Woman in face veil detained as France enforces ban by Geezer

Beir bua agus beannacht

Hi Niki, I was only saying that even though psychological abuse is horrible and bad we can't quantify it and label/categorize it as easily and foolproofly as we can with physical abuse.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 19, 2011 10:21 PM

Keeping order in every verse

The comments of the people pushing these bills suggest these motivations: 1) that non-Muslim women feel uncomfortable, that their own gender equality/ feminism is threatened, 2) that the burqa is a product of an outdated/barbaric culture, and 3) that the burqa poses security risks.

1.The fact that non-muslim women in a predominantly non-muslim country feel threatened and uncomfortable should be the OVERWHELMING argument to demand respect is shown to them.But, we PANDER to the ridiculous attitudes of the few at the expense of the majority.
2.Absolutely correct.And it is my perfect right to agree with that statement and I commend the bravery of the French Government for taking the flak from the rest of us.
3.And your problem with that IS????

Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 19, 2011 11:17 PM

Quote:
I agree with Byte about ATTEMPTING to prevent some abuses (because when it comes to emotional and psychological, how could we anyway?)

Niki, within several legal frameworks in this county, the definition of violence includes physical, emotional,psychological, verbal and economic.

Quote:
Magons appears to consider the burqa a form of abuse, and I will say I can see where she is coming from on that angle. We do have laws against spousal abuse and child abuse, which in some circumstances this could theoretically fall under.

I never actually said that. I guess I am posing more questions than answers on any of this. It could be, or it might not be. I have no clear idea really.

Quote:
But the outcry about the law in question is not that people don't want to prevent abuse. It is a problem in that it unilaterally labels a cultural and religious attire a form of abuse, and the women wearing it victims, without regard to the case by case feelings of each woman. Who may not see themselves as victims, and who may be more comfortable WITH a burqa than without.

I suppose I have covered that in previous posts, about whether it is possible for an individual in these communities to make the decision not to wear a burqa, given not only the possibility of being outcast, but the very real issue of violence used against dissenters, particularly women.

Quote:
As for the security thing: would anyone ban the dagger of the Sihk religion from public schools?

I'm pretty sure there are countries that have banned any form of religious identification/adornment. If I can find some info on this I will.

Okay, it was pretty easy to find. France has banned all religious paraphenalia or adornment in public schools. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_
religious_symbols_in_schools

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 2:16 AM

Keeping order in every verse

And the same here in the UK. A delivery driver was banned from hanging a crucifix in a company vehicle only yesterday.
Any form of public religious expression that is likely to offend is unacceptable,so this isn't just a muslim issue.
This is a very modern world with modern ideals. The situation in the middle-east is basically the backward world catching up to the rest of us.And that has to happen if there is any chance of survival in the long tewrm future.
To rid ourselves of the illogical and dangerous beliefs still spewed out by any religion is welcome and necessary. So, the wearing of the burka is something that should be frowned upon worldwide.It just don't fit in this day and age.

Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 3:50 AM

Quote:
1.The fact that non-muslim women in a predominantly non-muslim country feel threatened and uncomfortable should be the OVERWHELMING argument to demand respect is shown to them.But, we PANDER to the ridiculous attitudes of the few at the expense of the majority.

Why SHOULD other women feel threatened? Usually the majority has a reason for feeling the way they do, and thus this is why often majority rules is a valid process in a democratic nation. But it still requires a good REASON for the argument to be valid.

But as I said before, the comments I've seen appear to be largely unqualified. WHY do they feel that Muslim attire affects or threatens their OWN rights in any way? Do THEY practice Sharia law. No. Will they be expected to? Of course not, the very idea is laughable and is obvious fear-mongering from certain xenophobic and nationalistic groups in various countries. So why? Without a clear why I'm forced to just conclude that they're being irrational. I feel no particular urge to indulge irrationality, majority or not, especially when it is an irrationality that causes unwarranted harm.

Jews used to be subject to similar petty legal attacks and restrictions, because their ability to accumulate wealth through lending threatened the established rich families throughout Europe. Their very existence could be used to blame the entire downfall of nations and they were seen as evil, dangerous, and treacherous. Considering the outcome of that I do not see why I should support anything that deliberately attacks ANY minority group, for any reason, ANYWHERE.

Quote:
2.Absolutely correct.And it is my perfect right to agree with that statement and I commend the bravery of the French Government for taking the flak from the rest of us.

