Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As someone on the political left and liberal on many issues, I am very glad to see someone reasonable stand up and question why the left wing allies it's self to a religion dominated by it's most extremist factions who seem dedicated to pulling down all that the liberal left stands for, a religion just as much a grass roots enemy as the fascist extreme right wing.

I 100% agree with what he says, hell if he ran for prime minister I think I would vote for him

Where can we get a Pat Condell.

I agree 70% with what he says.

I don't like those hypocritical apologists either. They're transparently biased against their own culture (in this case usually meaning Christianity) and trying to label people "phobics" of whatever they dislike is tired and cowardly (and linguistically incorrect in the case of "homophobia").

However, having state come in and force people to stop wearing an article of clothing on the basis of it representing a disliked concept is unjustified. Not liking a culture doesn't mean you can force people to give up aspects of that culture, not when those aspects aren't harming anyone. Then again, I'm one of those nutjobs who doesn't think people should be arrested for being in a Nazi party either.

Ah, yes, the "radical Islam" torch. I enjoy his indictment of the left, but he really just falls into the "crush, kill, control" trap that ends up being a major component of the right,

It like Sam Harris and Rick Warren came together and developed a 'moderate' position on Christianity.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I agree 70% with what he says.

I don't like those hypocritical apologists either. They're transparently biased against their own culture (in this case usually meaning Christianity) and trying to label people "phobics" of whatever they dislike is tired and cowardly (and linguistically incorrect in the case of "homophobia").

However, having state come in and force people to stop wearing an article of clothing on the basis of it representing a disliked concept is unjustified. Not liking a culture doesn't mean you can force people to give up aspects of that culture, not when those aspects aren't harming anyone. Then again, I'm one of those nutjobs who doesn't think people should be arrested for being in a Nazi party either.

The problem with thinking that people should have freedom to wear any symbolic article of clothing or even jewelry (daggers for instance) is that there are a lot of situations where it is just not sensible. If people started robbing banks in Burkas would they still be okay? Remember a bank cannot turn away someone for wearing a Burka, therefore they can't even identify the person in any way; not to forget that a woman in a Burka is hardly going to be setting up her own bank accounts.

I am not allowed to walk around naked right? Can I wear a hat made of razor wire in my homage to Jesus Christ, would I really be able to get away with walking into places like that? Supposedly there is actually nothing in the Quran about a the poster-child full torture suit, so it's merits as a religious article of clothing are null and void. I have absolutely no problem with having no Burkas, and I would gladly snipe Nazi's all day long.

This is why I like Buddhism, Taoism, and Shinto (not exactly a religion... which makes it GREAT), mainly because you just don't see this kind of genuinely neurotic behavior. Perhaps meditation could be considered similar, but I haven't met a single Buddhist that calls me a liar for denying some of their beliefs. If I walk around spinning a basketball on my finger because it is my own personal "religious" practice, but that doesn't effect the fact that most could care less, and are actually more worried about why I am being so odd.

"Note"
Something odd to note is skinheads in general, because I have seen (on more than one occasion) a group of skinheads having a steel-toed boot party on a Neo-Nazi's head. This same sort of strange cultural division (because there a good and bad skinheads, although the bad ones are bigots more than anything else) is present in the Islamic religion, and it may come down to how you interpret the Quran, at some point I will have to take a read. I hear a lot of really terrible stuff about the Quran, but some of it seems hyped up to prove a point. All religions have mysterious ethereal and sentient beings with powers of magic and wonderment, along with tales of pure unadulterated fantasy and I see no drastic difference between any of them quite frankly.

This one has a beard, and that one has 10 arms... what is your point? I haven't seen them fight yet so I couldn't tell you which one is the "one true" god... God sounds like a pretty insecure jerk some of the time. And with all of these Gods screaming that they are the one and only, who cares, they should all be wrong when it comes to the government. Religion is religion, and it should have nothing (NOTHING) to do with anything else.

There's a difference between banning something because it's a cultural item and allowing everything that's a cultural item. The third option is to treat it as you normally treat clothing.

How would you treat normal clothing? With sensitive skin soap? Elaborate please, I don't understand.

Simple; look at what the article of clothing is materially, and what the material properties of the clothing mean.

A burka and a ski mask both cover your face; in that regard either one could be banned from entering a bank for security reasons (whether or not you would be justified in banning something as restrictive as a burka is another matter).

Banning a piece of clothing because it obscures you is different from banning it because you don't like the intangible qualities someone may associate with it; in this case, misogyny.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Supposedly there is actually nothing in the Quran about a the poster-child full torture suit, so it's merits as a religious article of clothing are null and void.

That isn't how religion works. Sorry.

This guy is against moral relativism rather than Islam or religion.

There are certain fundamental values that are accepted as the basis of modern western civilisation. Tolerance is an important one, but not the most important. For example, if we discovered the Aztecs today, we wouldn't let them go on sacrificing people just because it's part of their religion.

I'm more or less with Orkeosaurus on this one.

First, the burqa isn't a religous symbol, it is a cultural development of repression of women.

The Koran enjoins women to dress modestly and does not specify what this means. The Koran also enjoins men to dress modestly. You'll notice that Islamic male dress in most countries is relatively modest. In fact, Bedouin men traditionally veil their faces.

