Denmark Passes Muslim-Focused Law Requiring Handshakes In Citizenship Ceremonies

[appalachiablue]

Source: Newsweek

Denmark has passed a law stating individuals who take citizenship tests must shake hands during ceremonies, in a move seen as deliberately targeting religiously conservative Muslims.

The law, approved on Thursday by the country’s right-wing coalition, states that from January 1, would-be citizens undergoing Denmark's naturalization process must perform the contact gesture with the presiding dignitary, such as the local mayor. Those who refuse would be denied.

The measure has been met with anger, with campaigners arguing it discriminates against conservative Muslims who do not shake hands with members of the opposite sex for religious reasons. Instead, such Muslims may prefer to place their hand on their chest. Some conservative Jewish people also follow a similar rule. Gloves, which some Muslim women wear to conceal their skin, are also prohibited at citizenship ceremonies by the new law.

Martin Henriksen, the spokesman on immigration for the nationalist Danish People’s Party who is an outspoken critic of Islam told The New York Times he hoped the law would create a domino-effect, leading to a ban on women wearing veils at citizenship ceremonies. “If you arrive in Denmark, where it’s custom to shake hands when you greet, if you don’t do it it’s disrespectful,” he told the newspaper. "If one can’t do something that simple and straightforward, there’s no reason to become a Danish citizen." -MORE...


Read more: https://www.newsweek.com/denmark-passes-muslim-law-requiring-handshakes-citizenship-ceremonies-1269393

---

Protestors attend an anti-face veil demonstration organised by the 'For Frihed' (For Freedom) group on August 1, 2018.



Critics of the new handshake law claim that the real aim is to discourage Muslims from seeking citizenship.

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Why? Just have to dishonor someone else's religion?

[appalachiablue]

8. And to dissuade from seeking citizenship, obvious & mean.

[Jake Stern]

26. The only people it'll dissuade are folks who have demonstrated they don't want to integrate

Ohmigawd! They might have to grasp someone's hand for a second or two! The horror!!!!

Why is it incumbent on countries like Denmark to adapt to immigrant's cultures instead of immigrants adapting to Danish culture?

[Cold War Spook]

54. How is following your religion telling someone else they must follow yours?

The Muslims and also certain Jewish people such as Orthodox women do not make any physical contact with strangers. Should all countries have laws that all their people must follow all the laws of the majority, religious and secular? Now, if I thought what you wrote is the opposite of what you meant, I apologize.

[pnwmom]

34. When Muslim countries require all women to veil, aren't they disrespecting them?

I'm not sure I see the difference.

[Cold War Spook]

55. I believe that making anyone follow your religion is wrong.

In Muslim countries that make women wear veils, it is for religious reasons and people should be allowed to follow their religions but should not make other people follow them. It should be up to each woman to decide on her own without any form of intimidation. Just because some countries make every one follow one religion does not make it right.

[EX500rider]

100. Except they aren't?

The Quran has no section forbidding male/female handshakes.

The closest it comes is:

“And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent …”(An-Nur: 31)

Fundies twist that to Burkas and no handshakes.


However, it is not agreed upon that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) refrained from shaking hands with women to take their oath of allegiance. Umm `Atiyyah Al-Ansariyyah (may Allah be pleased with her) reported another narrative that indicates that the Prophet shook hands with women to take their oath of allegiance.

https://archive.islamonline.net/?p=6632

[iluvtennis]

2. The custom of not shaking hands has to do with their religion-this law violates the right to freedom

of religion.

[appalachiablue]

6. How this can hold up I don't know.

[EX500rider]

9. "The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark (Dansk Folkekirke) is the state religion...

Hence, Denmark is not a secular state as there is a clear link between the church and the state with a Minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Denmark

[regnaD kciN]

24. The Danish Lutheran Church is a far cry from our fundies here...

My guess is that they'd be just as outraged over this new rule.

[christx30]

15. Not that I agree with the law,

but it’s to see if the person is willing to leave their culture behind and adopt the culture of where they want to move. They want people that want to be Danes, and not just living there.
I mean, if I were to go to Saudi Arabia, I’d be expected to adopt a form of dress, wouldn’t be allowed to drink in restaurants, etc. I’d have to adopt some parts of the culture.

[Hav]

31. Culture is one thing,

religion is a completely different topic. I'm an atheist but I understand that some take their religion very seriously, regardless of trying to be members of their respective countries. If it is something that is so ingrained in a person because of religion, it seems kind of petty to make specific laws like this. The examples you cited described culture but not something that goes against your religion.

