Top Ten Livable Countries

Hi, Walter -- and we have a far right Christian Coalition which is pushing for freedom of relgion only for themselves. Like in "Animal Farm" -- all religions are equal but some are more equal than others.

I love Canada, and thank my parents for moving here, but I've often considered leaving Ontario as they have public funding for Catholic schools here. It makes Ontario much less desirable for me, than it would be otherwise.

So we're talking about true seperation of Church and State as making a city or country more livable? I think it's time for anyone who wants to come up with their list of criteria and perhaps how it would be in order in a survey. I could make it into a poll but perhaps I should try and research the UN and EUI criteria unless someone has a better idea. We could establish a poll of what is the most important thing makes your city more livable?

This may be à propos here: Frederick William, "The Great Elector" of Brandenburg (and hereditary lord of Prussia) in the 17th century made Brandenburg/Prussia a haven of religious toleration, by the standards of the day. Catholics were not prohibited, but unlikely to show up, given the recent 30 Years War--but Lutherans had always hated Calvinist as cordially as they did Catholics, and the reverse was true as well. Everybody hated the Anabaptists. FW made Prussia a haven for those dispossessed by the religious settlements, and went out of his way to make them successful settlers in what was a very poor land (Prussia)--providing housing materials, tools, food, seed corn, livestock. The result was a country which succeeded despite the relative poverty of the soil and the lack of resources. Hardworking protestant types came in droves, fleeing persecution, whether official or not, in Austria, Bohemia, Bavaria.

The United Provinces of the Netherlands (we would think Holland), also had the Reformed Church as a state religion, while tolerating any religion, the adherents of which would make not attempt to undermine the established religion, nor any other religion. This meant that many of the same religiously persecuted groups as those welcomed to Brandenburg/Prussia by the Great Elector made their homes in Holland. Additionally, during the 80 year+ war of rebellion of the Dutch against the Spanish, their toleration meant that not only were the catholics in their midst NOT a fifth column for their enemies, but participated as energetically and patriotically as their neighbors.

When Peter Alexeevitch, known as Peter the Great, spent five months in Holland in 1697, building a ship and poking around everywhere in the country, one of the things which particularly impressed him was this religioius toleration. His grandfather, Mikhail, the first Romanov Tsar, had brought foreigners in for the Army, but cautioned them to keep their religion to themselves in their homes. The second Romanov Tsar, Alexei Mikhailovitch, brought more foreigners in for their expertise, and to foster trade, and the Foreigners suburb was set up outside Moscow--but they were once again cautioned to keep their religion to themselves. Peter had little use for organized religion, although he was a profoundly deistic man himself--he always sincerely ascribed his successes to god. Although he would never contemplate tampering with the basic Orthodoxy of his people, he did do away with the Patriarchate, and established a board of Metropolitans and Bishops, with a civilian overseer--basically a ministry of religion. He then allowed foreigners to build chapels, and practice their own religions in their restricted areas. He would allow non-Orthodox to marry Orthodox, requiring only that the children be instructed in Orthodoxy (he was a pragmatic man, and would not antagonize his people, who were already much burdened by the sweeping changes he forced on them by fiat--being, and believing that god had ordained him to be, the autocrat). This may not seem religious toleration to us, but Peter brought literally thousands of English, Dutch, German, Italian and French military experts, shipbuilders, iron founders, tool makers, architects, designers, printers--everyone he could convince to come who had a skill he wanted to modernize his nation. Even his limited religious toleration made a profound difference, because it was very broad acceptance by the standards of his day.

Religious and ethnic toleration have been the hallmarks of successful nations throughout history. I go on too much as it is, and would need pages to describe it, but the Roman empire was, without a doubt, the most religiously tolerant state ever to have existed until the adoption of our first amendment.

Interesting historical facts that one should consider, Setanta -- I would place all the countries and cities on the surveys as members of the free world and it isn't just tolerance of different religions that counts. This, along with climate, healthcare, calibre of schools, level of crime, cost of living, employment opportunities, level of pollution, transportation would be a beginning for my list. The U.S. cities listed on the surveys would likely immediately drop down on the list for crime and pollution. Schools -- I suggest everyone stop and think about that considering our ranking in the world. I could go on but I think most everyone on this discussion gets the idea.

I think religious tolerance is pretty important, but recognize I come to that conclusion because, let's face it, 60 years ago I could've died for my faith - even though I barely practice it.

And 200+ years ago, my family and I (forget me, I'm a woman, so I had few rights anyway) wouldn't be able to own land, vote, go to a university, etc. in a lot of places that are currently quite progressive. And this was based on ethnic background, not actual practice.

Go back 500 years ago, and again I'd've died for my faith, or been forced to convert, in the name of the Holy Inquisition. And so it goes.

So I think tolerance for different beliefs and a welcoming of people who aren't part and parcel of the majority is pretty vital. How much of Europe these days is up in arms because of the influx of African and Middle Eastern immigrants? We all know the claim is that it's due to $$ and the possibility of crime, but how much of it is, shall we say, due to a dislike/fear/apprehension of the other?