Second, sumptuary laws are always ludicrous except when specifically connected with health and safety or such.

Why stop at a law against the burqa? Why not have a law against veils, or headscarves? Where would that leave beekeepers and the Queen?

Third, laws against specific parts of peoples' culture are as likely to inflame and entrench them in their ways as to convince them to change. No amount of banning plaid made the Scots like the English.

The way to get people to change is to let them see that your culture is better, not force it on them, and give them the opportunities. Look at modern young Asian (Indian and Pakistani) women in Britain. In two generations these ladies have gone from traditional gender roles to modern western values mixed what they want to retain of their traditional culture.

Let's not forget that only two generations ago it was still unusual for western women to go to university and have jobs after marriage.

Have these woman had an effect on their communities? I would assume so, and I have taken this video with a grain of salt mind you, this is a you-tube guy and I can't take him too seriously because of it. No offense really.

*Bangs head against a wall*

I saw this video the other day and though it was illogical, reactionary, paranoid, ill informed, hyperbolic drivel. I still stand by this.

I consider myself a bit of lefty. I read the Indy and on the majority of social issues I find myself coming down on the side of 'left'. I'm not a massive fan of the Burka per say however calls to ban it are Ill thought out to say the least. It's no way to win hearts and minds and will cause far more issue than solves. Besides the Burka is worn by what 5% of Muslim women, If that? It's hardly a major issue. What it is however is a convenient and obvious stick for odious right wing tabloids to beat the rest of Islam with.

But this idea that the left are allying themselves with 'Radical' Islam is pure nonsense. At best it's a paranoid conspiracy theory at worst its a downright lie. If there was a meeting where it was decided that the left should ally itself with fundamentalist zealots then quite frankly I missed it and if I had attended it I, and every other lefty I know, would have walked out.

I do however think that 'Radical Islam' is something of a Boogieman whose threat to society has been vastly overstated. I am statistically more likely to killed by spontaneous combustion than Islamic fundamentalism and I don't see why on the earth the actions of a tiny number of psychopathic zealots should be used as an excuse have a go at normal law abiding, tax paying Muslims. Whatever they choose to wear.

However if Pat Condell seems to think that my refusal to get on some kind of bandwagon of finger pointing and hate-mongering makes me some kind of apologist then....whatever. He's entitled to his opinion I suppose.

Doesn't alter the fact that he is taking out of his arse.

All vote for this man!

His main point seemed to be that nothing is being done about it, but I am not going to review this video a third time today.

I didn't see that much anti-islamism or w/e, but the guy is obviously housing a very angry mind. All of his videos have a over-compensatory tone to them, I think he is a performer at best, a second rate politician at the worst. Just because you thump a different stick against my head than the "others" doesn't mean you can't be wrong, and he actually says this quite a lot, and makes a point of making that heard.

HE ADMITS TO BEING A HUMAN... he is a step ahead of most politicians come to think of it... "Hey... Pat Condell, the Republican party needs you in the U.S. for a few years, maybe the democrats too."

Wrexasaur wrote:
HE ADMITS TO BEING A HUMAN... he is a step ahead of most politicians come to think of it... "

You need someone to tell you that they're fallible in order to recognize their fallibility?

The burqa isn't even a religious symbol, it's purpose in a non-desert western country where inter-tribal raiding for women of child bearing age is not terribly commonplace is obvious, it is a weapon of sexual oppression of women. It has no more place in the United Kingdom than female circumcision or honour killings and should be immediately made illegal.

If I moved with my girlfriend to Mecca, I would not expect her to wear a bikini in the highstreet. It would be culturally insulting, as such on residing in a western nation with liberal Judeo-Christian derived morality, those who seek to integrate to this largely tolerant society should be able to accommodate parting with this mysogonistic and oppressive cultural relic.

Your girlfriend would be arrested for wearing a bikini around Mecca. I don't see how arresting muslim women for wearing a burka in London would make our society better than Saudi society.

It's important to realise that Islam, Christianity and Judaeism share the same cultural and religious roots.

Christianity has the same elements of oppression of women found in those other religions.

The reason why modern western society tolerates bikinis and stuff is largely because of The Enlightenment, which began a long process of examination of the world and society from a rationalist rather than a religious viewpoint.

Even so this process took hundreds of years to develop, and it isn't finished. The bikini only became a common item of beach wear in the 1960s. It would be very unusual to see women wearing bikinis in the street in London in 2009, though they would not be arrested for doing so. You'll certainly see them wearing bikinis in the parks.

I expect there are some people who regard the bikini as an instrument of sexual oppression.

Killing and maiming others and wearing a sheet over your head are totally the same thing, because, you know, I associate them with each other even though one is harming other people and one isn't.

MeanGreenStompa wrote: It has no more place in the United Kingdom than female circumcision or honour killings and should be immediately made illegal.

The Turks tried that, and it has increasingly turned the burqa into a symbol of sexual liberation.

Ultimately oppression relies on the restriction of choice via means perceived as illegitimate; forcing women to wear Western clothing is every bit as oppressive as forcing them to wear a burqa.

Also, from a practical standpoint, how would you enforce a ban on the burqa? By punishing the women that wear them? Isn't that counter-productive?