[pnwmom]

35. When non-Muslim visitors who are women are required to wear veils,

is that a cultural thing or a religious thing?

How come it's fine to disrespect people as long as you can pin it on a "religion"?

[Hav]

63. It seems to be a religious thing, probably both

but I'm not qualified to answer that. Religion is, of course, a subset of culture, it's just something that people take more seriously than other customs.
And I'm not saying it's fine to disrespect people in the name of religion. I'm an atheist myself. I'd also question whether the basis for not shaking hands with the opposite sex is based on disrespect. Religions are just strange sometimes. In the very few christian churches I know, males and females were seated separately.

I'm not advocating for respecting every religious belief, I just think it's petty to make specific laws that go against a certain religion when the matter at hand is fairly trivial (compare it to honor killings, for instance). Similarly, they could have made it a law that you need to eat pork and drink alcohol to become a citizen. It doesn't make much sense and it's directed at particular beliefs.

[pnwmom]

70. It seems trivial to us, but it's symbolic to them. They see it as a sign of flexibility

and willingness to join the Dutch -- all, including women, as equals.

[dalton99a]

82. +1. Same with the Swiss:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142136629

[Adrahil]

106. I have mixed feelings about this, but I have to observe....

Denmark is not like the USA, where the native culture has been largely suppressed, due to colonialist domination. Denamark has centuries of its own native culture. And while cultures change over time, I think there is some justification for nations where the native culture is dominant. to determine if certain religious practices are compatible with citizenship. After all, I do not support the wholesale import of American evangelical cultUre to Africa, either.

[onenote]

51. Would you defend the US making English the official language

or the US banning Jews from wearing yarmulkes.

[pnwmom]

33. You realize they don't operate under the U.S. Constitution, right? n/t

[onenote]

52. I think the criticisms are based on law. They're based on what is right and wrong.

[customerserviceguy]

76. It's a fucking handshake

it's not sexual harassment.

[ProudLib72]

3. Just what does it take to be so xenophobic that you sit around analyzing all the

different ways you can be nasty to a group that is different than you? I mean, do you have to take pills to make you this disgusting? Do you have to work at it from age five? Maybe you have to fall out of a two story window and land directly on your head?

It is simply baffling how horrible some people can be!

[appalachiablue]

5. Mean and as obvious as hell.

[ansible]

13. Seems to be a reaction to what happened in Morocco recently

[ProudLib72]

21. It's not a rational response by any means

I swear I would almost feel better if they just protested with signs at rallies. But this is devious. This law demonstrates strategic planning. The scoured the law for a loophole and found one. Now the interesting thing is that these people are already living in the country. So what do these RWNJs think will happen? Do they suppose all Muslims will just turn around and go back from whence they came? No, they are going to be permanently stuck in limbo unless they submit and betray their religion. That might just be what the assholes are looking for in the first place: they want to humiliate Muslims.

[AlexSFCA]

84. not true, they want them to demonstrate they accept gender equality

the change to the law is quite progressive

[EX500rider]

73. Denmark has a right to screen applicants for citizenship.

And the right to choose their own criteria to get citizens they think will fit in and enrich their society.

Would they be OK to screen against practitioners of FGM?
Human sacrifice?
Extreme body mods on infants?
Etc?
If the answer is yes then you agree there are some religious practices in history that have no place in a modern liberal society, then it's just a matter of where to draw the line. A tolerant society who lets in intolerant people does not get more tolerant because of it.

[ProudLib72]

74. Thank you for answering my question

[AlexSFCA]

80. absolutely

it saddens me that so many progressives find it acceptable to tolerate the most extreme expressions of islam especially when it comes to gender.

[madaboutharry]

4. The world is full of horrible people.

I am surprise they didn’t pass a law requiring people seeking citizenship to guess how many jellybeans there are in a jar.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. Let's be true: also discourages women from seeking citizenship.

I think all muslim men don't mind shaking hands. Some forbid their wives to touch another man.

[pnwmom]

36. The requirement for women to veil themselves in Muslim countries also discourages some women

from seeking citizenship.

But men aren't required to cover their heads, so they wouldn't be discouraged.

Why is this different from the situation in Denmark?

[tonedevil]

103. So Denmark should use...

restrictive Muslim countries as their model of governance? Not a very mature or intelligent way of being if you asked me.

