Before I delve into my opinion, I would first like to specify the difference between each religious wear, for those who are unaware:
The hijab covers the hair, the niqab covers the hair and face (excluding eyes), and the burqa is head-to-toe, full coverage of the entire woman.
Now, as you all may have noticed lately, since ISIS has become prevalent, there have been increased attacks and discrimination against Muslim people. I may be an atheist, but I believe in religious freedom as well, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. Anti-Muslim sentiments are no different than anti-atheist sentiments. We all deserve the right to exist without fearing for our lives or facing harassment.
What has happened since ISIS became a threat? Men and women have been murdered and assaulted for their appearance, let alone their actual beliefs. Looking Middle Eastern is warrant enough for abuse and it is appalling. These are our fellow human beings, being tortured at the hands of other religious people, and even atheists too. ISIS is a problem, but as I always say, not all Muslims are terrorists, and not all terrorists are Muslim.
What does the idea of the niqab ban infringe on? Which rights? This is a huge issue in Canada, courtesy of our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, who loves to fear-monger. The rights being taken away are the freedom of religion, and the freedom of expression, which goes against our Charter of Rights and Freedoms to take them away. Yet, our government is trying to anyway.
The main issue with the niqab is that the face of the wearer is not completely visible, but the ban would only extend to citizenship ceremonies. Well, why should they wear them? Here in Canada, under our Charter, Muslim women have the right to wear a niqab or even a burqa. Refer back to my point about the Charter if you still do not understand. Why not just take them off for the ceremony? It's disrespectful to their culture. They are not allowed to reveal themselves to men that they are not married to. Considering that Canada has no specific culture, that kind of hatred and discrimination is uncalled for. We do not act out against Nuns for wearing a habit or Jews for wearing a yamaka. If people have a problem with the niqab, how can we appeal to both sides of the ordeal? Provide private rooms with all-female officials so that women who wear religious garments of that nature, so that they may reveal their identity to be sworn in. What about personal IDs? Private rooms for pictures so that their beliefs are respected like ours are. Is it really so hard to accommodate people of other religions? We do it enough for Christians. Why not for Muslims too?
It oppresses Muslim women to wear headscarves!!! Darling keyboard warriors, it is often the choice of the female, and not her family, to wear a head covering in the western world. For women who do not have that choice, we should be providing those women with a safe haven and helping them get out of those situations. We all should have the right to choose as such. It is oppression to force people to wear certain garbs and it is oppression to take away the option.
I simply do not care about what you believe in, so long as you are a good person. That should not be a hard concept to grasp. Everyone deserves the opportunity to pray to whatever god they would like, to practice as they like, and to dress how they would like. No government has the right to take that away.
How do you suggest the police verify the identity of someone in case of an emergency? Do we suspend medical attention on a injured or sick women until we can put her in a private closed room with women only? And frankly I most certainly do not want people driving a car around wearing clothing that restricts their view in such a manner, what do you suggest for that?
You are suggesting that society as a whole should accommodate a person beliefs to the point where we have to spend millions to have little rooms all over the country to assist in establishing identity? In such other cases of emergencies, consider if we continue to have terrorists attacks, what is to prevent men from hiding beneath the cover of a womans clothing?
As an atheist I agree that people should have the right to their own nonsensical beliefs until education can wipe it out, however, also as an atheist and seeing that Islam is as much a horror of religion as any other, I am for anything that helps strip away its authorities and one of those is to help liberate those who suffer the most, the women, even, if you suggest, they want to remain tight to their religion. I would have this reaction to any religion where one sex was forced to do something that the other sex is not forced to do.
But I can be convinced with some better points.
I love how the biggest complaint against the removal of coverings at state ceremonies is the fact that it is against their culture. Newsflash, if you are trying to gain citizenship to another country you will have to adapt to that countries culture. And seeing how Canada(amongst other countries) is not under sharia law full body coverings are not only not part of the required dress for women, but they are rather against the norm. Not only that but how is a government official to know who is under the cover if they refuse to reveal themselves?
Thanks to the terrorists in Islam, every time i see a woman in a full Burka it makes me nervous, knowing full well that it is a perfect cover for a suicide bomb, which they apparently are capable of using. Don't have that same concern for a woman wearing a head scarf.
called common sense. We, the non-Muslims, did not set the conditions wherein fear is created and suspicion is generated. Muslim dress is one thing-public perceptions and fears quite another. If they clash, we need to err to common sense and safety over religious mandates.
