DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Even Greener Pastures
HTML https://evengreener.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: World Current Events, Politics and News
*****************************************************
#Post#: 17332--------------------------------------------------
Re: How (not) to become a German
By: Aliph Date: July 1, 2019, 1:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Europe is having all kind of new immigrants and refugees. Those
that I welcome most are people who had to flee because of their
opinions or beliefs.
I DELETED THIS PASSAGE ABOUT SOMEONE WHO IS ASKING ASYLUM. I
HAVE NO RIGHT TO TALK ABOUT THIRD PERSONS WHO ARE PERSECUTED IN
THEIR HOME COUNTRY. I AM AFRAID TO DO THEM HARM.
Sorry for the off-topic. I am not good at debating religious
matters. But nowadays Christians are persecuted in many parts of
the world. In the Middle East they just left.
#Post#: 17333--------------------------------------------------
Re: How (not) to become a German
By: MartinSR Date: July 1, 2019, 1:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We may think we are better than that. But I think in most
European countries keeping the Bible in a doctor's waiting room
would be the reason for protests of people feeling their rights
are violated. When I read all those comments of hate when a
person known to the community (a celebrity, politician, ...)
tells openly about their religion - I feel that the 'mild'
persecution of Christians is here and now.
#Post#: 17336--------------------------------------------------
Re: How (not) to become a German
By: Alharacas Date: July 1, 2019, 4:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=NealC link=topic=1189.msg17325#msg17325
date=1561935004]
By fundamentalism I mean going back to "the book". When you go
back to the book in Christianity you do not get heretic burning,
monasteries, Inquisitions and the like. You do get love they
neighbor, do good to those who hurt you, do unto others as you
would have done unto you. Christians and organized religion can
do horrible things, but they are not called for in the Bible.
I would submit to you that you have the opposite in Islam, and
the reason many Western youth traveled to join ISIS was to rebel
against their socially acceptable, broad minded, secular
parents. The problem is their scriptures encourage it.
[/quote]
Yes, Neal, I understood perfectly well what you meant by
fundamentalism. But it's never really about the text, is it?
It's about people, power and politics. People always, always
pick and choose which bits to act on and which to ignore. Plenty
of talk about slavery (and also about punishing slaves) in the
New Testament, isn't there? So, do you support slavery? I bet
you don't. Why not? I'm sure you'd say something about
historical context, wouldn't you? Well, the exact same thing is
going to happen if you ask any normal Muslim how they can live
peacefully among unbelievers without wanting to cast terror into
their hearts.
On the other hand, take something apparently innocuous like
"This is my flesh, this is my blood". An untold number of people
got killed over this, over the very question Jerry loves so
much, i.e. what "is" actually means. Does the bread literally
turn into flesh/meat, and we're just not enlightened enough to
see it? Or is it just a symbolical act? Tell me now, and you'll
either be welcomed as a staunch member of the Christian
community - or you'll be burnt at the stake!
(That particular one was invented by the Tudors to root out
stubborn Catholics among their subjects if I remember
correctly.)
And since there is admittedly an inconvenient lack of violence
in the New Testament, our ancestors liked to turn to the Old
Testament to justify bloodshed on a large scale, didn't they?
Being lazy, I'll just quote from
HTML https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=124494788
"There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible
which we can only call genocide."
It is called herem, and it means total annihilation. Consider
the Book of 1 Samuel, when God instructs King Saul to attack the
Amalekites: "And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not
spare them," God says through the prophet Samuel. "But kill both
man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and
donkey."
When Saul failed to do that, God took away his kingdom.
"In other words," Jenkins says, "Saul has committed a dreadful
sin by failing to complete genocide. And that passage echoes
through Christian history. It is often used, for example, in
American stories of the confrontation with Indians — not just is
it legitimate to kill Indians, but you are violating God's law
if you do not."
The thing is, I don't want to either demonize Christianity, nor
do I want to justify Islam. It's just that if history's shown me
one thing, then it's that you don't need words like "cast terror
into the hearts of the unbelievers" in order to become violent -
if war and terror is what you're bent on.
And the very same is true for misogyny: unlike the New
Testament, which is really explicit about it, dire punishment
for non-compliance included (1 Corinthians 11:5-6), the Quran
says nothing whatsoever about women having to cover themselves,
whether during worship or at any other time.
