Can you do both and not be liberal?

"France finances Islamic culture rather than insisting that community grants be spent secularly."

America finances it with SUVs and Humvees and pays interest in blood. 

Can you do both and not be liberal?

We seem to get to "who can speak for liberals"?

Not being a liberal, I defer. 

Can a society which grants generous benefits to the unemployed, while financing the perpetuation of a foreign culture within, be anything other than liberal? 

We can clearly observe that it is neither right wing statist (e.g. Republican) nor liberatarian.

Do you claim to be a liberal P6?  If so, do you disclaim either as personal values? 

Can you do both and not be liberal?

We seem to get to "who can speak for liberals"?

No, we don't, Mr. Rumsfeld. We DO seem to get to the point where a simple answer to a simple question is not forthcoming, where you answer the question you want to answer instead of the one being asked.

Left angry, desperate or coldly calculating, these radicalized young people, like any European citizen, would be eligible for visa-free travel to the U.S.

Robert Leiken just now appeared on C-SPAN Washington Journal making an attempt to run this parting shot from last weeks Roots of the Riot article up the televised flag.

Interesting how sundry elements in the American policy and mediacracy reserve are making circumspect and DL attempts to socialize this Aryan {oops I mean western} coalition building..., after the fact of what is arguably the greatest strategic blunder in U.S. military history.

Do you claim to be a liberal P6?  If so, do you disclaim either as personal values?

I claim to be a Black partisan. An editorial cartoonist could draw my position and you might think it was liberal. And for the record, the liberal position neither finances nor obstructs any religious culture. Financing religious cultures is a Conservative imperitive.

And for the record, the liberal position neither finances nor obstructs any religious culture.

Fair enough.

Financing religious cultures is a Conservative imperitive.

I observe some form of division between "Christian religious culture" vs "immigrant religious culture".

So answer my question now.

P6, I don't claim to speak authoritatively regarding what is or is not "extreme liberal".  I do claim some understanding of the American conservative perspective, and what they think of liberals.

From that conservative perspective, a liberal gone wild would indeed choose to fund Islamic immigrant culture while denying funding to Christian culture. Conservatives observe that is exactly what occurred in France.

Thus the smug reaction of American conservatives to the French riots. 

Now whether American liberals, while tending to wish we were more like France, would support such things if they had the votes to do so, that's a fair question. I don't know. 

To formally answer the question:

Are both necessary to be "very liberal"?

I don't know. 

One different thing we can observe between France and the US is that our equivalent of the French Islamic immigrants are Mexicans.

Mexicans, being nominally Catholic, are culturally less isolationist.  While we can find plenty of neighborhoods dominated by Mexicans, there are few if any where either you or I would be repulsed as we would be if we tried to move into those French ghettos.  In fact, I doubt we could find any geographically connected 100 houses in America all populated by Mexicans.

From that conservative perspective, a liberal gone wild would indeed choose to fund Islamic immigrant culture while denying funding to Christian culture.

Then there are no liberals anywhere in the world. Where have you ever seen a liberal favor one religion over another on the basis of liberalism rather than religion?

Religion overrides liberalism. That's obvious.

No wonder I can't agree with Conservatives. 

One different thing we can observe between France and the US is that our equivalent of the French Islamic immigrants are Mexicans.

Mexicans, being nominally Catholic, are culturally less isolationist.

Another difference is, with Paris' "immigrant problem" you're talking about citizens. They have a citizen's sense of entitlement. In the U.S., our "immigrant problem" is withMexican folks who have no pretense to any rights beyond those they can buy ith a Wal-Mart (or sharecropper's) salary.

In the Wash Post of 11/11/05, Eugene Robinson really placed the copped into the sick version of color blindness in this society that right ideolugues have perverted compared to ML King's original notion of it. Eugene noted the that the French refused to denote racial groups or religions in offical counts of the french population. Therefore no need for affirmative action programs to address the plight of its non white immigrants or lower class citizens and no such multicultural emphasis because "everyone was French." Obviously, the ghettotization of these folks, and racism put lie to these ignorant notions by the French. I feel prior to the recent French uprisings, these were the reasons behind the American rightwing call for colorblindness in government policies and the vilfication of multicuturalism seen today in the US. GDAWG

Then there are no liberals anywhere in the world. Where have you ever seen a liberal favor one religion over another on the basis of liberalism rather than religion?

