March 15, 2006

BETTER TO BURN IT (via Matt Murphy):

Dutch immigrants must watch racy film (BRUCE MUTSVAIRO, 3/15/06, ASSOCIATED PRESS)

The camera focuses on two gay men kissing in a park. Later, a topless woman emerges from the sea and walks onto a crowded beach. For would-be immigrants to the Netherlands, this film is a test of their readiness to participate in the liberal Dutch culture.

If they can't stomach it, no need to apply.

Despite whether they find the film offensive, applicants must buy a copy and watch it if they hope to pass the Netherlands' new entrance examination.

The test - the first of its kind in the world - became compulsory Wednesday, and was made available at 138 Dutch embassies.

Taking the exam costs $420. The price for a preparation package that includes the film, a CD ROM and a picture album of famous Dutch people is $75.

"As of today, immigrants wishing to settle in the Netherlands for, in particular, the purposes of marrying or forming a relationship will be required to take the civic integration examination abroad," the Immigration Ministry said in a statement.


They're certainly free to define themselves by disorder, but why would anyone root for them when the shooting starts?

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 15, 2006 7:57 PM
Comments

A censored version with no homosexual and nude material had been prepared because it is illegal to show such images in Iran and some other countries, filmmaker Walter Goverde said.

Doesn't this . . . kind of defeat the purpose of the whole thing?

Posted by: Taeyoung at March 15, 2006 9:16 PM

Not at all. If the only thing you value is tolerance then what other choice do you have?

Posted by: oj at March 15, 2006 10:23 PM

If the Dutch are stupid enough to let muslims in they deserve whatever they get. We have a small muslim population in Australia which has been making a pain in the ass of itself the minute it got here. A few months ago in the Cronulla riots they got a foretaste of what the Australian public would do to them if they kept it up and the government has (finally) gotten the message and started to properly police Lakemba.

The Dains are too gutless to crush the muslim trash swarming in the slums outside their cities that's their problem. If they're so catastrophically stupid as to CONTINUE to import them that's too bad.

I argued here that Europe would fight and destroy itís muslim minorities once push came to shove, but these recent rioting by French students over a change to the labor laws that would make it possible for employers to fire them from their fist job, has shaken my conviction. I didnít even realize that the French had such job protection. Maybe I have been guilty of projecting my own cultures values onto another, maybe the Euros really are too spineless and decadent to even continue living.

Here in multicultural Sydney we havenít experienced on millionth of the muslim provocation and violence Denmark and France have and yet an anglo mob was ready to lynch any lebo scumbag it found on the streets of Cronulla, much to the disapproval of our political class, who promised to start policing the Lebanese gangs if we promised not to slaughter them like animals. And that was over a couple of beat-up lifeguards.

In France half the cars in the capitol are torched in a month of continuous rioting and the French students go out and riot over their job security.

Maybe Europe really is going down.

Posted by: Amos at March 15, 2006 10:34 PM

Amos:

Hopefully. Islamic Europe won't think its most important value is tolerance.

Posted by: oj at March 15, 2006 10:40 PM

So my choice is between current Dutch culture, which tolerates gay kissing in public and topless women on beaches, and OJ's seemingly preferred future Islamic Dutch culture, when such things are punished by, what, imprisonment? Mutilation? Death? Sorry OJ, if that's my choice, I'm rooting for the Dutch as they are now. As you should be: as a Christian, you're only a notch or two lower than gays and shameless women on the fundamentalist Muslim hit list. All your affinity for your supposed fellow Abrahamic religionists comes to naught if they have no affinity for you.

Posted by: PapayaSF at March 15, 2006 11:11 PM

The choice is morality or tolerance.

Posted by: oj at March 15, 2006 11:16 PM

Why is a topless woman inherently immoral ?

Posted by: Noam Chomsky at March 15, 2006 11:33 PM

She's not.

Posted by: oj at March 15, 2006 11:36 PM

Depends on what she looks like. :)

Posted by: John at March 16, 2006 12:02 AM

This discussion needs visual aids.

