Hacker News Reader

Comment by elchangri | Hacker News Reader

Also no, France did not grant citizenship to Algerians in 1947 nor did it ever. Which is…. why there was a war for independence…

“Conquerors of religious wars did not grant citizenship”. Yes the Church indeed in general had a genocidal approach to forced conversions and religious discrimination (see the Americas). Islam prohibits forced conversions and if we were to compare religious empires, then the Ottoman Empire would be by orders of magnitude the most tolerant with regards to religious minorities (compared to e.g French, British, Spanish, Portuguese empires.). Well documented stuff.

View on HN

The church doesn’t issue the Christian equivalent of fatwas and there is a separation of Church and State in a democracy.

Anyone who wishes to include religion in govt should go to countries like Israel(a Jewish state) or any of the 53 Islamic states. Regardless, France isn’t the place to demand that Sharia law should trump over the French govt.

Sorry but you have legit no clue about neither the history nor the geopolitics you’re attempting to talk about.

The Church issued equivalents of fatwas that have literally eradicated entire ethnic groups from the face of the planet. Never heard of a papal bull? Maybe the one that resulted in the largest genocide in the history of the world, to the note of 150 million native indians massacred?

Furthermore people will ask whatever they want, where they want, and there will be debates, and decisions will be made. It really isn’t mr jelliclesfarm who is going to start telling born and raised citizens to go live elsewhere.

The problem is that forced conversions are definitely part of historical record - look at Qutayba bin Muslim in Central Asia. It is true other dynamics such as language shift and material gain also played a role and it was gradual for the most part.

So it’s good that we have separation of religion and governance in modern democracies..having learnt from our historical past, yes?

No religion will have special treatment or status over any other. This is win-win. Faith is personal, after all and this makes everyone free to follow their faith.

Tbh this sounds like a nitpick. Prohibition does not have a 100% success rate, to state the obvious. But you really can’t compare a religion where its leader literally orders its members to forcibly convert others, to one where its law forbids it.

What did the Prophet say about no two religions prevailing in the Arabian Peninsula?

Look at the Canadian Indian residential school system or the Christian reconquest of Al-Andalus for textbook examples of forced conversions

This just in

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-pope-albert...

I think we are talking about modern France and the role of religion in the country.

Some religions have adapted for the modern times. Others haven’t. It is not right or wrong. I am just saying that not all religions are compatible everywhere. Times have changed and there are 53 Islamic countries that can support their faith. This is a good thing and encouraging for humanity, isn’t it? That everyone goes to the place where they are welcomed and valued for their personal faiths.

“Some religions have adapted to modern times” You mean those on the verge of extinction?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com