuck.

If you abhor discrimination no matter who the victims are, then why aren't you complaining about Austria's discrimination of non-recognized sects and churches, who have to pay for the free Islamic or Catholic teaching in schools whether they want it or not? You should be first in line in demanding that Austria stops coddling certain religions at the expense of others altogether.

 

[Warpoet]

Again, we are not talking about "regular people", but multimillionaires. And we are not talking about any country, but a place where wahhabism is the official flavor and freedom of religion doesn't exist. It's very likely that anyone who gets to be a millionaire in Saudi Arabia, and is making hefty donations to build mosques abroad, is going to adhere to the wahhabist creed. But wahhabist or not, that's not the relevant part... them being representatives of the country that tramples people's rights is.

Being wealthy and from a certain country does not make someone a "representative" of said country.

And no, the fact that the Saudi government adheres to wahhabi ideology does not make it a foregone conclusion that a wealthy Saudi is going to be funding mosques promoting crazy, extremist ideology. You have a serious logic issue when it comes to acknowledging that Muslims are individual human beings with their own thoughts and beliefs.

But even if your assumption were correct, you've presented no sound reasoning as to why a rich American ought to be allowed to fund a nutty Christian church in Norway, but a Saudi shouldn't be allowed to fund a mosque.

You want the Saudi elite to be evaluated on an individual basis, and enjoy the same rights as any Norwegian or European person, but you don't mind that SAudi Arabia itself doesn't allow equal rights to foreigners or even Saudi citizens of different creeds? This is a country where you could get a death penalty from smuggling in a bible, and you want the world to be outraged about Norway or Austria.

That is not relevant. Citizens should not be punished because of the failures of their governments. That you have such difficulty comprehending this just reinforces everything I keep saying about your failure to view Muslims as human beings, and your insistence, despite reasoned argument to the contrary, that they are collectively guilty for the crimes of other Muslims.

Besides, what makes you think that a Christian fundy millionaire from the US would be permitted to donate millions to build churches in Norway either? You are making unwarranted assumptions, and labeling entire country of Norway as xenophobic and anti-muslim because of your own prejudice - you want to see boogie men of evil infidels around every corner persecuting righteous muslims around the world.

Nonsense. I don't know if a Christian would be allowed to do so or not. But that's not the point. You are arguing that a Saudi citizen should not be allowed to fund a mosque simply because Saudi Arabia has a bad human rights record. And that's shit reasoning. If the project itself is deemed to be a harmful influence, that's one thing, but you can't single out one religion. And the passport that the person funding it is holding, in and of itself, means nothing.

No, what'a apparent is your constant misrepresentations and strawmen. I am blaming the saudi millionaires who fund mosques, for funding mosques. I'm blaming the leaders of Saudi Arabia (not the regular folks) for the sorry state of their country. It's you who's constantly pretending that I'm saying something I'm not.

The same thing happened in the other thread (of which you clearly still have a chip in your shoulder, for bringing it up): I repeatedly said that the blame is not on the regular muslims, but the ring leaders and the influence makers. But when you've decided that you are being oppressed by an infidel, you just can't let go of that delusion.

Why would I have a chip on my shoulder about the other thread? You lost. Despite your persistence, and attempts at textwalling me into oblivion, you could never put together a coherent argument. "Ringleaders," "influence makers" and all the other terminology you kept tossing out all amounted to buzz words that you couldn't define in any meaningful way. Ultimately, my point - that people are responsible for their own actions, and not those of nebulous concepts of "community" that can mean whatever ideologues and fearmongers want them to - is the only one that stood up to scrutiny. Your case failed.

And we're seeing the same thing here. You are trying to argue that it's OK to discriminate against Saudi citizens, because the Saudi government sucks, and their being wealthy somehow makes them responsible. I'm not pretending anything. That's what you're saying. But that's not a logical position, and you haven't offered anything to make it sound logical. Just repetition.

Ok, show me the average citizen who is hurt? Where is the victim? It's outlandish and improbable because you can't find any single person who would be seriously harmed by Norway's or Austria's foreign funding regulations. Only a few butt-hurt imams who can't get their toys.

Again, since you can't come up with a solid rationale for the policies you're defending, your only recourse is to downplay and misdirect.

I'll say it again: being rich and trying to build a mosque, will make one guilty of trying to build a mosque. A useless endeavor at best, a despicable attempt at brainwashing vulnerable people at worst. It's not an issue of condeming every Saudi millionaire for just being from Saudi Arabia, it's about condeming those asshats who can't find any better use for their money than fund mosques. I have absolutely no problem with Saud millionaires funding worthwhile endeavours and I doubt even Norway would object to someone from Saudi Arabia building, say, a secular hospital in Norway.

If that's your objection, then why don't you just ban the funding of any and all religious institutions, foreign or not? They're all attempts at brainwashing vulnerable people.

But in any event, the Saudiness or non Saudiness of the person funding it means fuck all.

What evidence suggests it? Do tell. As far as I can tell, we both only know what we glean from clumsy translations of the two articles in Norwegian press, and that doesn't mention anything about average Saudis being affected.

Until you come up with something showing the amount, we're assuming that anyone could be affected by this. "Large sum" is too vague.

But again, this is beside the point anyway.

It's unfair, that some people get to be born or live in free western democracies like Norway, while some are stuck in hellholes like Saudi Arabia. The world ultimately isn't a very fair place to be. But if Norway's policies aren't harming anyone (and likely, is a net benefit to both KSA and Norway), at least they are not adding to that unfairness.

Again, since you can't come up with a rationale for the policies you're defending, your only recourse is to downplay and misdirect.