I'm not saying that the US is a civil rights paradise - far from it! - but we do tend to be a bit more welcoming, in general, particularly if immigrants can bring in $$ or skills, or at least there is a civil rights dimension to it (e. g. bringing in the downtrodden to our land). I'm not enough of a Pollyanna to not think that this is, at least in part, due to our desire to look good to the world, but who cares about the motivation? At least some folks get to leave oppressive regimes.

Personally, i'm appalled that Germany considers anyone of a certain degree of German ancestry is automatically a citizen, and that Turks who have lived there for generations and done their shite work for decades are still not citizens, not even their children born there . . . I can't get behind the notion that they've deeply learned the lessons we all assume were dinned into them by wwII

The basic principle of nationality law in Germany still is that citizenship is passed on by descent. A child with at least one German parent becomes a German at birth. The chief innovation introduced with the beginning of the year 2000 was the possibility to become a German by birth in Germany, regardless of the parents' nationality. Children of foreigners born within the boundaries of Germany automatically have German citizenship, on the condition that at least one parent has possessed an unrestricted residence permit for three years, or has been resident in Germany legally for eight years.

Any Turkish citizen, who wants to become a German, can do so.
The only way for adults to become a German citizen is by naturalisation. A person living in Germany permanently has a right to naturalisation after a certain period.
The waiting period for this has been reduced in 2000 to eight years. On the other hand it is now mandatory to expressly state one's commitment to the Basic Law ('Grundgesetzt'), and to prove adequate command of the German language.

You'll find Turkish born and/or children of Turkish born Germans really quite often. But especially the older ones don't want to change their nationalty (and especially the women can't speak German at all).

Well, Boss, my information was dated--but do please note that you refer to new legislation in the year 2000 . . . and the Turks were there all through the "Economic Miracle," sweeping your streets, carrying out your garbage--sure took a long time to show your appreciation.

There might be some Turkish citizens living in Germany "for generations", however the first so-called Turkish "Gastarbeiter" arrived in 1962 - that's when the 'boom' started up to the more than 2 million Turkish citizens by now.

Yes. And even nowadays the conservatives are disregarding the fact that we are an immigration country.

Forty years ago, Boss, and i have read, as recently as a few years ago, of Turkish families with three generations living in the same household--i was responding to Jespah's post, and the frequent contention from Europeans which i've seen at other boards to the effect: "We're not America, we don't have to let just anybody in." I find this hard to swallow when so many immigrants in European nations went there for economic reasons, and their labor has been welcomed, but not their permanent residence. There are many Mexicans living in this country who do not wish to give up their Mexican citizenship, which i understand. Their children are automatically American citizens, if they so choose, and this has been true for more than 200 years.

Well, at least the Germans have changed those rules now, Setanta. I think that is a good thing.

Jespah, surely you don't think that England would be interfering with your rights? That was one of the countries on your list.

England has an official religion, or at least that's my understanding - Anglican AKA Church of England.

In practice, I'm sure, all's fine there - but official religions of any sort make me very, very nervous.

Can't say as i blame you there, Boss. Jews were often the objects of forced loans by the rulers desparate for cash. Since the "official" position of the church was that usury was a sin, Jews were about the only ones making loans for much of European history, and were those likeliest to have ready cash. When the ruler couldn't repay the loans, a nice little pogrom cleared up his problem. Driving the Jews out of Spain was, of course, pure religious fanaticism.

'Zactly - plus, one major reason my ancestors were often moneylenders is because it was usually illegal for them to own real property. With home industry making clothing (e. g. you'd sew your own dresses) or many consumer goods like soap, and no way to own land, there were few to no options for making a decent living. Hence, money was loaned out, at interest.

And yes, pogroms, a really tidy solution.

One of the reasons why my grandmother thought Kaiser Franz Josef was a good guy was because there were no pogroms under him. Franz Josef, of course, was representative of who we were fighting against during the first World War.

PS As for Spain and the Inquisition - in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue, as we all know - but a few months earlier, the Jews were driven out of Spain.

Guess how Fernando y Isabela were trying to fund the Inquisition? Gold and spices from the East!

Lots of dirty little ironies arise in the history of Jews in Europe--which you likely won't find in your textbooks. To trade with the east, you needed someone who could move in both worlds. Jews were a natural, since they had contacts in western Europe, and weren't opposed to doing business with them; and they had contacts in the Ottoman world, and were acceptable to the Muslims--of course, with the caveat that Jews and Christians operated under certain disabilities in the muslim world.

The Venetian Republic, nothing loathe to do business with the muslim, knew that Jews would frequently be a target of "the masses," and set them up on their own island in the Venetian archipeligo. This was not a bad thing, and they lived well enough at first. But their population grew, naturally, and they provided a haven for Jews persecuted elsewhere in Europe, so the island soon became badly overcrowded, and eventually became a by-word for cramped, impoverished living conditions. The name of the island? Ghetto . . .

Interesting, in times before that, "ghettos" were called "millahs" (so ~ 1260 in Muslim Maroc) or just "Judenstadt" (Jew Town) in the Roman Empire.

[Link: Venice getti]

I had no idea that was the origin of the term "ghetto" - and thanks, Walter for the great link. It's particularly interesting that the men had to wear a yellow circle and the women a yellow scarf when out and about - shades of the yellow star, eh?