If I've got to take my motorcycle helmet off in a bank, then a muslim woman needs to take off their face-covering. There's cultural 'rules' and there's common sense. If someone wants to believe in some woo from the iron age, that's their choice. But if they live in a country which is not governed by iron age woo then they need to follow the same protocol as everyone else. Failing that, maybe a move to a country that practices iron age woo might an acceptable solution for all.
Obnoxious text color: check.
Condescending attitude: check.
Poor grasp of facts: check.
Yep, we've got a Social Justice Warrior.
(http://i.imgur.com/sCtf5qB.gif)
Quote from: aitm on April 09, 2015, 11:23:23 AM
But I can be convinced with some better points.
Burqa blow job?
that would be a good start..er.....considering I get to make sure its a real woman and not a ...GASP...homo trying to send me down the wayward path of self destruction!
Quote from: PunkPingu on April 09, 2015, 10:29:34 AMThey are not allowed to reveal themselves to men that they are not married to.
And why is that? I think we all know the answer to that one.
QuoteIt oppresses Muslim women to wear headscarves!!! Darling keyboard warriors, it is often the choice of the female, and not her family, to wear a head covering in the western world. For women who do not have that choice, we should be providing those women with a safe haven and helping them get out of those situations. We all should have the right to choose as such. It is oppression to force people to wear certain garbs and it is oppression to take away the option.
We actually don't know for certain who is compelled, either by law or by society, to wear "modest" dress and who is not.
(http://i4.ytimg.com/vi/3WL5f0c7s7Q/0.jpg)
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on April 09, 2015, 02:11:01 PM
Burqa blow job?
At least there's some cloth handy for a quick clean up.
You know I've held for a long time now a regret for women in such countries where they are indoctrinated into being slaves to their husbands and wearing burqas, convinced this is what is 'normal' by the men of their country, and I will continue to stand against such practices and call them what they are, especially if they come to my country with that attitude. But I will not defend the women who are so indoctrinated by this, they think its not only normal, but anyone else against it is abnormal or wrong.
Its hard to tell such people they are slaves to their backwards culture when they've grown up in a land that makes this a law under penalty of death, but in the western world, we now abolish such laws and do not welcome them here. Your a woman, be a fucking woman, don't act like its some female right for you to be oppressed by your men you stockholm syndrome suffering morons.
Quote from: Munch on April 09, 2015, 03:36:46 PM
You know I've held for a long time now a regret for women in such countries where they are indoctrinated into being slaves to their husbands and wearing burqas, convinced this is what is 'normal' by the men of their country, and I will continue to stand against such practices and call them what they are, especially if they come to my country with that attitude. But I will not defend the women who are so indoctrinated by this, they think its not only normal, but anyone else against it is abnormal or wrong.
Its hard to tell such people they are slaves to their backwards culture when they've grown up in a land that makes this a law under penalty of death, but in the western world, we now abolish such laws and do not welcome them here. Your a woman, be a fucking woman, don't act like its some female right for you to be oppressed by your men you stockholm syndrome suffering morons.
:clap:
The burka, hijab, niqab in western countries is nothing more than a political statement.
A symbol, a flag, a sign for all to see one's adherence to a particular party / cult / religion.
"The first fundamental principle for the creation of a successfully visible Islamic society is to be separate and distinct... "
One thing the OP needs to address is that the various clothes discussed for women within Islam are in fact not really Islamic at all, but rather a cultural item spread by the far right Saudi peninsula tribes to other areas that are also Islamic (& not).
Sierra Leone is a de facto Islamic state, yet until 10 or so years ago 'Islamic dress' was very uncommon. Women did not wear the Hijab/Niqab etc and men did not wear desert robes/garbs or have lots of facial hear. The increased presence from conservative Muslims from the Saudi peninsula propagated a growing adoption of conservative values, to the point now where many Muslims in Sierra Leone look indistinguishable from their Arab brethren.
One has to ask why this has happened. Has the overt influence of conservative Wahhabism in Sierra Leone made men and women more conservative? Do people fear this conservatism to the point where they or conform or do they genuinely want to act more like and adhere to the customs of the Arab interlopers at the expense of their own rich and varied cultural norms?