If a person is a nominal muslim, and doesn't attend the mosque, what difference does it make to him what language the sermons in that mosque are? If a person speaks German, how are his rights being trampled by having to listen to a sermon in German or that his mosque uses a German translation of the Koran?

If we assume that a person's religious freedom includes right to receive religious preaching in his own language if he so wishes, for these people that right is not being imfringed in any serious manner... in the first case because he doesn't attend the mosque anyway, and in the second case because he is indeed receiving sermon in his own language, German. This isn't speculation, but fairly obvious deductive reasoning. So that's why I initially addressed the only one group who might have some issue with the language: recent immigrants who attend mosque but don't speak German.

People should be free to practice their religion in their language of choice, whether they choose to do so or not. Most people don't vote, but taking away their ability to do so is still an infringement of their rights.

This really isn't that hard to grasp, Jayjay.

I shouldn't have to explain this stuff to you like I would to a five year old, but now that I have, I realize that your reaction to it will probably be the same of a snarky five year old also.

Yeah, you should probably try patching up the massive holes in your own reasoning before trying to be a smartass.

Only one religious community has to be told to do so. The others are German-speaking already.

Facts not in evidence.

And free speech goes out the window when you start taking government money... even in the US, which is fairly secular by any standard, have tax-exempt status for churches, but in exchange the churches cannot endorse political candidates. This isn't violating free speech, because they can always give up their privileges and speak as freely as they like. It's the same in Austria.

It's violating free speech, because A) the government shouldn't be forcing language on people via houses of worship and B) it is threatening to take away their licensing if it doesn't like the message they're sending.

Again, not hard to understand unless you have some sort of ideological blinders on.

Neither of those is at stake. You can start your own mosque in Austria and preach in Klingon if you want, and nobody would stop you. Just don't expect to get licenced by the government.

You're really grasping now.

Yes, threatening to delegitimize an entire religious group by taking away their licensing if they don't meet arbitrary and vague government standards is discrimination and a clear infringement of said group's civil liberties.

No rational person will argue otherwise. And you're torpedoing your own credibility by refusing to own up to this.

You need to go back and reread the thread. You seem to forget everything that was said before. The context here was my bringing up immigrants, and clearly, I did it because of the potential language barrier. You clearly want to argue about something else, but I already conceded several posts ago that in my opinion Christian churches should face the same limitations. So what's your problem here exactly? Just feel the need to keep whining about someting and getting the last word? You can have it.

The problem is I don't know what the hell you're going on about, hence the question. The language issue has already been addressed. It's not the government's job to force language on people via religious institutions. And if only one group is being singled out, it's obvious discrimination.

Except that if you had bothered to research the issue, you'd know that the other churches do have the same requirement of public benefit.

Produce a source demonstrating that the requirements are the same.

You can't have it both ways: if licensing is such a great benefit that mosques can't afford to give it up, then you can't claim that it's not a fair trade-off.

What? The mosques already have licensing. This legislation could endanger it.

Austrians can fix the language and unequality issues within their own legislature and constitutional court. The points you made are minor issues, and hardly deserve international widespread outrage. I would say that it's comparable to the debate over Obamacare's subsidies that the US Supreme Court is deciding... sure it might affect a lot of people in the US, but it's still an internal matter and hardly worthy of outrage around the world.

You might say that, because you view the rights of Muslims to free speech and religious expression as a triviality.

Some of us do not, and recognize the inherent danger in legislation allowing the government to force its identity onto an entire religious group, and stomp out religious expression it doesn't like. The Obamacare situation is not even remotely analogous.

Austrian government can already revoke licenses of churches or mosques, of any religious affiliation, if they are deemed to not meet the standard of public benefit. I don't have any reason to think that the muslims are being singled out in this regard. Your whining over the specific wording seems manufactured outrage over a nothing.

Again, produce the sources outlining the specific requirements. Your claims will not be accepted at face value.

If you abhor discrimination no matter who the victims are, then why aren't you complaining about Austria's discrimination of non-recognized sects and churches, who have to pay for the free Islamic or Catholic teaching in schools whether they want it or not? You should be first in line in demanding that Austria stops coddling certain religions at the expense of others altogether.

Because that's not what the thread is about. It's about the Austrian government trying to impose unfair and dangerous restrictions on its Muslim community. That is of huge concern due to the implications it carries with it. If you want to argue about a separate issue, start another thread.

 

[Frikki]

Are you special?

We have a subset of mosques that are the problem--the foreign ones. We can ban them without banning other mosques.

We have no such criteria to find the problem churches, though. How can you remove only those that are likely to have pedophile priests without removing them all?

Are all foreign funded mosques a problem? Or is it that you don't like Muslims but are willing to give white pedophiles a pass?

 

[SimpleDon]

The right wing backlash against the Islamism threat continues, unfortunately harms non-Islamist Muslims as well:

[Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz] told the BBC the reforms were a “milestone” for Austria and aimed to stop certain Muslim countries using financial means to exert “political influence.” “What we want is to reduce the political influence and control from abroad and we want to give Islam the chance to develop freely within our society and in line with our common European values,” he said.

...

Imams will be obliged to be able to speak German under the law. “We want a future in which increasing numbers of imams have grown up in Austria speaking German, and can in that way serve as positive examples for young Muslims,” Kurz explained.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...an/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

The specific targeting of Mosques and Imams and not putting in the same restrictions on other faiths, such as Christians and Jews, is worrying. The Islamist extremism is breeding support for right wing extremism. Where are the moderate voices to fill the vacuum in Europe? While some may talk about the polarization of US society, what is happening in Europe is truly scary.

You can get an argument in Germany that no Austrian speaks German.