Careful there, we might start to think you don't really like Muslims. 9_9

Quote:
3.And your problem with that IS????

Ditto previous. You're assuming that everyone from one of the world's three dominant religions is potentially dangerous. The legal system is intended meant to be a neutral system, applied evenly across the ENTIRE population of the region of it's jurisdiction, including minority groups (look up the definitions of "fair" and "justice").

Suffice to say, you have some rather obvious biases. I'm merely glad you are not a barrister, adjudicator, nor a legislator, and can be content that neither of us has any say in French policy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 4:34 AM

Quote:

I suppose I have covered that in previous posts, about whether it is possible for an individual in these communities to make the decision not to wear a burqa, given not only the possibility of being outcast, but the very real issue of violence used against dissenters, particularly women.

And, forcing the issue, indirectly encouraging violence on these women, either by their own people or by lawful authorities, that seems to be a good alternative?

I don't see it.

Quote:
Okay, it was pretty easy to find. France has banned all religious paraphenalia or adornment in public schools.

Of course they have, that was the other major French controversy about Islam. That wasn't my point, I meant, that if they are so concerned about security risks, would they force a Sihk to give up their kirpan?

But since you bring it up, I think I'm less concerned about that one. On the good side, neutrality in religion at schools allows children to see and decide for themselves if they want to follow what they are taught at home.

On the other hand, it still seems to be largely targeted at Muslims, the law specifically calls out overt religious affiliation symbols, but allows for students to carry crosses and stars of David. What the law really means is that young Muslim girls can't wear a hijab. (girls in Islam don't really wear the burqa, it's adult women that do that). It also seems to defeat the point of giving them neutral territory away from home to decide for themselves, as they can't see their alternative options.

Besides, I think most children are so indoctrinated by the time they start school that this will have little impact on their life decisions. It only becomes something to bother them and their parents that they can't practice religious beliefs that are important to them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 7:13 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

All good points, Byte. Especially

Quote:
But the outcry about the law in question is not that people don't want to prevent abuse. It is a problem in that it unilaterally labels a cultural and religious attire a form of abuse, and the women wearing it victims, without regard to the case by case feelings of each woman. Who may not see themselves as victims, and who may be more comfortable WITH a burqa than without.

The comments of the people pushing these bills suggest these motivations: 1) that non-Muslim women feel uncomfortable, that their own gender equality/ feminism is threatened, 2) that the burqa is a product of an outdated/barbaric culture, and 3) that the burqa poses security risks.

I only recall seeing one instance in the reasons that Magons quoted in her list of European countries with similar bans where bans were suggested because women are oppressed. The comment was unqualified and was accompanied by several other of the above reasons. This suggests that the welfare of the women was not first and foremost. I must still conclude that the legislation is therefore more anti-Muslim than pro-woman.

To me it's pretty obvious that the Western world is anti-Islam at the present time; fear of the "different" has taken many forms throughout the ages and will continue to, so giving in to current prejudices and enforcing those prejudices is wrong in my opinion. If there were VALID reasons, like the chadri endangered someone, it would be different, but I don't see how it does, and forcing women not to wear it does nothing, as far as I can see, to stop actual abuse. It's judgmental and wrong, in my opinion.

As to the "majority" which someone mentioned, that's a fallacy. If the majority ruled, our government couldn't be stopped in its tracks as well as it was last year by the simple threat of a filibuster. That's only one small example; there are tons and tons more in every country. In theory it's a good concept, but it doesn't work that way, so to me, attaining what the "majority" wants by physical force, in this instance, is wrong. I don't think it's nearly as much about abuse, or even different customs, as it is about fear of the different and people feeling uncomfortable so forcing those who make them uncomfortable to conform to their standards. And anti-Muslim paranoia and hatred.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 1:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

And, forcing the issue, indirectly encouraging violence on these women, either by their own people or by lawful authorities, that seems to be a good alternative?

So where did I say this? You are a great one for misreading posts, Byte, and coming up with your own agenda on things.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 1:13 PM

I didn't say you did, but that's the ultimate outcome I see here. I just don't think this law is wise, and I definitely don't think it helps the women free themselves of the burqa.

You've been mostly hedging on the issue for most of the thread, except for one or two initial posts where you agreed with Peacekeeper, so you don't appear to be for this law. I get that, I'm willing to take you at face value when you say that's what your stance is. I'm just about pointing out the consequences.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 1:18 PM

*snort*
If only...

