|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted May 31, 2013 09:20 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 09:23, 31 May 2013.
|
JJ, there's one problem with that logic. Theoretically, you are right about the "reasons" of Islam's covering of women. It's to prevent women from tempting men. That's why the normal time to start women for covering themselves is, if I remember correctly, when they begin having their periods. That's when Islam (and pre-industrial world in general, keep in mind that in old times "women" used to marry around 14-15) considers them as grown women. And as an old world tradition which is totally patriarchal, its solution is not to suggest men controlling themselves but women adjusting to the situation forcefully if necessary.
But the thing is, a religious person can simply say that he/she doesn't care about the logic behind the rule, he/she is not even interested in it. If it's God rule, they simply have to follow it without asking any questions. That's what religious people often do actually, obey the rules without questioning the logic behind them. Remember how Elodin replied to one of your questions in another thread, "It's God's universe, he makes the rules, how dare you question them, what a nerve!"
Now, although I don't agree with that kind of obedience and it is one of the reasons that I am quite an anti-religion person, people have a right to apply that kind of obedience in their lives if they want to. So the whole question of THE LOGIC BEHIND the burqa becomes fairly irrelevant.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 31, 2013 09:43 AM |
|
|
But it ISN'T Allah's rule - if it was, all muslims would kind of have the same idea here. Instead "Allah's rule" (or His Prophet's rule, in this case), is obviously interpreted in various and different ways. Remember, the problem isn't to wear "decent" clothing; the problem is masking the full face. A couple of them seem to interpret it in this full-face-mask way (and look WHO it does), and we are not required to tolerate every nonsense, especially when it's the expression of pure oppression.
We do not HAVE to follow this "God's command" nonsense. As far as I know the Jews have stopped to kill gays and adulteresses as well, so assimilation seems kind of possible. The Catholic Church has stopped burning heretics, and the protestants don't burn witches anymore either. Protestants allow their priests to marry and women to become priests. The times they are a-changing, and the overwhelming majority of people in OUR countries do care for the extreme fundamentalist side of religions - nor do they care for strange sects, mind you.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 31, 2013 10:16 AM |
|
|
I agree that religion should have no privilege if it conflicts with the secular law. However, if it does not, to question the interpretations of some religious commands is, no matter how far out or twisted they are, not the way to go. Because then it becomes a theological debate and we shouldn't be even interested in that. If burqa is bad for children (and it is, just the D vitamin deficiency caused by having no sunlight is enough as a case, put aside all mental breakdowns it causes), it shouldn't be allowed on minors. Period.
Besides, your criticism of the burqa can very well apply to head scarfs too, should we be aroused by women's hair then and so on... And head scarfs are definitely part of mainstream Islam. Once you put yourself in the position of interpreting the religious commands, so many of them won't make sense in contemporary times, you'll lose track. But to make sense is not the ground for letting people obey or not obey those rules.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 31, 2013 11:11 AM |
|
|
I can't follow your line of arguing, because you are basically arguing against your own points.
My point is, that the burqa sucks for a ton of reasons that you can debate about until doomsday, the only counter for it being "religious freedom", but every society must decide for themselves, whether they will put up with this kind of excessive and oppressive religious rituals or not (and I'm completely not ok with the mindset behind it, and don't shy from loudly speaking out, that I do NOT have the slightest respect for it or the idea of a god commanding something like that; I just don't, sorry).
I have no problems with a ban on the burqa, because face-masking IN GENERAL is not allowed. You cannot go to school with a Spiderman mask or a biker helmet -> you can't go with a burqa either. Case closed. For me, that is. No privileges for religion. Religious freedom, for me, does NOT trump "equal rights for all", not in a secular society.
Now, my country sees that differently, though, which I'm not ok with, but obviously it's not me deciding here.
I do not HAVE to argue about whether it's part of the core religion or not or whether there are indeed 2 or 3 women in France who are really fond of wearing that thing - there are probably 2 or 3 people there who are really fond of shackling themselves to a public transportation vehicle as well, but that won't be tolerated either.
