Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[martinuzz]

After years of ruckus and stalling, the German parliament finally approved of a new law that allows for highway tolls to be instated for the German Autobahn.
Belgium and France will likely need to invest millions into their road infrastructure once every single last transport company will rerout it's trucks to avoid German tolls.
I feel sorry for the German gas stations and highway schnitzel restaurants that will go bankrupt when their trucker customers stay away.

[smjjames]

Furthermore, attempting to regulate Islam is going to backfire spectacularly in Europe at least. Europe does not have the same degree of social integration between Muslims and non-Muslims, and Muslims are under-represented in European governments and legislature. Governments imposing any sort of control over Islamic practice will be seen as anti-Islam oppression, and will merely provide more fodder for terrorist propaganda.

He has a point. Such is the conundrum in Europe.

Look at Brussels' own mayor, saying that all their mosques are controlled by Salafists (unsurprising when they're all funded by the Saudis, but of course no one wants to talk about that). So the answer isn't to sit there and whine about it, the answer is to shut those mosques down or to take firm control of them. In some countries, like Singapore, all mosques' Friday sermons are prepared and distributed by a government office in advance. I don't think that's an unreasonable step for our governments to take given that people are continually dying because of Islamic extremism.

That which you are implying is not true. While in Singapore, we do have a government statutory board (MUIS) that incorporates the office of the Mufti which publishes khutbah, the mosques do not literally have to follow them word-by-word, and several imams omit portions of it during prayers.

Furthermore, attempting to regulate Islam is going to backfire spectacularly in Europe at least. Europe does not have the same degree of social integration between Muslims and non-Muslims, and Muslims are under-represented in European governments and legislature. Governments imposing any sort of control over Islamic practice will be seen as anti-Islam oppression, and will merely provide more fodder for terrorist propaganda.

Here in the Netherlands the Turkish government literally pays the imams of Turkish mosques.

I think forbidding foreign governments from sponsoring religious organisations is a very reasonable and necessary measure.

Separating church and state is a reasonable thing, yes. Though I'm sure the Catholic church would object to losing whatever little political power they have these days, if any. Although I don't think the Netherlands is particularily Catholic, thanks to the Reformation.

[martinuzz]

Look at Brussels' own mayor, saying that all their mosques are controlled by Salafists (unsurprising when they're all funded by the Saudis, but of course no one wants to talk about that). So the answer isn't to sit there and whine about it, the answer is to shut those mosques down or to take firm control of them. In some countries, like Singapore, all mosques' Friday sermons are prepared and distributed by a government office in advance. I don't think that's an unreasonable step for our governments to take given that people are continually dying because of Islamic extremism.

That which you are implying is not true. While in Singapore, we do have a government statutory board (MUIS) that incorporates the office of the Mufti which publishes khutbah, the mosques do not literally have to follow them word-by-word, and several imams omit portions of it during prayers.

Furthermore, attempting to regulate Islam is going to backfire spectacularly in Europe at least. Europe does not have the same degree of social integration between Muslims and non-Muslims, and Muslims are under-represented in European governments and legislature. Governments imposing any sort of control over Islamic practice will be seen as anti-Islam oppression, and will merely provide more fodder for terrorist propaganda.

Here in the Netherlands the Turkish government literally pays the imams of Turkish mosques.

I think forbidding foreign governments from sponsoring religious organisations is a very reasonable and necessary measure.

I doubt that law would pass parliament. Catholics still have quite a bit of influence, albeit dwindling. The north of the country might be protestant or reformed, the south is still a bastion of catholicism. Don't forget that most (if not all) priests of catholic churches are paid by a foreign government as well (the Vatican)

[Dorsidwarf]

LW, a short while back you blasted Blair and Cameron for being warmongers, but now you're complaining about the lack of international response to IS' extermination of traditional small middle-eastern cultures? Should we be bombing them and storming Raqqa or should we not?

This is a genuinely contentious question that I'm interested to know your position on.