HTML https://www.learnreligions.com/quran-require-women-to-wear-veil-2353510
QED :D
#Post#: 17345--------------------------------------------------
Re: How (not) to become a German
By: NealC Date: July 1, 2019, 7:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The Jenkins quote is very good and an excellent point, he does
hit the nail on the head. The Jewish people and the (literal)
Holy Land, the Temple sacrificial system, the Law and
commandments, indeed the whole of the Old Testament is the
example of the only way a Holy God can live among us and provide
salvation. The New Testament, the New Covenant is how a God of
love has made a better way, for a people of every tongue, tribe
and nation, worshipping God from every place on earth. A way
that supersedes the Old way. Unless of course you have enemies
you wish to smite, and you need the Bible to justify yourself.
I know the 'Christianity has grown up" argument, and I do see
your point. But to me Christianity moved away from violence
after the Bible started to get into the hands of the common man
and the violent teachings became untenable. I don't know if the
fight against the American Indian was ever really underlaid with
a layer of Old Testament genocide, I don't think so. I do think
Southern slavery was served up smothered in Christianity, and
that is a shameful legacy for American Christians.
My point is that the thing that makes Christians wonderful
fellow citizens is as they get closer to their "guidebook" and
the teachings of their leader they leave violence and misogyny
behind. Islam is not a religion of self-defense, I have to say
Alharacas that it is surprising that a person so well read would
hold that opinion. It wasn't self defense that exploded out of
Saudi Arabia, advanced to the borders of China and the Mongols,
took the Middle East and North Africa, and only kept out of
Europe by centuries of warfare. It was a religious system
predicated on conquest, looting, enslavement, and forced
conversion. THAT is still in their book, and in the person of
their Prophet. That can be called out of any generation of
Moslems, even the children of "near Germans".
Thank you, and Martin and Sofia for such thought provoking
comments :-)
#Post#: 17348--------------------------------------------------
Re: How (not) to become a German
By: Truman Overby Date: July 1, 2019, 8:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I learned a long time ago to not attempt to persuade a
determined atheist that God exists. So I'll sit this one out.
P.S. If you believe Jesus is a fantasy then you are a Believer
of a different sort. You believe that Jesus , the Disciples, and
his followers, pulled off the greatest hoax in the history of
mankind. Susanne, you always get a kick out of me and my
conspiracy theories. Fair enough. But what you fail to see is
that you've fallen for the greatest conspiracy theory of all
time. That's your choice. I won't try to talk anyone out of it.
That's all I have to say.
#Post#: 17351--------------------------------------------------
Re: How (not) to become a German
By: MartinSR Date: July 1, 2019, 9:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=The Artist formerly known as Truman Overby
link=topic=1189.msg17348#msg17348 date=1561988085]
If you believe Jesus is a fantasy then you are a Believer of a
different sort.
[/quote]
Absolutely agree. When something can't be proven, you may just
believe it's true or believe it's false.
People start from sharing the beliefs of their parents and their
community, sometimes doubt and in the end some of them
experience some things in their life which direct them towards
one side or the other. But these things are usually meaningful
to them, and still not enough to convince the others.
Of course I suppose there are people for whom the question of
God's existence is not important.
#Post#: 17352--------------------------------------------------
Re: How (not) to become a German
By: Irena Date: July 1, 2019, 10:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=MartinSR link=topic=1189.msg17351#msg17351
date=1561992351]
People start from sharing the beliefs of their parents and their
community, sometimes doubt and in the end some of them
experience some things in their life which direct them towards
one side or the other. But these things are usually meaningful
to them, and still not enough to convince the others.
[/quote]
Yup. I read a blog (quite a nice blog, btw) by someone who
claims to have memories of his past lives. He's convinced. I'm
not. I'm still willing to take him seriously on other matters.
#Post#: 17359--------------------------------------------------
Re: How (not) to become a German
By: Alharacas Date: July 1, 2019, 3:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=NealC link=topic=1189.msg17345#msg17345
date=1561985034]
Islam is not a religion of self-defense, I have to say Alharacas
that it is surprising that a person so well read would hold that
opinion. [/quote]
I never said anything about self-defense, Neal. Marcin's the one
who was talking about that.
#Post#: 17362--------------------------------------------------
Re: How (not) to become a German
By: MartinSR Date: July 1, 2019, 4:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Alharacas link=topic=1189.msg17359#msg17359
date=1562012345]
[quote author=NealC link=topic=1189.msg17345#msg17345
date=1561985034]
Islam is not a religion of self-defense, I have to say Alharacas
that it is surprising that a person so well read would hold that
opinion. [/quote]
I never said anything about self-defense, Neal. Marcin's the one
who was talking about that.
[/quote]
Yes. It was my idea actually. And I was telling about the
theory, not about all the things that came out of this.
On the other hand someone could ask, how can we say that
Christianity is the religion of love and peace. In fact I think
it is... or at least should be.