In short, I'm defending the right of the French society to ban the burqa, because for me there is reason enough to do it, if it becomes a problem for the specific society as a whole.
If it's not, though, you don't HAVE to ban it GENERALLY, although you CAN do it in special cases - in Germany , for example, you won't see a burqa-wearer in a government office, as a school teacher or in a public school. You CAN simply try to "assimilate the problem away".
I have to make a difference, though, between my personal opinion and tolerance with regard to what I would privately by myself call "stone age morals", and the general idea of the society I live in with regard to the PUBLIC tolerance of those. This is the real difficulty here, because if the thing is allowed - am *I* allowed, if I have a restaurant or shop or whatever, to make a sign that shows a picture of a burqa wearer that says "we must not enter", for example?
So generally the question is difficult - I'm not trying to make a case for generally banning the burqa, no matter what. I'm just making a case for the general right of a society to decide in favor of a ban.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted May 31, 2013 11:51 AM |
|
|
I don't know how the thread turned into burka thing (Elodin I guess), but there is need to put it clear, as it turns into a cacophony, both by people ignoring real facts and by Elodin bringing false news to enforce his positions.
Face covering law:
The key argument supporting this law is that face-coverings prevent the clear identification of a person, which is both a security risk, and a social hindrance within a society which relies on facial recognition and expression in communication. The key argument against the ban is that it encroaches on individual freedoms.
As of 11 April 2011, it is illegal to wear a face-covering veil or other mask in public places such as the street, shops, museums, public transportation, and parks. Veils such as the chador, scarves and other head-wear that do not cover the face, are not affected by this law and can be worn. The law applies to all citizens, including men and non-Muslims, who may not cover their face in public except where specifically provided by law (such as motor-bike riders and safety workers) and during established occasional events (such as some carnivals). The law imposes a fine of up to €150, and/or participation in citizenship education, for those who violate the law. The bill also penalizes, with a fine of €30,000 and one year in prison, anyone who forces (by violence, threats or by abuse of power) another to wear face coverings; these penalties may be doubled if the victim is under the age of 18.
Response from french muslim religious authorities:
Dalil Boubakeur, the grand mufti of the Paris Mosque, the largest and most influential in France, testified to parliament during the bill's preparation. He commented that the niqab was not prescribed in Islam, that in the French and contemporary context its spread was associated with radicalization and criminal behavior, and that its wearing was inconsistent with France's concept of the secular state; but that due to expected difficulties in applying a legal ban, he would prefer to see the issue handled "case by case". Mohammed Moussaoui, the president of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, opposed using a law but favored discouraging Muslim women from wearing the full veil.
Fadela Amara, who had recently served as a minister in the French government and is a Muslim, had previously declared that: "The veil is the visible symbol of the subjugation of women, and therefore has no place in the mixed, secular spaces of France's state school system."
Some responses from abroad:
Abdel Muti al-Bayyumi, a member of the council of clerics at Al-Azhar Mosque in Cairo, Egypt, applauded the ban and stated that the niqab has no basis in Sharia. He also said, "I want to send a message to Muslims in France and Europe. The niqab has no basis in Islam. I used to feel dismayed when I saw some of the sisters (in France) wearing the niqab. This does not give a good impression of Islam." Yusuf al Qaradawi, another prominent Egyptian Islamic scholar, stated that in his view "the niqab is not obligatory" while criticizing France for violating the freedom of those Muslim women who hold the view that it is and criticizing France in that "they allow other women to freely dress in a revealing and provocative manner".
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 31, 2013 01:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I can't follow your line of arguing, because you are basically arguing against your own points.
