Moral Relativity: Where moral values come from?

Oh I see, that is why you try to silence valid opinions with your bullshit whining about the limits on free speech you would like to impose.

Hang it up Max you are just a little bitch.

I am more concerned with the US then with France. France is not the US and it possible that moral values that are essential in the US aren't valid in France.

But in general I stand with my answer. I don't think the ethnicity of people in a modern democracy should matter.

You state a fact about the projection that one in two French people will be of Muslim descent. I don't see why this matters. I don't even see a question here. Are you asking what should be done about this? If that is the question, then my answer is 'nothing'.

How can anyone be so stupid not to see what a Muslim majority brings?

You will have to describe what you mean by "majority rule".

In the US we have a Constitution that guarantees certain rights and is the basis of our national values. Often the Constitution goes against the will of the majority at any given time. The constitution steps in when the majority wants to violate our basic core values.

Most modern Democracies have something similar. An elected body to enact policy that is restrained by a declaration of rights that take precedence.

Is this what you mean by "majority rule"? Because this is what I support.

You dance around the issue..it is plain and clear. Islam is still the minority group. If immigration policies don't change the face of France will change forever if immigration policies don't change...I don't see how it is so difficult to understand. So if you were in charge how would you handle it. People know when a different cultural element threatens to change the face of a culture instability can arise.

Sad and true but not the issue discussed

I beg to differ. This is what a Muslim majority does.

In France?

Are they the majority yet? It is a matter of time.

Not necessarily..and even if they did there could exist a variation. (I hope).

Have you ever seen one? Islam is fundamentally extreme. And that just is not going to change. If it were there would be some positive signs by now.

With all the Muslims in the world there are none. Only lip service and apologists, like the bullshitter that started this thread.

I am not dancing around the issue at all. Here is the problem.

For you demographics is important to the point that you are using the words like "threaten" and "cultural instability" because of a change in ethnic background. The fact France was a colonial power that made economic decisions which brought people into France... and that this demographic change is part of the natural course of French history doesn't seem to matter to you.

To me, the moral values Democracy are important. Equality and liberty are bedrock values of our society. The American story is the story of extending rights to more people as we have grown as a society and taken in people of more cultures.

What would I do? Simple, I would hold to our values; our American values (with the caveat that perhaps the French don't have the same values). Our values of fairness and liberty and equality are important. Demographics aren't.

A key part of our immigration law from the early 1900's to 1965 was called the "Asian exclusion Act". It shouldn't surprise you that this law was designed to make sure that there were never too many Asians around... because we all know the threat that Asians pose to American culture.

Of course when we repealed the Asian Exclusion law in 1965... it did in fact mean that there were a lot more Asians becoming part of American society and there are lots more Asians around now than there would have been.

So What? Immigration policy based on demographics is deeply racist. They go against the core values of our country.

I am not dancing around any issue. I am arguing that immigration policy based on ethnicity goes against the values of liberty, fairness and equality.

Still didn't answer the question.. What would you do given the power

How can I possibly be more clear, Germlat?

1. I would do nothing to minimize the number of an ethnic or religious group in society. Doing so would go against the ideals of equality.
2. I would do nothing to take away rights of an ethnic group. Doing so would go against the ideas of liberty and justice.
3. I certainly would not target a religious or ethnic group as a "threat".

Would I would do is everything possible to make my society a fair, inclusive place that us made up people of all backgrounds. I would make sure that everyone feels part of society. I would give them a political voice and an equal stake at a successful country. French people, who are fully included in the success and culture, are going to care about France.

And I would make sure that voices of hate against any ethnic group (be it Muslims or Jews or Catholics) were allowed as free speech, but openly and publicly challenged.

So if a group's society influence brings instability you're ok with that? What if the lives of people you know(as they know life) are at stake? What if being an atheist suddenly becomes unlawful ? Maybe your rights are decreased or maybe you're life is at stake for your beliefs? Are you ok with that? Do you actually think this is an impossibility? Can things not evolve in that direction?

Perhaps you don't choose to see the full spectrum ..but choices denote power. You until recently defined your choice. I happen to think it is hippiesh and you're not thinking of your future power of choice.but that's were we differ. Perhaps you think your choices will be open. Good luck with that. Last post.

Let's review the score.

The US has a Constitution that specifically prohibits discriminating against ethnic groups and protects religious practices such as wearing headscarves. The US bestows automatic citizenship on anyone born here. The US has gotten rid of race-based immigration policies. And the US is pretty good at incorporating diverse cultures into mainstream society and has successful organizations working to improve diversity.

On the other hand, France doesn't bestow citizenship at birth. They ban certain religious practices. They have arduous immigration policies and put obstacles to certain communities.

Which of these two countries is experiencing more social instability?

Forgive me a little patriotic pride, but the US is going in the right direction.

The US has made lots of choices that were considered threats to social stability.

1. We let women vote.
2. We let freed African Americans stay here (there were calls to send them all back to Africa after emancipation) and let them become citizens.
3. We got rid of the Asian Exclusion Act (ignoring the so-called "yellow peril")
4. We made laws protecting the rights to Jews and Catholics. (both of whom were seen as bent on world domination).

This is a thread about moral values. I think our values have served us pretty well in spite of the fears of many who thought they were too dangerous.

Read your title. Stupid. It is a thread about making excuses for what you think is moral. And you have contradicted yourself so much that what you say means nothing.