A decision to force Muslim women who cover their faces to sit in a separate glass-enclosed public gallery in Federal Parliament has been slammed by Australia's Human Rights Commissioner.
Speaker Bronwyn Bishop and Senate President Stephen Parry have approved new interim rules at Parliament House applying to anyone wearing "facial coverings".
The Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS) said: "Persons with facial coverings entering the galleries of the House of Representatives and Senate will be seated in the enclosed galleries. This will ensure that persons with facial coverings can continue to enter the chamber galleries without needing to be identifiable."
The enclosed galleries are usually used by visiting school parties.
Senator Parry told Parliament that it was a "management measure in relation to ... control of the public galleries".
'No-one sits next to me anymore'
Australian Muslim women talk about how their lives have changed amid heightened fears of Islamic extremism.
"If there is an incident or someone is interjecting from the gallery, which as senators would know happens from time to time, they need to be identified quickly and easily so they can be removed from that interjection," he said.
"Or if they are asked to be removed from the gallery - and we need to know who that person is so they cannot return to the gallery, disguised or otherwise."
Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson, who is a former head of free market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs and a Liberal Party member, said the decision was "ill-considered" and would "segregate people on the basis of what they're wearing".
"I think [it] is utterly unjustified and is based on no real evidence or reason when people have already gone through security checkpoints and have already been cleared by security," he told Sky News.
Labor senator Penny Wong asked why senators had not been consulted, and Greens leader Christine Milne said it was "appalling".
"They will be relegated to an area of the Parliament which is usually reserved for schoolchildren - behind glass, where parliamentarians don't have to see or hear them," she said.
Independent MP Andrew Wilkie likened the rule to "religious apartheid" and said it was "deeply wrong".
Islamic studies lecturer Raihan Ismail answers some common questions about Muslim veils.
"The decision by the Government to isolate, in their own rooms, burka wearers observing the Parliament has no security merit at all," he said in a statement.
The DPS said the rules would take effect immediately.
The new security controls also stipulated that anyone receiving a pass to enter the private areas of Parliament House would have to show photo ID.
"Procedures are in place to ensure that DPS Security manage any cultural or religious issues relating to this in a sensitive and appropriate manner," DPS said.
Senator Parry said "if people have a cultural or religious sensitivity in relation to this, they will be given the privacy and sensitivity that is required in relation to that identification".
A request from Liberal senator Cory Bernardi to ban "facial coverings" at security checkpoints as people enter the building is "under review".
But the senator has welcomed the interim decision.
"Parliament House is the people's building. The people who come here should feel safe," he told ABC News 24.
'No-one should be treated like a second-class citizen'
Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane criticised the new rules, tweeting that: "No-one should be treated like a second-class citizen, not least in their own parliament".
"Those who have visited Parliament will know that entry requires a person to pass through a security check," he said.
The calls by MPs to ban burkas and niqabs are creating a more divisive society, Australian academics say.
"People must pass through a metal detector and subject their personal items to an X-ray examination."
Earlier Dr Soutphommasane described calls to ban the garment as "baffling", saying they could lead to attacks against Muslims while fuelling extremist propaganda.
"There can be no room for reckless rhetoric," he said. "Unfortunately, we have been let down by some of our parliamentarians."
Dr Soutphommasane said there was no evidence burkas represented a special security risk, and any ban "may simply increase cultural tensions and social distrust".
"As for banning the burka, the proposal is baffling for a number of reasons," he said.
"It may provide fuel for extremist propaganda and assist extremists in recruiting disillusioned young Australians to their cause.
"It may also have the unedifying effect of inviting further bigotry against Muslims."
Dr Soutphommasane made the comments in a speech at the National Conference on the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Refugees in Sydney.
Recently Senator Bernardi and Palmer United Party senator Jacqui Lambie both called for burkas to be banned in public.
Yesterday Prime Minister Tony Abbott said he wished the garments were not worn in Australia, but indicated he would not support a general ban because Australia was a "free country".
In Parliament today, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten criticised those supporting a ban and faulted Mr Abbott for not speaking against his MPs.
"The Prime Minister cannot preach tolerance while allowing his colleagues to practice intolerance," Mr Shorten said.
Fears burka debate is fuelling prejudice
Dr Soutphommasane's speech followed alleged attacks on Muslims in Sydney and Melbourne and incidents which have seen Australian mosques defaced with anti-Islamic slogans.
Muslims were also being abused in "streets, parks and shops", Dr Soutphommasane said.
He said very few Muslim women in Australia wore burkas, which have grilles to conceal the eyes, though some wore niqabs, which have openings for the eyes.
"Whether the advocates have confused the burka with the niqab, or perhaps even with the hijab, is perhaps unclear," he said.
He warned there were signs "anti-Muslim bigotry" was being mistakenly directed at other minority groups, saying Sikh Australians had become targets of abuse because "people are linking turbans to terrorism".
Muslim Women's Association chief executive Maha Abdo said a ban on burkas would make some women afraid to leave their homes.
"We are pushing them back into their homes, we're pushing them away from society that we want them to be part of," she said.
She said attacks against women wearing Islamic clothing in Australia were increasing.
Seventeen-year-old Ayshia, who did not want to give her last name, said a woman tried to tear off her hijab when she got off a tram.
"She followed me and she was starting to call me names such as 'the terrorist, Osama Bin Laden' and all of these things," Ayshia told AM.
"I got off from the tram. I had to go past a park and this lady, suddenly she got sick of me and then she approached me and then she touched [my] hijab. She was going to pull it.
"It made me feel unsafe, like every time I passed a street or something I'd get a word from people saying 'terrorist' or whatever.
"I mean, I love Australia so much. I'm from Iraq and it saved me."
Ms Abdo said many attacks were often happening with children present.
"What we're getting reports of at the Muslim Women's Association is increased numbers of verbal abuse, in your local park, where your children are interacting with other children, and sometimes there's violent attacks that are taking place," she said.
Ms Abdo said the decisions of Muslim women around their dress should be respected.
"I'd call on our leadership to come down and meet with Muslim women, discuss the issues," she said.
"If it is, what they're saying, a security threat, explain to us what it is and I'm sure we can work together on that."
On the one hand... a covered face poses a pretty significant security risk... On the other, even FRANCE handled the issue better (or, they at least had tried to... not sure if that law passed)
Ensis Ferrae wrote: a covered face poses a pretty significant security risk...
How?
I can understand the thinking that a full facial mask(ski mask, etc.) that's intentionally hiding a person's face could be seen that way, but how is something that is obviously a cultural face covering a security risk?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: On the one hand... a covered face poses a pretty significant security risk... On the other, even FRANCE handled the issue better (or, they at least had tried to... not sure if that law passed)
I would usually agree with this, but the article states that to enter the galleries people have to pass a security check point and identify themselves with a visual ID document, so I'd say that at that point the security risk is pretty much null...
I can understand the thinking that a full facial mask(ski mask, etc.) that's intentionally hiding a person's face could be seen that way, but how is something that is obviously a cultural face covering a security risk?
How do you distinguish between people that are using the veil to cover their faces for cultural / religious reasons from those that are using it to cover their faces so that they aren't recognized by security forces?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: On the one hand... a covered face poses a pretty significant security risk... On the other, even FRANCE handled the issue better (or, they at least had tried to... not sure if that law passed)
I would usually agree with this, but the article states that to enter the galleries people have to pass a security check point and identify themselves with a visual ID document, so I'd say that at that point the security risk is pretty much null...
IIRC, in the case that France was dealing with, there were issues of burka wearing "women" refusing to even GET ID, because they "refused" to show their faces to someone other than their husbands. In much the same way, even IF they got a picture ID, they could easily refuse to lift/remove the burka from their face on account of security personnel not being Muslim or their family members. At which point it becomes basically "violate religious principles to enter into a government building's space or, keep it on no matter what"
And that is essentially what women who are forced to wear burka's will have to decide, because it really is violating their religious principle (the individual level principles, not necessarily a religious tenet) to remove their burka, or show their face to a non-Muslim.
I can understand the thinking that a full facial mask(ski mask, etc.) that's intentionally hiding a person's face could be seen that way, but how is something that is obviously a cultural face covering a security risk?
How do you distinguish between people that are using the veil to cover their faces for cultural / religious reasons from those that are using it to cover their faces so that they aren't recognized by security forces?
Very simply. There are circumstances that a woman is allowed to uncover her face. By having an area and specific personnel set aside that meet those circumstances, you can ask them to verify their identity in a place that is comfortable to them. Anyone who refuses is a security threat and not allowed.
Will it take more time? Sure, but if you do it in a culturally and religiously acceptable and responsible way, most people won't mind.
Will it take more time? Sure, but if you do it in a culturally and religiously acceptable and responsible way, most people won't mind.
Or, as I alluded to earlier, France had been working on that law (as I said, I cant remember if it passed or not... there was probably a thread on it here, maybe a couple years ago) that basically said, "you're free to follow your religion, but you cannot cover your face"
But it wasn't a "you can't cover your face at all" but more a "if you're in a public space, for the safety concerns of the entire public, you shall not cover your face" and it was to be equally applied to people who had the habit of not taking off their motorcycle helmets in shops, or any other situation where people may have a tendency to have a face covering.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: On the one hand... a covered face poses a pretty significant security risk... On the other, even FRANCE handled the issue better (or, they at least had tried to... not sure if that law passed)
I would usually agree with this, but the article states that to enter the galleries people have to pass a security check point and identify themselves with a visual ID document, so I'd say that at that point the security risk is pretty much null...
IIRC, in the case that France was dealing with, there were issues of burka wearing "women" refusing to even GET ID, because they "refused" to show their faces to someone other than their husbands. In much the same way, even IF they got a picture ID, they could easily refuse to lift/remove the burka from their face on account of security personnel not being Muslim or their family members. At which point it becomes basically "violate religious principles to enter into a government building's space or, keep it on no matter what"
And that is essentially what women who are forced to wear burka's will have to decide, because it really is violating their religious principle (the individual level principles, not necessarily a religious tenet) to remove their burka, or show their face to a non-Muslim.
And I agreed with the French law, but this one is completely different, if people have already been identified before entering the galleries then it doesn't has any security implications if they cover their faces afterwards or not.
This particular law is idiotic and more than a little bit racist.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: On the one hand... a covered face poses a pretty significant security risk... On the other, even FRANCE handled the issue better (or, they at least had tried to... not sure if that law passed)
I would usually agree with this, but the article states that to enter the galleries people have to pass a security check point and identify themselves with a visual ID document, so I'd say that at that point the security risk is pretty much null...
IIRC, in the case that France was dealing with, there were issues of burka wearing "women" refusing to even GET ID, because they "refused" to show their faces to someone other than their husbands. In much the same way, even IF they got a picture ID, they could easily refuse to lift/remove the burka from their face on account of security personnel not being Muslim or their family members. At which point it becomes basically "violate religious principles to enter into a government building's space or, keep it on no matter what"
And that is essentially what women who are forced to wear burka's will have to decide, because it really is violating their religious principle (the individual level principles, not necessarily a religious tenet) to remove their burka, or show their face to a non-Muslim.
And I agreed with the French law, but this one is completely different, if people have already been identified before entering the galleries then it doesn't has any security implications if they cover their faces afterwards or not.
This particular law is idiotic and more than a little bit racist.
Muslims are not a race. Its a religion.
Please stop saying discrimination against Muslims is racist. Its not.
The burka is a symbol of oppression not just because it is emblematic of Islam but because it reinforces anti-egalitarian gender divisions and promotes both active opposition to assimilation and the fragmentation of immigrant minorities into ethnic enclaves. Obviously it's questionable that someone wearing a burka is more or less likely to be a security threat, but they should not be permitted to wear it in the first place.
Turkey, a Muslim-majority country, maintained one of the most stringently and successfully secular regimes in history during the Kemalist period and they too banned the burka (as well as the male Islamic dress and other traditional headgear such as the fez) not because they were anti-Islam but because they wished to stop the abuse against women that is enabled through disgusting cultural traditions as forcing women to wear the burka. Advocates claim it is a choice to wear the burka, but the reality that Turkey (and much of North Africa, which followed similar practices in the 50s and 60s) encountered is that if it is legal to wear, then men coerce their wives and daughters into wearing it - full stop. The only countermeasure is to ban it (along with other public displays of religion), which allows women to tell their husbands that it is out of their hands and stigmatizes this irrational and barbaric treatment.
When the Marines and Army went into the Helmand province in 2010. Quite a few Insurgents got away by wearing burqu's and posing as women. When they started trying to hide their weapons under their gown was what gave it away.
It's still discrimination though, which is a Bad Thing.
I won't dispute that this change may be motivated by bigotry, but it is not unreasonable to expect visitors to the seat of power of the entire country to not hide their identity. They wouldn't let you in wearing a mask or a motorcycle helmet, and applying the same rule to the niqab for the same reason is not discrimination.
In a country that has a constitution that has freedom of religion but only implied freedom of speech I find this effort by "team Australia"to be highly fethed up .
Burkas are not a security risk, it's such a beat up. I suppose at least cori bernardi and jackie lambie are happy, I sure am hell am not. I do like how people in burkas have to sit next to the school kids ,if they are such a security risk, WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?
I don't see the problem with burkas . you can't see their face , least you can see their eyes. I don't know how a burka is intimidating, it's not like their voice is going through a voice changer- there you go scared individuals, you can identify someone in a burka by the sound of their voice. fething problem solved. Being scared of clothes is sad.
Kali wrote: The burka is a symbol of oppression not just because it is emblematic of Islam but because it reinforces anti-egalitarian gender divisions and promotes both active opposition to assimilation and the fragmentation of immigrant minorities into ethnic enclaves. Obviously it's questionable that someone wearing a burka is more or less likely to be a security threat, but they should not be permitted to wear it in the first place.
Turkey, a Muslim-majority country, maintained one of the most stringently and successfully secular regimes in history during the Kemalist period and they too banned the burka (as well as the male Islamic dress and other traditional headgear such as the fez) not because they were anti-Islam but because they wished to stop the abuse against women that is enabled through disgusting cultural traditions as forcing women to wear the burka. Advocates claim it is a choice to wear the burka, but the reality that Turkey (and much of North Africa, which followed similar practices in the 50s and 60s) encountered is that if it is legal to wear, then men coerce their wives and daughters into wearing it - full stop. The only countermeasure is to ban it (along with other public displays of religion), which allows women to tell their husbands that it is out of their hands and stigmatizes this irrational and barbaric treatment.
.....Did you just get out of a college lecture for a freshmen class?
AlexHolker wrote: I won't dispute that this change may be motivated by bigotry, but it is not unreasonable to expect visitors to the seat of power of the entire country to not hide their identity. They wouldn't let you in wearing a mask or a motorcycle helmet, and applying the same rule to the niqab for the same reason is not discrimination.
Totally agree, that far.
It's the calls to ban people from wearing burqas on the street that I find ridiculous. Jacquie Lambie complains that it's a 'security risk' because you can't tell who is under there, and whether they're a man or a woman. By which logic we should also be banning the wearing of motorcycle helmets, hoodies and sunglasses, full-face beards, anybody I don't know, going out at night, being a long way away, or turning your back to someone.
This whole stupid little affair is nothing to do with 'national security'. It's to do with the insecurity of a bunch of conservatives who are uncomfortable about people having cultural values that differ from their own.
Hell, our Prime Minister came out and complained that he finds burqas 'confronting'.
If the fething Prime Minister of a country that makes such a big noise about our awesome multicultural society can't accept that some people dress differently to him, it's time to sink the fething island and start over.
But that woman gives Bachmann and Palin a run for their money, so I think we can safely ignore everything she says, and pray that she gets removed next election.
insaniak wrote: If the fething Prime Minister of a country that makes such a big noise about our awesome multicultural society can't accept that some people dress differently to him, it's time to sink the fething island and start over.
Oh, and a big 'Hello!' to ASIO. If you happened to grab a copy of that shopping list that I accidentally deleted this morning, can you please email it to my wife?
This whole stupid little affair is nothing to do with 'national security'. It's to do with the insecurity of a bunch of conservatives who are uncomfortable about people having cultural values that differ from their own.
Hell, our Prime Minister came out and complained that he finds burqas 'confronting'.
If the fething Prime Minister of a country that makes such a big noise about our awesome multicultural society can't accept that some people dress differently to him, it's time to sink the fething island and start over.
exalted. I truly expect to hear press releases about this prefaced by "we live in a tolerant society..." what a fething crock. It's just clothes, why can't people deal with clothes? I mean who even goes to watch parliament (goddamn spelling) except school kids, i don't even know how this needs to be legislated.
You know what intimidates me african shirts with those cool patterns on them, they look like there are eyes staring at me in the designs - BANE them!
Fez hats are dangerous, an errant tassle could take out someones eye - BANE them.
I hereby resign from "team Australia"and am tempted to up my donkey vote from local politics and extend it to federal politics. ASIO, if you are emailing the shopping list whilst you do it can you root my phone for me?
Kali wrote: The burka is a symbol of oppression not just because it is emblematic of Islam but because it reinforces anti-egalitarian gender divisions and promotes both active opposition to assimilation and the fragmentation of immigrant minorities into ethnic enclaves. Obviously it's questionable that someone wearing a burka is more or less likely to be a security threat, but they should not be permitted to wear it in the first place..