I don't know about Islam and it's theory. I said it was just an
attempt to understand, because I don't like to classify people
as evil without trying to find the reason.
#Post#: 17370--------------------------------------------------
Re: How (not) to become a German
By: SHL Date: July 1, 2019, 11:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Alharacas link=topic=1189.msg17305#msg17305
date=1561893626]
So... we've had a case of a guy first getting married to a
German woman, then getting married again in Syria. Later, when
applying for German citizenship, he neglected to tell the German
authorities about this second marriage. So, they tried to take
his German passport away again; he went to the courts which, for
some inexplicable reason - because no, bigamy is definitely not
legal in Germany - deferred the case, saying a second wife was
no obstacle to getting a German passport.
Remember: One. Single. Case. Being judged by somebody who must
have been, er, a bit absent-minded. And by no means resolved,
according to this:
HTML https://www.bverwg.de/pm/2018/36
(looking forward to hearing Steven's opinion about the article)
Cue public outcry, cue German Parliament - not normally known to
take swift action, whatever the reason - hurriedly reforming the
law of naturalization. Or rather, re-reforming it. Because, see,
it had been reformed in 2000. However, this first reform had
never been to the liking of the conservatives. Too clear-cut,
see. In order to get a German passport, you either get married
to a German citizen (and yeah, our authorities are just as quick
to suspect and as keen to prove marriage shams as they are in
the US), or you've been living in Germany for the required
number of years, can support yourself financially, and have
passed a test, proving your knowledge of the German language and
Germany's democratic institutions and processes (meaning a new
citizen is likely to know a lot more about those than roughly
98% of all born Germans). No other requirements, as far as I
know.
So, what's the new reform about?
- You're going to be a citizen on trial. For 10 bloody years.
Because obviously, creating 2nd class citizens is always a
sure-fire way to ensure cohesion within a society.
- "Einordnung in deutsche Lebensverhältnisse" (roughly:
integration into the German way of life) is emphasized. That bit
was also in the previous version, but never mind that.
Emphasizing it is supposed to calm down all of those upstanding
Germans who're seeing harems sprouting up all over their
neigbourhood.
Mind you, I'd be prepared to see this integration requirement as
a pretty good thing if it stopped parents from sending their -
often quite unwilling daughters - to the Middle East, in order
to marry them off. Unfortunately, nobody's yet discovered an
effective way of preventing this, and this re-reform is unlikely
to help, either.
What is likely is a wave of legal proceedings, because the real
new obstacle to naturalization is "Mitgliedschaft in einer
Terrormiliz" (being a member of a terrorist militia).
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm just as wary of people wanting to
make themselves (and an unspecified number of others) go boom as
the next person. However, there's that niggling question of who
decides which organization is labelled a terrorist militia,
isn't there? Keeping in mind what a convenient, frequently used
method it is, to just slap on that label, if you're a tyrant and
would like to keep those pesky people under control who keep
clamouring for freedom, democracy, or even, heaven forfend, the
right to an autonomous government, if they happen to be an
ethnic minority.
Not to mention the equally interesting question of how to
define, let alone prove "membership". I wonder if the esteemed
members of my parliament realize that terrorist organizations
rarely have neatly written lists of paying members. Yes, photos
of somebody waving the wrong flag and carrying placards saying
"Down with the pigs! Horses rock! Boxer for president!" would be
a strong indicator, but I'm not sure those placard carriers are
the people my government, or ordinary German citizens, should be
most worried about.
Most of all, I mind the idea of my government asking people to
lie, which is what I see as the most likely outcome. And how to
prove people are lying if you suspect that's what they're doing?
By asking their neighbours, teachers, friends, relatives, even,
to testify for or against them? Yikes. Thought police. Just what
the world needed more of.
HTML https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/staatsbuergerschaftsrecht-wird-geaendert-juristen-kritisieren-neue-huerden-auf-dem-weg-zum-deutschen-pass/24494586.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab
HTML https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/reform-im-staatsbuergerschaftsrecht-kein-einstieg-in.720.de.html?dram:article_id=452627
[/quote]
How did a discussion about German Immigration and Naturalization
law turn into one about religion???