Not really, to make it clearer, my objection in specific was not where you arrived at but how you arrived there. I am pointing out this: To conclude covering of women (burqa or headscarf don't matter at this point) as a twisted sense of moral, however correct it may be, is irrelevant, simply because religious people don't follow those moral codes necessarily because they agree with them, they follow them because they believe they should obey God no matter what. And to discuss if it is real religion or not is shaky ground because religious commands are open to subjective interpretation. So, restrictions should be based on the existing secular conflicts rather than moral dilemmas or inconsistencies, like in here:
Quote:
n any case, the burqa is not a chicanery or something, Allah wants to see on his pious women without any rhyme or reason or something. The bloody thing has a purpose, and that purpose is to hide the female beauty from the eyes of the pious men, so that they can't be tempted by that beauty (in fact the not so strict "veil culture" has of course a teasing element that befires the imagination of the pious man, so temptation will be there anyway, veil or not). The burqa is supposed to make a DIFFERENCE: should something untoward happen to a burqa-wearing woman, she can claim complete innocence - after all she did anything required from her not to tempt any men.
Now, obviously that is not true for women NOT wearing a burqa, and should something untoward happen to THEM, well, it's at least partly THEIR fault: how could they show themselves off and tempt the men? She knew the dangers, after all!
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 31, 2013 02:15 PM |
|
|
But it IS a secular conflict, in that the context of burqa-wearing establishes a sense of justice that is in definite contrast to that of our societies.
Example: There's been a rape. Question: is it important whether the alleged rape victim wore a burqa or not, yes or no? NOT for our sense of justice, it isn't.
OUR society has established the sense of justice that a NO is a NO, NO MATTER WHAT.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 31, 2013 02:32 PM |
|
|
So? That way of justice is executed regardless if some women are dressed in burqas or not, no judge says, "hmmm, since there are now burqa wearing women as a moral example, I won't sentence your rapist cause you were wearing a mini-skirt."
Where is the conflict in that?
The real conflict is the non-personification of these women and the health (both physical and psychological) problems burqa brings especially if it's worn during growing up.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 31, 2013 03:04 PM |
|
|
The problem isn't what the judge says, but what people do and how people think - which SENSE of justice they have. In this specific case it's the sense that a woman must do something specifically to avoid having an effect on men that may lead to them being sinful.
See, it would be the same thing, if the Koran said, there has to be a 3 meter high wall around each house, so the owner of the house cannot tempt the passersby into believing that the house is so magnificent that they have to break in and steal from it: it implies 1) it's the temptation's fault when someone gives in to temptation, and 2) that it is somewhat NATURAL to give in to temptation (which would mean that it's in the nature of the passersby to steal).
Look at tax evasion. A judge will of course punish you for it, when your guilt is proven, but many people's sense of justice says that tax evasion is completely ok - which means there is A LOT of tax evasion.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 31, 2013 03:09 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 15:17, 31 May 2013.
|
Quote:
Generally my opinion is that being a member of a religion should gain you no privileges, but yet it is that way with all of the three things including the burqa (Germamy is more like the US in this respect).
Wearing a burqa is not a "special privilege. Anyone can wear a burqa. A burqu happens to be a REQUIREMENT for certain "denominations" of Islam.
France dictating to women that they can't wear a burqa is misogynistic in my opinion, as well as being a blatant denial of their fundamental human right of freedom to exercise their religion.
Quote:
The second is, that the burqa is manifesting an inequality.
That is your viewpoint, but not the viewpoint of women who chose to wear a burqa in order to follow their god's commands.
The inequality is saying that Muslim women can't dress as they will or practice their religion freely, when wearing a burqa certainly harms not society.
Quote:
And that's how it still is in most muslimic states. WOMEN HAVE NO EQUAL RIGHTS (and are often treated like crap.
France is doing to Muslim women exactly what you say certain Muslim governments do.
When a woman cannot even dress herself how she wishes, even to follow her religion, any claim of freedom is an empty promise.
Quote:
The burqa is not required in the Koran. It's not a central part of that religion, and I'm simply not willing to accept an interpretation of it that is oppressing women even harder.
Last I checked you were not the a prophet of Islam or even an iman and have no authority to impose your interpretation of the Qur'an on anyone. Some Islamic scholars and women interpret the Qur'an as requiring a burqa. Who are you, who don't even believe in a god, from my understanding, to impose your interpretation of the Qur'an on Muslim women?