Do you honestly not see the hypocrisy inherent in 'saving' women from being told what they can and can't wear by implementing legislation telling them what they can and can't wear?
Bullockist wrote: I hereby resign from "team Australia"and am tempted to up my donkey vote from local politics and extend it to federal politics.
That is a terrible response. If you don't like how the current mob of politicians are acting, vote against them. Find someone you don't find completely repulsive and give them your vote, whether it's the Greens, the Libertarians or the Sex Party.
That is a terrible response. If you don't like how the current mob of politicians are acting, vote against them. Find someone you don't find completely repulsive and give them your vote, whether it's the Greens, the Libertarians or the Sex Party.
I tried that last time. Unfortunately, there seem to be enough morons out there who thought that letting Captain Speedo have a go would be a good idea...
Bullockist wrote: I hereby resign from "team Australia"and am tempted to up my donkey vote from local politics and extend it to federal politics.
That is a terrible response. If you don't like how the current mob of politicians are acting, vote against them. Find someone you don't find completely repulsive and give them your vote, whether it's the Greens, the Libertarians or the Sex Party.
Pretty much. As much as I'd love to wash my hands of the lot of them, doing that just gives the drongos the ability to choose a second, third, tenth Lambie. Then we really are stuffed.
The problem is, it's really hard to think that something positive is happening. You could be against both the LNP and ALP and want to therefore vote, say, green, but you know that since the Green won't win in your area, that the ALP is just getting your vote anyway. That unless the rest of the area decides to vote green as well, your vote almost counts for nothing. It's a bitter pill to swallow, and what turns a lot of people onto just throwing their vote so that the people they dislike can't get it.
I'd like to dress like this all the time. It'd be awesome. I'd run around giving people hugs, doing cartwheels in the street, dancing in the super market, and I wouldn't have to shave or worry about bad hair days.
Hiding behind a mask is very liberating; no one can see when you're hurt, or blushing, or tired, or old, or ugly. You can do what you like, because you have that extra layer of protection and anonymity. This is the same reason people act differently when in cars, or on the internet. I have even seen people change when they wear sunglasses or hats, as they take on that new persona.
My concern about burqas is that even when they are worn out of choice, they seem to be just another crutch for people with low self esteem, just like sunglasses, or too much make up. If you can't stand to go outside and honestly bare your own face, then how can you honestly call yourself free?
To be fair, a term of Liberal government is probably what the country needed after the whole Rudd/Gillard/Rudd fiasco. Reminds everyone that the Liberals are a bunch of ultra-conservative nutjobs who can't be trusted to look after anyone except the wealthy, while giving Labor the shake-up that they needed to get back on track... So I remain cautiously optimistic about the next election, and am just hoping that Abbott can't do too much damage to our children, our young unemployed and our relations with our neighbours (piss off Indonesia and China, there's a great idea!) in the meantime.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smacks wrote: My concern about burqas is that even when they are worn out of choice, they seem to be just another crutch for people with low self esteem, just like sunglasses, or too much make up. If you can't stand to go outside and honestly bare your own face, then how can you honestly call yourself free?
insaniak wrote: That's not even remotely what burqas are about.
You say that, but I read through quite a lot of testimonies by women who actually wear burqas on a daily basis (out of choice). One that stuck in my head was a woman who was forced to wear one when she was 13, and now she wears it out of choice because she feels uncomfortable outside without it. Many others talked about it just being 'easier', and stated that it can get sweaty and uncomfortable, and they are not always as strict with it as they are supposed to be.
Smacks wrote: One that stuck in my head was a woman who was forced to wear one when she was 13, and now she wears it out of choice because she feels uncomfortable outside without it.
And that has what to do with self esteem?
If you're used to covering up, then of course you're going to feel uncomfortable not doing so. In the same way that a girl who has gone her entire life wearing ankle-length skirts might feel uncomfortable going out in a mini-skirt. It's just a matter of degrees.
insaniak wrote: In the same way that a girl who has gone her entire life wearing ankle-length skirts might feel uncomfortable going out in a mini-skirt.
Yes she might... If she was self conscious about her legs. I don't she how that isn't intimately tangled up with self esteem issues.
Smacks wrote: Yes she might... If she was self conscious about her legs. I don't she how that isn't intimately tangled up with self esteem issues.
I don't walk around in public sans pants. Not because I have low self-esteem, but simply because I was brought up to believe that it was more acceptable to cover my parts in public.
If I went for the first 20 years of my life wearing pants, and then moved to a place where running around with bits akimbo was considered acceptable, the fact that it's culturally acceptable in my new home isn't automatically going to make me feel any less uncomfortable about doing it myself.
It's not a self-esteem issue at all. Just an issue of what you are used to, and what you believe is 'proper'.
insaniak wrote: I don't walk around in public sans pants. Not because I have low self-esteem, but simply because I was brought up to believe that it was more acceptable to cover my parts in public.
If I went for the first 20 years of my life wearing pants, and then moved to a place where running around with bits akimbo was considered acceptable, the fact that it's culturally acceptable in my new home isn't automatically going to make me feel any less uncomfortable about doing it myself.
It's not a self-esteem issue at all. Just an issue of what you are used to, and what you believe is 'proper'.
Having your face uncovered is not just 'acceptable' in western culture, I would say it is expected. Which is why the burqa issue keeps coming up. I don't think it is just 'islamophobia'. If I went somewhere where people expected me to be naked, then I might feel uncomfortable doing that... for about a day, and then I would get over it and feel a lot better that I'm no longer being contentious. I don't need my pants to be confident. Being uncomfortable just looking someone in the eye, is one of the hallmarks of low self esteem.
I'm not going to argue that all women who wear burqas do so out of low self esteem (indeed, some are just forced to wear them by men ), but it's obviously something that might be attractive to people are who are naturally shy, and I don't think it's going to help them in overcoming that.
Smacks wrote: Being uncomfortable just looking someone in the eye, is one of the hallmarks of low self esteem.
It's also a hallmark of someone being brought up to believe that it is inappropriate to look someone in the eye.
And where do you draw the line? Someone could argue it is 'inappropriate' for women to drive, or vote, or leave the house, or choose their own husband (and so on). At what point does it stop being culture and start just being oppression?
Nor is banning them by law from wearing what they feel comfortable in.
I never said they should be banned by law. I'm actually against them being banned by law. But... that doesn't mean I have to like them, or think they are acceptable. I wouldn't like to have to constantly interact with someone through a burqa at work, or in a school. And it's not bigotry, I don't really like sunglasses either.
I feel like this problem solves itself. If you don't like people making fun of you on the street for wearing something weird, wear something acceptable for the culture you are in. I had people shout stuff at me all the time when I had long hair. They were douche-bags, but that's life. I wouldn't go to Saudi and expect to prance around wearing a gold mankini and a ball-gag, that would be asking for trouble. Thankfully we are a bit more tolerant, but if you don't try and fit in, then you should be prepared for all the social and legal problems that go along with that.
I don't see the problem with burkas . you can't see their face , least you can see their eyes.
Ohh really??
Spoiler:
Yep, I can TOTALLY see their eyes through that.
And if you do the google image search for burka, half of the first page is very, very similar to that.
I would argue that the burka is extremely dehumanizing, and I would think that there's a right to be seen as a human being on this planet, which is clearly being violated by such attire.
Yeah, to me burqas just come across as dehumanizing women as if they're not allowed to be viewed as people (the outfit removes all physical features). That being said forcing them to not wear buqas wouldn't solve anything as the woman would just end up sitting at home as they aren't
allowed to show their face in public without a burqa.
I don't see the problem with burkas . you can't see their face , least you can see their eyes.
Ohh really??
Spoiler:
Yep, I can TOTALLY see their eyes through that.
And if you do the google image search for burka, half of the first page is very, very similar to that.
I would argue that the burka is extremely dehumanizing, and I would think that there's a right to be seen as a human being on this planet, which is clearly being violated by such attire.
I always confuse the burka and the niqab. I think if people think the burka is dehumanising they need to have a long hard look at themselves. Beneath the burka is a human no matter what they are wearing, the fact that people think that someone is less because of the clothing they wear is worrying. If you can't see their eyes they can still see yours.
If people want to wear something it's up to them in my opinion however I draw the line at...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: and then moved to a place where running around with bits akimbo
Bullockist wrote: I hereby resign from "team Australia"and am tempted to up my donkey vote from local politics and extend it to federal politics.
That is a terrible response. If you don't like how the current mob of politicians are acting, vote against them. Find someone you don't find completely repulsive and give them your vote, whether it's the Greens, the Libertarians or the Sex Party.
unfortunately with preferential voting as insaniak or motyak pointed out, that choice doesn't matter much. I already vote for small parties in the senate and as i live in a blue ribbon liberal electorate my vote in the house of reps doesn not matter much. *cough* budgy smuggler area *cough*
Bullockist wrote: Beneath the burka is a human no matter what they are wearing
Which doesn't change that making a person completely hide themselves is dehumanizing as it deprives the person of their visible human qualities such as a face. None of the Muslims I know wear it and are not fans of either the look or the implications of a burka, but then most of them didn't grow up in the ME. That being said making a law just to target them seems unfair and problematic, but being that hidden in public is also worrisome.
Smacks wrote: At what point does it stop being culture and start just being oppression?
That's ultimately up to the people being 'oppressed'.
But... that doesn't mean I have to like them, or think they are acceptable.
Of course you don't have to like them. But unless you're in some way responsible for someone who wants to wear one, it's not really your place to decide whether or not they're 'acceptable'.
If you don't like people making fun of you on the street for wearing something weird, wear something acceptable for the culture you are in.
Yup, intolerance is totally the fault of the people being victimised for being different...
I wouldn't go to Saudi and expect to prance around wearing a gold mankini and a ball-gag, that would be asking for trouble.
Yes it would... because standards of decency aren't a door that swings both ways.
For you going to the Middle East, it's not a big deal to wear a little more clothing if your normal apparel is a bit too shocking for the locals.
For someone from the Middle East coming to the West, it's a much bigger ask to expect them to just shuck their clothing because everyone else is doing it.
For you going to the Middle East, it's not a big deal to wear a little more clothing if your normal apparel is a bit too shocking for the locals.
For someone from the Middle East coming to the West, it's a much bigger ask to expect them to just shuck their clothing because everyone else is doing it.
Why the double standard? Why do you expect westerners to conform to the cultural exigences of a foreign culture, but don't expect the same when the situation is reversed?
The burka, and to a lesser extent the niqab, are actually symbols of fundamental/radical Islam. Contrary to popular belief in the west, it is not a central tenet of thr muslim faith for a woman to cover her face, and most mainstream muslims in the western world and the more cosmopolitan nation states in the middle east have interpeted the relevant passage of the Koran a good bit more literlally and simply cover up from the neck down, usually also covering their hair as well. The passage if youre curious:
“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (mist ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! Turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss.”
Mind you the passage of "lowering ones gaze" and "guarding their modesty" is also used to apply to males, and insofar as I can tell the justification for the burka/niqab is the use of the word "veil" (or linguistic equivalent) which to some implies a head covering though many linguists and muslim scholars would tell you that the meaning of the word as it appears in the koran has changed over the past few hundred years.
Smacks wrote: At what point does it stop being culture and start just being oppression?
That's ultimately up to the people being 'oppressed'.
Stockholm syndrome is a good example of why that kind of thinking isn't always enough. There are plenty of people around the world who are oppressed and exploited, yet they seem to be content and take pride in their work. That doesn't make it okay to exploit them. I don't expect Muslim women to all turn against their culture and their family and their heritage. Many will obviously embrace it, the good and the bad.
But unless you're in some way responsible for someone who wants to wear one, it's not really your place to decide whether or not they're 'acceptable'.
On the contrary, it is my place, and mine alone to decide what behavior I personally find acceptable. If women want to wear a burqa then perhaps it is not my place to stop them, but that does not mean I would support them either. I do not like talking to people in masks, I find it impolite and sort of dishonest. I'm perfectly entitled to (politely) decline to speak to someone wearing one. The burqa is especially divisive. There are even Muslims, such as Dr Taj Hargey in the UK (who is actually an Imam) who has tried to get it banned. He referred to it as: "an archaic tribal piece of cloth that is eagerly used by fundamentalist zealots to promote a toxic brand of extremist non-Koranic theology".
Yup, intolerance is totally the fault of the people being victimised for being different...
Not all differences are good, and not all intolerance is bad. There are plenty of behaviors and ideologies that we as a society should not tolerate (Racism for example).
For you going to the Middle East, it's not a big deal to wear a little more clothing if your normal apparel is a bit too shocking for the locals. For someone from the Middle East coming to the West, it's a much bigger ask to expect them to just shuck their clothing because everyone else is doing it.
That isn't what has been happening though, at least in the UK. The burqa became a 'fad' amongst girls who were mostly born here (2nd and 3rd generation), and who's mothers had not worn them.
PhantomViper wrote: Why the double standard? Why do you expect westerners to conform to the cultural exigences of a foreign culture, but don't expect the same when the situation is reversed?
It's not a double standard.
If you have a friend who finds swearing offensive, you might choose to not swear around him. You wouldn't expect him to swear around you just because you don't find it offensive.
This is the same. Covering up to avoid offending a more conservative culture is not the same thing as expecting someone from a more conservative culture to fling their clothes to the wind the moment they enter a more liberal environment.
Bullockist wrote: I hereby resign from "team Australia"and am tempted to up my donkey vote from local politics and extend it to federal politics.
That is a terrible response. If you don't like how the current mob of politicians are acting, vote against them. Find someone you don't find completely repulsive and give them your vote, whether it's the Greens, the Libertarians or the Sex Party.
The Beauty of a true multi-party system.
insaniak wrote: . . . and am just hoping that Abbott can't do too much damage to our children, our young unemployed and our relations with our neighbours (piss off Indonesia and China, there's a great idea!) in the meantime.
A certain guy named after a tropical plant will be sure to put a stop to Abbott's crazy . . . at least right up to the point he rolls over like a barrel of pork.
Bullockist wrote: Beneath the burka is a human no matter what they are wearing
Which doesn't change that making a person completely hide themselves is dehumanizing as it deprives the person of their visible human qualities such as a face. None of the Muslims I know wear it and are not fans of either the look or the implications of a burka, but then most of them didn't grow up in the ME. That being said making a law just to target them seems unfair and problematic, but being that hidden in public is also worrisome.
For you going to the Middle East, it's not a big deal to wear a little more clothing if your normal apparel is a bit too shocking for the locals.
For someone from the Middle East coming to the West, it's a much bigger ask to expect them to just shuck their clothing because everyone else is doing it.
Why the double standard? Why do you expect westerners to conform to the cultural exigences of a foreign culture, but don't expect the same when the situation is reversed?
This is true. Australia is not Saudi Arabia. When in Rome one should do as the Romans do.
PhantomViper wrote: Why the double standard? Why do you expect westerners to conform to the cultural exigences of a foreign culture, but don't expect the same when the situation is reversed?
It's not a double standard.
If you have a friend who finds swearing offensive, you might choose to not swear around him. You wouldn't expect him to swear around you just because you don't find it offensive.
This is the same. Covering up to avoid offending a more conservative culture is not the same thing as expecting someone from a more conservative culture to fling their clothes to the wind the moment they enter a more liberal environment.
No, its a double standard.
In general, in western cultures if people talk to other people with their faces or head covered even if that coverage only includes a hat or sun glasses, that is considered a lack of manners and will even actually offend some people when you do it. The same thing applies to wearing head coverings / sun glasses inside buildings, etc.
If westerners go to a Muslim country, then they will have to let go of many of the things that are part of our culture and identity, like having alcoholic beverages to accompany their meals, eating pork, if they are female they know that they at least will have to cover their hair and the majority of their bodies, etc.
All of those things are part of each culture, so why are you defending one and condemning the other?
If people want to wear something it's up to them in my opinion however I draw the line at...
IMO, there's a HUUGE difference between me growing my beard because *I* want to, a Jewish man wearing a yarmulke because he wants to honor his religion or his religion calls him to; and a woman wearing a burqa because her husband/father (or another "man of the house") is FORCING her to wear it. I do agree with you that the hijab is OK (even though I don't really like it either, it just isn't as ridiculous) as religious/cultural headwear, along with the Sikh turban, yarmulke or ubiquitous "pope hat"
Bullockist wrote: Beneath the burka is a human no matter what they are wearing
Which doesn't change that making a person completely hide themselves is dehumanizing as it deprives the person of their visible human qualities such as a face. None of the Muslims I know wear it and are not fans of either the look or the implications of a burka, but then most of them didn't grow up in the ME. That being said making a law just to target them seems unfair and problematic, but being that hidden in public is also worrisome.
Hiding visible human qualities does not make someone less human it is just YOUR perception of them as less human which is the issue here.
I still have no idea why someones face being hidden in public is worrisome, they are most likely doing the shopping not planning something nefarious. Having an uncovered face does not make them any less likely to be planning something nefarious.
In the age of video cameras in public places covering the face whilst committing a crime has lost a lot of its value.
If people want to wear something it's up to them in my opinion however I draw the line at...