See, that is in part what rooks me so badly - at least (according to the mention here) other countries are consistent in their feeling that religious expression can be inappropriate at some times and places.

Ok, I can get that, but when ONE form of expression is A-OK, all the time, everywhere, and anything else is NOT - it becomes an issue of government sponsored religion, and that offends the piss outta me.

From religious slogans replacing the proper E Pluribus, Unum. on our money to that fucking fascist pledge to the stupid little out of context psalm-homilies on the wall of a business, their plainly visible crosses, their goddamn LAWS forcing ME to hold to THEIR religious observances which I not only don't follow but in fact often consider reprehensible...

No, we don't have religious tolerance in america, unless you're christian and then not only are you not bothered, society and the law helps you oppressively inflict it upon others!

The REASON I don't feel any kind of threatened by most muslims is that factually none of em seem any kind of intent on forcing their practices on me - if anything they're remarkably tolerant cause ideologically their beliefs and mine are even more opposed than theirs and christianity, but in practice it's the simple fact that these christians as a whole WANT to forcibly impose their beliefs upon us, make no secret of it, and have undue influence in both politics and the military - resulting in enemy-of-my-enemy bonds of a nature that shows both them and myself not only the VALUE of tolerance, but why it's so goddamned important, even if you disagree with the concepts of the other guy in principle.(1)

Now if only someone would teach them cross waving yahoos something of it - but when IN-tolerance seems to be part and parcel OF their belief system, just as heresy is part and parcel of mine, how the hell do you expect to do that except with a big bloody stick, ehe ?

-Frem
(1) I recently got a laugh out of a Jain over that, he gently chided me for drinking with the old body-as-temple saw, and I told him well yeah that's you, I see mine as an amusement park!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 2:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I didn't say you did, but that's the ultimate outcome I see here. I just don't think this law is wise, and I definitely don't think it helps the women free themselves of the burqa.

You've been mostly hedging on the issue for most of the thread, except for one or two initial posts where you agreed with Peacekeeper, so you don't appear to be for this law. I get that, I'm willing to take you at face value when you say that's what your stance is. I'm just about pointing out the consequences.

I feel I have been quite clear about my position, having stated it several times. If you fail to see what I am trying to say, I kind of think that is about you, choosing to try and tie me down to black and white - all or nothing thinking. Doubt there is anything extra I can say that will make things clearer.

I get tired of not being able to comment on religious practices without being accused of all sorts of silliness, including supporting violence, which I find offensive and is an example of a 'all or nothing' argument.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 2:34 PM

But supporting a law does mean supporting violence - because violence, of an escalating sort, WILL be used against those who break it.

Just because you're own hands aren't committing it personally makes them no less dirty, and you no less responsible.

Sorry, but I have to hold the line at that point.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 2:45 PM

Again, I DONT FUCKING SUPPORT THIS LAW

Secondly, I really have to disagree with that all law = forced by violence. Extremist anarchists argument.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 2:54 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Magon's, there are ways to say how you feel about religeon and you do have the right to say those things, what you have to decide is whether its worth it to you to have people disagree with you and, in turn, say what they want to say, which may irritate you some. Another way to do it is like this: Say what you want to say and then say something like "but I'm not in charge and I know that not everyone agrees. The great thing about this board is that it isn't censored, we can say whatever we want and in turn we can learn how we may or may not want to censor our own selves by the responses we get from our peers here.

I think banning all religeous symbols in public is stupid, just like I think the French law is stupid. Do my Celtic crosses count as religeous expression? Because some people wear them as a cultural thing, like "I'm into Irish stuff so I'm wearing this." I like them for both reasons. I just think banning religeous expression is really hideous, especially because wearing something is part of our freedom of speech/expression. Fortunately I live in America and not France.

By the way, did the French public vote on this law? If the public voted for it then I'd be forced to respect it more. But the public didn't then I can talk all the trash I like about it. So I think that is a necessary part of the puzzle to understand.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 3:14 PM

Riona: As with the no symbols in school ban, what happened was the French president proposed it, then the French houses of congress passed it, supposedly with public support though I've seen nothing of the polls.

Magons: Okay then, you don't support women getting hurt, I don't support women getting hurt, I didn't accuse you of anything, you're against the law, I believe you, seems like we're good.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 3:16 PM

Rione, do you know how much shit one cops as an atheist? People feel they have a right to describe you as being without morals or ethics, or worse wishing eternal damnation on you? It wasn't so long ago that Christians burnt anyone at the stake for even the mildest dissent. And violence against dissenters is still all too common in much of the world. Religion is hardly a yardstick for tolerance in this world.