[pnwmom]

107. Denmark is sending the message that people are welcome to be citizens

who are willing to be full citizens; treating each other, regardless of gender, as equals.

They don't have a clause in their constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion. Given the anti-Democratic flaws in our own Constitution (e.g., the make-up of the Senate and the Electoral college) I don't think we're in much of a position to criticize theirs.

[tonedevil]

109. I'm pretty sure...

Denmark has a law or rule against discrimination toward religion or religious practices. This sends a message that Denmark is willing to discriminate against a religious practice if it can wash out a certain religious person. That sounds backward and a step toward authoritarianism to me.

[pnwmom]

110. Well, you'd be wrong. They have an official state religion. And I don't see how requiring

its citizens to recognize and treat each other as equal, regardless of gender, is backward and authoritarian.

[tonedevil]

111. Actually having a state religion...

and having a rule respecting other religions and their practices is not mutually exclusive. Searching the Internet brought me to a Wikipedia page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Denmark, and down at the bottom I found a section with some significant parts of their constitution regarding religion. One of the provisions is this one, §70 grants freedom of religion by ensuring civil and political rights can not be revoked due to race or religious beliefs. It further states race and religious beliefs can not be used to be exempt from civil duties.
Dressing it up as a gender rights issue is disingenuous at best. This is a rule targeted at a specific group based on their religious practices period.

[pnwmom]

112. This isn't "dressing it up as a gender rights issue." It is fundamentally a gender rights issue,

which you would realize if you were part of the gender being discriminated against.

And in their country it is a civic duty to treat all other citizens as equal, regardless of gender.

It further states race and religious beliefs can not be used to be exempt from civil duties.

[tonedevil]

115. It is nothing short of ridiculous to...

think of shaking hands as a civil duty or as an expression of gender rights. Making an arbitrary rule that excludes a group of people based on their religious practices is tautologically religious bias. This rule is coming from a group who want to make Denmark great again.

[oberliner]

10. What is the religious reason to not shake hands with members of the opposite sex?

[fountainofyouth]

19. It's a rule to promote modesty between the sexes

In Orthodox Judaism the term is known as negiah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negiah

I'm not sure what it's called in Islam.

[SunSeeker]

22. Acting disrespectful does not show "modesty."

Orthodox jews acknowledge the "awkwardness" of refusing a handshake:

On the other hand, the Torah also tells us to treat others with respect and to be extremely careful to avoid embarrassing anyone. In a culture where a handshake is the typical greeting, one might be concerned that refraining from shaking an outstretched hand will cause awkwardness.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/4203703/jewish/Whats-Up-With-Orthodox-Men-and-Women-and-the-Handshake.htm

[EllieBC]

25. Yes. My rabbi, solidly Orthodox, will shake hands in order

to not cause embarrassment to someone unfamiliar with negiah. Same with his wife. They avoid it if they can but will if they must.

[pnwmom]

113. Fundamentally, it is a fear of being contaminated by a woman.

You can't tell by looking when a woman might be having a period, and in Orthodox Judaism women are considered unclean during that time of month.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/menstruation-and-family-purity-taharat-ha-mishpacha/

Biblical Sources on Niddah

The basic rules for taharat ha-mishpacha, or family tahara, usually translated “ritual purity”– this term and its opposite, tum’ah will be explained below — come from three chapters of Leviticus.

In Leviticus 15:19 and 24, we are told: “If a woman has an emission, and her emission in her flesh is blood, she shall be seven days in her [menstrual] separation, and anyone who touches her shall be tamei [a bearer of tum’ah] until evening…

[George II]

11. That's ridiculous! Who needs to shake someone's hand just to gain citizenship? When my mother....

.....was sworn in as an American there was no requirement for her to shake anyone's hand.

[AlexSFCA]

79. to demonstrate that you can succesfully integrate into denmark society

Denmark is very proud of its gender equality and must make sure that anyone seeking to become its citizen share these basic values. USA is fundamentally different cause we are a country of diversity by design. Europe is not and never was.

[eppur_se_muova]

12. How petty. nt

[lilactime]

14. Forcing somebody to touch somebody else for any reason

is just wrong. And I'm an atheist.

[Eric J in MN]

29. I agree. NT

NT

[AlexSFCA]

81. this is pretty specific and with good reason

to demonstrate that applicants share Denmark’s most basic values - gender equality.

[lilactime]

85. I am a woman. NOBODY has the right to tell me to touch

another person if I don't want to and violate my personal body autonomy for ANY reason!