IMO, there's a HUUGE difference between me growing my beard because *I* want to, a Jewish man wearing a yarmulke because he wants to honor his religion or his religion calls him to; and a woman wearing a burqa because her husband/father (or another "man of the house") is FORCING her to wear it. I do agree with you that the hijab is OK (even though I don't really like it either, it just isn't as ridiculous) as religious/cultural headwear, along with the Sikh turban, yarmulke or ubiquitous "pope hat"
But will the government then criminalize all forced wardrobe? What about a jewish mother who forces her child to wear a Yamaka against his will? What about a prudish father who forces his daughter to wear pants instead of a mini skirt? What about A Wife who forces her husband to wear a sportcoat and tie to brunch? Where is the line? What constitutes excessive force and when is it complying of their own free will? Who makes those distinctions and enforces it? What are the criminal ramifications?
Some would say they are wearing the head coverings to honor his/her religion, and the religion calls them to it as well and are not 'the man is forcing me'. Face coverings have roots in cultures who used them for very real practical purposes like maintaining moisture and protecting your face from damage to wind, sand and sun as well. Hell, in the winter, 90% of the people on the metro and in DC, our nations capital are bundled up way more than most islamic head coverings. There are hundreds of people a day walking past the white house with thier entire face covered during the winter and the world hasn't ended and no one is at risk. As long as 'the government' isn't forcing people to wear/notwear specific things, then I don't have a place telling people what they do. What you wear and what you do to your body is freedom of speech. Policing speech to determine why one form of expression of covering is 'bad' and another is 'choice' is a scary place to be and usually what is meant to shield people becomes a weapon used by the intolerant and bigoted to harm people.
But will the government then criminalize all forced wardrobe? What about a jewish mother who forces her child to wear a Yamaka against his will? What about a prudish father who forces his daughter to wear pants instead of a mini skirt? What about A Wife who forces her husband to wear a sportcoat and tie to brunch? Where is the line? What constitutes excessive force and when is it complying of their own free will? Who makes those distinctions and enforces it? What are the criminal ramifications?
-Mom making a child wear religious attire generally speaking, is OK, because children generally do not have the same kind of "rights" as adults do. This is based on them being CHILDREN and not fully understanding what rights entail (as far as, you have a right; now here's your responsibility with that right)
-the most prudish father that I've personally known would probably "force" his daughter to wear a long, loose skirt/dress, not pants of ANY kind.
-Does the husband want to get laid for the next week? How about sleep in his bed? yeah, this one's pretty ridiculous. I know that my wife has "forced" me to wear some clothes for an outing... Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't, as I will wear what I want (and that basically means being appropriate for what I'm doing)
Again, dealing with children's issues, if they are under 18, is a bit problematic due to them generally not having the same level of rights as the parents. I don't think that I'm advocating any sort of draconian dress code here, just that people have Human Rights, and that I believe that the burka violates those rights.
Some would say they are wearing the head coverings to honor his/her religion, and the religion calls them to it as well and are not 'the man is forcing me'. Face coverings have roots in cultures who used them for very real practical purposes like maintaining moisture and protecting your face from damage to wind, sand and sun as well. Hell, in the winter, 90% of the people on the metro and in DC, our nations capital are bundled up way more than most islamic head coverings. There are hundreds of people a day walking past the white house with thier entire face covered during the winter and the world hasn't ended and no one is at risk. As long as 'the government' isn't forcing people to wear/notwear specific things, then I don't have a place telling people what they do. What you wear and what you do to your body is freedom of speech. Policing speech to determine why one form of expression of covering is 'bad' and another is 'choice' is a scary place to be and usually what is meant to shield people becomes a weapon used by the intolerant and bigoted to harm people.
The difference is, in the case of a Washington winter, there is a compelling and immediate reason to cover your face; ie to avoid frostbite or that annoying 'burn' you get on your face when icy wind blows in it for a while. There is no compelling or immediate reason to wear a parka or a balaclava in the middle of a Washington summer, so you won't see anybody doing it. In contrast, people wearing burkas aren't doing it because of the weather, and in fact, may be doing it in spite of the weather (I hear it gets kinda warm in Australia, sometimes).
Is there a security reason for wanting people to not wear clothing that completely hides their identity? Yeah, you could make the argument. We've all heard of people robbing banks or stores wearing balaclavas and motorcycle helmets, so some restrictions on those make sense. I don't recall hearing about a rash of burglaries carried out by burka or niquab-clad muslim women, though, so I'm less inclined to see the sense in a security-related argument for restricting or banning them.
squidhills wrote: In contrast, people wearing burkas aren't doing it because of the weather, and in fact, may be doing it in spite of the weather (I hear it gets kinda warm in Australia, sometimes).
Friend of mine spent a couple months in Morocco, out among the Bedouin tribes and had some very interesting things to report.... One of which was, the fashion of the Bedouins (in particular) act as an outstanding A/C system. He actually swapped his clothing for theres for a couple days, and he tells me that when he was first getting ready to put the stuff on, he was worried about overheating. But, all the layers and fabrics that they wear, especially the Bedouin style turban creates such a buffer between the body and the sun that you actually feel rather cool (temperature, not like Paul Newman). So while I can't comment on the burka (as I've never directly known anyone who wore one), I will say that the people who inhabit the hottest deserts know how to dress for their weather, and this may also be the case with feminine attire over there (of course, it wouldn't surprise me at all if women's clothing did nothing for the heat/temp. of the wearer as men's clothing does)
Friend of mine spent a couple months in Morocco, out among the Bedouin tribes and had some very interesting things to report.... One of which was, the fashion of the Bedouins (in particular) act as an outstanding A/C system. He actually swapped his clothing for theres for a couple days, and he tells me that when he was first getting ready to put the stuff on, he was worried about overheating. But, all the layers and fabrics that they wear, especially the Bedouin style turban creates such a buffer between the body and the sun that you actually feel rather cool (temperature, not like Paul Newman). So while I can't comment on the burka (as I've never directly known anyone who wore one), I will say that the people who inhabit the hottest deserts know how to dress for their weather, and this may also be the case with feminine attire over there (of course, it wouldn't surprise me at all if women's clothing did nothing for the heat/temp. of the wearer as men's clothing does)
But does it protect against Australian super-spiders? What about Drop Bears?
Again, dealing with children's issues, if they are under 18, is a bit problematic due to them generally not having the same level of rights as the parents. I don't think that I'm advocating any sort of draconian dress code here, just that people have Human Rights, and that I believe that the burka violates those rights.
A government forcing people to wear one... Yes...
People choosing to wear one or having the freedom to wear one: No.
Government forcing what people cannot wear in the name of 'assimilation' or fake security threats: No
Sorry, Free Speech is free speech. As long as the government is not forcing it upon them, then at some point people need to have the freedom to practice their religion as they choose. (as long as your country has freedom of religion) Free speech is much more important human right to me than forced assimilation or religious oppression based on bigotry and intolerance.
The dots being connected basically will deem any 'cultural wear' which has religious significance will be deemed as a human rights violation as God's very existence to many humans is oppressive and believing in God makes your human rights violated. All I see is white people wanting to force their culture and ideals as the world-wide default. I have seen it when friends were unfairly targeted and discriminated due to choosing to wear Dashikis and not forcibly culturally assimilate to the norm of 89$ JoS A banks suits. One of the saddest things ever was to see how the west basically mutilated and steamrolled much of china and japan's culture with western influences to the point where people don't even feel like they can wear traditional garb at their own weddings out of fear of offending relatives from the west.
I don't want any government telling people what they should or should not wear in the bigoted name of 'cultural assimilation' which is code for 'forcing a euro-centric culture upon everyone'
So why isn't the religious view points taken out of this? Wasn't the point to ban them at government places as they covered the face, like how some places do not allow closed helmets.
They should be allowed to wear them whenever cause that's what they want, but some areas you just need to forget religion for a moment and realise at times safety can be more important than some belief system.
n0t_u wrote: So why isn't the religious view points taken out of this? Wasn't the point to ban them at government places as they covered the face, like how some places do not allow closed helmets.
They should be allowed to wear them whenever cause that's what they want, but some areas you just need to forget religion for a moment and realise at times safety can be more important than some belief system.
Because the safety argument is a blatant and transparent false premise which is being used to force bigoted and oppressive laws on their citizens. And many people do not think giving up free speech in the name of 'security' is a good trade.
n0t_u wrote: So why isn't the religious view points taken out of this? Wasn't the point to ban them at government places as they covered the face, like how some places do not allow closed helmets.
They should be allowed to wear them whenever cause that's what they want, but some areas you just need to forget religion for a moment and realise at times safety can be more important than some belief system.
Because the safety argument is a blatant and transparent false premise which is being used to force bigoted and oppressive laws on their citizens. And many people do not think giving up free speech in the name of 'security' is a good trade.
As is religion in most cases sadly. But, I'm talking about higher security areas mostly not the local shops or something. Places where identification is extremely important should supersede beliefs or at least allow a good system to cover it.
n0t_u wrote: But, I'm talking about higher security areas mostly not the local shops or something. Places where identification is extremely important should supersede beliefs or at least allow a good system to cover it.
While I agree that security reasons are perfectly valid to prevent full face covers in public spaces, in this particular instance people would have already gone through one or several security checkpoints requiring visual ID and documentation to be allowed to reach the galleries.
If you've already been properly identified, the fact that you can cover your face afterwards doesn't pose any security risk whatsoever.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: On the one hand... a covered face poses a pretty significant security risk... On the other, even FRANCE handled the issue better (or, they at least had tried to... not sure if that law passed)
What the hell? We said you have no right to go around with your face covered in the street except for a list of reasonable exceptions like when you are riding a bike and wear a helmet. I am not sure how this is better or worse than what Australia did.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: -Mom making a child wear religious attire generally speaking, is OK, because children generally do not have the same kind of "rights" as adults do.
I am not sure that is okay, really.
insaniak wrote: For you going to the Middle East, it's not a big deal to wear a little more clothing if your normal apparel is a bit too shocking for the locals.
For someone from the Middle East coming to the West, it's a much bigger ask to expect them to just shuck their clothing because everyone else is doing it.
I have been in the middle-east, Iran more specifically, twice, with my family, and this does not represent at all my experiences there. Basically, it was a whole lot more like my mother had to wear a little more clothing because the government enforced that rule while most of the local women were actually trying very hard to push the limits of how few clothing was still acceptable, and almost no-one would have been shocked if my mom wore less because, uh, have you ever seen pictures of Iran before the revolution? Or what people wear as soon as they are in a private place?
My Iranian friends who came to France had not to be asked to wear less, by the way.
“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (mist ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! Turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss.”
When quoting the Quran, please please please do provide specific references, i.e. the number (and, if you want to, name) of the Surah, and the number of the verse. Actually, if you want to do even better, also add a link to this: http://quranexplorer.com/quran/ , so that people can check out and compare 5 different English translations, the original Arabic text if they can read it, and a translation in their native language if they are not native English speakers. Then only people will be able to really make up their own minds. Because basing yourself on just one translation can be damn misleading, while looking at different translations to check what they have in common allow you to way better discern what is clear in the text and what is an interpretation/stylistic effect of the translator.
IIRC, the “slave that the right hand possess” are those that were enslaved during jihad. I will let you think on this part of the verse and what it implies .
insaniak wrote: Do you honestly not see the hypocrisy inherent in 'saving' women from being told what they can and can't wear by implementing legislation telling them what they can and can't wear?
Frankly I'm not interested the least in preserving a culture I think is intrinsically more barbaric than modern secular society, but I can point to solvency and harms reduction empirically, where you can only chant the multicultural mantra.
Bullockist wrote: I still have no idea why someones face being hidden in public is worrisome
Do you not know what a burka is after all this discussion? It hides everything, not just the face: heads, torso, legs, ect.
In theory, it could be used to hide weapons, which a criminal could use to commit crimes. In reality, we haven't seen a rash of crimes committed by Muslim women concealing UZIs under their burkas, so I'm not sure there is a pressing need to legislate restrictions on them.
Not saying I approve of them (I take the stance that it is a dehumanizing garment that reduces a woman to a faceless, shapless thing) but I just don't see a compelling security reason to pass laws against them.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: On the one hand... a covered face poses a pretty significant security risk... On the other, even FRANCE handled the issue better (or, they at least had tried to... not sure if that law passed)
What the hell? We said you have no right to go around with your face covered in the street except for a list of reasonable exceptions like when you are riding a bike and wear a helmet. I am not sure how this is better or worse than what Australia did.
France has a pretty hardcore philosophy on separation of church and state, or more broadly church and public ( a lot like Mexico actually). I think it stems from the Revolution, when the Church actively supported the monarchy but thats purely IIRC.
It is a philosphy that I as a follower of the Great Wienie subscribe to.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: -Mom making a child wear religious attire generally speaking, is OK, because children generally do not have the same kind of "rights" as adults do.
I am not sure that is okay, really.
As I said, here in the US there is a sort of view that, right or wrong, basically children have some rights, but not really that many. I mean, if someone's religion calls for the wearing of nipple rings and gimp suits, I think we could all agree that 6 year old Timmy shouldn't be getting his nipples pierced, nor should he be wearing a gimp suit. Something as "simple" as a yarmulke is OK, especially since it is a Jewish garment, and not only is Judaism a religion, it is in many ways its own ethnicity. (As in, I've known several people who identify as being Jewish, but do not practice or follow the Jewish religion beyond wearing a yarmulke)
Don't want to be construed as a security threat - don't dress like a security threat. It's no different than if I was to walk around wearing one of these:
Nothing in the Koran requires women to cover their faces.
insaniak wrote: Do you honestly not see the hypocrisy inherent in 'saving' women from being told what they can and can't wear by implementing legislation telling them what they can and can't wear?
Frankly I'm not interested the least in preserving a culture I think is intrinsically more barbaric than modern secular society, but I can point to solvency and harms reduction empirically, where you can only chant the multicultural mantra.
And...thank you.
FInally someone gets it. Multiculturalism for the sake of multiculturalism is absurd. How much multiculturalism do you see in Islamic countries? ZERO. You're either a Muslim, or you're their subjects. END OF STORY. Not a Muslim? SHUT THE feth UP AND PAY THE TAX. If you're lucky, they'll let you live.
Not saying I approve of them (I take the stance that it is a dehumanizing garment that reduces a woman to a faceless, shapless thing) but I just don't see a compelling security reason to pass laws against them.
What about people who feel being classified by only your 'looks' is dehumanizing and removing physical looks from the equation allows someone to be seen for what is inside and who they are and what they do and not what they look like?
The way a fat girl is universally dismissed in today's society simply due to her looks and the way people act towards those who are overweight or unattractive is often more 'dehumanizing' than face coverings. Many women are forced to 'dehumanize' themselves every day in multiple aspects of society in order to be taken seriously or survive. Female writers use initials to cloak their gender on research and writing to be taken seriously based upon their content. Female gamers use voice alterations to cloak they are women in order to avoid harassment. There are lots of examples where hiding surface aspects of yourself is one of the only ways to break through the superficial levels of society. So forcing people to be constantly quantified and marginalized by their external shell because you 'feel it is better' isn't necessarily universally right or everyone else shares the same opinion. Hence freedom for people do do what they want. If someone thinks their tradition of Hijab empowers them by hiding their outer beauty to force interacting with their inner beauty... that is their choice and really none of anyone else's business to lecture them on how they need to be rescued from themselves or their culture in favor of a western euro-centric culture which has many terrible and just as oppressive customs. I can have opinions on it, just like you, but I am not going to force my opinions on them or try to stack society to make those who don't follow my world view to be marginalized for no reason.
The problem is when someone basically makes up an arbitrary standard of expression, speech or existence then forces it on everyone with the explanation of "I am right, this is fair now..."
At some point, you have to let people have some freedom to choose on their own. As long as the government isn't forcing people to wear/notwear what they want then it is ok.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: FInally someone gets it. Multiculturalism for the sake of multiculturalism is absurd. How much multiculturalism do you see in Islamic countries? ZERO. You're either a Muslim, or you're their subjects. END OF STORY. Not a Muslim? SHUT THE feth UP AND PAY THE TAX. If you're lucky, they'll let you live.
So... because some other countries are intolerant, we all should be?
nkelsch wrote: What about people who feel being classified by only your 'looks' is dehumanizing and removing physical looks from the equation allows someone to be seen for what is inside and who they are and what they do and not what they look like?
They do not wear burka. Only hardline muslims do.
nkelsch wrote: Many women are forced to 'dehumanize' themselves every day in multiple aspects of society in order to be taken seriously or survive. Female writers use initials to cloak their gender on research and writing to be taken seriously based upon their content. Female gamers use voice alterations to cloak they are women in order to avoid harassment.
How would wearing a garb that marks you as female help here? It would not.
nkelsch wrote: If someone thinks their tradition of Hijab empowers them by hiding their outer beauty to force interacting with their inner beauty...
There is no “inner beauty”, this is nonsense.
nkelsch wrote: in favor of a western euro-centric culture which has many terrible and just as oppressive customs.
Certainly had, but worked and is still currently working on fixing them.
Not saying I approve of them (I take the stance that it is a dehumanizing garment that reduces a woman to a faceless, shapless thing) but I just don't see a compelling security reason to pass laws against them.
What about people who feel being classified by only your 'looks' is dehumanizing and removing physical looks from the equation allows someone to be seen for what is inside and who they are and what they do and not what they look like?