Thing is, and I'm just going to say it, women in the west have more freedoms than they do in the Middle East and in other Islamic states. It's easier for a women to chose what to wear in Europe or North America (though by no means is it 'freedom for all!!') than in, say, Syria, or Lebanon, or Egypt, or Pakistan (Tunisia and Turkey are two places where secularism however has lessened the influence of theocracy and theocratic politics). A muslim women choosing to wear the Niqab here is not conducive to freedom of choice in the middle east and hence it is not fair to equate all women within Islam being given that choice.
We know, for a fact, 100%, that the choice of women in many north african Islamic (and Christian) states is very, very limited. Take FGM, a cultural norm in many parts of northern Africa. I've never met or heard of a woman who says, given the choice, they would go for FGM unless they've had a gun to their head forcing them to say it.
Equally, I've never actually heard many women in the middle east and elsewhere comment about their dress. The best thing would be to ask them, but even that has complications because asking them is no guarantee of an honest result. The only way to increase the odds of that happening is if you remove the overarching issue from which the issue stems; a patriarchal religious structure & ideology which commands on what women should do rather than asking them what they want to do. In the west at least, you can be more certain that there isn't a religious policeman or overbearing conservative father standing in the background listening to what the interviewer is asking you, though it's by no means a dead cert of course.
From exploring Islam, when praying salat, a head covering of some type needs to be worn by women. I’m wondering if it began as a reverent expression during prayer, but became a tool to control women in middle eastern culture. The burka to me just blurs women out of the picture, as if they don’t exist…they are just ‘shadows’ of men. They have no identity. I saw a photo recently of a group of women wearing burkas and men walking in front of them, and it just looked very disturbing, as if the women were just all the same…like property to be following ‘their men.’ Muslim women who wear the burka can justify it any way they wish, but regardless of my secular views, religion shouldn’t require you to be blotted out.
I agree with one thing, Muslims should not be subject to violence just because they are Muslim.
However, people have already made great points that covering your face is a safety issue, and that a woman may SAY she is choosing to wear it, but I also THOUGHT I was chosing to be Catholic when I was part of that great big cult. How can Muslim woman "chose" what they wear when they can be (and have been) disowned, banished, or even killed for not wearing it? IT's forced on them, so they have understandably tried to make it their own, but it's horrible.
As has also been pointed out, just one generation ago woman in Muslim countries dressed much like western woman did. It was only the recent wave of crazy religious zealots in their countries that have caused them to go backwards 100 years.
It could happen to us too! It wasn't too long ago that Christian woman had to cover their hair in public, as well. I feel like current Muslims are a warning to the rest of the world that social progress can absolutely be REVERSED by a single religious extremist in a position of power.
(http://www.cavemancircus.com/wp-content/uploads/images/2012/october/iran_70s/iran_70s_5.jpg)
These are woman In Iraq in the 70's, outside a college they were attending.
Yeah....I don't see a Hijab, Burqa, or Niqab, plus look, women with BOOKS, going to SCHOOL!!
So no, it's not a woman's "choice".
"When in Rome do as the Romans do." No one should be harmed for the way they dress, but covering ones face is definitely a safety issue for those covered or to those that aren't. I don't think our secular society should bend over for any religion because they think it infringes on their God given rights. It is simply impossible to make one believe, or not to believe in any belief they don't want to as all of history has shown, because belief is, and should be, a "PRIVATE" matter and not forced on anyone. This whole idea that religion is a Sacred Cow is primitive. How many people are dying now and throughout history because private beliefs have became public and political on either side of the fence? Why does everyone have to be a team player if they don't want to? It's good in sports and bands, but even there it brings out the worst in people. I just read where two transgender and androgynous human beings have killed themselves from being harassed by bullies, disowned by their families and friends, just for being different. This is BULL SHIT! :fU: Solitary
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on April 09, 2015, 01:51:14 PM
Obnoxious text color: check.
Condescending attitude: check.
Poor grasp of facts: check.
Yep, we've got a Social Justice Warrior.