I had to research this a bit P6.

The answer is, in Europe and Australia, Muslims are frequently granted special status.  They're granted this status on the basis that they should be entitlted to choose their own culture.  Most would consider that a liberal thought, in the tradition of contemporary American liberalism.

However, I found no cases in America worth presenting where American liberals supported that kind of  thing. The closest I found were educational efforts in public schools which focused on the achievements of Islam while Christianity was described as being oppressive.  While that doesn't seem right, it doesn't rise to "funding Islamic culture" either. 

The answer is, in Europe and Australia, Muslims are frequently granted special status.

Really? What are Muslims allowed to do that Christians can't? 

They're granted this status on the basis that they should be entitlted to choose their own culture.

It takes special status? There's a perspective that explains more than you probably intended.

Most would consider that a liberal thought, in the tradition of contemporary American liberalism.

...and as you found out, most would be wrong. 

Perhaps I'm missing something, but wasn't it France who forbid muslim girls frm wearing religious head scarfs at school? And In the Wash Post, this morning the French are now suggesting that they make take the American approach to reconizing " distinct minorirites and their cultural differences and accept the notion of racial discrimination." Also they now indicate that they are considering affirmative action programs. HELLO! GDAWG

Perhaps I'm missing something, but wasn't it France who forbid muslim girls frm wearing religious head scarfs at school?

You are correct GDAWG.

It's a bit schizophrenic.  The outlaw religious symbols at school while channeling community grants straight to oranizations which mantain religious law among Muslims.  The concept is that they will become primarily French, and have good communities as well. That's the failing concept.  They're ending up primarily members of a failing community.

And In the Wash Post, this morning the French are now suggesting that they make take the American approach to reconizing " distinct minorirites and their cultural differences and accept the notion of racial discrimination." Also they now indicate that they are considering affirmative action programs.

That would be logical from an American liberal point of view. 

That would be logical from an American liberal point of view.

The prevailing American view, as often presented here by DW, is that the French should continue to pursue a policy of creating color blind society and not offer any programs and services in which race, color or national origin is used as the basis for determining who receives assistance. What we are seeing in France, to some extent, is the logical outcome of a 50 year policy of pretending that race and color don't matter. American conservatives have been working assiduously to ensure that the United States adopts similar policies here.

That my friend is it in a nut shell! GDAWG

...and as you found out, most would be wrong. 

Here's what I have concluded, P6.  My conclusion about you, not a claim to represent you.

Your personal liberalism, like most American liberals, is moderate in the sense that you're quite unwilling to involve the government in selecting one religion over another, or even selecting religion vs non-religion.

I agree with that completely (it's an area where liberals and libertarians have no conflict).

We might discuss what it might mean to be an "extreme liberal", the concept I started with, but I don't intend to tar moderate liberals with extreme concepts.  There is no slippery slope to be concerned with.

So I'll leave it with "some conservatives see government support for Islamic communities as an extreme liberal concept", which is true, although after research and reflection I myself am not among that group.  Part of that reflection was upon the many liberals I know very well, people who simply do not support such things, and it's unfair to demand they defend themselves against claims that they might.

What we are seeing in France, to some extent, is the logical outcome of a 50 year policy of pretending that race and color don't matter. American conservatives have been working assiduously to ensure that the United States adopts similar policies here.

What we are seeing in France is that people with time on their hands tend to become enemies of society.

What we are seeing in France is that people with time on their hands tend to become enemies of society.

Or people whom French society has treated as if they were it's enemies.

any minute now, some straight up arbeit macht frei shit is gonna come flying out of the shelf...,

cnulan would it seem better if I had qualified my statement with "people with time on their hands while living on unearned money tend to become enemies of society"?

The concept is quite different than the one you reference.

I'm fairly certain that if French society had given them the opportunity to earn money they would have done so. If they were placed on the dole it was because they were not given an opportunity to acquire gainful employment.  

If they were placed on the dole it was because they were not given an opportunity to acquire gainful employment. 

Now THAT is a liberal concept.