[Antioch]

Look at Brussels' own mayor, saying that all their mosques are controlled by Salafists (unsurprising when they're all funded by the Saudis, but of course no one wants to talk about that). So the answer isn't to sit there and whine about it, the answer is to shut those mosques down or to take firm control of them. In some countries, like Singapore, all mosques' Friday sermons are prepared and distributed by a government office in advance. I don't think that's an unreasonable step for our governments to take given that people are continually dying because of Islamic extremism.

That which you are implying is not true. While in Singapore, we do have a government statutory board (MUIS) that incorporates the office of the Mufti which publishes khutbah, the mosques do not literally have to follow them word-by-word, and several imams omit portions of it during prayers.

Furthermore, attempting to regulate Islam is going to backfire spectacularly in Europe at least. Europe does not have the same degree of social integration between Muslims and non-Muslims, and Muslims are under-represented in European governments and legislature. Governments imposing any sort of control over Islamic practice will be seen as anti-Islam oppression, and will merely provide more fodder for terrorist propaganda.

Here in the Netherlands the Turkish government literally pays the imams of Turkish mosques.

I think forbidding foreign governments from sponsoring religious organisations is a very reasonable and necessary measure.

I doubt that law would pass parliament. Catholics still have quite a bit of influence, albeit dwindling. The north of the country might be protestant or reformed, the south is still a bastion of catholicism. Don't forget that most (if not all) priests of catholic churches are paid by a foreign government as well (the Vatican)

I don't see why the Vatican should be an exception to our separation of religion and state.

[martinuzz]

It shouldn't be, but a law still needs to pass parliament and senate.

[smjjames]

Look at Brussels' own mayor, saying that all their mosques are controlled by Salafists (unsurprising when they're all funded by the Saudis, but of course no one wants to talk about that). So the answer isn't to sit there and whine about it, the answer is to shut those mosques down or to take firm control of them. In some countries, like Singapore, all mosques' Friday sermons are prepared and distributed by a government office in advance. I don't think that's an unreasonable step for our governments to take given that people are continually dying because of Islamic extremism.

That which you are implying is not true. While in Singapore, we do have a government statutory board (MUIS) that incorporates the office of the Mufti which publishes khutbah, the mosques do not literally have to follow them word-by-word, and several imams omit portions of it during prayers.

Furthermore, attempting to regulate Islam is going to backfire spectacularly in Europe at least. Europe does not have the same degree of social integration between Muslims and non-Muslims, and Muslims are under-represented in European governments and legislature. Governments imposing any sort of control over Islamic practice will be seen as anti-Islam oppression, and will merely provide more fodder for terrorist propaganda.

Here in the Netherlands the Turkish government literally pays the imams of Turkish mosques.

I think forbidding foreign governments from sponsoring religious organisations is a very reasonable and necessary measure.

I doubt that law would pass parliament. Catholics still have quite a bit of influence, albeit dwindling. The north of the country might be protestant or reformed, the south is still a bastion of catholicism. Don't forget that most (if not all) priests of catholic churches are paid by a foreign government as well (the Vatican)

I don't see why the Vatican should be an exception to our separation of religion and state.

The Vatican is technically a state and I believe other countries have embassies there? Depends on whether you argue that there is a distinction between The Vatican as a state and The Vatican as the seat of the Catholic church or not.

Besides, you were talking about the separation of church and state between the Netherlands and religion in general, not between The Vatican and the Catholic church.

[martinuzz]

Disallowance of foreign funding does not really fall under seperation of church and state though. Put simple, seperation of church and state means that politicians don't dictate a preacher's sermon, and a preacher will not dictate his flock what to vote. Whomever pays the priest, or the church maintnance is not really part of that.

[ChairmanPoo]

I don't think the Catholic Church's economy works anything as straightforward as "the Vatican paying priest's wages". My understanding is that they work as a series of semi-independent organizations (the exact degree of independence varies, with the Jesuits and the Opus Dei likely being the most autonomous).

[martinuzz]

A Dutch judge has ruled that the Dutch court wants to hear Johan van Laarhoven and his wife as a witness in a case filed against the state. They also want to hear him as a suspect in a moneylaundry / drugs case.

Laarhoven's lawyer is quite pleased with the verdict, which is intended to save him and his wife from horrible circumstances in a Thai prison.