Treating someone poorly/judging them by their looks is bad. Reducing them to the status of a mute non-person because they have a vagina is objectively worse.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: FInally someone gets it. Multiculturalism for the sake of multiculturalism is absurd. How much multiculturalism do you see in Islamic countries? ZERO. You're either a Muslim, or you're their subjects. END OF STORY. Not a Muslim? SHUT THE feth UP AND PAY THE TAX. If you're lucky, they'll let you live.
So... because some other countries are intolerant, we all should be?
Not to mention the dimmah and the jizya have been gone from most muslim countries' legislations since the 1850s.
It's ironic that, after a decade and half of horror stories about dhimmies and dhimmitude, the ISIS reinstated the dimmah for non-muslim population. Self-accoplished prophecy much?
NuggzTheNinja wrote: FInally someone gets it. Multiculturalism for the sake of multiculturalism is absurd. How much multiculturalism do you see in Islamic countries? ZERO. You're either a Muslim, or you're their subjects. END OF STORY. Not a Muslim? SHUT THE feth UP AND PAY THE TAX. If you're lucky, they'll let you live.
So... because some other countries are intolerant, we all should be?
I am shamelessly intolerant of gross and rampant intolerance that manifests in extortion, mutilation, and murder. Yes.
insaniak wrote: So... because some other countries are intolerant, we all should be?
Well it's simply a matter of deciding that unacceptable conduct is unacceptable conduct regardless the historical or cultural reasons behind it. I don't care particularly about believing, it's the acting - the behavior - that matters. Fact is that if you allow women to wear the burka, their relatives and husbands will force them to wear it. Additionally, the merit of the practice is nil, and it reinforces ghettoization and stems assimilation. We should all interact with each other as part of the same fundamental community - secular civic society - before rallying behind these secondary and tertiary identities which divide us and introduce unhealthy treatment of fellow men.
insaniak wrote: Do you honestly not see the hypocrisy inherent in 'saving' women from being told what they can and can't wear by implementing legislation telling them what they can and can't wear?
Frankly I'm not interested the least in preserving a culture I think is intrinsically more barbaric than modern secular society, but I can point to solvency and harms reduction empirically, where you can only chant the multicultural mantra.
You do realise you are damning a whole culture based on a small minority?
I'm not championing a multiucultural mantra, just that clothes is clothes and banning clothes is stupid and let me say it victorian. In lands where there is freedom we want to stop people wearing clothes because they pose a security risk, what friggin security risk? A burka does not decrease security in the slightest as phantom viper pointed out, and as nklesch (or however you spell it) pointed out it is just an excuse for segregating people based on feelings of people being uncomfortable. If someone wants to wear a burka I put it in the same category as ear plugs, neck tattoos and other items of apparel/decoration that i consider stupid - but if they want to wear it that's up to them.
In this current climate of fear - seriously when was the last time you went 2 days without hearing about terrorism in the media- to many stupid laws are passed in the name of security, and this was going to be one of them. If you want to be supportive of laws like this , enjoy the fear. I for one don't think that fear is a healthy way for a society to live and honestly fearing terrorism is illogical and counter productive.
Bullockist wrote: You do realise you are damning a whole culture based on a small minority?
I'm damning the whole culture on the basis that it promotes certain types of undesirable behaviors (such as the subjugation of women) and also discourages assimilation. People may believe what they wish, (for now) I suppose, but letting them behave as they wish is going a step too far.
I'm not championing a multiucultural mantra, just that clothes is clothes and banning clothes is stupid and let me say it victorian. In lands where there is freedom we want to stop people wearing clothes because they pose a security risk, what friggin security risk?
Again, I don't consider the "security threat" posed by the burka to be significant. I also don't consider the "freedom to wear the burka" significant. I do consider both the abuse it protects and ghettoizing social effects it causes to be significant. The secular modern culture of Western and (most) Northeast Asian countries is objectively (or as close as you'll get to it, anyways) superior to cultures informed by tradition and religion. I won't even go so far as to demand the extermination of these other cultures, I just ask that we don't tolerate their flagrant barbarism and disrespect for what most of us understand to be basic human rights in our own societies.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: FInally someone gets it. Multiculturalism for the sake of multiculturalism is absurd. How much multiculturalism do you see in Islamic countries? ZERO. You're either a Muslim, or you're their subjects. END OF STORY. Not a Muslim? SHUT THE feth UP AND PAY THE TAX. If you're lucky, they'll let you live.
So... because some other countries are intolerant, we all should be?
I am shamelessly intolerant of gross and rampant intolerance that manifests in extortion, mutilation, and murder. Yes.
I am glad western civilization doesn't have those issues... oh wait.
Boils down to 'security' and 'protecting women' are both indefensible positions based off raw ignorance or are being used to cloak an ulterior-motive which is basically 'intolerance of non-assimilation of culture'. Basically they want one society, one culture to be all that is allowed and everyone needs to be forcibly assimilated. These attitudes are based in a history of racism, hate and violence.
Intolerance and demonizing of cultural aspects you don't like and legislation to hassle, isolate and then criminalize other cultures didn't end well last time Europe tried to implement such policies.
Freedom... as long as you live your life the way I do and by my rules. Right? Maybe people can just be allowed to have actual freedom and do what they want? Promote change via education and freedom not oppressive and pointlessly forced assimilation motivated by hate and violence through oppressive legislation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kali wrote: I won't even go so far as to demand the extermination of these other cultures, I just ask that we don't tolerate their flagrant barbarism and disrespect for what most of us understand to be basic human rights in our own societies.
Right... Exterminating these cultures is phase two in your final solution. First we just need to get laws on the books to begin to document them via criminal records and restrict their freedom in society by criminalizing their beliefs. Once you criminalize them and prove all of those people are criminals, THEN you can demand the extermination of the culture and in turn the people who are part of it.
Manchu wrote: It is hard to believe that a culture that believes women should be so covered up can also believe that women should be free, equal members of society.
But Our culture gives people the freedom to choose how they practice their religion and support them and their choices...
So if they wish to interpret the Hijab in a different way, they have the latitude to do so, or they can wear a burka until they die... that is the funny thing about freedom. Our ignorance of their culture and religion and how it is practiced is no excuse to begin banning forms of expression or religious freedoms.
And lots of people practice forms of Hijab and believe in equality between the genders and have households with equal partnerships. And there are also head-covering practices for men as well.
And when you try to equate something to 'Men opporessing women' the truth is they basically mean 'Religion oppressing humans' and to many the simple act of practicing any religion is a human rights violation and they would criminalize and destroy religion if given the chance.
I would rather have freedom for all than selective oppression based upon majority whims and criminalizing expression and speech by the government.
Well a fundamental problem with your claim is that Muslim societies also stigmatize homosexuals and not only commit great levels of criminal violence against them but often have laws which severely punish people simply for being homosexuals. Obviously the West isn't perfect, but the ideal type here is a secular-rational or secular-modern society, which the West approximates FAR more closely than predominantly Muslim societies. Again, though, we don't need to punish people for behaving according to their own laws on their own land. The real issue comes into play when it happens in our own societies because of a failure to assimilate.
Boils down to 'security' and 'protecting women' are both indefensible positions based off raw ignorance
That's simply false. Security, I agree, is a weak issue. Abuse of women is not.
or are being used to cloak an ulterior-motive which is basically 'intolerance of non-assimilation of culture'.
I don't think that's even an ulterior motive. It's the express motive. People should behave in accordance with reason and virtue, especially in public spaces. That doesn't leave any room for religious dogmatism or traditional attitudes about the way in which you treat your fellow citizens.
Basically they want one society, one culture to be all that is allowed and everyone needs to be forcibly assimilated. These attitudes are based in a history of racism, hate and violence.
I think it's entirely the opposite. We create universal (or near as we can get) norms about how people should treat one another and then we have the state apply those principles as stringently as possible. I don't want violence or hate against immigrants, I want people to integrate and become part of the same civic community that I belong to, where qualities like race and sex are understood to be irrelevant.
Freedom... as long as you live your life the way I do and by my rules. Right? Maybe people can just be allowed to have actual freedom and do what they want? Promote change via education and freedom not oppressive and pointlessly forced assimilation motivated by hate and violence through oppressive legislation.
The problem with that strategy is that education is being used as the chief tool of the multicultural agenda. I strongly support a curriculum which emphasizes dedication to the national community and a chief identity as "Citizen" rather than "WASP" or "Arab Muslim" or whatever else.
Well, it's worth noting that Islamic and Arab culture are not monolithic entities. I saw a pretty significant ratio of uncovered to covered women in Amman. The majority were covered but there was a not-insignificant number of women who looked like they'd be just as at home in Europe or North America, and I know for a fact that some were Muslim, and it's pretty safe to assume that most of the rest were also Muslim.
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Gulf are certainly a different story.
Also I seem to recall a respected gentleman, a member of a group that is (in general) well-loved by the same people who think all Muslims are evil, once said "He who gives up freedom for security deserves neither."
Well a fundamental problem with your claim is that Muslim societies also stigmatize homosexuals and not only commit great levels of criminal violence against them but often have laws which severely punish people simply for being homosexuals. Obviously the West isn't perfect, but the ideal type here is a secular-rational or secular-modern society, which the West approximates FAR more closely than predominantly Muslim societies. Again, though, we don't need to punish people for behaving according to their own laws on their own land. The real issue comes into play when it happens in our own societies because of a failure to assimilate.
Boils down to 'security' and 'protecting women' are both indefensible positions based off raw ignorance
That's simply false. Security, I agree, is a weak issue. Abuse of women is not.
or are being used to cloak an ulterior-motive which is basically 'intolerance of non-assimilation of culture'.
I don't think that's even an ulterior motive. It's the express motive. People should behave in accordance with reason and virtue, especially in public spaces. That doesn't leave any room for religious dogmatism or traditional attitudes about the way in which you treat your fellow citizens.
Basically they want one society, one culture to be all that is allowed and everyone needs to be forcibly assimilated. These attitudes are based in a history of racism, hate and violence.
I think it's entirely the opposite. We create universal (or near as we can get) norms about how people should treat one another and then we have the state apply those principles as stringently as possible. I don't want violence or hate against immigrants, I want people to integrate and become part of the same civic community that I belong to, where qualities like race and sex are understood to be irrelevant.
Freedom... as long as you live your life the way I do and by my rules. Right? Maybe people can just be allowed to have actual freedom and do what they want? Promote change via education and freedom not oppressive and pointlessly forced assimilation motivated by hate and violence through oppressive legislation.
The problem with that strategy is that education is being used as the chief tool of the multicultural agenda. I strongly support a curriculum which emphasizes dedication to the national community and a chief identity as "Citizen" rather than "WASP" or "Arab Muslim" or whatever else.
I can't tell if you are a time traveler from 1940's Europe or a Hollywood dystopian future plot. When Education, Freedom and Melting pot merging the best of all cultures for mutual benifit is seen as 'bad', I would have to pull a farnsworth.
You are a disturbing person if you honestly believe some of your own words... They are more filled with hate and intolerance than any Islamic extremist.
nkelsch wrote: But Our culture gives people the freedom to choose how they practice their religion and support them and their choices...
In the US, we do not have a tradition (legal or cultural) of allowing people to do whatever on a religious basis. As for "support them and their choices," I have no idea where you got that idea. The overwhelming attitude toward other people's religion in the US is "not my business" rather than "I support your choice."
I also think it is a bit strange to talk of religion as a choice considering the status of women in Muslim societies. Does one not recall that a pregnant woman was just recently jailed and sentenced to 100 lashes for adultery (because her Christian marriage was deemed invalid) and to death for apostasy (even despite being raised Christian) in Sudan -- and saved only thanks to international (read: Western) pressure?
Westerners (Muslim and otherwise) are absolutely kidding themselves if they think Islam can be a welcome part of free society AND keep this barbaric attitude toward women.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Well if the point of the Melting Pot is to pull the best of all cultures...
"Melting pot" is code for "assimilation." It is not actually about preserving anyone's traditions but rather reconciling yourself as a newcomer to whatever is acceptable to people where you are. Whether that's good or bad or both is a separate question.
Multiculturalism is a funny thing. It trumpets the logical perspective that no culture can be objectively defined as being 'superior' to another culture, so all should be accepted equally. But it also ignores the inherent problem within that reasoning, in that all cultures also cannot also be proven objectively 'equal'. Therefore using the same logic, one must accept that supremacism is objectively equally valid as multiculturalism. Thus, it is just as logical to believe that one culture is superior to another as it is to believe that all cultures are equal in every way.
Yes, "multiculturalism" itself is a cultural notion. More specifically, it is an ideological and political notion. I think we should keep its actual historical origin in mind: the mutliculturalism we have in the US is an import from 1970s Canada. Specifically, it was a policy of Trudeau to undermine Quebecois separatists. In the US, multiculturalism has remained merely political in contrast to becoming actual policy. It has been criticized as a tool to justify status quo racism by cover up/misdirection. To be blunt, it has been variously employed in the US as a salve for white guilt and gasoline for the fire of righteous anger whites routinely demonstrate on behalf of non-whites. Whether it has made our society more just or free or inclusive to the extent it has been employed is a matter of controversy.
nkelsch wrote: I can't tell if you are a time traveler from 1940's Europe or a Hollywood dystopian future plot. When Education, Freedom and Melting pot merging the best of all cultures for mutual benifit is seen as 'bad', I would have to pull a farnsworth.
I hardly see what's dystopian about desiring a society where people think of themselves chiefly as members rather than begrudgingly acknowledging they share the same spaces with "Others". Education and freedom are obviously good, but not if they're twisted into mockeries of themselves.
You are a disturbing person if you honestly believe some of your own words... They are more filled with hate and intolerance than any Islamic extremist.
You're the only one spouting hate and intolerance here. I want the same for my fellow citizens as I want for myself.
RatBot wrote: Well, it's worth noting that Islamic and Arab culture are not monolithic entities.
Oh, absolutely, I agree. It's not that these people or places are inherently worse, far from it. In fact, some of the best examples of secular-rational governance come from the post-colonial governments of North Africa, where people like Tunisia's Bourguiba made it a central priority of his administration to uplift women and end sex-based discrimination. He too banned the veil, and is well remembered for embracing "Western" (actually, secular-rational/secular-modern) values in education, health, administration, and elsewhere.
Manchu wrote: Yes, "multiculturalism" itself is a cultural notion. More specifically, it is an ideological and political notion. I think we should keep its actual historical origin in mind: the mutliculturalism we have in the US is an import from 1970s Canada. Specifically, it was a policy of Trudeau to undermine Quebecois separatists. In the US, multiculturalism has remained merely political in contrast to becoming actual policy. It has been criticized as a tool to justify status quo racism by cover up/misdirection. To be blunt, it has been variously employed in the US as a salve for white guilt and gasoline for the fire of righteous anger whites routinely demonstrate on behalf of non-whites. Whether it has made our society more just or free or inclusive to the extent it has been employed is a matter of controversy.
Bullockist wrote: You do realise you are damning a whole culture based on a small minority?
Which culture are we talking about exactly? Saudi ultra-orthodox culture?
nkelsch wrote: Intolerance and demonizing of cultural aspects you don't like
You know, I would be pretty happy to be allowed to be intolerant toward and demonize some cultural aspect of my own culture and other, foreign cultures too.
RatBot wrote: Well, it's worth noting that Islamic and Arab culture are not monolithic entities. I saw a pretty significant ratio of uncovered to covered women in Amman. The majority were covered but there was a not-insignificant number of women who looked like they'd be just as at home in Europe or North America, and I know for a fact that some were Muslim, and it's pretty safe to assume that most of the rest were also Muslim.
Best Muslim-majority country on that regard is afaik Albania <3.
Mr Nobody wrote: Math, your numbers are Arabic. Also, the basics of science.
Conflating Arab culture with Islam? Nice. Also Arabic numbers actually look like this:
٠
١
٢
٣
٤
٥
٦
٧
٨
٩
(Persian use slightly different script).
If you had ever been in a country that uses Arabic script, you would know.
Grey Templar wrote: Well if the point of the Melting Pot is to pull the best of all cultures...
What may I ask does Islamic culture offer to the melting pot? Not much honestly. I really can't think of anything.
Math, your numbers are Arabic. Also, the basics of science.
So... not much then
I think the difficulty in today's world is that when you see/deal with a mid-large scale Muslim immigrant population, there is inevitably a call for Sharia Law from that group. I'm sorry, but there is absolutely NO WAY a society can successfully integrate/assimilate while the "new" group is demanding the existing/status quo group bend fully to it's will... And there's no fething way that the Status Quo group will "welcome" the new group while those sorts of demands are being made.
As you know Whembly, I am one of those whites who routinely expresses righteous anger on behalf of non-whites. I just don't do so on the basis of multiculturalism. Subscribing to multiculturalist ideology does not automatically prove one is not a racist (quite the reverse IMO). Multiculturalism is not synonymous with the hope that different kinds of people can live together peacefully, although that is certainly the pretense.
As you know Whembly, I am one of those whites who routinely expresses righteous anger on behalf of non-whites. I just don't do so on the basis of multiculturalism. Subscribing to multiculturalist ideology does not automatically prove one is not a racist (quite the reverse IMO). Multiculturalism is not synonymous with the hope that different kinds of people can live together peacefully, although that is certainly the pretense.