Oh well. I’m surely no expert on anyone’s Immigration and
Naturalization law, not even that of the US, but it is a bit
hard to see how the administrative appellate court remanded the
case to a lower court (another appeals court) to review the
facts to see if the fellow who had lost his naturalization, then
had it restored (I guess for awhile) to determine if he were
eligible to apply for citizenship at the time he lost his
citizenship (which was 2013) as opposed to when he originally
did get it ( in 2010), which was some 5 years after he married
the German national (which was coincidentally only a few months
before he married the second wife in Syria, but he concealed
that on his application for citizenship). Both marriages
occurred in 2008, the first producing 3 kids with the German
wife and a daughter with the Syrian wife. The daughter from the
Syrian woman wound up living with him and his German wife and
kids in Germany, and the Syrian wife ended up living in Germany
herself. I suppose the court felt if the facts were more
carefully reviewed the guy was possibly entitled to keep his
citizenship.
As I understand it, Germany had two basic tracks to citizenship.
One is sort of a fast track that you could get after 2 years of
marriage to a German national, which occurred here ( but I had
read once on Wikipedia it was 3 years). But there were two
competing standards which came into play. One was what Alharacas
mentioned is sort of an acculturation requirement (Einordnung in
deutsche Lebensverhältnisse), which roughly translates as a
integration into the German lifestyle, way of life), and then
there was a narrower (according to the case) standard called the
“die freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung.” It sort of
translates roughly as a free democratic constitutional order, or
system. And, I suppose it embodies a willingness to commit to
the principles of a constitutional democracy, the one you are
asking to become a citizen of. The case doesn’t give any
examples, but I feel it essentially means a willingness to
uphold the constitution, obey the laws and so on. The other
standard is totally different. It asks applicants for
citizenship to integrate into the German culture (which is what
all the hoopla was about, in the other articles). My
understanding is that both of these principles applied to people
on the “fast track” naturalization path through marriage, but
only the commitment to “die freiheitliche demokratische
Grundordnung” applied to people on the long-term path, which
involved 8 years or so of legal residence, learning the
language, showing economic self-sufficiency, passing a test and
so on (Those same requirements applied to the fast track system
too.)
As of last month I believe, both of these legal requirements
apply to everyone seeking citizenship, on the fast track and
long term track system, and that was what all the opposition was
about in the other articles. Because, by applying the
“integration into the German lifestyle” requirement, it’s sort
of an acculturation requirement and runs contrary to the concept
of multi-culturalism. Plus, that’s an old part of the law that
dates back to 1913 I think, but was, as Alharacas said,
reformed. So, the opposition said applying this acculturation
requirement was seen as a move away from multiculturalism and
toward a unified cultural mindset.
The phrase “integrating into the German lifestyle” is so vague
and open-ended, it would have to have a lot of case law
interpretation thrown into it to even know what it means. It’s
one of those legal standards that is so broad and vague, as we
say you could drive a Mack truck though it. It could mean
anything you could want it to mean. But you do get a general
feel for what they are talking about.
I think the administrative appellate courts were cracking the
door open a bit toward multiculturalism by saying the lower
court had to have a second look at the case for the guy (it
doesn’t state whether he lied on his application or not about
the second marriage, if he were asked, or if it was just a
deliberate omission somewhere, but that was an independent
ground to revoke his citizenship most likely as it is). It did
seem the court was going out of its way to give the guy a break.
I can only contrast this with US naturalization law. I don’t
think there is an English language requirement (or if there is
it’s at a very basic level) but one does have to take a
citizenship test and I think live here legally for 5 years.
Marriage to a US citizen doesn’t shorten the residency duration
requirement. And, you probably have to swear an oath to defend
the constitution, but I think that is it. There would surely be
no requirement of integrating into an American lifestyle, or
culture, since there really isn’t one. The US has always been
multicultural.
The fact the guy married the Syrian woman 2 months after
marrying the first wife would be of no relevance in the US. The
marriage would, at least in California, just be considered void
(a grounds for annulment), treated like it never even existed,
like marrying your sister or brother. Null and void from the get
go. But, that would have nothing to do with immigration law. The
only thing I can imagine it might relate to is whether the first
marriage were a sham marriage or not. But, clearly that wasn’t
the case since the guy lived with and had 3 kids with the German
lady. So, at least in California, the second invalid marriage
would be meaningless, and ignored in an immigration court.
Really, what does that have to do with anything?
I’m sure the US would adopt (and maybe already has) a ban on
naturalization of those who belonged to a terrorist
organization, but like Alharacas said, defining what one is is
difficult, and what “belonging” to one means is pretty wide open
to interpretation. Apparently, this has been adopted now as a
bar to German naturalization as well.
And, there’s kind of a “look back” requirement too, so that if
the German authorities think you really didn't meet all the
requirements when you got naturalized, you could lose
citizenship, with a cap of I suppose 10 years, as Alharacas
said. There was some talk about this creating a sort of
“second-class” form of citizenship, which many people objected
to as well.
Pretty technical stuff, but an interesting read.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page