Van Laarhoven was a coffeeshop owner of a succesful franchise of coffeeshops in the south of the Netherlands called 'the Grass Company'. That's the Dutch kind of coffeeshop, the one that sells weed, not coffee and bagels (although some do sell those too).
After 31 years of running these legal business, he chose to retire in 2011 and move with his Thai wife to Thailand, to enjoy retirement.

However, once in Thailand, he was arrested, and convicted to 103 years in prison for laundring drug money. His wife was convicted to 9 years as an accomplice.
Even though he made his money legally in the Netherlands, with the sale of marijuana, the Thai didn't care it was legal in the Netherlands, but regarded his retirement savings as drug money. He and his wife have now already spent 2.5 years in a Thai prison, according to human rights organisations, in terrible circumstances.

Up until now, the Dutch government refused to interfere, stating the Dutch government does not interfere with another country's juridical system.
Van Laarhoven sued the Dutch state, accusing them of setting him up, and promtping the Thai authorities to investigate him. At first, the Dutch government denied, but documents surfaced that proved that the Dutch Justice Department had indeed asked the Thai authorities to look into van Laarhoven. It is in this case that the judge ruled today, that they want to hear van Laarhoven as a witness, in the Netherlands.

In another case he is a suspect. He is suspected of having more weed in stock in his coffeeshops than allowed. This is a red herring, and the government knows that. Every last coffeeshop always has too much in stock, because it is not logistically possible to keep to the limit of 200 grammes. You average Joe coffeeshop over here sells that in a few hours, a popular coffeeshop sells that in 30 minutes. He is also suspected of moneylaundry, related to the overstocking.

With this, the Dutch government will be forced by the Justice department to demand the Thai authorities extradite van Laarhoven to the Netherlands.
It is unsure though if the Thai will comply. They do not have to.

It's a terrible case. Imagine you're a supermarket owner in the US and you retire. You move with your Saudi wife to Saudi Arabia to enjoy retirement, and there you are arrested and sentenced to death because you sold pig meat back when you had your supermarket in the US. Basically the same thing as what happened to this former coffeeshop owner.

[ChairmanPoo]

Indeed.

In all honesty I'm reluctant to travel, let alone move, anywhere outside W. Europe. You never know what will happen.

[Sergarr]

In another case he is a suspect. He is suspected of having more weed in stock in his coffeeshops than allowed. This is a red herring, and the government knows that. Every last coffeeshop always has too much in stock, because it is not logistically possible to keep to the limit of 200 grammes. You average Joe coffeeshop over here sells that in a few hours, a popular coffeeshop sells that in 30 minutes. He is also suspected of moneylaundry, related to the overstocking.

Protip: just because the crime is not prosecuted, doesn't mean it's legal. He's violated the law on legally selling drugs, and thus he's an illegal drug dealer who totally and completely deserves to rot in prison for destroying the fabric of society.

[Pwnzerfaust]

Indeed.

In all honesty I'm reluctant to travel, let alone move, anywhere outside W. Europe. You never know what will happen.

The US, Canada, Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Australia, and New Zealand are all fine too, you know.

[Antioch]

Disallowance of foreign funding does not really fall under seperation of church and state though. Put simple, seperation of church and state means that politicians don't dictate a preacher's sermon, and a preacher will not dictate his flock what to vote. Whomever pays the priest, or the church maintnance is not really part of that.

Yet we do allow foreign governments to do just that.

[Antioch]

In another case he is a suspect. He is suspected of having more weed in stock in his coffeeshops than allowed. This is a red herring, and the government knows that. Every last coffeeshop always has too much in stock, because it is not logistically possible to keep to the limit of 200 grammes. You average Joe coffeeshop over here sells that in a few hours, a popular coffeeshop sells that in 30 minutes. He is also suspected of moneylaundry, related to the overstocking.

Protip: just because the crime is not prosecuted, doesn't mean it's legal. He's violated the law on legally selling drugs, and thus he's an illegal drug dealer who totally and completely deserves to rot in prison for destroying the fabric of society.

This is sarcasm right?