And I respect you greatly for that.
Sorry... I'm overly sensitive with these subject matters due to my proximity to Ferguson. There are some things that brings the crazies out of the woodworks.
I am glad western civilization doesn't have those issues... oh wait.
The behavior of a few drunk idiots is incomparable to institutionalized violence. The people who beat up the gay man in Philadelphia will be held accountable for their actions by the state. Homosexuals in Iran, on the other hand, are executed by the state. This is what you fail to understand.
Boils down to 'security' and 'protecting women' are both indefensible positions based off raw ignorance or are being used to cloak an ulterior-motive which is basically 'intolerance of non-assimilation of culture'. Basically they want one society, one culture to be all that is allowed and everyone needs to be forcibly assimilated. These attitudes are based in a history of racism, hate and violence.
Intolerance and demonizing of cultural aspects you don't like and legislation to hassle, isolate and then criminalize other cultures didn't end well last time Europe tried to implement such policies.
Freedom... as long as you live your life the way I do and by my rules. Right? Maybe people can just be allowed to have actual freedom and do what they want? Promote change via education and freedom not oppressive and pointlessly forced assimilation motivated by hate and violence through oppressive legislation.
You are still failing to understand the situation. Islam is intolerant. This intolerance is often expressed as physical violence. I'm intolerant of intolerance. If you want to run down the street wearing a rainbow jumpsuit to meet your gay male lover at the end of the street, go for it. I'd like to see a world where men and women, gay and straight, could do what they want without stigmatization. These views are completely incompatible with Islam.
Your attempts to connect my position to that of the Nazis are as disgusting as they are absurd. Jews in Europe never beheaded Germans, never practiced suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks against Germany, and never really caused any problems for Germany prior to the rise of the Nazis. Nobody in 1930's Germany was worried about a Jew walking into a school wearing a suicide bomb vest and blowing himself up. However, a Muslim woman walking around in attire that could easily conceal a suicide vest is viewed as a security threat because of the actions of her fellow Muslims, which have occurred in practically every country in the world. But hey - it's not their fault, it's our fault for stigmatizing terrorists.
Your contributions to this topic have consisted of nothing but intellectual dishonesty and modern liberal multicultural sugarcoating.
Grey Templar wrote: Well if the point of the Melting Pot is to pull the best of all cultures...
What may I ask does Islamic culture offer to the melting pot? Not much honestly. I really can't think of anything.
Math, your numbers are Arabic. Also, the basics of science.
Those all predate Islam by many centuries (as does the burqa interestingly). One of the assumption we make about advanced extraterrestrial civilizations is that they would need to have some concept of binary, which would imply that positional counting systems are somewhat inevitable. In the long run I would say the arabic decimal system has done more harm than good. The fact that we still say the word 'twelve' and not 'twoteen' suggests that Europeans used to count in dozens. That would have been much better, as would the Aztec system, but instead we ended up with silly finger counting, in a base that doesn't work for division.
well, actually, IIRC the numbers we use are, in fact, Arabic numerals, but I can't remember if we changed them to their modern Western form, or if the Arabs changed them at some point after the West adopted them. Also, IIRC, the ultimate origin of these numerals is actually Hindu. I mean, ٠ could easily turn into 0, ١ already looks like 1, and turn ٢ and ٣ on to their left sides and they look like 2 and 3. Not sure how the rest of them, other than 9 and 7 came about, though ٦ is actually 6 which was confusing as hell for a little while when I was learning Modern Arabic numerals.
EDIT: Should've quoted Hybrid's post, this is obviously in response to his.
Math, your numbers are Arabic. Also, the basics of science.
Islam != Arab Culture. Islam is practiced all over the world.
Second, those contributions were hundreds of years ago. Since then they have contributed absolutely nothing. While the rest of the world has progressed, the Islamic world has regressed to the dark ages. The only difference is that now they've come up with news ways of murdering and subjugating non-Muslims, or Muslims who are the "wrong type" of Muslims.
Grey Templar wrote: Well if the point of the Melting Pot is to pull the best of all cultures...
What may I ask does Islamic culture offer to the melting pot? Not much honestly. I really can't think of anything.
Math, your numbers are Arabic. Also, the basics of science.
So... not much then
Also, the Arab culture which provided all those nice advancements in science and math no longer exists. So no, they do not have math and science to offer us.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Jews in Europe never beheaded Germans, never practiced suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks against Germany, and never really caused any problems for Germany prior to the rise of the Nazis.
Zionist political violence in Europe up to and including terror bombings and assassination is a historical reality. Of course, it can in no way justify anti-Semitism much less Nazism and the Holocaust. The point being, even considering some Jews did terrible things to advance their political cause the answer is not to develop anti-Semitic social attitudes or pass anti-Semitic laws.
Aaaaaand apparently we already had it covered a long, long time ago.
Math is the root of all evil.... And if you listen to any politicians, you'll know that science is.... "flexible"
I tend to view things in a more historical context, and in that light, just about the "only" truly good thing the Arab world from the fall of Rome through around the Renaissance period was in the realm of medicine. Some of the other "discoveries" such as celestial navigation, had been in use in areas of Europe for a good while prior to the Crusades.
@RatBot IIRC we (Western Peoples) changed the numerals from a pure Arabic state to their current form, however the origin of writing our numerals in the form of 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. did come from the Arabic speaking peoples. Obviously, prior to this, we used the Roman numeral system which can get... big, quickly.
I am glad western civilization doesn't have those issues... oh wait.
The behavior of a few drunk idiots is incomparable to institutionalized violence. The people who beat up the gay man in Philadelphia will be held accountable for their actions by the state. Homosexuals in Iran, on the other hand, are executed by the state. This is what you fail to understand.
Boils down to 'security' and 'protecting women' are both indefensible positions based off raw ignorance or are being used to cloak an ulterior-motive which is basically 'intolerance of non-assimilation of culture'. Basically they want one society, one culture to be all that is allowed and everyone needs to be forcibly assimilated. These attitudes are based in a history of racism, hate and violence.
Intolerance and demonizing of cultural aspects you don't like and legislation to hassle, isolate and then criminalize other cultures didn't end well last time Europe tried to implement such policies.
Freedom... as long as you live your life the way I do and by my rules. Right? Maybe people can just be allowed to have actual freedom and do what they want? Promote change via education and freedom not oppressive and pointlessly forced assimilation motivated by hate and violence through oppressive legislation.
You are still failing to understand the situation. Islam is intolerant. This intolerance is often expressed as physical violence. I'm intolerant of intolerance. If you want to run down the street wearing a rainbow jumpsuit to meet your gay male lover at the end of the street, go for it. I'd like to see a world where men and women, gay and straight, could do what they want without stigmatization. These views are completely incompatible with Islam.
Your attempts to connect my position to that of the Nazis are as disgusting as they are absurd. Jews in Europe never beheaded Germans, never practiced suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks against Germany, and never really caused any problems for Germany prior to the rise of the Nazis. Nobody in 1930's Germany was worried about a Jew walking into a school wearing a suicide bomb vest and blowing himself up. However, a Muslim woman walking around in attire that could easily conceal a suicide vest is viewed as a security threat because of the actions of her fellow Muslims, which have occurred in practically every country in the world. But hey - it's not their fault, it's our fault for stigmatizing terrorists.
Your contributions to this topic have consisted of nothing but intellectual dishonesty and modern liberal multicultural sugarcoating.
You speak of intellectual dishonesty and then disregard how a majority of common american garb easily conceals suicide vests and one wishing to do harm could easily do so regardless of pointless societal dress codes.
And all major religions and even non-religious cultures in human history have histories of warped beliefs and violence attached to them. I just find it questionable how people can have the idea that 2014 america is the 'true and documented correct way to live' for human civilization and that 'idea' needs to be legislated and forced upon the citizens. It is unnecessary and a threat to those who believe in free speech and expression.
There are millions of Muslims who are tolerant, progressive, live and practice equal rights and don't act as you paint them all to be. The same way there are Jews and Christians who are not murdering people by the thousands the way past interpretations of those religions were taken even though they have had similar past teachings which are deemed violent or oppressive. To take your position to logical ends, it would basically facilitate the forced end of allowances of all religions in our society.
To claim that we need to be wary of burkas because there is a greater risk of concealing suicide bombs in the US or Australia is absurdity and the definition of intellectual dishonesty. The truth is it is a convenient law for people who simply don't want to see or interact brown people in funny clothes at their Starbucks. It is bigoted motivation and pointless harassment for no reason. If you want to ban religion, the stand up and take that idea to the arena of ideas and argue it on its merits. I don't trust 'the enlightened' to decide what is best for 'the true culture' and to criminalize anything which doesn't meet that vision.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Jews in Europe never beheaded Germans, never practiced suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks against Germany, and never really caused any problems for Germany prior to the rise of the Nazis.
Zionist political violence in Europe up to and including terror bombings and assassination is a historical reality. Of course, it can in no way justify anti-Semitism much less Nazism and the Holocaust. The point being, even considering some Jews did terrible things to advance their political cause the answer is not to develop anti-Semitic social attitudes or pass anti-Semitic laws.
None of that ever took place in Germany as far as I know. The two situations aren't really equitable...
The Zionists in the British Mandate were carrying out terrorist attacks, absolutely. That was also 60 years ago. There are also exacerbating circumstances (i.e., a broken promise by the British to provide a home for the Jewish people in the Mandate that dates back to WWI). A nationalist struggle like this is nothing like the endemic terrorism practiced by Islam. You can count the number of terror attacks committed by Jews worldwide in the past 20 years on one hand. We couldn't count the number of terrorist attacks committed worldwide by Muslims in the past single year if we had 100 of their victims' hands laid out in front of us.
I am glad western civilization doesn't have those issues... oh wait.
The behavior of a few drunk idiots is incomparable to institutionalized violence. The people who beat up the gay man in Philadelphia will be held accountable for their actions by the state. Homosexuals in Iran, on the other hand, are executed by the state. This is what you fail to understand.
Boils down to 'security' and 'protecting women' are both indefensible positions based off raw ignorance or are being used to cloak an ulterior-motive which is basically 'intolerance of non-assimilation of culture'. Basically they want one society, one culture to be all that is allowed and everyone needs to be forcibly assimilated. These attitudes are based in a history of racism, hate and violence.
Intolerance and demonizing of cultural aspects you don't like and legislation to hassle, isolate and then criminalize other cultures didn't end well last time Europe tried to implement such policies.
Freedom... as long as you live your life the way I do and by my rules. Right? Maybe people can just be allowed to have actual freedom and do what they want? Promote change via education and freedom not oppressive and pointlessly forced assimilation motivated by hate and violence through oppressive legislation.
You are still failing to understand the situation. Islam is intolerant. This intolerance is often expressed as physical violence. I'm intolerant of intolerance. If you want to run down the street wearing a rainbow jumpsuit to meet your gay male lover at the end of the street, go for it. I'd like to see a world where men and women, gay and straight, could do what they want without stigmatization. These views are completely incompatible with Islam.
Your attempts to connect my position to that of the Nazis are as disgusting as they are absurd. Jews in Europe never beheaded Germans, never practiced suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks against Germany, and never really caused any problems for Germany prior to the rise of the Nazis. Nobody in 1930's Germany was worried about a Jew walking into a school wearing a suicide bomb vest and blowing himself up. However, a Muslim woman walking around in attire that could easily conceal a suicide vest is viewed as a security threat because of the actions of her fellow Muslims, which have occurred in practically every country in the world. But hey - it's not their fault, it's our fault for stigmatizing terrorists.
Your contributions to this topic have consisted of nothing but intellectual dishonesty and modern liberal multicultural sugarcoating.
You speak of intellectual dishonesty and then disregard how a majority of common american garb easily conceals suicide vests and one wishing to do harm could easily do so regardless of pointless societal dress codes.
And all major religions and even non-religious cultures in human history have histories of warped beliefs and violence attached to them. I just find it questionable how people can have the idea that 2014 america is the 'true and documented correct way to live' for human civilization and that 'idea' needs to be legislated and forced upon the citizens. It is unnecessary and a threat to those who believe in free speech and expression.
There are millions of Muslims who are tolerant, progressive, live and practice equal rights and don't act as you paint them all to be. The same way there are Jews and Christians who are not murdering people by the thousands the way past interpretations of those religions were taken even though they have had similar past teachings which are deemed violent or oppressive. To take your position to logical ends, it would basically facilitate the forced end of allowances of all religions in our society.
To claim that we need to be wary of burkas because there is a greater risk of concealing suicide bombs in the US or Australia is absurdity and the definition of intellectual dishonesty. The truth is it is a convenient law for people who simply don't want to see or interact brown people in funny clothes at their Starbucks. It is bigoted motivation and pointless harassment for no reason. If you want to ban religion, the stand up and take that idea to the arena of ideas and argue it on its merits. I don't trust 'the enlightened' to decide what is best for 'the true culture' and to criminalize anything which doesn't meet that vision.
I don't know why you're projecting some kind of racism stereotype onto me, but it's a little bit ridiculous. I have no problem with "brown people." Islam isn't a race, it's a religion, and if I (or many of the other posters in this thread) had a problem with "brown peoples' religions" then we would be railing against Hinduism as well. I don't criticize Islam because it's heavily practiced by "brown people," but rather because it is inherently intolerant in a way that often manifests itself in acts of savagery.
So let's take stock - you've played the Holocaust card, and now you're calling me a racist. What's next?
I don't know why you're projecting some kind of racism stereotype onto me, but it's a little bit ridiculous. I have no problem with "brown people." Islam isn't a race, it's a religion, and if I (or many of the other posters in this thread) had a problem with "brown peoples' religions" then we would be railing against Hinduism as well. I don't criticize Islam because it's heavily practiced by "brown people," but rather because it is inherently intolerant in a way that often manifests itself in acts of savagery.
So let's take stock - you've played the Holocaust card, and now you're calling me a racist. What's next?
When the shoe fits...
And you do realize that most of the 'intolerance' was instituted by imperialist powers radicalizing local cultures and religions to fight proxy wars with other imperialist powers for control of the territory.
If you deem all of Islam intolerant and savage due to the actions of a fringe few, then there is no other position to take than to also say all of Christianity and Judaism is intolerant and savage due to a fringe corruption of those faiths in the past and today. That is why it is a bigoted position to take the 'all of Islam is barbaric and bad' position as that argument has been made against most cultures and religions at one time to justify barbaric recourse against them by the 'civilized' peoples.
I don't know why you're projecting some kind of racism stereotype onto me, but it's a little bit ridiculous. I have no problem with "brown people." Islam isn't a race, it's a religion, and if I (or many of the other posters in this thread) had a problem with "brown peoples' religions" then we would be railing against Hinduism as well. I don't criticize Islam because it's heavily practiced by "brown people," but rather because it is inherently intolerant in a way that often manifests itself in acts of savagery.
So let's take stock - you've played the Holocaust card, and now you're calling me a racist. What's next?
When the shoe fits...
And you do realize that most of the 'intolerance' was instituted by imperialist powers radicalizing local cultures and religions to fight proxy wars with other imperialist powers for control of the territory.
If you deem all of Islam intolerant and savage due to the actions of a fringe few, then there is no other position to take than to also say all of Christianity and Judaism is intolerant and savage due to a fringe corruption of those faiths in the past and today. That is why it is a bigoted position to take the 'all of Islam is barbaric and bad' position as that argument has been made against most cultures and religions at one time to justify barbaric recourse against them by the 'civilized' peoples.
Proof that it's a fringe few? Because the fact that it's happening in pretty much every country on the face of the earth suggests that it's nowhere near a "fringe few" who hold these intolerant beliefs...
I think you're just posting wishful thinking. Well...wishful thinking and insulting accusations of Nazism and racism.
Your justifications are truly slowed. Islamic extremism is the fault of the West? Wow...heaven forbid you hold people responsible for their actions.
Proof that it's a fringe few? Because the fact that it's happening in pretty much every country on the face of the earth suggests that it's nowhere near a "fringe few" who hold these intolerant beliefs...
Prove that it's happening in "nearly every country in the world?"
Albania, Turkey, Jordan; truly, unstable hellholes where Christians and Jews are slaughtered daily!
Proof that it's a fringe few? Because the fact that it's happening in pretty much every country on the face of the earth suggests that it's nowhere near a "fringe few" who hold these intolerant beliefs...
I think you're just posting wishful thinking. Well...wishful thinking and insulting accusations of Nazism and racism.
Your justifications are truly slowed. Islamic extremism is the fault of the West? Wow...heaven forbid you hold people responsible for their actions.
Ok, then by your argument... the true solution is to ban the practicing of Islam by force for the betterment and security of society. Banning Burkas does nothing to actually stop the practicing of Islam nor does it provide actual security for the citizens, so if your 'truths' of Islam is inherently violent, oppressive and barbaric, then why dance around the issue by bending over backwards to defend an ineffective and pointless 'burka ban' in the name of protecting women and security for the population when it clearly accomplishes neither?
Sounds like in your view, the correct view starts with criminalizing of practicing Islam and removing it from 'civilized' society?
If you want to call a spade a spade, then stand by your convictions. The Burka ban accomplishes none of the 'lofty ideals' promoted by people in thread in regards to human rights or security. It is a proxy battle to slowly go from stigmatizing something to documenting it and then criminalizing it in order to have the will to purge criminal activity from society. If the true problem is Islam, why not tackle the core issue and stand by your beliefs?