I'm with Dawkins. We've tiptoed around religion and religious practices for too long. It's time that people stopped being afraid of being critical for fear of offending. If someones cultural or religious practice is abusive, or there may be some question about whether its abusive, it should be okay to have that discussion around it, to be critical, without being labelled as 'supporting violence' or racist, or anti Islam.

Ataturk banned most religious apparell in early 20th century Turkey. he wanted to drag a tired old empire, ruled by for a long time by the religious leaders, into the modern world and to create a secular, tolerant society. Not all laws have bad intent, or aim to suppress - some aim to to prevent violence and abuse, to enlighten even.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 5:00 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Secondly, I really have to disagree with that all law = forced by violence. Extremist anarchists argument."

Hello,

I am unaware of any enforced law that does not have violence as the ultimate reward for continued disobedience.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 5:23 PM

Now, I say again I didn't accuse you of ANY of that. But from one atheist to another, and from someone who has gotten into physical fights over religion:

You're sounding like you want to convert everyone to atheism.

If you want to show everyone what their intolerance has warranted, and you want to show enlightenment, then tolerance seems to be the best counter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 5:39 PM

So do you condone tolerance of abuse? Tolerance of teaching children blatant lies? Tolerance of discrimination or subjegation of others.

Are you tolerant if someone is getting the crap beat out of them? Of forced servitude? Slavery?

Tolerance has its limits. Otherwise it just becomes collusion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 5:49 PM

Now, you just accused me of tolerance of abuse, subjugation, slavery, and discrimination.

I said I was willing to take you at face value when you said what your stance is. Are you saying you do not want to take me at face value on what I say my stance is?

Cultural tolerance is NOT the same thing as support or collusion with people who do harm. Cultural tolerance is recognizing that "culture" will have many interpretations by everyone who identifies as that culture, some interpretations are good, some are twisted and victimize others. To interact with, understand, and deal with a culture, it must be understood that each person is an individual, with their own thoughts and feelings about their culture. Each woman, in Islam, even the ones who wear a burqa, is an Individual. If someone violates their rights of choice as an individual, then the aggressor has done wrong to them.

Cultural Tolerance is REQUIRED if you want to make any meaningful effort at teaching or enlightenment, if you want any success at changing anyone's minds or their treatment of others. Do you want to stop harmful practices? Or do you want to punish them? These women may very well believe their religion. There ARE ways to help them without destroying their beliefs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 6:23 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Magon's, you want to know a scary secret? Not so long ago I would have been burnt at the stake right along with you. My brain doesn't work right and it manifests in unpleasant ways that can look like evil to someone who doesn't understand that it isn't my fault. If my parents had ever told anyone I'd be in trouble. . My brain challenges aren't that of the sweet and touched folk, oh how I wish they were, it would be so much better. But it doesn't and I would have been on the pire with you for it. So I obviously don't condone ignorant nasty and rutted up behavior like stake burnings either. Mortal man is stupid, ignorant and lacking in empathy so often. But I don't see a reason to hate God because someone who happens to believe in him is hideous and bad, man is foolish after all. I know that you don't believe in God and that is your choice, I know you hate the hatred that some who do believe have spit at you or at your ancestors or what have you. But you often generalize so much, portraying ideas like that all people who follow a religeon are causing you personal hardship. I'm sorry that you feel that way because I suspect you're a reasonably nice person who cares about people and does the best she knows to do. I don't think you're evil incarnate or anything, no better or worse than most people. But you have some pent up anger in you and that much is true. I haven't had your experience so I can't say whether it is justified or not, that isn't my place. I just wonder if you are projecting your anger onto anyone who happens to have strong religeous beliefs.

Also you could just be having a crappy day, that happens too. Either way, even though we don't always agree, I think we might have more in common than one would suspect. We all do really, when we take the time to seek it.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 21, 2011 12:03 AM

Keeping order in every verse

Personally, I think her hatred of religion is justified. Throughout history, the leaders of religious faith(and I mean any major faith have been bigoted, corrupt, intolerant, self serving fear-mongers whose only reason for existence is to impose absolute control over its followers.
Religious doctrine is worse than any government, any dictatorship, any military and any political party.
It takes away your freedom, your individuality and your common sense. Never have I met a person of faith who isn't single minded and bigotted.
And yes, the Islamic faith I find particularly repulsive and I back Magon's all the way with her perfectly acceptable views.
To live your life according to an imaginary deity is tantamount to insanity. You may as well take instruction from the bloody tooth fairy for the sense it contains.

Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 21, 2011 4:04 AM

Sure. I'm not sure about "worse than" government, dictatorship, military, or political party, they strike me as even in the amount of wars they've caused and general bad behaviour from the "true believers." But you'll get no argument from me that anything that shouts "we're right, you're wrong, what's more you're evil" will by nature take away individuality and prevent followers from questioning the doctrine.

I'll even concede that kids are taught the beliefs so early, with very little counter-point able to interject between the kid and (in the child's view) their infallible parents who they depend on, that I wouldn't even necessarily say they chose religion.

But again, I stress the condition of whether harm is involved, and whether interpretations of a belief cause harm according to the person affected by it. In the case of burqas, none of us are really affected by it. Only the Muslim women are, and it's likely there is a wide mix of feelings for and against in that population.

There is very little harm I see in teaching a kid to believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny as a holiday myth. A child interested in unicorns or dragons might grow up to become an esteemed fantasy novelist. Teaching a kid about a magical sky man who created the universe and wants them to live by some already widely acknowledged and cross-cultural societal laws, that also doesn't seem like a horrible thing.

I'll admit it gets a little weird when the sky man starts punishing people for non-belief and hell. And when some congregations lose any human decency and instead emphasize obedience to get their afterlife reward, it's pretty annoying, because those types of believers don't do anything to help the people stuck on THIS world.

But I still don't hold any of that against them until some of them start to harm other people. And when that happens, I hold THOSE people accountable, not the whole belief system. The issues I have are with the violence-inciting and/or con-artist religious leaders, and with the segment of belligerent and intolerant followers religions can accumulate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 21, 2011 6:05 AM

Keeping order in every verse

The trouble is, Byte, I DO see the burqa as harmful. Listen, in my own country, you have Islamic women who WISH to adopt more liberal Western attitudes.And those women are castigated by their own narrow minded communities.There was a case recently where a shop owners own community damaged their premises purely because she refused to wear it. So how is the burqa just some innocent piece of clothing.
If you had a minority faith that insisted on running around the streets naked with ribbons around their dicks, do you not think that would be offensive to the general population at large and should be protested about, or would you still say "they have a perfect right in a liberal society", blah, blah, blah.
Sometimes, we concentrate far too much on respecting what a small amount of people believe is right and not enough time concentrating on the kinds of behaviour that the majority expect.
How often do you hear of stories where authorities don't want to push Christmas down our throats, because they think that it may offend minority faiths. Even though minority faiths couldn't care less about it, the fact that the attitude exists where we are actually worrying about it is particularly disgusting in my view.
Would the Islamic world accept Western culture in their own back yard, or would you not get your bloody hands cut off for expressing it.
Sometimes you just have to come down on these people and stop worrying about offending the few at the expense of the many.
This is not something that I can be talked out of, unfortunately.It may be undemocratic, it may be unpopular but it is something that I genuinely believe is right and proper for the part of the world that I call home.

Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 21, 2011 6:26 AM

Quote:
The trouble is, Byte, I DO see the burqa as harmful.

The key word you're missing there is "sometimes." Yes, of course there are women who don't want to wear it and yes, of course they get harassed by their communities. That's why you try to help them. I mentioned I was okay with fines for men who force women to wear burqas? Because I am. And it'll be pretty easy to prove it, because all you need is the say so of the woman going to the cops, there's not a whole lot of ambiguity here.

But the law also calls for punishment for women who are wearing the burqa who CHOOSE to wear the burqa, and that's a problem. If you're going to make this about helping the women, for the women who are okay wearing their burqas, there's not much you can do there, you see what I'm saying? You can say to them, you know, I think that this is repressing you, and they'll look at you funny with their eyes and go, "um, I'm not going to run around being immodest." Different cultural values may be at play. To wear the burqa or not is something they need to choose, you can't make a law telling them not to wear the burqa and call that "helping" them.

Quote:
If you had a minority faith that insisted on running around the streets naked with ribbons around their dicks, do you not think that would be offensive to the general population at large and should be protested about, or would you still say "they have a perfect right in a liberal society", blah, blah, blah.

...I'm actually surprised to find someone in England or Europe that has something AGAINST nudity. Look, there's plenty of things I don't like, public nudity is one of them. But I only believe in passing laws against things that are harmful. That's why I say keep the fines on the guys forcing the women to wear burqas, lose everything else.