[EX500rider]

92. Which is fine of course, it just means you won't be granted Danish citizenship if u applied. n/t

[lilactime]

93. It means the state is revictimizing women who are already victimized

by forcing them to be touched against their will.

I can't believe that is actually being defended here.

[EX500rider]

94. No one is victimized, if they don't like it go to some other country, there are 194 other ones.

[LiberalLovinLug]

16. Good for them!

Same with the ban on face coverings in France. And here in Canada, Quebec banning religoius symbols, in public spaces, and requirements for taking off face coverings when dealing with government services.

I'm so sick of liberals falling for being shamed into supporting a ruthless, sexist, patriarchal, organized religious edicts by elder anal clenching men.

Goes for every religion. Why do we cater to these archaic religions that politicians use to win power, using fear of NOT elected a person with God's ear? By catering to every odd whim like this, usually based on suppressing women, whether these brainwashed women go along with it or not, is so anti-progressive its sickening. Putin works closely with the Russian Orthodox church, Trump uses the evangelic fundamentalists, Iran and Saudi Arabia use Islam.

All these little rules may seem harmless on their own. But this general attitude that religion is harmless, as are any rules that one religion orders its followers to obey, and its "mean" to not just allow them to do or not do what every other citizen must do just because they believe in an invisible man in the sky, is ludicrous. Sorry, I don't believe that my government should be in the business of promoting any religion or their draconian customs. We live in an open and free society. It is really twisted to twist that inalienable right into a belief that any fundamentalist cult believer male should be able to order his wife to cover her face, maybe not go out at all, and definitely not shake hands with a man.

[The Liberal Lion]

17. I'm as much anti-(fairy tale) deity worship as you give in your post

but it seems this particular rule is motivated by putting one religion over another. I too, like you, am absolutely disgusted that our Americans politicians are judged by the majority by their religious beliefs. I personally find it ludicrous to bend one's knee to some imaginary entity in some imaginary place (can't be the sky. we've been there. Ain't no kind of god there). If I had my druthers I'd run a peaceful and informative program to rid our planet of deity worship completely. I look at religion as a crutch for the weak minded that can't handle that they themselves are their own master and fully responsible for all the outcomes in their lives. That all being said, since I don't have the power to eradicate deity worship complete and I have to accept that weak minds are the majority I believe that all fairy tale believers should be treated equally, either with disdain or tolerance, but equal nonetheless. In this case I don't believe the same standard are being applied to all fairy tale believers, but rather giving preference to one sort of fairy tale over another.

[pnwmom]

37. But many of these Muslim people come from countries that require women who live in those

countries to wear veils, whether they're Muslim or not.

So they should be familiar with the idea that when you live in a country, you might have to adjust to its customs.

[The Liberal Lion]

42. I hate being in the position to defend religion

but I'm sure they have nuns in Denmark. Is a nun's habit that much different then the veils worn by Muslim women? I should think it is the place of the person who wears the veil to decide whether or not she wants to wear it. By being in Denmark now SHE has the right to choose whether she will wear it by way of the religious freedom guaranteed in the (Danish) constitution. That would be the adjustment to the culture, namely she now has the choice. Religious freedom means just that, people are free to practice their individual religion however they choose so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others, and government can not compel anyone to practice a religion in any form so long as it conforms to the first concept I said earlier in this sentence. We in the west are supposed to be the model of freedom, not playing tit for tat because people who may come to the west for such freedom come from a country where if a westerner went there those freedoms would be restricted.

[christx30]

117. The difference between a Muslim veil

and a nun’s habit? Well, only people that want to join the convent would have to wear it. Not every woman puberty age or higher. And if you refuse to wear it, the worst thing that can happen to you is getting kicked out of the convent. If you refuse to wear the veil? Shunning from your community, Imprisonment, rape, being murdered.
And if you are a guest to the part of the world that requires it, you’d better wear it, or else.

Maybe by refusing to tolerate their lack of equality in our societies, we can encourage some kind of modernization of their society. If their mandatory veils and other backwards practices prevent them from having an equal footing, they can change. Muslims that treat each other with respect, tolerate other religions, or people with no religion get into the West, get jobs, be successful. Muslims that don’t are stuck in countries that are friendly to throwing gays off rooftop, stoning or imprisioning rape victims, etc. We don’t need to import that crap or give those types a seat at the table. If you can’t treat each other with dignity, no reason to think you’ll treat the rest of us that way.