NuggzTheNinja wrote: The Zionists in the British Mandate were carrying out terrorist attacks, absolutely. That was also 60 years ago. There are also exacerbating circumstances (i.e., a broken promise by the British to provide a home for the Jewish people in the Mandate that dates back to WWI). A nationalist struggle like this is nothing like the endemic terrorism practiced by Islam. You can count the number of terror attacks committed by Jews worldwide in the past 20 years on one hand. We couldn't count the number of terrorist attacks committed worldwide by Muslims in the past single year if we had 100 of their victims' hands laid out in front of us.
This is the kind of Jewish exceptionalism anti-Semites thrive on. I'm sure Muslim terrorists have a lot to say about exacerbating circumstances and nationalism, too. Either terrorism by extremists justifies prejudices applied generally or it doesn't. To me, it does not.
I appreciate skepticism regarding the willingness of some Muslims to sincerely participate in Western societies. Again, some Muslim attitudes (including among Muslims currently living in the US and Europe) about female chastity seem totally incommensurate with women being free and equal participants in society. But the same could be said for some Jews and some Christians living currently living in the US and Europe.
Proof that it's a fringe few? Because the fact that it's happening in pretty much every country on the face of the earth suggests that it's nowhere near a "fringe few" who hold these intolerant beliefs...
I think you're just posting wishful thinking. Well...wishful thinking and insulting accusations of Nazism and racism.
Your justifications are truly slowed. Islamic extremism is the fault of the West? Wow...heaven forbid you hold people responsible for their actions.
Ok, then by your argument... the true solution is to ban the practicing of Islam by force for the betterment and security of society. Banning Burkas does nothing to actually stop the practicing of Islam nor does it provide actual security for the citizens, so if your 'truths' of Islam is inherently violent, oppressive and barbaric, then why dance around the issue by bending over backwards to defend an ineffective and pointless 'burka ban' in the name of protecting women and security for the population when it clearly accomplishes neither?
Sounds like in your view, the correct view starts with criminalizing of practicing Islam and removing it from 'civilized' society?
If you want to call a spade a spade, then stand by your convictions. The Burka ban accomplishes none of the 'lofty ideals' promoted by people in thread in regards to human rights or security. It is a proxy battle to slowly go from stigmatizing something to documenting it and then criminalizing it in order to have the will to purge criminal activity from society. If the true problem is Islam, why not tackle the core issue and stand by your beliefs?
I'm not proposing to ban Muslims or Islam. I'm saying that we should hold Muslims to the same standards that we hold everyone else. In the US, in many cities, it's illegal to walk around with a ski mask on your face. DC has a ban specifically on ski masks. In NYC it's illegal to "congregate" with 2+ people while wearing a mask that hides your identity.
Wanna bet that Muslim women aren't being arrested in NYC for flagrantly violating the law?
Islamic principles of violence are illegal in the United States. Their dress code for their women is illegal in the United States. Their Shariah Law is illegal in the United States. Despite this, in many countries they're allowed like enclaves in which they enforce their own savage laws. They must be shown that this is completely unacceptable, and that they will be held to the same standards as everyone else.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: The Zionists in the British Mandate were carrying out terrorist attacks, absolutely. That was also 60 years ago. There are also exacerbating circumstances (i.e., a broken promise by the British to provide a home for the Jewish people in the Mandate that dates back to WWI). A nationalist struggle like this is nothing like the endemic terrorism practiced by Islam. You can count the number of terror attacks committed by Jews worldwide in the past 20 years on one hand. We couldn't count the number of terrorist attacks committed worldwide by Muslims in the past single year if we had 100 of their victims' hands laid out in front of us.
This is the kind of Jewish exceptionalism anti-Semites thrive on. I'm sure Muslim terrorists have a lot to say about exacerbating circumstances and nationalism, too. Either terrorism by extremists justifies prejudices applied generally or it doesn't. To me, it does not.
I appreciate skepticism regarding the willingness of some Muslims to sincerely participate in Western societies. Again, some Muslim attitudes (including among Muslims currently living in the US and Europe) about female chastity seem totally incommensurate with women being free and equal participants in society. But the same could be said for some Jews and some Christians living currently living in the US and Europe.
There are less than 14 million Jews in the world. There is ONE Jewish state. There are over a billion Muslims, and about 20 states that identify as Islamic or otherwise could be considered Islamic states. I'm not seeing how a discussion on terrorist acts committed by Jews 60 years ago scales in any way to the millions of cases of institutionalized religious violence committed by Muslims annually. Every time a Muslim man beats the gak out of his wife because the Koran told him to - that's religiously-sanctioned violence, and it happens every day in pretty much every country in the world.
I'm not proposing to ban Muslims or Islam. I'm saying that we should hold Muslims to the same standards that we hold everyone else. In the US, in many cities, it's illegal to walk around with a ski mask on your face. DC has a ban specifically on ski masks. In NYC it's illegal to "congregate" with 2+ people while wearing a mask that hides your identity.
Wanna bet that Muslim women aren't being arrested in NYC for flagrantly violating the law?
Islamic principles of violence are illegal in the United States. Their dress code for their women is illegal in the United States. Their Shariah Law is illegal in the United States. Despite this, in many countries they're allowed like enclaves in which they enforce their own savage laws. They must be shown that this is completely unacceptable, and that they will be held to the same standards as everyone else.
It is not illegal to wear a Ski mask in DC. It is only illegal to wear a Ski mask in dc if you are doing one of the following actions:
1. Interfering with government authorities ability to do their work
2. Used to threaten, harass or intimidate someone
3. Intend to cause someone to fear for personal safety
4. Engaged in criminal activity with the intent of avoiding identification.
So unless you are protesting, harassing people or breaking the law, you are totally allowed to cover your face with whatever you choose. Until you have taken actions which are basically criminal. So they are being treated equally.
Your position which would be the only way that Burkas would be 'banned' in DC is from the idea that 'islamic head coverings signify violence due to being associated to Islam so anyone with such a head covering is intending to cause you fear because you are afraid of all Muslims because all Muslims are violent'.
That is a terrible attitude to have and the only way to even begin to claim Burkas are illegal in DC. They are not illegal in DC.
The law is applied equally. They are not breaking the laws, and there is nothing wrong with what they are doing, any citizen can wear a mask as long as they are not doing a few specific actions which require identification.
Spoiler:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Washington, D.C.)
§ 22-3312.03. Wearing hoods or masks.
(a) No person or persons over 16 years of age, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, shall:
(1) Enter upon, be, or appear upon any lane, walk, alley, street, road highway, or other public way in the District of Columbia;
(2) Enter upon, be, or appear upon or within the public property of the District of Columbia; or
(3) Hold any manner of meeting or demonstration.
(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section apply only if the person was wearing the hood, mask, or other device:
(1) With the intent to deprive any person or class of persons of equal protection of the law or of equal privileges and immunities under the law, or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of the United States or the District of Columbia from giving or securing for all persons within the District of Columbia equal protection of the law;
(2) With the intent, by force or threat of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person because of his or her exercise of any right secured by federal or District of Columbia laws, or to intimidate any person or any class of persons from exercising any right secured by federal or District of Columbia laws;
(3) With the intent to intimidate, threaten, abuse, or harass any other person;
(4) With the intent to cause another person to fear for his or her personal safety, or, where it is probable that reasonable persons will be put in fear for their personal safety by the defendant's actions, with reckless disregard for that probability; or
(5) While engaged in conduct prohibited by civil or criminal law, with the intent of avoiding identification.
Muslims don't protest in DC while wearing Burkahs?
Also, well done completely ignoring my comment about New York. You know, addressing only half of the items on an exam still gives you a failing grade, right?
A more comprehensive list is available above. Are you really going to tell me that wearing a Burkah doesn't violate any of those statutes, and that Muslims are ever prosecuted for violating them?
Proof that it's a fringe few? Because the fact that it's happening in pretty much every country on the face of the earth suggests that it's nowhere near a "fringe few" who hold these intolerant beliefs...
Prove that it's happening in "nearly every country in the world?"
Albania, Turkey, Jordan; truly, unstable hellholes where Christians and Jews are slaughtered daily!
Wow, you can name three countries where non-Muslims aren't routinely subjugated. Truly you have proven a point about the Religion of Peace (tm).
Also, well done completely ignoring my comment about New York. You know, addressing only half of the items on an exam still gives you a failing grade, right?
I Live in DC so I spoke to your comment about DC since I have direct knowledge of the actual laws in DC as I am someone who frequents DC and chooses to cover my face sometimes... and being that you are a boldface liar in many of your statements in regards of stereo-typically claiming majorities of muslims violent and are beating their wives and being demonstrably wrong on the laws in DC, and your anti-Semitic hate speech and repeated intellectually dishonest examples in regards to security, I wasn't aware that apparently i need to go google NYC's laws to combat your piles of false statements and prove them all wrong.
Edit: And the Mask ban in NYC is because it is out of date and has been successfully appealed in court many times.
"The ban on masks in New York State dates to 1845, when it was adopted in response to events in the Hudson Valley, where local tenant farmers disguised as American Indians had attacked and killed landlords."
So it is currently easily appealed, selectively enforced and usually only used when the masked people are breaking the law. Considering there are many exceptions to the NYC mask law, I am not even sure a Burka is actually Illegal in NYC unless you are committing a primary offense.
Also, well done completely ignoring my comment about New York. You know, addressing only half of the items on an exam still gives you a failing grade, right?
I Live in DC so I spoke to your comment about DC since I have direct knowledge of the actual laws in DC as I am someone who frequents DC and chooses to cover my face sometimes... and being that you are a boldface liar in many of your statements in regards of stereo-typically claiming majorities of muslims violent and are beating their wives and being demonstrably wrong on the laws in DC, and your anti-Semitic hate speech and repeated intellectually dishonest examples in regards to security, I wasn't aware that apparently i need to go google NYC's laws to combat your piles of false statements and prove them all wrong.
In other words, you picked ONE state where it's marginally legal to wear a mask and ignored the rest of my post.
Wow...brilliant. Just when I thought we couldn't go any further down the road from sanity. First I'm a Nazi, then I'm a racist, and now I'm an anti-semite.
When ad-hominem is all you have...why not just go with that?
It's kind of impossible to have a conversation when you're ignoring the majority of the things I post. That said...you've earned yourself an ignore for being denser than 80's Citadel miniatures. Congrats!
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Every time a Muslim man beats the gak out of his wife because the Koran told him to - that's religiously-sanctioned violence.
One of my greatest oppositions to organized religion is that it is so often used to justify atrocities. However, if I look beyond my prejudices, I do not believe religion is to blame. Why people commit evil acts, and how they justify their acts are rarely the same. Men don't beat and disfigure their wives because the Koran tells them to, they do it because they're bastards, jealous, vindictive and ultimately insecure. The same is true for Islamic fundamentalists and the 'God hates fags' people... They use holy books to justify their hate, but the real reason is that they are xenophobic, and feel threatened by people who are different. Religion is the justification, and it's often fuel for the fire, but I don't think it's the cause.
Also, well done completely ignoring my comment about New York. You know, addressing only half of the items on an exam still gives you a failing grade, right?
I Live in DC so I spoke to your comment about DC since I have direct knowledge of the actual laws in DC as I am someone who frequents DC and chooses to cover my face sometimes... and being that you are a boldface liar in many of your statements in regards of stereo-typically claiming majorities of muslims violent and are beating their wives and being demonstrably wrong on the laws in DC, and your anti-Semitic hate speech and repeated intellectually dishonest examples in regards to security, I wasn't aware that apparently i need to go google NYC's laws to combat your piles of false statements and prove them all wrong.
In other words, you picked ONE state where it's marginally legal to wear a mask and ignored the rest of my post.
Wow...brilliant. Just when I thought we couldn't go any further down the road from sanity. First I'm a Nazi, then I'm a racist, and now I'm an anti-semite.
When ad-hominem is all you have...why not just go with that?
It's kind of impossible to have a conversation when you're ignoring the majority of the things I post. That said...you've earned yourself an ignore for being denser than 80's Citadel miniatures. Congrats!
You are moving goalposts when you claim it is illegal in two cities, and were flat out wrong about DC and are functionally wrong about NYC and then falling back on unreferenced laws which you don't mention as being ignored? You picked those two examples and I did the minor research required to refute your false claims.
You are spouting ignorant hate-speech and then claim not to? Awesome.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Every time a Muslim man beats the gak out of his wife because the Koran told him to - that's religiously-sanctioned violence.
One of my greatest oppositions to organized religion is that it is so often used to justify atrocities. However, if I look beyond my prejudices, I do not believe religion is to blame. Why people commit evil acts, and how they justify their acts are rarely the same. Men don't beat and disfigure their wives because the Koran tells them to, they do it because they're bastards, jealous, vindictive and ultimately insecure. The same is true for Islamic fundamentalists and the 'God hates fags' people... They use holy books to justify their hate, but the real reason is that they are xenophobic, and feel threatened by people who are different. Religion is the justification, and it's often fuel for the fire, but I don't think it's the cause.
I would say that it's rarely that simple.... Sure, there's probably some insecurity involved in the male who beats his spouse/kids....The Koran, and by extension the Bible and just about any other religious text espouses a belief that a wife and kids are basically "property" and just as you "beat" a horse that will not pull a plow, so too "should" a man beat his wife, should she be out of line with her proper role.
Often times, these kinds of fethers (unless they live in a very Westernized place) do not see what they do as wrong, so many of your ides of them being bastards, jealous, and vindictive dont really come to bear as such.
Plenty of non-Muslim men who beat their wives don't think they're doing anything wrong. "Bitch stepped out." "Need to keep my woman in line." "She didn't have dinner ready." "My wife is my property." None of those are viewpoints exclusive to Muslims.
RatBot wrote: Plenty of non-Muslim men who beat their wives don't think they're doing anything wrong. "Bitch stepped out." "Need to keep my woman in line." "She didn't have dinner ready." "My wife is my property." None of those are viewpoints exclusive to Muslims.
Agreed... however, in the context of this discussion, the chances, or opportunity for adverse reactions to the man beating his wife/kids/dog are much, much greater than in an Eastern, or Islamic country. And while Islam claims that they don't drink spirts of any kind (this is a lie), the proportion of drinkers to non drinkers is probably about the opposite of what it is in the US or other, similar Western countries, so I don't think we can really use alcohol as an "excuse" in these situations.
RatBot wrote: Plenty of non-Muslim men who beat their wives don't think they're doing anything wrong. "Bitch stepped out." "Need to keep my woman in line." "She didn't have dinner ready." "My wife is my property." None of those are viewpoints exclusive to Muslims.
Agreed... however, in the context of this discussion, the chances, or opportunity for adverse reactions to the man beating his wife/kids/dog are much, much greater than in an Eastern, or Islamic country. And while Islam claims that they don't drink spirts of any kind (this is a lie), the proportion of drinkers to non drinkers is probably about the opposite of what it is in the US or other, similar Western countries, so I don't think we can really use alcohol as an "excuse" in these situations.
Actually, you'd be surprised. Alcoholism is not all that uncommon in many Middle Eastern countries, and it's exasperated by the fact that it's very difficult to get help for alcoholism as it's considered extremely shameful, moreso than in the West. Certainly, though, not nearly as common in many Western countries, I'll grant you. I suspect real rates of alcoholism in Muslim countries are higher than reported rates due to the stigma attached to it. Not as high as North America or Europe, but higher than reported.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: I'm not seeing how a discussion on terrorist acts committed by Jews 60 years ago scales in any way to the millions of cases of institutionalized religious violence committed by Muslims annually.
Because in those days, fear and loathing of all Jews was whipped up into a hateful froth by those who peddled fear of Zionist violence and it blew up into injustice, dispossession, and eventually slavery and murder. If you don't see the lesson in that, I don't know what to tell you.
Accusing Nuggz of anti-Semitic hate speech? Do you know anything about the person you are accusing? I mean, you don't even have to have read his stuff in that past, just in this very thread.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Often times, these kinds of fethers (unless they live in a very Westernized place) do not see what they do as wrong, so many of your ides of them being bastards, jealous, and vindictive dont really come to bear as such.
I agree that it is complicated, but there also appears to be much in the Koran and Islam that teaches compassion towards animals. Plenty of people all over the world consider animals 'property' and yet love and respect them, and there are plenty of men from all cultures who are terrified of women being 'unfaithful' to them, and who express the insecurity through being controlling and violent. Perhaps it is just lack of intelligence (or education), but I resent the idea that 'they don't know any better'.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: I'm not seeing how a discussion on terrorist acts committed by Jews 60 years ago scales in any way to the millions of cases of institutionalized religious violence committed by Muslims annually.
Because in those days, fear and loathing of all Jews was whipped up into a hateful froth by those who peddled fear of Zionist violence and it blew up into injustice, dispossession, and eventually slavery and murder. If you don't see the lesson in that, I don't know what to tell you.
Accusing Nuggz of anti-Semitic hate speech? Do you know anything about the person you are accusing? I mean, you don't even have to have read his stuff in that past, just in this very thread.