Someone running around naked doesn't psychologically traumatize me. I might avert my eyes or be grossed out the first few times, but eventually I'd probably become used to it, able to ignore it. It would become boring. It's not a choice that affects me, it's not something that harms me.

A woman being forced to wear a burqa, that's violating her choice, that's psychologically traumatizing. A woman choosing to wear a burqa? That's not. The law in question really needs to differentiate.

Quote:
Even though minority faiths couldn't care less about it

Assumptions, you're making one.

But, frankly, if the minorities get to have their pride parades, then I suppose the majority should as well. It's all part and parcel of freedom of expression. The only thing that matters is that people aren't actually LEGALLY disadvantaged, which IMO is not something a friggin' Christmas tree can accomplish. That's something that'll be in the LAWS, rather, and if laws are too influenced by some Christian ideas (certain laws against homosexuality come to mind) then maybe that IS something that can be dealt with.

Quote:
Would the Islamic world accept Western culture in their own back yard, or would you not get your bloody hands cut off for expressing it.
Sometimes you just have to come down on these people and stop worrying about offending the few at the expense of the many.

Boy, I dunno, Turkey is pretty vicious with the not respecting western sensibilities!

There's really only two countries where Islamic garb is required by law for women: Iran and Saudi Arabia (they require the hijab, not the burqa). Afghanistan is supposed to be moving away from the Taliban's all burqa rule, though women still wear hijab. Everywhere else there's not really official rules about burqa, hijab, or nijab, it's more that there are groups of asshats harassing people trying to force it, and there's some Sharia village tribal areas that can get pretty backwards about it. There are places that have rules about immodest dress in general, even for westerners, but that's kinda more about wearing shorts and miniskirts and having cleavage hanging out (might be something about arms uncovered too, less sure on that). It's kinda like how in Europe and America you can be mistaken for a prostitute and picked up for wearing similar outfits.

You won't get your hands cut off in a big city just for walking down a street. First off, you'd have to again be in one of those backwards villages, and that only would happen if you STOLE something. Stealing in big cities is usually dealt with jail time and fines, like other places, and foreigners have access to their embassy. Similarly, immodest dress is either fined or given jail time, and while I don't necessarily agree with the laws on that, either, the Middle East really isn't as bad as the people who want you to consider Muslims to be Acceptable Targets make it out to be.

The only time you'll run into a problem with anyone in a big Middle Eastern city is if you go into a bad area where there are militant groups. But you can run into trouble in bad parts of town no matter where you go, so dangers to travelers abroad isn't just a Muslim nation thing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 21, 2011 7:15 AM

I find myself very sincerely hoping you live very, very far AWAY from me, peacekeeper.

And I'll bite my tongue on the rest of what I mighta said there, cause I doubt sayin it would have any positive effect.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 21, 2011 12:10 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

I agree that the people that need to be punished are the people forcing women to wear burkas, not the women themselves, Byte nailed it in my opinion. Frem, I think Peacekeeper lives in the UK so you and I are safe a chara.

Peacekeeper, your sentence is true even if you take religeon out of it. Throughout the history of humanity, leaders have been corrupt, biggoted, intolerant and self seeking as well as power hungry and domineering. Sounds like a statement that fits a decent sized chunk of humanity anyway, even people who aren't leaders of anything, the leaders just get worse because they have more power. People will be hideous about whatever there is, belief, power, land, control of varrying sorts. I'm sorry that you guys feel like everyone is stepping on you and that you have been horridly opressed, it sounds like you are pretty bitter about it too. No one can force you to believe anything. They can force you to do certain things according to law, you're not allowed to kill folk without cause etc. but no one can force you to believe something.

For being someone who is opposed to intollerance though, you sound a bit ... intollerant. :)

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 21, 2011 11:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Now, you just accused me of tolerance of abuse, subjugation, slavery, and discrimination.

nah, I didn't byte. Not at all. I was asking the question 'when tolerance is not desirable?' When one is tolerant of abuse, one is colluding with that abuse. ie ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 21, 2011 11:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by peacekeeper:
Personally, I think her hatred of religion is justified.