[customerserviceguy]

77. It's about putting

normal human customs above silly-assed religious-based taboos.

The handshake is said to have originated by people who wished to convey to others that their dominant hand (usually the right hand, sorry, lefties) did not possess a weapon. It is not about patriarchy, or sexual harassment, or domination of one race/gender/tribe over another. It is about approaching another as an equal, and some religions just can't handle that.

[The Liberal Lion]

89. Based on your explanation and the logic contained within it

could we as well not conclude then that a handshake is as well a silly ass custom?

I mean lots of germs are spread thru a handshake.

Just sayin'

[customerserviceguy]

108. Frankly

I find the slight bow that eastern Asian people use to be more beneficial. However silly, a gesture of greeting is something almost universal among human societies. It might just be socially necessary.

[Marengo]

96. What about people of faith here on DU, do you count them among the "weak minded"?

[The Liberal Lion]

98. I'm pretty sure the answer for your question was already found

in the post you responded to.

[Marengo]

101. How about answering with a yes or no? Or is that too intimidating for a courageous lion?

[The Liberal Lion]

104. I've not been coy in anyway.

[Marengo]

105. Bullshit, now how about answering in the manner I have requested.

[obamanut2012]

20. I agree with you 100%

[lostnfound]

27. I'm very liberal but really agree with you

Secular society is a foundation to equality and democracy, things we liberals hold dear

[rpannier]

32. You do know Denmark has a state religion

The official state religion of Denmark is the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark
So, it appears Denmark is officially a Christian state and promotes itself as thus

[Mosby]

67. lots of countries have national religions*

But they don't impose it on people, unlike say Saudi Arabia, which requires all women to dress modestly and have laws banning churches and synagogues in the kingdom. Religious groups like the Druze and Bahai aren't even allowed in the country at all because Islam has a problem with derivatives.

*Eg England, Ireland, Iceland, Thailand, Italy, Argentina, Greece, Norway, Finland, scotland, to name a few.

[StopTheNeoCons]

40. LiberalLovinLug, 100% right, please repost this on every religious thread

[Devil Child]

58. Damn good post LiberalLovinLug

You express a similarly held viewpoint much better than I.

[smirkymonkey]

75. Hear, Hear!

[The Liberal Lion]

18. What if they are christian but have germophobia?

[SunSeeker]

23. They can keep hand sanitizer in their pocket. nt

[Jake Stern]

28. I say good on 'em

Why is it the job of Denmark to adapt to and accommodate the cultural practices of immigrants instead of immigrants adapting to and accommodating the cultural practices of Denmark?

Instead these folks arrive and demand the host nation change to suit their particular cultural/religious fancy ie., demanding that schools stop serving meals with pork or give an official okey dokey to the burqa or niqab.

In Denmark women are equal to men and not second class citizens as they are in Muslim societies or among Orthodox Jewry which means that if Muslims or Orthodox Jews can't handle that then they should find another place to groove.

And we on the left sit here and rack our brains trying to figure out why nationalist movements are taking off throughout Europe.

[ck4829]

39. I'm sure they'll stop at handshakes this time, right?

You give a right wing nationalist an inch, they put the 'other' one inch closer to killing fields and gas chambers.

If these people who do shake hands and become citizens and if they're not treated as equal citizens and not as 'guests' or the 'other' by nationalists, then the problem isn't an immigrant, it's the nationalist.

[The Liberal Lion]

44. I would say nationalist movements are taken off and finding fertile ground to sprout in the west

because of ideas like the one you stated in your post where so-called liberals espouse themselves intolerance.

It's called religious freedom. The Danish constitution guarantees it. It's not an accommodation it's the law.

By being in Denmark these women of these faiths you mention in your post can now enjoy the freedom to relive themselves of what you view as restrictions and burdens if they so choose. If they want to wear their veils, or not shake hands THIS is their choice. That is what Denmark offers them.

As much as religion disgust me religious freedom is exactly that. If you take away from one, if you discriminate one, then you must take and you must discriminate all.

[onenote]

53. Would it be good on them

If they required everyone to eat a ham sandwich in order to become a citizen, or banned wearing yarmulkes or forced Hasidic Jews to cut their pesos (side curls)?

[Eric J in MN]

30. Center-right government. NT

NT

[ck4829]

38. So that would mean a Muslim who does shake hands (And many DO, no problem) is an equal citizen...

Last edited Sun Dec 23, 2018, 08:42 AM - Edit history (1)

No more bizarro-conspiracy theories about the Muslims or THEY'RE the ones who need some more assimilating.