You should go to a mosque and proclaim your qualifications to impose your interpretation of the Qur'an on Muslims and see if they accept you as their spiritual leader. I'll not be holding my breathe. 
Quote:
So I expect adjustment and a serious attempt to fit in, and that means an uncovered face.
Requiring a person to cast aside her convictions and live a different lifestyle mandated by the state is immoral and unreasonable in my opinion, as long as her actions are not hurting someone else. And is certainly not liberty.
Quote:
Remember how Elodin replied to one of your questions in another thread, "It's God's universe, he makes the rules, how dare you question them, what a nerve!"
I did not say those exact words. If you are going to quote me link to a quote so we can examine the context of the quote instead of words being used to misrepresent what I say.
In fact I have said God does not mind honest questions by truth seekers. I think the closest thing I've said to what you claim I said is that God is the judge of the universe, has a right to judge, and if you don't like it, tough.
And never was I ever told not to question the Bible, God, my denomination, or the teachings of my pastor. I was always told, "closed mouths don't get fed."
Quote:
Now, although I don't agree with that kind of obedience and it is one of the reasons that I am quite an anti-religion person, people have a right to apply that kind of obedience in their lives if they want to. So the whole question of THE LOGIC BEHIND the burqa becomes fairly irrelevant.
And yet you don't question the "right" of the state to even control what women wear. A woman is just supposed to be blindly obedient to the state evidently even when the state dictates actions against a woman's moral codes. I don't agree with that kind of obedience, and blind obedience to the state is hardly logical to me.
Oh yes, I've certainly noticed you are "anti-reigion."
Quote:
We do not HAVE to follow this "God's command" nonsense..... The Catholic Church has stopped burning heretics, and the protestants don't burn witches anymore either.
Certainly Christians believe we are to follow the commands of Christ, but the commands of Christ are not what you claim.
You seem to always bring up these false statements about religion. And Christians have never been commanded in the New Testament (the Sacred writings of the New Covenant) to punish anyone for any sin. The Inquisition was carried out by people who acted in direct violation of the teachings of Christ, as were the witch hunts. The New Testament says anyone who hates or murders does not know God.
Of course you could always quote the words of Christ or of one of his apostles saying that Christians are to go kill witches or kill heretics. But we both know you can't do that because such commands don't exist despite your continual claims.
Of course in modern times officially atheist states have been responsible for the deaths of over 250 million people and the citizens acted in blind obedience to the anti-theist state so attempting to smear religions with actions of folks who are not even following the teachings of the religions is illogical.
Quote:
My point is, that the burqa sucks for a ton of reasons that you can debate about until doomsday, the only counter for it being "religious freedom", but every society must decide for themselves, whether they will put up with this kind of excessive and oppressive religious rituals or not (and I'm completely not ok with the mindset behind it, and don't shy from loudly speaking out, that I do NOT have the slightest respect for it or the idea of a god commanding something like that; I just don't, sorry).
I've asked you several times and you have seemingly been dodging the question. How does a woman wearing a burqa oppress you, exactly?
Quote:
I have no problems with a ban on the burqa, because face-masking IN GENERAL is not allowed.
Oh, JJ. Everyone knows the target population was Mulsims wearing burqas. Carnival masques are still allowed, by the way.
Quote:
I have to make a difference, though, between my personal opinion and tolerance with regard to what I would privately by myself call "stone age morals", and the general idea of the society I live in with regard to the PUBLIC tolerance of those. This is the real difficulty here, because if the thing is allowed - am *I* allowed, if I have a restaurant or shop or whatever, to make a sign that shows a picture of a burqa wearer that says "we must not enter", for example?
You continue to insult religion as having "stone age morals." Yet you can't prove your morals are "better" or "truer" than theirs.
Sure, as long as other public restaurants can post a sigh saying, "No Blacks allowed," "No whites allowed," "Socialists not welcome," "Restraunt for men only," "No Jews," "Atheists Stay Out," ect. Do you support such things?