Posted by: RC at March 16, 2006 3:34 AM

I hear the internet can help you with that kind of thing.

Posted by: Amos at March 16, 2006 5:56 AM

OJ would love to see America become the Islamic States or failing that the Republic of Gilead.

Posted by: anon at March 16, 2006 6:36 AM

The choice is morality or tolerance.

Without tolerance there can be no morality. Unless a person is free to choose or reject vices like porn, alcohol, gambling, etc. he cannot function as a moral agent as he has no free will to chose between good or evil. In restrictive theocracies like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cromwell's England and Puritan Massachusetts, laws preclude the choice and with it free will. At best (or worst, depending on your point of view) such societies promote conformity, not morality.

God gave us free will, it is blasphemy to take away that free will in His name.

Posted by: anon at March 16, 2006 6:55 AM

anon:

Yes, a decent society leaves you enough freedom to choose (on most things) and then punishes you for choosing evil.

Posted by: oj at March 16, 2006 8:10 AM

anon:

Gilead is preferable to the Islamic States but both are preferable to Holland.

Posted by: oj at March 16, 2006 8:14 AM

If evil is personal or between consenting adults, what business is it of society?

Posted by: anon at March 16, 2006 8:36 AM

Gilead is preferable to the Islamic States but both are preferable to Holland.

Why?

Posted by: anon at March 16, 2006 8:37 AM

Evil isn't personal or between adults. The choice whether to do evil is personal.

Posted by: oj at March 16, 2006 8:39 AM

Gilead misapplies a few moral strictures but recognizes their primacy to human existence. Holland has abandoned morality.

Posted by: oj at March 16, 2006 8:44 AM

There's quite a difference among Islamic states. Not all of them impose sharia on its citizens. Gilead def.?

Holland is final throes of political correctness run amok where being judgmental is the only crime/sin. Dutch citizens must act very soon or there will be no more Holland and being Dutch will because a synonym for mass suicide.

Posted by: erp at March 16, 2006 8:56 AM

Vice is by definition personal and between adults, so why is it society's business?

I personally believe that porn, drinking, gambling, and smoking are evil vices. But it is none of my business if my neighbor indulges in them. I have no right to force him to stop. And given that there is only so much clean living a normal human being can stand, a democratic society will agree on which vices should be banned. Vegetarians for example beleive killing animals for meat is immoral, should meat be banned? Any attempts to do so (like prohibition or the current war on drugs) end disasterously and result in greater evil and vice in the form of organized crime made wealthy by providing these vices on the black market.

Legalization of vice optimizes morality.

Given Mankind's fallen nature, banning of vices can only be enforced by a totalitarian theocratic society like Cromwell's puritans or the ayatollahs of Iran. Since the vast majority of people indulge in one vice or another, the banning of vice is not compatible with democracy.

Posted by: anon at March 16, 2006 9:04 AM

erp:

www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/750

Posted by: oj at March 16, 2006 9:04 AM

As there is no free will in Gilead for fear of execution and other punishment, there is no morality.

Holland is more moral than Gilead.

Posted by: anon at March 16, 2006 9:06 AM

No, evil matters utterly. To allow your neighbor to indulge in it is to express contempt for him, rather than to treat him with the dignity he deserves. It's selfishness, which is why it goes hand in hand with declining demographics and rising entitlements.

Sinning still occurs in theocratic totalittarian regimes. You can't end sin, just reduce it and punish it.

Posted by: oj at March 16, 2006 9:08 AM

Got it. Thanks.

Posted by: erp at March 16, 2006 9:10 AM

erp,

Just above OJ cites an article on how urban areas are emptying out due to high real estate costs. Such high living costs also preclude large families (assuming you don't want to live in poverty). Holland and the rest of Europe (as well as Japan) are highly urbanized. So is it any surprise that they have fewer children?

BTW, why are you as a devout Christian using a purely Darwinian metric (birth rates) to pass judgment on Dutch society?

Posted by: anon at March 16, 2006 9:11 AM

Of course there's free will in Gilead. They can still sin if they choose to, but they're punished for doing so, therefore, there's less sin. Europe no longer believes in evil so there's more sin and they're dying off.