[ucrdem]

41. First they came for the Muslims, but I was not Islamic . . .

[ck4829]

43. +1

A conversation that was probably pretty common in 1935:

"Come on, you're overreacting, they'll stop with German working being prohibited from working in Jewish households, no way they'll go further than this."

[GulfCoast66]

46. If they were coming after anyone I would agree...

But the saying you quoted gets turned on it’s head when the real situation is applied :

First the made the Muslims shake hands...

I would oppose this law in the US for multiple reasons. But all nations have requirements to gain citizenship. This one does not seem too onerous.

[ucrdem]

49. It's a small thing, but small things add up fast.

First off, there's no justification for it other than to offend Muslims. Other forms of forced assimilation can at least pretend to have practical or security purposes, like the burka ban in France or the forced anglicization of indigenous students in the US. We can probably agree that those are wrong too. But this is more like the Charlie Hebdo cartoons -- there really is no reason for it other than to bully a disempowered population.

[The Liberal Lion]

45. I am stunned by all the intolerance I see on this thread coming from so called liberals and

progressives. Many of you ought to look in the mirror at yourselves after writing what you have written and answer the question "are you truly liberal".

Muslims are not your enemy. Republicans are! Muslims are not destroying our country. Republicans are.

[EX500rider]

48. This isn't about the US or Republicans.

This is about Denmark deciding what kind of people they want to let in their country which is their right.

And I don't see how bending over backwards for archaic sexist religious dogma (and I don't think the Quran has anything about no shaking hands as part of a induction ceremony) is "truly liberal" ....yes, maybe let the men force all those Muslim women to wear a Burka, that show em how liberal we are! lol

[onenote]

50. "This is about Denmark deciding what kind of people they want to let in their country which is their

right"

Would you say the same thing about Trump's Muslim ban, border war, separations policy, etc etc?

Let's say Denmark wanted to keep Jews out and made a condition of citizenship that you eat a ham sandwich?

[EX500rider]

60. I'd say every country has a right to decide what kind of citizens they want to let in.

If people don't like it move somewhere else. I don't move to a country and expect them to change for me.
Denmark is a modern liberal society and I guess they want to remain that way.

[Hav]

64. How about moving to a country

and then they change the laws in a specific way to target your beliefs? Because that is what actually happened. It's not about changing your culture for immigrants, it's changing the law to target them.

[EX500rider]

66. 1st, where in the Quran does it say a hand may not be shaken in a induction ceremony?

2nd, I'd argue this affects extremely orthodox practitioners of Christianity and Judaism also, not just Muslims.

And Denmark wanting to stay a modern liberal society and all that entails ie gay marriage, acceptance of alternative sexual lifestyles etc are all incompatible with fundamentalists from any religion.

[onenote]

69. So I guess you'd be cool with them forcing Orthodox Jews to eat a ham sandwich

or forcing Hasidic Jews to cut their peyos (side curls).

[EX500rider]

71. I'd be fine with any screening out of any ultra-orthodox religious types...stay where you are.

Last edited Sun Dec 23, 2018, 05:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Not OK with FGM, Burkas, Inca sacrifice, women not driving or leaving the house or working, etc
The Danes have a tolerant society and I am fine with them keeping out intolerant people who will not fit in in modern Denmark.

[The Liberal Lion]

56. You are correct this is about Denmark

My post that you responded to was about all post here that seem to forget religious liberty means exactly that. Denmark's constitution guarantees religious freedom. It doesn't say religious freedom so long as one adapts one's religious actions to the dominant religion. That would not be religious freedom. Now, more directly to my post, I was responding to those post, which are very similar to yours that espouse the idea that religious intolerance is ok if the practice of one's religion doesn't conform to the dominant religious thought. That's bullshit. If a Muslim woman living in a land that allows religious freedom chooses to wear a burka that is her right, even if wearing that burka is patriarchal in nature. It's not the government's right to tell them not to wear it, or in this case tell them they must shake hands to be a part of the greater community.
You are correct Denmark has the right to allow in anyone they choose. But this is a religious test and it is in opposition to their constitution. We as liberals should not be applauding this IMHO. If we in the west are REALLY worried about patriarchal demands made on women we should first start with Christianity, it's as demeaning to women as any burka we claim to hate.

[LiberalLovinLug]

68. "religious liberty" Oxymoron?