But I'll agree its not exactly simple, and that these young men have a very difficult time finding jobs, let alone good jobs in the context we see today.

However, the availability of the choice to not have a job is a major factor in that status.  You and I mgiht disagree PT on how important that factor is. I see it as deterministic.  You offer a young man the choice of life on welfare.  He takes the offer, and declines to pursue any form of a career, and becomes unemployable.

Life looks tough from the perspective of a young man in modern society.  White young men too.  All the old people seem rich.  They have cushy jobs. The only jobs available to young men pay bad, require physical labor, and they expect you to be there on time every time.  Young men look for a way to avoid that.  They're vulnerable to traps which doom them to a life of economic failure.

cnulan would it seem better if I had qualified my statement with "people with time on their hands while living on unearned money tend to become enemies of society"?

Had you used it to describe the majority of wealthy powerholders in this country, and their apologists, it would seem far more accurate..,

The concept is quite different than the one you reference.

How so?

(although according to Auschwitz: A New History by BBC historian Laurence Rees, it was placed at this location by commandant Rudolf Hess who believed that doing menial work when he had been imprisoned during the Weimar Republic had helped him through the experience)

Though it may not seem very much like it shelf, I don't hold you personally accountable for your erroneous world view. You're a fairly typical product of your environment. It is imperative that you suspend disbelief in the evidence by which you're surrounded in order to pretend that you belong to a moral, just, and legitimate society.

Seriously though, seeing that your programming leads you to staunch advocacy of diligent toilet cleaning and window washing for diasporan french sand n*ggers, people whose own way of life was imploded by colonial invasion and monocultural terraforming.., what are the exact differences between your world view and the world view of Rudolph Hess noted above?

are the exact differences between your world view and the world view of Rudolph Hess noted above?

I don't claim there's any value to work for the sake of work.

I claim there's massive value in acquiring livelihood from one's work. People who do that make the foundation of a good society.

And massive negative value in acquiring livelihood from an impersonal state agency in a way which leaves time for racialism.  People like that end up not only a burden, but they end up trying to tear down the very structure which provides their livelihood.

This phenomenom is much more pronounced for men as compared to women, and with respect to young men as comared to men who have previously made their own livlihood.

The Financial and educational situation of the suburb dwellers section of this disputed wiki entry on the social situation in the french suburbs is highly informative and carries past the aburdity of the Catch-22 at which the thread was earlier shelved...,

And massive negative value in acquiring livelihood from an impersonal state agency in a way which leaves time for racialism.

Hey, it's an open thread... 

d'shelf's moralizing about the necessity for young men to go against the current of racist exclusion from their society's economic engine is insurmountable..., it is the absolute equivalent of arbeit macht frei

france's war against its formerly colonized diasporan africans continues, only it's conducted via economic rather than military means - frankly, french society highlights the peculiar severity of the American situation - namely, the fact that American conservatives call their serial economic aggressions against blacks "wars"

the war on drugs is precisely the type of pseudo-moral construct required to keep the hamsters running in their cages, calmly assured of the legitimacy and propriety of paramilitary aggression against young male undesirables...,

the American conservative crowd looks at France with smug self-congratulation

some problems here. i'm sure this is beyond your area of expertise and equally beyond your personal experience. it's not exactly clear why mexicans in the us are analogous...after all, the contiguous land connecting mexico and the us suggests the situation may be a bit different than that of algerians and others who have traveled a considerable distance to the centre of a former colonial master. mexico has a different history with the us...it was never like algeria or any other french colony in the islamic world. i think this is a lazy association that doesn't stand much scrutiny. a more comparable group might be puerto ricans or dominicans or haitians.

Puerto Ricans, Dominicans and Haitians are also nominally Catholic - but exist as collectives across a linguistic and cultural divide that is analogous to an Arabic speaking collective in a French nation. Just as Algerians and others have learned French to partake in the society, so too have Puerto Ricans, Dominicans and Haitians. Still, there are plenty of neighborhoods dominated by these three groups where you might be "repulsed" (whatever that means - you should clarify). And more importantly, cities like Miami, New York, San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago and others STILL have neighborhoods where you can find more than 100 connected homes populated by these groups.

i'm sure that's beyond your experience, but you should get out more - and perhaps write a bit less.