Posted by: oj at March 16, 2006 9:12 AM

To allow your neighbor to indulge in it is to express contempt for him, rather than to treat him with the dignity he deserves.

It's more dignified to rule over him, boss him around and tell how to run his life and what he can or can't do in private? How so?

How is the elimination of democratic freedom and privacy "dignified"?

Posted by: anon at March 16, 2006 9:19 AM

anon:

That's not why they have smaller families--it's just spiritual. Look at any urban tenement in America and you'll find large Christian Hispanic families living there.

Posted by: oj at March 16, 2006 9:20 AM

Because democratic freedom is a means to evil. We are a society of republican liberty instead, our end being a decent society.

Posted by: oj at March 16, 2006 9:23 AM

Well if I remember the novel correctly Gilead was dying off.

Be that as it may, freedom disappears with the punishment making free will nothing more than impotent thought unable to express itself in action and ded. That is why the punishment exists in the first place. You may as well argue that a slave is perfectly free to run away or disobey his master, if it weren't for those punishments for doing so.

No free will, no morality. Enforced morality is in itself a great evil as it goes contrary to God's desire that we have free will.

Posted by: anon at March 16, 2006 9:24 AM

Because democratic freedom is a means to evil.

So you hate democracy?

Posted by: anon at March 16, 2006 9:26 AM

anon:

No, democracy and freedom are means, not ends.

Belief that freedom is more important than good is the definition of evil.

Slaves sinned.

Posted by: oj at March 16, 2006 9:31 AM

That's not why they have smaller families--it's just spiritual. Look at any urban tenement in America and you'll find large Christian Hispanic families living there.

Newly arrived immigrants tend to have large families. This was true a century ago in every Little Italy, China Town, Greek Town, etc. accross the country. But then the equally religous children of these immigrants have smaller families and their grandchildren even smaller families.

Faith has nothing to do with it. With urbanization comes greater freedoms and education for women. Recent immigrants still keep their women in a second class state severely limited to homemaking and mothering roles. Their daughters and grandaughters experience greater economic opportunities and have fewer children.

By spiritual don't you mean "barefoot and pregnant"?

Posted by: anon at March 16, 2006 9:35 AM

Yes, so larger families have always been common in cities. They're disappearing in places where ideology disfavors families.

Posted by: oj at March 16, 2006 9:40 AM

No, democracy and freedom are means, not ends.

Means to what exactly? If the majority of people enjoy their vices how can they ever be banned in a democratic society?

Posted by: anon at March 16, 2006 9:41 AM

The end is a decent society:

www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/1002

You can't ban sin in the sense that you prevent it--people find ways to do evil. but you ban it legally and you punish it.

Posted by: oj at March 16, 2006 9:48 AM

"No free will, no morality. Enforced morality is in itself a great evil as it goes contrary to God's desire that we have free will."


I guess you are against law, then because it enforces morality and must be contrary to free will. BTW, while God desired that we have free will, He also set down the ground rules.

Posted by: sharon at March 16, 2006 11:35 AM

anon: Hypocrisy is the engine of civilization.

Posted by: David Cohen at March 16, 2006 11:40 AM

anon, I don't believe you meant to reply to me above. I didn't comment on the birthrate, although I agree that immigrants in the main bring old world attitudes about women with them, but their children prefer American values.

BTW, why are you as a devout Christian using a purely Darwinian metric (birth rates) to pass judgment on Dutch society?

This comment surely doesn't apply to me as I am not a devout Christian nor am I passing judgment on Dutch society which has to do with their birthrate. My comment is that the Dutch are committing mass suicide by their inability to make judgments on right and wrong no matter how egregious the wrongs.


Posted by: erp at March 16, 2006 4:21 PM

it is well documented now, that family size strongly correlates with religous belief. non-believers have few if any kids. that is the controlling factor.

Posted by: toe at March 16, 2006 6:38 PM
« BEN BERNANKE, GENIUS: | Main | WHY THE LEFT IS ALWAYS SO ANGRY: »