Its kind of ironic, don't you think, in using the term "liberty" to defend a private organization the right to infringe on liberties, long held as standard freedoms in that country, on those they deem lessers within their community?

I agree that it is wrong and hypocritical on the highest level to only pick on one religion. What I like about Quebec's law is that when you enter a government service building, you are not going to get a clerk wearing a giant cross around their neck either. To me, the fewer religious icons and talisman around the better.

I do realize I am living in a kind of fantasy world as well. Because I don't see an end to religion itself anytime soon. In fact, people flock to religion in tough times, and the world ain't gettin any easier. I'm pining.

I read through some other posts in the thread, and you talk about nun's habits. And how similar they are to Muslim women's garb. And perhaps one could find equivalencies of every religious symbolic gesture. And yes, it would seem discriminatory to only cater to the one traditional religion, by not accommodating other religions edicts. My point was that this kind of ban on religious symbolism should be multi-lateral. Even though I realize it probably will never be done. That by INCREASING the amount and variety of proselytization through religious garb, and gestures , NO MATTER THE FAITH, bolsters the other religions as valid to more of a degree, than if there weren't others. It is viewed more of in the realm by one religions followers as being....well, at least they are searching for God, who is obviously real otherwise there would not be so many religions...its just that they haven't discovered yet that OUR religion is the true one.

Now...my view is that SO WHAT if you are not seen as being equal in accommodating yet another fairy tale cult's requirements? Its not the governments job to make sure the archaic rules of every cult member and every cult they adhere to, is accommodated, let alone equally, if that word could even apply. I say cut the other legs of the table down, rather than trying to add a piece to one of the table legs, if you want equality.

Because despite, say, Islam's vile opposition to Christianity, and visa versa, they have a symbiotic relationship in the realm of, by their sheer repetitiveness of their own Big Lie's, an acceptance from society that fantasy is not merely a Hollywood creation, but are very real unearthly worlds one must accept on faith.....or burn forever. And the rest of us must sit on our hands, even though we ourselves may be strong enough not to have to use that crutch, we have to watch others hobble around on their crutches. But more than that, we have to make special door entries, or special walk ways so they can manuvor through our public spaces unfettered and catered to at every step even when grimacing as they support themselves with uncomfortable looking crutches. And their wives beside them having to use even more, purposely painful versions of those crutches than their husbands.

Why?

[AlexSFCA]

83. I am alarmed by liberals who defend radical islam

there are radical versions of most religions including islam. Why in the world would Denmark, a country so proud of its gender equality, even consider granting citizenship to those who can’t demonstate that they share those most basic values upon which their society functions? Is Bill Maher the only rational liberal now? This has nothing to do with freedom of religion whatsoever. This has everything to do with reason and pragmatism. Democrats vs. Republicans is purely American thing. Denmark’s conservatives are more progressive than bernie sanders. This change to the law is progressive. We used to be better at this, promoting and demanding secular values, mandating gender equality, no religious exceptions to lgbt freedoms, etc.

[The Liberal Lion]

88. REALLY!!!

Not shaking hands is radical?

[EllieBC]

90. So I'm going with you never took issue with Pence

and his refusal to be alone with a woman he is not related to?

Or does your support of extreme religious practices end with strict Islam?

[The Liberal Lion]

91. That has nothing to do with the price of tea in China

Your point is little more than a strawman argument, and therefore a logical fallacy.
Since it is such I don't see how it relates. You may try again if you wish.

[EllieBC]

95. No see this is a pattern.

Islam always gets a pass from some while Judaism and Christianity are screamed about.

[EX500rider]

99. It is ultra orthodox.

Most Muslim women could shake hands once as part of a ceremony to be accepted into a safe western country, and those that won't are extremely fundamentalist. And fundies from all religions are not compatible with liberal modern Denmark which values equality of the sexes and alternate lifestyles acceptance. They can filter out people they don't think will fit in or enrich Danish society.

[Rustyeye77]

47. That is so wrong.

It's not a secret that Denmark will be the first Euroislamic state.

[Polybius]

57. I have at least 10 Muslim friends, and every single one of them shakes hands with others

This law is likely targeted to the extremely religious.

[MortSahlFan]

61. what about others?

Gosh, even the liberal countries want to pick on Muslims.. Are other religions targeted with different requirements that are suddenly enforced?