Hrrummph. I DO NOT hate religion. Sorry. That is simply not true. I just don't want to tiptoe around abuse in the name of religion or culture, because they are someone's sacred cows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 22, 2011 1:52 PM

DREAMTROVE

Headscarves are a staple of a large number of religions. While I think the tradition is silly myself, I already made the point that we have a law which requires a woman to wear a shirt, but does not make the same requirement of me. I think this is a more strange situation than the headscarf thing, because it is a govt based double standard. It's particularly an issue when women get arrested for breast feeding. As a man, I have no need to take off a shirt, but a woman might, and she is not allowed.

No one in France is forced to wear a head scarf. It's one of many little traditions that are required as being a part of a religion. Wearing of headscarfs for women is also required in Judaism and Christianity. Sure, there are secular and moderate sects where this is not the case, but the same is true of Islam. If people want to not follow the rules of the fundamentalist sect they belong to, they can simply opt to join a more moderate sect.

Locally to me, most muslim women don't wear headscarves, but some do, and a large number of Christians and Jews do. If I head closer to the city, almost all the Jews do. If I head out west in the state, even a little bit, it becomes very common among Christians of a number of sects.

I think that this has been blown all out of proportion. All of the above religions' most conservative sects require men to wear beards. I find a beard quite annoying. It itches and gets grungy. I prefer to shave. But then, I don't belong to a fundamentalist sect of an Abrahamic religion.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 22, 2011 2:06 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER

Quote:
Never have I met a person of faith who isn't single minded and bigotted.

And I've never met a European who wasn't a dick. Of course, I have also never met a European. Not all religious folks wear theirs on their sleeves, I find your statement improbable unless all your meetings were deliberately engineered to produce this result.

However, I do agree with you in that religious people should respect the law and culture of their host country, same as everyone else.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 22, 2011 3:31 PM

Sacred cows make great cheeseburgers, but it's all in how you go about it, and dropping the hammer on the victim ain't the way to do that.

DT makes good point about double-standards, in effect this is kind of the same thing cops do when they arrest the prostitute and let the john walk, see ?

Not only is it blaming them for their own persecution, it contributes toward it - leaving them between a rock and a hard place, a culture I feel is abusive to them making demands under threat, and a legal system making demands under threat, neither of which seems to have their interests in mind nor cares what their opinion is or if they even have one.

In that I see paralells with how we treat kids, something I find offensive as hell because when you remove self-determination from someone it's a dickheaded thing to do no matter your reasons.

If someone puts a gun to a bystanders head and makes demands of them, for you to then point yours at the bystander and demand they not comply is not only counter-intuitive, when you think about it it's downright silly.

This law has NOTHING to do with protecting the oppressed and everything to do with religious intolerance, which despite my intense dislike of the religious in general, I cannot support since I know damn well what it's like to follow an extreme minority belief system no one else gives a shit about.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 22, 2011 5:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Quote:
Never have I met a person of faith who isn't single minded and bigotted.

And I've never met a European who wasn't a dick. Of course, I have also never met a European.

???? You should get out more. It might surprise you, when you actually do meet one, that your preconceptions are shattered. A bit like me meeting Americans.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 22, 2011 5:58 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Quote:
Never have I met a person of faith who isn't single minded and bigotted.

And I've never met a European who wasn't a dick. Of course, I have also never met a European.

???? You should get out more. It might surprise you, when you actually do meet one, that your preconceptions are shattered. A bit like me meeting Americans.

Oh no, Americans are dicks ;)

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 22, 2011 9:10 PM

Well they come across as such, but when you meet them, they are all almost like normal people

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 23, 2011 3:34 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER

My comment was tongue and cheek. I have no preconceptions, just making a point. I was hoping that was fairly obvious...

I 'get out' plenty, I've just never met any Europeans in South GA, and can't justify paying for a trip to Europe when I can barely keep the car that gets me to work running. Well, running is an optimistic description, it's more like limping.

I suppose I could have made it more relevant by saying something that applies to the few atheists I've met in person, but then my point on generalizations being pointless would be lost in the ensuing flame war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 23, 2011 9:07 AM

Keeping order in every verse

Oh, I'm completely in favour of tolerance, but when when your level of tolerance is taken advantage of, it becomes Intolerable.
And Frem, why would you not have me living near you.I have not suggested persecution of these people, nor excommunication, nor violence of any form.I am merely saying that my views should be respected as well as those of the "minority". Let me ask you this.If you were a person who wore the Burkha,and you had no choice but to converse with somebody whose cultural ideals found it unacceptable, would you respect that persons views and remove the face veil at least, or would you be happy to ignore the person's sensibilities. Give and take, pal, Give and take.

Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 23, 2011 9:27 AM

I actually have a similar situation, on occasion.
You see, when I go up to Dearborn to discuss things with some of the folk there, I do wear the yellow scarf/sash, which some of them find offensive because of the historical connotations thereof.

And I did put some thought into it, the very concept you expressed - and in the end I decided that if you wanna talk to me, then you talk to *ME*, who I AM, not who you wish I was.

And if you can't or won't do so, I don't wanna talk to you either - should I have no choice, I will speak to you standing as who I am, rather than on my knees as who you'd like me to be.

Might you, I don't go out of my way to offend someone elses sensibilities, but nor do I bend over backwards to make allowances - people, between themselves, do a better job of workin that out without some Government trying to give them orders.

The only time I really considered it was regarding a fellow who's quite sharp and well respected, who is a Jain and much of who I am offends him greatly, he's all but gritting his teeth every time we speak as he tries mightily to be polite - but he rejected instantly even the suggestion because to him that would be dishonest on the part of both of us, and would offend him even moreso.

I get where you're coming from, but I think those kind of decisions, hell, ESPECIALLY those kinds of decisions, need to be left up to the individuals themselves to work out, cause getting Government involved on that never does have a positive result.

Case in point: Affirmative Action, while I understand in principle the utility, it also has great potential for misuse and tends to be provacative of a damned lot of racism using it as an excuse/justification, so on and so forth.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 23, 2011 1:12 PM

Keeping order in every verse

I don't know what your sash represents, or maybe that is something I've missed from earlier, so excuse me for my ignorance of it.
However, taking your point about the person should be talking to YOU, well, they can't do that if they are judging you because of the sash.You are making a deliberate and provocative statement by wearing it, thus it automatically rubs people up the wrong way. In the case of the Burqa, I'm not talking to anybody, I'm talking to an unidentified human being, who is defined by what they are wearing. If you want to be spoken to as the person, as opposed to what you represent, then you need to level the playing field without forcing that preconception on your audience before you have even opened your mouth.
And yes, I appreciate that individuality is borne in what you wear, but I'm talking about stuff that makes a controversial statement.
If you were confronted by a guy wearing a white full length body cloth and a triangular white hat with KKK emblazoned on his robes, would you ignore that and judge the actual person, or would you form an automatic prejudice based on the clothing?
And no, I'm not suggesting in any way,shape or form that Islamic and KKK attire are in any way the same kettle of fish. But,the wearing of any kind of clothing that you know for a fact is likely to offend a good proportion of people, says an awful lot about the wearer.
Basically, if you are talking to folk in what i presume is a business like manner, then it is unwise for you to be flaunting whatever cause it is you are promoting. There is a time and a place, and you are making a rod for your own back, that is self-inflicted.
However, I am ignorant of what the sash represents, so please enlighten me.

Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 23, 2011 4:02 PM

Quote:
You are making a deliberate and provocative statement by wearing it, thus it automatically rubs people up the wrong way.

Would it surprise you if I told you I felt that way about the Crucifix, or a Rosary ?

As for the sash, and wearing it;
There are reasons behind it, since much of the discussion involves how to get along with other faiths and deal with matters when they simply refuse to, when your own existence is such a "threat" to them that they feel obligated to work towards your destruction for no other reason than that - as well as how to handle the endless harrassment, provocation and bullshit from the local authorities, discussions which became ever so more important after the set-up and outright murder of a local Imam by the feds, an issue still unresolved since no one aware of it is any kind of sanguine about any of those kind of organisations being trusted with their own internal investigations.

But also it's an act of necessary honesty, cause the path I follow has some historical links to Kali worship, and the patrons thereof are the Asura, not the Deva - leading the unversed or ignorant to assume out and out evil, instead of really understanding the belief system itself and what it entails - were I to not be right up front with it, it would be automatically assumed that every word I spoke was a lie and a trap, as soon as such was discovered, rendering any effort on my behalf futile - hard to explain beyond that, but think of it in much the same fashion as having ones weapons in plain sight as an act of detente and the implied promise you'd rather not use them, but also bearing the implication of what you shall face if you open hostilities.

Just so you know, I am very uncomfortable discussing my beliefs, because I can never seem to find the words to explain it across cultural/theological divides, so you'll have to forgive me that.

I take your point, I think - problem is I ain't sure I even *comprehend* your point, or that it is in any way ever going to be comprehensible to me, I think I maybe understand that you feel that way, but the why of it completely mystifies me, you see.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 24, 2011 1:32 AM