The US used to have segregation. Separate water fountains, separate restaurants, ect, for whites and blacks but we advanced beyond such bigotry. It is a shame that France gave the US the Statute of Liberty and yet France does not recognize the fundamental human rights of her own people.
Here is a nice and relevant article from the Guardian.
Clicky
Quote:
If there were any doubt about the motivation for the ban on Islamic face coverings passed by the French national assembly in July, the Sarkozy government's actions in August have laid them to rest.
The issue isn't women's emancipation, for all the pious rhetoric we've heard about equality being a "primordial value" of the French nation. It isn't the danger that terrorists and robbers will hide behind burqas in order to blow up buildings or rob banks – the exemptions in the law for motorcycle helmets, fencing and ski masks, and carnival costumes quickly dispel that argument. And it isn't about enforcing openness and transparency as an aspect of French culture.
Outlawing what the French call "le voile intégral" is part of a campaign to purify and protect national identity, purging so-called foreign elements – although many of these "foreigners" are actually French citizens – from membership in the nation. It is part of a cynical bid by Sarkozy and his party to capture the anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim animus that has brought electoral gains to the rightwing National Front party and to disarm the Socialist opposition, which has so far offered little resistance to the xenophobic campaign.
The national assembly's action came on July 13, as the country prepared to celebrate the birth of republican democracy in the revolution of 1789. Banning the burqa on the eve of the Fête Nationale provided a clear affirmation of true Frenchness.
It followed a year in which President Sarkozy included a minister of immigration and national identity in his cabinet. The title of the new post conveyed the message that if national identity were in trouble immigrants were the source. The president and his minister called for a countrywide conversation on the meanings of national identity. There were to be contests and town-hall meetings to articulate what it meant to be truly French. When that effort fizzled, they came up with more draconian measures. Sarkozy proposed, this month, to take away the citizenship of foreign-born French citizens if they were convicted of crimes such as threatening the life of a police officer. Children born in France to foreign parents (once presumed to automatically qualify for citizenship) would be denied citizenship if there were any evidence of juvenile delinquency.
This month, too, began the expulsion of the Roma, said to be illegally camped throughout the country and responsible for all manner of crimes. Despite an outcry from those who denounced the expulsions as echoes of Vichy (the government that collaborated with the Nazis in the 1940s), these activities have made "security" a prime focus for politicians and public opinion pollsters. Whether it will deliver another term to Sarkozy in 2012 remains to be seen.
The immediate effect is to conjure a fantasy spectre in which foreigners endanger France and are made to take the blame for all its economic, social and political problems. Instead of real solutions to economic stagnation, high unemployment, discrimination against minorities, violence in the banlieue, and a deteriorating educational system, to name a few, the country is offered a nightmare vision of veiled women and their male handlers, an enemy within the borders who must be uncovered and, in this way, disarmed.
That only a few thousand women wear face coverings in a country that has 4-6 million people from Muslim countries in its population raises the question of why this issue has become the focus of nationalist campaigns, not only in France, but in other western European countries as well. What is it about covered women that so draws the ire and fear of so many, some western feminists included? How have politicians, many of whom have worked hard to keep women out of political office, been able to use feminist themes of emancipation and equality in the politics of the "clash of civilisations"? Why has it been so easy to identify the veil as an instrument only of oppression, even when ethnographers and historians tell us it has multiple meanings, and when some women who wear it insist that they have chosen it because it positively signifies their femininity and their devotion to God?
One answer – and there are many more to be explored – is that the focus on Muslim women's rights covers over some of the dangerous elements of the "security state". The claim to be protecting women justifies state intervention in religious, family, and public life that would otherwise be unacceptable.
The same politicians who have long resisted laws on sexual harassment and the punishment of domestic violence become advocates for women when these are identified as Muslim offences. This puts aside the continuing issue of gender inequality as a national problem. And politicians demonstrate their prowess to their national constituencies by acting to protect these supposedly vulnerable women from the men who are said to violate their rights: the proposed law levies a small fine of €150 on a woman wearing a burqa in public, while the men presumed to have forced her compliance get a year in prison and a fine of €30,000.
