Posted on 03/12/2006 9:58:20 AM PST by wagglebee
There is no freedom of speech issue involved. If someone agrees to certain things in exchange for the privilege of entering the country and then reneges, he is to be kicked out -- not for expressing certain ideas, but for perjuring himself during the immigration process.
I'm sure you'll ping me when (if) something happens.
What a big ego you have, grandmother.
And so the mere belief that homosexual activity is immoral or sinful should be a disqualification for immigration?
Again, immigration is a PRIVILEGE, not a right.
So what? There should be some rational basis for the exclusion. Advocacy of violence against groups or membership in groups who so advocate violence is narrowly tailored. To say that objection to homosexual activity as immoral should bar one is giving legitimacy is providing support to the left-wing thought control police who want to criminalize selective "hate speech" as they have done in Europe and Canada and have created a right not to be offended. Yes, of course immigrating is a privilege, but enacting this left-wing thought control nonsense in this context is of a peace with criminalization domestically and is not narrowly tailored to fit the precise objection to potentially violence-minded Muslim immigrants.
Me: "The western world has to be careful how they respond to islamofacists. A test like this would quickly evolve into list of political correctness without which you can't enter the country."
steve-b: "So what? Entry into the country is a privilege, not a right."
Well, I'm projecting a bit, I admit. I am envisioning similar rules for the U.S. The end result could be that no more Christians are allowed to immigrate here. Over time that would hurt the country.
Wow.. she really must not get out much in Holland! I wonder if shes even ever gone out to party during Koninginnedag...
Is this what The Netherlands are attempting to prevent by including the question re homosexuality in their immigration quiz? The sharia interpretation - which has also been 'preached' by the imams in Australian mosques...? As a result of which a relative of the imam in company of other muslim youth, took to beating a cyclist in a park with a baseball bat?
(snip)
The Koranic claim that homosexuality was unknown before it first appeared in Sodom is a uniquely Islamic concept; so is the notion that its destruction was exclusively due to the homosexual practices of its inhabitants, a departure from the Hebrew Scriptures. In addition to the Koran many hadiths or authoritative traditional sayings mention liwat, (homosexual intercourse) e.g. “When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes,” and “Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to (6).” Mohammed’s first successor Abu Bakr reportedly had a homosexual burned at the stake. The fourth caliph, Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali, ordered a sodomite thrown from the minaret of a mosque. Others he ordered to be stoned. One of the earliest and most authoritative commentators on the Koran, Ibn ‘Abbas (died 687) blended both approaches into a two-step execution in which “the sodomite should be thrown from the highest building in the town and then stoned.” Later it was decided that if no building were tall enough, the he could be shoved off a cliff. Regardless of the exact method,
“Moslem Jurists agree that, if proven of guilt, both of them should be killed. However, jurists differ on the methodology of capital punishment (7).”
There are seven countries in the world that carry the death penalty for homosexual acts, and all of them justify this punishment with sharia.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Printable.asp?ID=5704
If you don't want to live with Dutch culture, don't move to Holland. I can't think of anything more "rational" than that.
Advocacy of violence against groups or membership in groups who so advocate violence is narrowly tailored.
Anybody can say they are nonviolent. Yasser Arafat did it all the time (when speaking in English for Western audiences).
Pretending to be civilized when confronted with an image that hammers on one of the barbarians' hot buttons is more difficult.
So the definition of being "civilized" is that one has no moral objection to homosexual activity? You sound like the Boston Globe as that is certainly their attitude. All traditional Christian believers need to be exiled from Netherlands immediately if that were the case.
The definition of being civilized is that you are able to react to annoyances like an adult rather than a spoiled brat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.