Manchu, I definitely see the parallel. I'm not advocating violence toward Muslims at all. I'm advocating that we hold them to the same standards that we hold Westerners. If an American man was to force his wife to walk around in a bed sheet, we would say that he was abusing her. Yet we have women subjugated in this way in the West and we pretend that it's OK because it's their culture.
Our tolerance is a severe problem when it leads us to be tolerant of intolerant cultures. Not ALL Muslims are that way, but many Muslims tend to be far more conservatives than modern Christians and Jews. And the teachings of conservative Islam are, by nature, violent toward non-Muslims, women, etc.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
I guess you can get around that by permitting states to ban Burqas, because therefore it's not Congress, and therefore it at least follows the letter of the amendment. Obviously this doesn't apply to Australia, but it's an argument as to why it theoretically can't be banned in the US (at least, not on a federal level).
And the teachings of conservative Islam are, by nature, violent toward non-Muslims, women, etc.
I would say it's teachings of radical Islam, not conservative Islam that preaches violence toward non-Muslims, but that's just semantics.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: I'm not seeing how a discussion on terrorist acts committed by Jews 60 years ago scales in any way to the millions of cases of institutionalized religious violence committed by Muslims annually.
Because in those days, fear and loathing of all Jews was whipped up into a hateful froth by those who peddled fear of Zionist violence and it blew up into injustice, dispossession, and eventually slavery and murder. If you don't see the lesson in that, I don't know what to tell you.
Accusing Nuggz of anti-Semitic hate speech? Do you know anything about the person you are accusing? I mean, you don't even have to have read his stuff in that past, just in this very thread.
Take the anti off the front of anti-semitic hate speech and you might be getting close
I'd just like to place a quote here that i read in todays paper in a story entitled "hijabs and baseball caps" about rugby league supporters. " Al-Chami, however, says she has urged people in her community to "show their humanity as a Muslim, and their character as an Aussie" " and that my friends is multiculturalism in action that has been so denounced in this thread.
Wait, Australia allows people to enter state buildings with their faces covered?
That seems kind of crazy, how is surveillance related to facial identification supposed to function under those circumstances? I'm just thinking about my own experiences in regards to passing through security at state and municipal buildings in the states.
nkelsch wrote: And all major religions and even non-religious cultures in human history have histories of warped beliefs and violence attached to them.
Define major. Also, explain to me when you will consider religious beliefs to be warped and when you will consider them to be straight/genuine.
nkelsch wrote: I just find it questionable how people can have the idea that 2014 america is the 'true and documented correct way to live' for human civilization and that 'idea' needs to be legislated and forced upon the citizens.
It is not the same thing to say there is only one “true and documented correct way to live” and to say there are some universal values and right that should apply everywhere, while leaving a LOT of leeway with everything else.
I mean, this is right there in the very title of the Universal declaration of human rights!
nkelsch wrote: There are millions of Muslims who are tolerant, progressive, live and practice equal rights and don't act as you paint them all to be.
And how many of those Muslims wear burka? How many do so on their own choosing?
Now, I am not sure we are still talking millions.
nkelsch wrote: To take your position to logical ends, it would basically facilitate the forced end of allowances of all religions in our society.
Is that a bad thing ?
nkelsch wrote: The truth is it is a convenient law for people who simply don't want to see or interact brown people in funny clothes at their Starbucks.
How the hell will you know the skin color of people in a burka? They may be black, they may be whiter than white, they may be East-Asian, …
What they are, though, is either supporters of a very conservative, very hardline version of Islam or people who are forced to wear a burka. This is not stereotyping people into a race like you did, this is just a logical conclusion.
nkelsch wrote: And you do realize that most of the 'intolerance' was instituted by imperialist powers radicalizing local cultures and religions to fight proxy wars with other imperialist powers for control of the territory.
Apart from making Saudi Arabia and making them rich, I do not see what you are talking about. Those leaders of what later became Saudi Arabia were already fans of a very hardline Islam before being made rich and powerful by the U.S.A. I am not certain which “imperialist power” is responsible for the Supreme Ulema Council of Morocco issuing a fatwa saying ex-Muslim apostates should be put to death? Which proxy war has Morocco fight in? And this is just one examples, I can provide more as you ask me to.
Smacks wrote: Men don't beat and disfigure their wives because the Koran tells them to, they do it because they're bastards, jealous, vindictive and ultimately insecure.
Yes, but when they are not punished for it because the Quran allow them to (actually, if you want to check that out in context and with multiple translations, go there: http://quranexplorer.com/quran/ . Surah 4 verse 34. From what I get out of it, the amount of violence authorized is not very clear, but the subservience of the wife to her husband is. Anyhow, it is sadly interpreted as allowing a lot of violence in a bunch of Muslim countries), then it is, if not religiously motivated violence, still religiously sanctioned violence.
Smacks wrote: I agree that it is complicated, but there also appears to be much in the Koran and Islam that teaches compassion towards animals.
Reference please? I would love to check this for myself, and I am always interested in learning more about the Quran. I did read it entirely a long time ago, but I do not remember that.
Jihadin wrote: Jebus this thread skewered to a new area. So any update with this "policy" that may or may not be implemented?
The PM decided it was a no go, I was going to say something earlier but decided not to bother it has been a very interesting read so far.
So it's not going to be implemented? Good, I hadn't heard that yet.
It was a stupid idea not just because it was discriminatory, but because it didn't add any extra security, defeating it's purpose. They've already gone through several security checks just to get put in behind the glass... woo? If they were going to do something drastic, chances are they could still do it.
And if they were really that worried all they'd need is a female officer or two to check their ID in a more private room (and, IIRC, this was already done in some cases).
But this matters not, as thankfully this stupidity isn't being implemented.
Women wanting to visit the Australian parliament will be put in a aquarium. No shark or even water will be added for now, but maybe in the future…
Matt.Kingsley wrote: And if they were really that worried all they'd need is a female officer or two to check their ID in a more private room (and, IIRC, this was already done in some cases).
So, basically you support institutionalizing gender discrimination in order to respect those so-called “religious rights”?
Smacks wrote: I agree that it is complicated, but there also appears to be much in the Koran and Islam that teaches compassion towards animals.
Reference please? I would love to check this for myself, and I am always interested in learning more about the Quran. I did read it entirely a long time ago, but I do not remember that.
Well I am not an expert on the Koran at all, I was just recalling bits that I've read (I think mostly related to halal). However, Wikipedia has a page dedicated to Islam and animals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_animals which you might find useful. One quote I like from there, which is attributed to the prophet Muhammad:
"There is no man who kills even a sparrow or anything smaller, without its deserving it, but God will question him about it on the judgment day ... Whoever is kind to the creatures of God is kind to himself."
This does not appear to be from the Koran, but from another text.
Smacks wrote: Well I am not an expert on the Koran at all, I was just recalling bits that I've read (I think mostly related to halal).
You do not need to be an expert, but if you make an assertion on the Quran, please be prepared to back it up with precise verses references. Else you might as well not say anything.
Smacks wrote: One quote I like from there, which is attributed to the prophet Muhammad:
"There is no man who kills even a sparrow or anything smaller, without its deserving it, but God will question him about it on the judgment day ... Whoever is kind to the creatures of God is kind to himself."
This does not appear to be from the Koran, but from another text.
Hadith are a completely different can of worm. Let us stick to the Quran, it is much more simpler and straightforward. No question of authenticity, level of trustfulness, all different between each religious communities and school of thought…
Manchu wrote: Yes, "multiculturalism" itself is a cultural notion. More specifically, it is an ideological and political notion. I think we should keep its actual historical origin in mind: the mutliculturalism we have in the US is an import from 1970s Canada. Specifically, it was a policy of Trudeau to undermine Quebecois separatists. In the US, multiculturalism has remained merely political in contrast to becoming actual policy. It has been criticized as a tool to justify status quo racism by cover up/misdirection. To be blunt, it has been variously employed in the US as a salve for white guilt and gasoline for the fire of righteous anger whites routinely demonstrate on behalf of non-whites. Whether it has made our society more just or free or inclusive to the extent it has been employed is a matter of controversy.
keep your white guilt where it belongs, Muslims are Caucasian. FFS
Yeah, you can keep your multiculturalism in the US reasoning, as far as the rest of the world it does not apply. In Australia we DO have freedom of religion enshrined in the constitution. Women in Islamic societies have traditionally had the role of protesters therebye being the agents of change.It's showing a lack of understanding to talk of women in Islam without understanding their social role.
Islam is welcome in western society,(most muslims i have met are way more moral than christians i have met)- i've read most of the koran- its a good book on how to live. ffs i have worked with 3 guys now and never knew they were islamic untill (fearfully) they told me, i think that says much more about our society than theirs. They were all turkish and quite secular, but the fact they did not feel comfortable revealing it to me speaks volumes.
assimilation happens no matter what policies a government has in place however if a govt does encourage assimilation it will usually happen faster than the 3 generations usually needed.
people are people, people move to a country to make money. that is it.
Not to nit-pick, but not all Muslims are Caucasian (there are loads and loads of sub-Saharan African and Southeast Asian Muslims). Islam is a religion and not an ethnicity.
Bullockist wrote: Women in Islamic societies have traditionally had the role of protesters therebye being the agents of change.
What the hell are you talking about? Like, seriously?
Bullockist wrote: i've read most of the koran- its a good book on how to live.
I have read all of it, and no, it is not. Do you want to quote specific part of it that are terrible on how to live?
Bullockist wrote: ffs i have worked with 3 guys now and never knew they were islamic untill (fearfully) they told me, i think that says much more about our society than theirs. They were all turkish and quite secular, but the fact they did not feel comfortable revealing it to me speaks volumes.
It does. Not on the way you believe it does, but it does speak volumes about how good people are embarrassed to be Muslims.
It does. Not on the way you believe it does, but it does speak volumes about how good people are embarrassed to be Muslims.
Yes, I'm sure that's it, and it has nothing to do with the fact that they're afraid non-Muslims are going to discriminate against them for being Muslim.
I am for “fething real”. I also happen to have actually met “fething real” persons that were embarrassed to acknowledge they were Muslim… in Iran. Yep. Sure they were really afraid of being discriminated against .
Bullockist wrote: Women in Islamic societies have traditionally had the role of protesters therebye being the agents of change.It's showing a lack of understanding to talk of women in Islam without understanding their social role.
That is the worst apology for misogyny that I have ever heard/read.
I am for “fething real”. I also happen to have actually met “fething real” persons that were embarrassed to acknowledge they were Muslim… in Iran. Yep. Sure they were really afraid of being discriminated against .
It's safe to assume Bullockist meant in Australia, which, as you may be aware, has a slightly different socio-political situation than Iran. Context matters.
If you're a minority, admitting to belonging to a minority can elicit reactions of fear, anger, etc., ergo, it is likely that hesitance to admit to being Muslim in a non-Muslim, culturally Western country would likely stem from apprehension over potential persecution.
In Iran, though, for sure it would be over embarrassment over the Iranian government and their interpretation of Islam, but likely not embarrassment at being Muslim themselves. My Persian teacher was a very devout Muslim, and he once went on a little tirade about how he hates the current Iranian government (I quote "They're not Muslims. They're not Persians. They're not even Arabs!" by which he meant they don't behave in an Islamic or traditionally Persian way.
in islamic society traditionally women have been the agents of change, mostly due to the inabilty of non related men to touch them to "move them along" . look pre 1900 and you will see it. Do you not think that islamic society can change? like , seriously. They have changed more than us previously with a far superior effect.
In regard to terrrible on how to live? The Koran is all about submitting to god instead of choosing your own way. whether that be introspective or in guidance it's all ok by the koran. The Koran basically says "don't be a pride full witch because god doesn't like it" i think that's a law that any one can live by. A good book to read is the book on mohammed by Karen Armstrong - she gives a politico-socio commentary of life at that time, and whilst she is a nun, she isn't scared.
I'm not even going to answer point 3 ,point 3 is fethed and the fact you blame it on them speaks volumes
Bullockist wrote: Women in Islamic societies have traditionally had the role of protesters therebye being the agents of change.It's showing a lack of understanding to talk of women in Islam without understanding their social role.
That is the worst apology for misogyny that I have ever heard/read.
If you want to judge someone by the colour of their skin and nothing else.......
they may be browner...but they are the same, so face palm yourself.
In regard to women in islam, i'm not talking mysogyny, i'm talking the women who took to the streets against opressive regimes ( mostly because they couldn't be independently touched by males ) - and that's what made them effective as a protest force. women in islam could own property and have rights decades before western europe
HERES THE THING- cultures are different, yours is not necessarily right or the best.or similar to another or have a base point you can judge off.
He's not blaming anything on them. He's saying that the awful behavior of co-religionists is embarrassing.
I was embarrassed when all those allegations of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church came out and am still embarrassed by it. Whenever my religion comes up, someone inevitably makes a joke about pedophile priests. Whether I like or not, priests are now seen as suspect. Should I blame that on "our society" or do you think the real reason might be because many priests betrayed the trust of the people and did awful things to kids? Should I just say, well that was just those priests or should maybe I try to think about what could be wrong with the Church itself that this happened so many times in so many places?
Why would it be any different for Islam?
Bullockist wrote: If you want to judge someone by the colour of their skin and nothing else.......
Is this supposed to be an argument or just a misguided insult?
Bullockist wrote: cultures are different, yours is not necessarily right or the best
A culture that oppresses women for being women less/not at all is superior as far as I am concerned.
lot of people in this thread seem to be doing that. Islam is a Huge religion with actually more sects than protestantism, to look on it as a monolith is ...well wrong and that is what I am trying to dissuade.
judging a culture by your own cultural ideals is problematic at best. How about we just look at a culture instead of judging it like we did in the 18-19-00's .
American i8ndians, aboriginals, eskimos, all had cultures we viewed as wrong. perhaps it's time to stop judging gak and seek to understand it...perhaps then people will be less scared.
It's why i read the koran as well as looking up history on it. I don't need to ride the hysteria wave because I actually get it.
I regard to the insult yes it is, arabs are caucasians. that is fact. if you judge them different to yourself youyu are judging them by the literal colour of their skins.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: You do not need to be an expert, but if you make an assertion on the Quran, please be prepared to back it up with precise verses references. Else you might as well not say anything.
Well that's irksome nonsense. I was just being modest/polite because I thought you were interested, but now I feel you're just being contradictory. I looked at the wiki page before posting, The page flat out says 'The Quran strongly enjoins Muslims to treat animals with compassion and not to abuse them' , whether or not that is true is going to be mostly down to interpretation. Precise verses mean little. Clearly there are some Muslims who interpret the Quran that way, and that's good enough for me and the point I wanted to make.
No, lets not. I explicitly stated the Quran and Islam, and I stated it that way for a reason. I don't want to 'omit' huge swathes of material just because it doesn't fit with the picture of barbarism and cruelty that some people want to project
smacks, islam s a beautiful religion with many less contradictions than christianity.ALL religion is due to interpretation.....that is the main problem with religion.
Islam is all about not being full of pride and submitting yourself to the will of god.when it comes to religion wiki does not mean gak.
Bullockist wrote: in islamic society traditionally women have been the agents of change, mostly due to the inabilty of non related men to touch them to "move them along" . look pre 1900 and you will see it.
Can you give a semblance of an example that I could look for?
Bullockist wrote: Do you not think that islamic society can change? like , seriously.
Lately, globally, the change were more for the worst than for the best.
He was giving you 0 because you were not able to distinguish race and religion, which is pretty idiotic.
Bullockist wrote: In regard to women in islam, i'm not talking mysogyny, i'm talking the women who took to the streets against opressive regimes ( mostly because they couldn't be independently touched by males ) - and that's what made them effective as a protest force.
And which regimes did those protested. Because I would like to learn about that regime that asked his troops not to touch female protesters. Please, name it.
Bullockist wrote: women in islam could own property and have rights decades before western europe
Actually, if we are to be honest, Khadija was rich and powerful before Islam was even conceived into Muhammad's brain. The situation of women before Islam in the Arabic peninsula varied greatly. I would advise you to give this video a listen:
Every thing here is interesting, but you can skip to 6:47 to learn more about this.
Bullockist wrote: HERES THE THING- cultures are different, yours is not necessarily right or the best.or similar to another or have a base point you can judge off.
Here is the thing: Islam is not a culture, and criticizing the bad aspects of your own and other cultures while praising the good aspects in your or foreign cultures is just the right thing to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RatBot wrote: It's safe to assume Bullockist meant in Australia, which, as you may be aware, has a slightly different socio-political situation than Iran. Context matters.
So? Does that means they are less likely to be ashamed of being Muslim because they feel Muslims have been giving a terrible image of themselves?
RatBot wrote: In Iran, though, for sure it would be over embarrassment over the Iranian government and their interpretation of Islam, but likely not embarrassment at being Muslim themselves.
Did you met them, or what? Because I did. And it was not about their government.
There are precise quotes on the page from the Quran, and some from other works, which support the idea of compassion towards animals. If you doubt their veracity then it should be fairly easy to check them for yourself. If you disagree with the interpretation, that would be beside the point.
Bullockist wrote: Islam is a Huge religion with actually more sects than protestantism, to look on it as a monolith is ...well wrong and that is what I am trying to dissuade.
Bullockist wrote: Islam is all about not being full of pride and submitting yourself to the will of god.
Yay! Contradiction is cool!