[Polybius]

62. What others?

I've also been introduced to my friend's friends and their family. All handshakes. These aren't Muslims who eat pork either. These are fairly religious Muslims who fast on Ramadan.

Anyone who doesn't shakes hand due to religion is likely interpreting that meaning in a very unusual way. I'd be worried about them myself, and how they interpret the rest of their religion.

This law won't effect the vast majority of Muslims. It only effects the 1% who are extremely religious and won't assimilate.

[EX500rider]

65. This law would affect extreme orthodox practitioners of all religions.

Extremely orthodox Jews & Christians don't let their women be touched by strangers either.
And Denmark not wanting extremists from any religion is understandable to me, they are not very compatible with a liberal society.

[LiberalLovinLug]

72. And that's how it should be

Just did a little search and came up with a few more bizzare religious practices

https://allthatsinteresting.com/seven-most-unusual-religious-rituals

Throwing babies from 50' towers and catching them (hopefully)

Eating the corpse of the deceased

chewing on leper scabs

Self crucifixion.


Where does it stop? In fact, it shouldn't just be stopped, it should be reversed.

And a Muslim family immigrating to a Western country, (or a Christian family moving to a Muslim one for that matter) must understand the choice. And the choice should be to either accommodate your own religious practices within a secular society, in private, and leave it at your door, or your worship place door, and not expect your own cult to be catered to. .....or.....learn to be satisfied with your economic position in your third world Islamic state run country, and also get to keep all your cult trappings and comforts.

[Squinch]

87. Extreme orthodox practitioners of all religions are the root of all evil.

[Cold War Spook]

59. Denmark, wow, I am sad.

I'm Jewish and born in the US in 1943. I won't say all Jews thought like my family, but Jews I knew were taught how the Danish people put their lives on the line to save as many Jews as possible during WWII. Even when some Jews were captured by Germans in Denmark the Danish people along with the Danish Red Cross put pressure on the Germans that very few if any of these Jews were sent to death camps. Just let people live in peace.

[AlexSFCA]

78. I'm sorry but if you are not willing to shake a woman's hand....

Denmark is a secular society. There is nothing progressive in tolerating the most extreme expressions of islam including female circumsicion. I love Bill Maher because he is a liberal who is honest about radical islam and inability to shake a woman’s hand is radical and extreme. This is what Hilary Clinton recently was talking about is that Europe must take control of immigration or the right wing populism wave will continue. Assimilation and integration into secular society is a positive step which will actually help muslim immigrants to be better accepted. Remember that any civilized society has freedom from religion whereas freedom of religion is always limited by civil codes (e.g. ban on female circumcision or stoning to death a cheating wife, etc.)

[Squinch]

86. If I were moving to a middle eastern country, I would understand that it meant I had

to keep my head covered, dress differently and act differently. Act in ways that were unacceptable to me as a feminist. But there would be no choice for me but to do them in order to live in the place I had chosen.

That goes both ways.

[Ilsa]

102. Not even gloves? That's ridiculous, IMO.

What if someone has immune system problems? What if they just don't like to make skin-to-skin contact with strangers due to phobias?

Overblown law.

[pnwmom]

114. At its root, prohibitions on hand-shaking between men and women

are related to men's fear of being contaminated by women -- specifically by their menstrual blood -- which they have enforced through centuries of religious practice. Many religions, including Christian religions, have viewed women as being unclean during their period and after childbirth, and touching them then as prohibited. Since a man can't tell by looking whether a woman is "clean" or not, they are prohibited from ever touching females who are not family members.

Good for Denmark for requiring its citizens to treat each other as equals.

https://medium.com/ask-me-about-my-uterus/dirty-blood-religious-taboos-around-menstruation-8954a693bb2f

Whether you believe in God or not, these taboos matter: In 2010, there were 1.6 billion Muslims, 1.03 billion Hindus, and 2.17 billion Christians. That’s 69% of the total world population. Every day, these taboos impact millions of women.

[MrScorpio]

116. Obviously Denmark isn't a bastion of religious freedom

[EX500rider]

118. The Quran has no section forbidding male/female handshakes.

The closest it comes is:

“And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent …”(An-Nur: 31)

Fundies twist that to Burkas and no handshakes.


However, it is not agreed upon that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) refrained from shaking hands with women to take their oath of allegiance. Umm `Atiyyah Al-Ansariyyah (may Allah be pleased with her) reported another narrative that indicates that the Prophet shook hands with women to take their oath of allegiance.

https://archive.islamonline.net/?p=6632