The state's role is figured as the protection of its citizens (the analogy is to gallant men protecting the weaker sex), even if that requires the suspension of liberties in the name of security – now the country's highest priority.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 31, 2013 04:13 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 16:15, 31 May 2013.
|
Quote:
I did not say those exact words. If you are going to quote me link to a quote so we can examine the context of the quote instead of words being used to misrepresent what I say.
Well, it was months ago so I paraphrased but here's your original words, meaning what I claimed them to be:
Quote:
God says what is sin and what is not. You frankly don't have to like it that God says gay sex is sin, sex with your best friend's wife is sin, sex with animals is sin or sex with children is sin. God setting standards is not "bashing." You however, are bashing God. Quite some nerve.
This happens to be God's universe and he gets to set the rules. You don't have to like it that God is the Judge of all. However, he is the only one qualified to judge all as he sees all and knows all, past, present, future, thoughts, and intentions.
Quote:
And yet you don't question the "right" of the state to even control what women wear. A woman is just supposed to be blindly obedient to the state evidently even when the state dictates actions against a woman's moral codes. I don't agree with that kind of obedience, and blind obedience to the state is hardly logical to me.
Oh yes, I've certainly noticed you are "anti-reigion."
I didn't defend interfering with grown-ups, if they are not under any pressure. In that case I only defended the rights of employers who would demand to see their workers' faces and who certainly have a right not to work with them, big crime.
And, Elodin, -I can not emphasize this enough- by mentioning I am anti-religion in an accusatory tone you are only demonstrating how narrow your world is. Being anti-religion is not a self-evidently shameful thing, well, maybe in your little Texan world it is, but beyond your horizon there are many great writers, philosophers, artists, scientists and activists who are anti-religion. Some of them including your founding fathers. I am proud to be anti-religion.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 31, 2013 05:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And, Elodin, -I can not emphasize this enough- by mentioning I am anti-religion in an accusatory tone you are only demonstrating how narrow your world is. Being anti-religion is not a self-evidently shameful thing, well, maybe in your little Texan world it is, but beyond your horizon there are many great writers, philosophers, artists, scientists and activists who are anti-religion. Some of them including your founding fathers. I am proud to be anti-religion.
Actually you proudly stated you are anti-religion and I noted that that is obvious to everyone. It is obvious because in virtually every thread in the OSM you are constantly religion bashing.
Frankly I don't see the difference between being "anti-religion" and anti-black or anti-white or anti-Jewish or anti-woman. Nothing to be proud of at all in my opinion.
I live in a "narrow" "little Texan world" huh? My world seems to be quite a bit more tolerant and inclusive than yours.
Nah, I was not saying what you claimed I was saying. I said a person "bashing God" has quite some nerve in response to anti-theist statements that God "bashes gays." God does not "bash" gays but God does set the moral standards. Certain people looooove to judge God, condemning God for saying what is sin and not sin. Seems to be a hypocritical stance to me. **shrugs**
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 31, 2013 05:47 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 18:06, 31 May 2013.
|
Quote:
Actually you proudly stated you are anti-religion and I noted that that is obvious to everyone. It is obvious because in virtually every thread in the OSM you are constantly religion bashing.
Frankly I don't see the difference between being "anti-religion" and anti-black or anti-white or anti-Jewish or anti-woman. Nothing to be proud of at all in my opinion.
Not necessarily. A lot of threads in the OSM turn to religious debates because of YOU, not me. And once they do turn into that, I naturally object. There are plenty of stuff I wrote about besides religion, again unlike you, who seems to be obsessed with two things: Religion and Obama's politics.
And once again you are clueless about the concept you are talking about. Being anti-religion has nothing to do with being against the people who are religious, religion is not a race, it is an ideology, a set of rules and codes and a claim on the universe's nature. Just like you being anti-liberal does not mean you hate all liberal people, being anti-religion is nothing like being anti-black or anti-jewish. On the contrary, it is thinking, all of us including religious people will be better off without it.