Do you know what basically defines Islam? The Quran is the literal word of God, unaltered, and Muhammad is the last prophet. Well, the Ahmadis do have someone who came later who is kind of a prophet, but that is why so many other Muslims do not consider Muslims, and why they are treated so badly.
Smacks wrote: I don't want to 'omit' huge swathes of material just because it doesn't fit with the picture of barbarism and cruelty that some people want to project
The hadith contains actually way, way more material to make the Muslims/Muhammad look barbaric and cruel than the Quran. By a long shot. That is not the problem. The problem here is related to Bullockist first quote: what every Muslim agrees on is the Quran. Hadiths will be considered canon by some Muslim and not by other, and the way tor rate their authenticity is very complex. Have you ever actually interested yourself in learning about them, and the principle of chains of transmissions, and all that? No? Then please refrain from making bold assumptions on subjects you do not master.
Trusting some sentence on Wikipedia that is explicitly marked as unsourced about the Quran on face value is delusional .
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smacks wrote: There are precise quotes on the page from the Quran, and some from other works, which support the idea of compassion towards animals.
There is none from the Quran, and two hadith (do you even know what a hadith is? I doubt it) about not killing sparrows or being kind to God's creature. Now there are also a bunch of hadith on how you should kill dogs, and how they are impure. The end results is this. But keep your rose-tinted glasses.
Smacks wrote: If you doubt their veracity then it should be fairly easy to check them for yourself.
Checking the veracity of some quote of the Quran is damn easy. You would have to know what a hadith is to understand why it is not so easy with them.
Bullockist wrote: Islam is a Huge religion with actually more sects than protestantism, to look on it as a monolith is ...well wrong and that is what I am trying to dissuade.
Bullockist wrote: Islam is all about not being full of pride and submitting yourself to the will of god.
Yay! Contradiction is cool!
Do you know what basically defines Islam? The Quran is the literal word of God, unaltered, and Muhammad is the last prophet. Well, the Ahmadis do have someone who came later who is kind of a prophet, but that is why so many other Muslims do not consider Muslims, and why they are treated so badly.
Smacks wrote: I don't want to 'omit' huge swathes of material just because it doesn't fit with the picture of barbarism and cruelty that some people want to project
The hadith contains actually way, way more material to make the Muslims/Muhammad look barbaric and cruel than the Quran. By a long shot. That is not the problem. The problem here is related to Bullockist first quote: what every Muslim agrees on is the Quran. Hadiths will be considered canon by some Muslim and not by other, and the way tor rate their authenticity is very complex. Have you ever actually interested yourself in learning about them, and the principle of chains of transmissions, and all that? No? Then please refrain from making bold assumptions on subjects you do not master.
Trusting some sentence on Wikipedia that is explicitly marked as unsourced about the Quran on face value is delusional .
I'll definitely agree with you on that hybrid, religion is a personal experience, i myslelf as i discovered on dakka am believer in onimism. belief is \good and necessary to the human soul. (weird coz i came from a very secular family but believe in the necessary value of faith for all hu8mans )
for me the most important part of belief is the valuing of humans around you and islam most definitely does that.it creates a community , i don't see that as a negative...however when people manipulate the religious narrative is when we get the problems.
i was going to respond to your multiquote argument when i realised....they are fething pointless, and if you cannot communicate your view, you do multiquote arguments.... it's the home of the fundamentalist. look at all dakka mutiquote arguments
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Trusting some sentence on Wikipedia that is explicitly marked as unsourced about the Quran on face value is delusional .
No it isn't. The statement is supported by the quotes from which are on the same page, and the fact the someone has taken the time to write that page is proof enough that some people do interpret Islam that way. I do not need to have studied 'chains of transmissions' to make the 'assumption' that some Muslims do treat animals with compassion. It's really not that difficult a point.
If by belief, you mean blind belief in supernatural things, I wholeheartedly disagree. Especially when those beliefs comes with an extremely conservative baggage attached.
The problem is not that much people manipulating the religious narrative, the problem is the religious narrative. By hey, let us pretend we know what a religion is about without learning anything about it, based on wishful thinking. What could possibly go wrong?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smacks wrote: I do not need to have studied 'chains of transmissions' to make the 'assumption' that some Muslims do treat animals with compassion.
You do not need anything for such an asinine statement. In other interesting news, some Muslim like the color yellow, some much Muslims are bald, and some Muslim dance better than some other Muslim. What does this tell us about Islam?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: If by belief, you mean blind belief in supernatural things, I wholeheartedly disagree. Especially when those beliefs comes with an extremely conservative baggage attached.
The problem is not that much people manipulating the religious narrative, the problem is the religious narrative. By hey, let us pretend we know what a religion is about without learning anything about it, based on wishful thinking. What could possibly go wrong?
I actually mean the blind belief in doing better by the people around you.'
Ominism is awesome.
Take the good from a religion
E.G- i read the 4 gospel;s but nothing else - (no fething paul or peter coz thats where the hate comes in)
I read the koran
i tried the bagavad gita but it was too convoluted.
I look to help people around me through a personal circumspection of those around me. I am the judge who thinks about others and helps them. I am not the judge who thinks himself better than others.
Scripture is an interesting l view.
Bullockist wrote: I actually mean the blind belief in doing better by the people around you.'
Then forgot religion, read about moral and ethic. Because religion is that… with added nonsense that will only lead to bad things. What you describe is basically you taking only the moral and ethics or religion and dismissing all the rest, and forgetting about all non-religious work on morals and ethic.
Well that's what I thought, but then you badgered me about it for half a page being hard of understanding.
What does this tell us about Islam?
It tells us that not all Muslims are cruel to animals and women. Which leads us to ask why some are? This is my original point, blaming Islam is a non-sequitur. It is down to the individual and their interpretation. Bastards would be bastards in any religion.
But keep your rose-tinted glasses.
I don't have rose-tinted glasses, I am aware that some people do evil things. My point is that many aren't evil, and choose to take good things from their religion.
There is none from the Quran.
Yes there is, Quran 6:38, it's easy to find under the heading 'Qur'an'
Smacks wrote: It tells us that not all Muslims are cruel to animals and women.
Damn obvious. Neither were nazis, or Ku Klux Klan members, for reference .
Smacks wrote: This is my original point, blaming Islam is a non-sequitur. It is down to the individual and their interpretation. Bastards would be bastards in any religion.
Your original point I was answering to:
“I agree that it is complicated, but there also appears to be much in the Koran and Islam that teaches compassion towards animals.”
It seems that was false.
Smacks wrote: My point is that many aren't evil, and choose to take good things from their religion.
This tells us things about people. Not about their religion. Good search things on the religion, and you will see that, unlike the people, it is pretty bad.
Smacks wrote: Yes there is, Quran 6:38, it's easy to find under the heading 'Qur'an'
This quote says nothing about being compassionate to animals, and the Wikipedia article does not pretend it says anything about that.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: “I agree that it is complicated, but there also appears to be much in the Koran and Islam that teaches compassion towards animals.” It seems that was false.
Why is it false? Are you saying there is nothing in the whole Quran that teaches goodness and compassion? Or that in every case that goodness and compassion must categorically not be directed toward animals?
I find that absurd.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: This quote says nothing about being compassionate to animals, and the Wikipedia article does not pretend it says anything about that.
Well that would depend on how you wish to interpret the quote, and how you wish to interpret the Wikipedia article.
The writer clearly thinks the Quran enjoins Muslims to be compassionate to animals, as he wrote it in the paragraph immediately preceding the quote. If that isn't good enough for you then perhaps we should move on, as this is slightly off topic anyway.
Okay, if you are not discussing in good faith, there is no point going further, I guess. Just think about this: if when wondering whether you should let your pet to someone when going on vacation, what you consider to make your choice is what is written in their holy book, you are doing it wrong, so very wrong. I would not.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: And if they were really that worried all they'd need is a female officer or two to check their ID in a more private room (and, IIRC, this was already done in some cases).
So, basically you support institutionalizing gender discrimination in order to respect those so-called “religious rights”?
Not really, no. But if they won't take off for cultural reasons (i.e. The male members in their family) it's better to check their ID that way than stick them behind the glass. I'd rather none of this and those women not having to wear a burka/niqab, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon (though I wouldn't put it past this government to outright ban them in public)
Mr Nobody wrote: Well, it's not my fault you blew up all the nice parts and bribed the crazy parts.
What exactly did I blow up?
Before we answer that, we have to ask, have you ever had really good Mexican food? If so then you've definitely blown up something...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Coffee bean...they gave us the coffee bean
Incorrect. That was my Latin brothers and sisters.
Indeed it can be argued that, with chocolate, coffee, tomatoes, tobacco, and cocaine, Latin America is both the birthplace and ending of human society.
Aztecs, bringers of civilization to the world since 1540.
Mr Nobody wrote: Well, it's not my fault you blew up all the nice parts and bribed the crazy parts.
What exactly did I blow up?
Before we answer that, we have to ask, have you ever had really good Mexican food? If so then you've definitely blown up something...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Coffee bean...they gave us the coffee bean
Incorrect. That was my Latin brothers and sisters.
Indeed it can be argued that, with chocolate, coffee, tomatoes, tobacco, and cocaine, Latin America is both the birthplace and ending of human society.
Aztecs, bringers of civilization to the world since 1540.
Frazzled wrote: Some really nice architecture, and of course saffron rice.
Is saffron rice not Persian? Certainly not Islamic.
Are you saying Iranians aren't majority Islamic? I stick by my point. Saffron rice is almost as good as Mexican rice.
I have also been illuminated that the greatness of coffee first came from Ethiopia.
Frazzled wrote: Are you saying Iranians aren't majority Islamic?
I am saying Persian culture predates Islam and will outlive it too. I am saying that to pretend Persian culture is Islamic culture is to insult Persian culture. I am saying that the most popular symbol of Iran for Iranians being the faravahar is quite telling about how much Islam is part of the Persian identity, is it not?
Frazzled wrote: Are you saying Iranians aren't majority Islamic?
I am saying Persian culture predates Islam and will outlive it too. I am saying that to pretend Persian culture is Islamic culture is to insult Persian culture. I am saying that the most popular symbol of Iran for Iranians being the faravahar is quite telling about how much Islam is part of the Persian identity, is it not?
Islam is a religion. What culture are you referring to when you say "islamic culture." If you don't mean the cultural norms of Africa and the Middle East where Islam started and has been strngest historically, then what do you mean?
Frazzled wrote: Islam is a religion. What culture are you referring to when you say "islamic culture."
I am not sure what it is supposed to be either, but you will note I was not the one to introduce the term. And I know it is a damn inappropriate expression to refer to some cultural practice that predates Islam by a long shot.
Frazzled wrote: If you don't mean the cultural norms of Africa and the Middle East where Islam started and has been strngest historically, then what do you mean?
Islam certainly did not start in Iran. You know it started in Arabia, right? And it was practiced by Arabs, not Persians? How the hell is Persia a place where “Islam has been the strongest historically” when it had to be imposed by force by Arabs invaders, and Zoroastrian survived to it to this day, not only as a religion with a few adepts but also as a huge, pervasive influence on basically every Iranian's life through symbols like the Faravahar or festivals like Nowruz? Do you somehow mix and confuse Iran and Saudi Arabia, or something to that effect?
Frazzled wrote: Islam is a religion. What culture are you referring to when you say "islamic culture."
I am not sure what it is supposed to be either, but you will note I was not the one to introduce the term. And I know it is a damn inappropriate expression to refer to some cultural practice that predates Islam by a long shot.
Wo wo wo! Saffron rice is awesome. Iranians make saffron rice. Whats your problem? Are you some sort of Islamaphobe?
Frazzled wrote: If you don't mean the cultural norms of Africa and the Middle East where Islam started and has been strngest historically, then what do you mean?
Islam certainly did not start in Iran. You know it started in Arabia, right? And it was practiced by Arabs, not Persians? How the hell is Persia a place where “Islam has been the strongest historically” when it had to be imposed by force by Arabs invaders, and Zoroastrian survived to it to this day, not only as a religion with a few adepts but also as a huge, pervasive influence on basically every Iranian's life through symbols like the Faravahar or festivals like Nowruz? Do you somehow mix and confuse Iran and Saudi Arabia, or something to that effect?
So your argument is that Iran is a not a majority Islamic country? Buddhism didn't start in China either, but there are a lot of Chinese Buddhists. Again, whats your beef with Islam?
Or is it rice? You're not a barbarian who hates rice are you? Thousands of cajuns are loading shotguns just at the thought of such barbarism.
Frazzled wrote: Wo wo wo! Saffron rice is awesome. Iranians make saffron rice. Whats your problem? Are you some sort of Islamaphobe?
I have stated my problem very clearly: my problem is with your assertion that Iranian culture is somehow reducible to Islamic culture. It is not. It definitely is not. That seems pretty clear to me.
Yes, I am sort of an Islamophobe and a Persianophile, I guess, if that makes sense. I do not like Islam (just like I do not like most religions, really, but maybe with a little extra), but I do like Persian culture.
Also, saffron rice is very nice, but when you spend three weeks in Iran as a vegetarian, and this means saffron rice at almost every goddamn meals of every day, it gets old quick. Especially when it comes with some cake for desert made of saffron and rice, with a saffron ice-cream after it .
For reference, we still brought back some polo-paz with us, and regularly uses it, you know. So, yeah, I know about saffron rice .
Frazzled wrote: So your argument is that Iran is a not a majority Islamic country?
My argument is that reducing a whole people to just their religion is stupid and wrong. Just wrong, man.
Specifically, as the "legend" goes, one Turkish dude living in West Germany who wanted to create an easy to eat, easy to transport food dish that reminded him of his homeland
Frazzled wrote: Wo wo wo! Saffron rice is awesome. Iranians make saffron rice. Whats your problem? Are you some sort of Islamaphobe?
I have stated my problem very clearly: my problem is with your assertion that Iranian culture is somehow reducible to Islamic culture. It is not. It definitely is not. That seems pretty clear to me.
Yes, I am sort of an Islamophobe and a Persianophile, I guess, if that makes sense. I do not like Islam (just like I do not like most religions, really, but maybe with a little extra), but I do like Persian culture.
Also, saffron rice is very nice, but when you spend three weeks in Iran as a vegetarian, and this means saffron rice at almost every goddamn meals of every day, it gets old quick. Especially when it comes with some cake for desert made of saffron and rice, with a saffron ice-cream after it .
For reference, we still brought back some polo-paz with us, and regularly uses it, you know. So, yeah, I know about saffron rice .
Frazzled wrote: So your argument is that Iran is a not a majority Islamic country?
My argument is that reducing a whole people to just their religion is stupid and wrong. Just wrong, man.
As the poster did not define "Islamic Culture" I used locations where Islam has historically been strong, then noted saffron rice is excellent (I like Persian food quite a bit). Everything else is on you.
Frazzled wrote: Wo wo wo! Saffron rice is awesome. Iranians make saffron rice. Whats your problem? Are you some sort of Islamaphobe?
I have stated my problem very clearly: my problem is with your assertion that Iranian culture is somehow reducible to Islamic culture. It is not. It definitely is not. That seems pretty clear to me.
Yes, I am sort of an Islamophobe and a Persianophile, I guess, if that makes sense. I do not like Islam (just like I do not like most religions, really, but maybe with a little extra), but I do like Persian culture.
Also, saffron rice is very nice, but when you spend three weeks in Iran as a vegetarian, and this means saffron rice at almost every goddamn meals of every day, it gets old quick. Especially when it comes with some cake for desert made of saffron and rice, with a saffron ice-cream after it .
For reference, we still brought back some polo-paz with us, and regularly uses it, you know. So, yeah, I know about saffron rice .
Frazzled wrote: So your argument is that Iran is a not a majority Islamic country?
My argument is that reducing a whole people to just their religion is stupid and wrong. Just wrong, man.
As the poster did not define "Islamic Culture" I used locations where Islam has historically been strong, then noted saffron rice is excellent (I like Persian food quite a bit). Everything else is on you.
EDIT: I don't know what doner kabob is, but shishkabob is freaking awesome. Mmmm...culture!
The very concept of Islamic culture is wrong. It makes no more sense than talking about Christian culture, as if a baptist from central US has much in common culturally with a Catholic from China, a Coptic from Ethiopia or an Orthodox Christian from Sibiria.
Frazzled wrote: As the poster did not define "Islamic Culture" I used locations where Islam has historically been strong, then noted saffron rice is excellent (I like Persian food quite a bit).
Well, then the poster was wrong and you were wrong to answer this way too. Or something like that.
Steve steveson wrote: The very concept of Islamic culture is wrong. It makes no more sense than talking about Christian culture, as if a baptist from central US has much in common culturally with a Catholic from China, a Coptic from Ethiopia or an Orthodox Christian from Sibiria.
Agreed. A religion can be part of your culture, but it doesn't have too much in that culture on a standalone basis.
Frazzled wrote: As the poster did not define "Islamic Culture" I used locations where Islam has historically been strong, then noted saffron rice is excellent (I like Persian food quite a bit).
Well, then the poster was wrong and you were wrong to answer this way too. Or something like that.
A Frazzled, like AMERICA can never be wrong. The rest of the world, just hasn't caught up yet to our correct statement. America HURR!
), but it's obviously something that might be attractive to people are who are naturally shy, and I don't think it's going to help them in overcoming that.
?