Quote:
Nah, I was not saying what you claimed I was saying.
You are saying it's God's universe and our job is to obey his rules. That was exactly the kind of obedience I was talking about. There can't be your way of "truth seeking." When you seek the truth, you don't know where your search will take you before you're done. So saying God does not mind honest truth seeking is saying something as meaningless as "you will be a detective and do your job no matter what but my father better not turn out to be the killer." It's a paradox, to say what kind truth seeking God allows or not, it can't be limited, cause you can't know the results from the beginning.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 31, 2013 08:05 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 20:06, 31 May 2013.
|
Quote:
@Artu
Do you think a woman should be allowed to wear a burqa in private?
I thought you said you read the posts? I clearly stated that I do. I am only against it if you are a minor (so eventually in schools) or if you are in public service. (A burqa wearing judge or policewoman is very very unlikely anyway.) Since they think it's a sin to touch men or see private parts of their body, they wont be able to function in hospitals at all. I also think anybody not willing to hire someone with a burqa is NOT guilty of discrimination and shouldn't be sued since the thing is a mask and also hinders your physical abilities to a point.
Now, if you ask what I WISH, that's a different story. I sincerely hope it goes down the drain of history as quickly as possible.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 31, 2013 10:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Actually you proudly stated you are anti-religion and I noted that that is obvious to everyone. It is obvious because in virtually every thread in the OSM you are constantly religion bashing.
Frankly I don't see the difference between being "anti-religion" and anti-black or anti-white or anti-Jewish or anti-woman. Nothing to be proud of at all in my opinion.
Not necessarily. A lot of threads in the OSM turn to religious debates because of YOU, not me. And once they do turn into that, I naturally object. There are plenty of stuff I wrote about besides religion, again unlike you, who seems to be obsessed with two things: Religion and Obama's politics.
And once again you are clueless about the concept you are talking about. Being anti-religion has nothing to do with being against the people who are religious, religion is not a race, it is an ideology, a set of rules and codes and a claim on the universe's nature. Just like you being anti-liberal does not mean you hate all liberal people, being anti-religion is nothing like being anti-black or anti-jewish. On the contrary, it is thinking, all of us including religious people will be better off without it.
Quote:
Nah, I was not saying what you claimed I was saying.
You are saying it's God's universe and our job is to obey his rules. That was exactly the kind of obedience I was talking about. There can't be your way of "truth seeking." When you seek the truth, you don't know where your search will take you before you're done. So saying God does not mind honest truth seeking is saying something as meaningless as "you will be a detective and do your job no matter what but my father better not turn out to be the killer." It's a paradox, to say what kind truth seeking God allows or not, it can't be limited, cause you can't know the results from the beginning.
Nice post. Won't accomplish much, though, sadly.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted May 31, 2013 11:01 PM |
|
|
I am confused why Elodin still throws same arguments which were dismissed. You asked "who are we to judge", I give you that: we are spectators. But Dalil Boubakeur is the grand mufti of the Paris Mosque, the largest and most influential religious muslim authority. After the law passed, he said that the niqab is not prescribed in Islam, that in the French and contemporary context its spread was associated with radicalization and criminal behavior, and that its wearing was inconsistent with France's concept of the secular state. Do a search on his name, you will find what's about.
If you don't care what muslims religious representatives say, then I don't see how any dialog can be held with you. They clearly stated they don't see the ban as oppressive and anti-religion, yet you continue to affirm muslims are angry about while they are NOT. Which ones are angry? Some obscure scholars from Pakistan or Afganistan? The same who call for american blood every day I guess. Why should we care what they say, different traditions, different countries.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 01, 2013 09:42 PM |
|
|
From OSM feedback thread:
Quote:
While there have been other religion bashing posts in the "Muslim" thread since my last feedback I must strongly object to to "#1" and "#2" of JJ's latest post:
The burqa is a masking device designed to prohibit anyone seeing the face of the wearer - supposedly to avoid rousing sexual desire with men (that's what the koran says). We DO know, though, from millennia of experience that women CAN show their face without being raped immediately. So a couple of questions to think about:
1) Can we even allow muslim men in our liberal societies when they have to mask the women in order to not assault and rape them?
2) Or would we have to make the burqa mandatory for all women, IF we allow muslim men into our society, to avoid them assaulting and raping our half-naked women?
*************************
I must say that I agree with JJ view and since Elodin is objecting against, let him object twice because I am going to add to it:
I find it puzzling why anyone would want to permanently live in a country that is not compatible to their culture or religion — especially if they are truly invested in their own culture or religion. Expecting France to dilute its culture to accommodate one that refuses to adopt or adapt to French social standards is simply immigrant arrogance.
Females choosing the wear the Islamic niqab should not twist their personal religious preference into a piggyback cause for women's rights. It is a personal religious choice, and nothing more. This effort is especially ludicrous when there are many more Islamic-oriented nations around the world where Muslim immigrants or converts can live with much greater religious and personal compatibility, as well as socioeconomic success.
With centuries of standards and traditions rooted in specific social and democratic traditions being essentially different in France and most of Europe, including other Christian cultures, why should their be an expectation that the people and government of France or any adopted European nation must change their culture to accommodate someone that doesn't want to be culturally or socially a part of the adopted country?
Would Saudi Arabia or another Arab or Muslim country change their cultural standards and religious traditions for the benefit of large numbers of non-Muslim Europeans, Americans or Asians if they permanently immigrated to those nations? Absolutely and definitely not — as it is their cultural right to do so!
More than that, personally and as immigrant myself, I would not have the expectation or mentality of coming to live in France to experience or enjoy an Arab, Asian, African, or American way of life. What would be the point or cultural benefit in doing that when it is the French culture drawing me to France in the first place?
When France speaks of "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité" as its national standard and the moral compass of its citizens, it is abundantly clear that this applies only when you are culturally and socially invested in the French way of life, civilization, culture, history, language, traditions, and national goals. Very logical and reasonable, as it should be for any nation, and I'm okay with that and feel "compatible" with this social investment.
Hopefully, France will not compromise or dilute centuries of rich culture and social assets for the expedient or short-term benefit of those who choose not to be culturally and socially invested in France and French society — just like in every other nation in the Middle East and elsewhere.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
GunFred
Supreme Hero
Sexy Manticore
|
|
posted June 01, 2013 10:50 PM |
|
|
Sal, there are as many relgions and ideologies as there are people on this earth. No other can forcefully represent another person's ideals.
If I want to dress up as a ghost and wander around in public it is my right to dress like that as I am not hurting anyone. If my ghost dress causes a practical problem at a certain place then fine, I will have no choice but to leave. But if somebody dares to tell me that my ghost dress is ugly and is bothering that person on the streets then I would get pissed off and tell him that his pink shirt is gay and is giving me eye cancer and that he should remove it at once. Of course it is not my business if he wants to be metrosexual or not but neither is it his if I want to dress like a ghost.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 01, 2013 11:09 PM |
|
|
Sal:
It's about individual liberty, not "culture". If they try to force native French women to wear the burqa, then those who do that should be dealt with by the legal system, but as long as they're not harming anyone by choosing to wear the burqa themselves, there's no problem. Culture is nothing more than what is commonly practiced by individuals who belong to a certain group or live in a certain area. You're not being forced to go to the mosque, eat halal, etc, only to let those who want to do those things to do them freely. And if many Americans moved to Saudi Arabia, I would want the Saudi government to do the same for Americans - to let them eat what they want, wear what they want, worship however they want, anything, as long as it doesn't harm others.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 01, 2013 11:13 PM |
|
|
I know is about individual freedom, that's why I oppose to it culture preservation as argument. When a minority freedom requires that a whole nation secular cultural assets and values are permanently modified (thus the majority feels as an encroach on its own freedom), then the majority must prevail, fair enough.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