Maybe what you don't understand is that I specifically said that it's a personal opinion. If that's such a difficult concept, then you shouldn't be bothering me with your nonsense either. This is my first attempt at being open on this forum and people like you do not bother me. You must be so grown up if you can't even give me a decent reasoning. Please, continue to be a dick instead of looking at someone else's view in a new light. I'm an atheist but that doesn't mean that I'm superior to religious people if they want to practice a certain way. I have Muslim friends and I'm exhausted of seeing people blatantly put Muslims down and refer to them as terrorists for who or what they choose to worship, therefore, from the view of someone who is tired of watching their Muslim friends be discriminated against solely on how they dress, there may in fact be an opinion that differs from your own. Shocker. Different life experiences tend to equate to different opinions. I don't see a problem with religious garb because I'm not scared of other human beings based on their clothes or religion.
As for the colour, looking at black font for no apparent reason irritates my eyes, so I made it a colour that is softer for me to look at. Deal with it. My so-called "attitude" is simply because I'm fed up with watching some of the people I love and admire being put down. Having an "attitude" about something that hits close to home is pretty understandable, also counting in the fact that this is a PERSONAL OPINION. And apparently, I don't have any facts present? Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms stating that we have the freedom of religion and the freedom of expression? That's not a fact? Sweetie, it is. My leader being a fear-monger just to scare us into jumping into an illegal war against ISIS? That's exactly what he's doing, unless you're a Canadian who happens to be pro-illegal wars, in which case, I have no reason to bother with you. His actions go against international law, before you try to tell me I'm just biased. As well, my darling friends here in the western world were asked by their parents if they wanted to wear a headscarf. All of them have made that choice, not been forced. Understand that too. I also said that for the women who aren't given an option, that we should be putting in place support for them to escape the oppression. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that all women who wear them made a choice. I'm not even going to tell you that I like the niqab or burqa. I don't agree with a religion stating that women must cover up, however, I support the right to choose. Islam actually states that covering of faces is more mandatory than people realize. It doesn't mean that a Muslim woman has to absolutely without a doubt follow every single text. We don't expect all Christians to stone unmarried sexually active women. No one follows their holy book to a tee.
References to Islamic quotes about covering:
http://islamqa.info/en/11774
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/007-veils.htm
Quote from: Deidre32 on April 10, 2015, 10:44:57 AM
From exploring Islam, when praying salat, a head covering of some type needs to be worn by women. I’m wondering if it began as a reverent expression during prayer, but became a tool to control women in middle eastern culture. The burka to me just blurs women out of the picture, as if they don’t exist…they are just ‘shadows’ of men. They have no identity. I saw a photo recently of a group of women wearing burkas and men walking in front of them, and it just looked very disturbing, as if the women were just all the same…like property to be following ‘their men.’ Muslim women who wear the burka can justify it any way they wish, but regardless of my secular views, religion shouldn’t require you to be blotted out.
Exactly. I also agree entirely with your comments on the burqa. I don't like the burqa or niqab but if it is a choice made by the woman herself, who am I to tell her she can't?
Continuing to demonstrate the aforementioned behaviors: check.
Refusing to address people's points: check.
Not just a social justice warrior, but an obvious troll.
(http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m150/FormicHiveQueen/ronald-reagan-berlinwall.jpg)
Quote from: PunkPingu on April 13, 2015, 10:30:15 AM
Exactly. I also agree entirely with your comments on the burqa. I don't like the burqa or niqab but if it is a choice made by the woman herself, who am I to tell her she can't?
It's probably not your place. But if you're working for Homeland Security, and your job is to keep terrorists from entering the US House of Congress, you will have to lay down the law to some unidentifiable person wearing enough cloth to conceal a bazooka. Especially, when your religion preaches killing infidels, and you are wearing expressions of your religious culture of violence.
Quote from: aitm on April 09, 2015, 11:23:23 AM
How do you suggest the police verify the identity of someone in case of an emergency? Do we suspend medical attention on a injured or sick women until we can put her in a private closed room with women only? And frankly I most certainly do not want people driving a car around wearing clothing that restricts their view in such a manner, what do you suggest for that?
You are suggesting that society as a whole should accommodate a person beliefs to the point where we have to spend millions to have little rooms all over the country to assist in establishing identity? In such other cases of emergencies, consider if we continue to have terrorists attacks, what is to prevent men from hiding beneath the cover of a women's clothing?
As an atheist I agree that people should have the right to their own nonsensical beliefs until education can wipe it out, however, also as an atheist and seeing that Islam is as much a horror of religion as any other, I am for anything that helps strip away its authorities and one of those is to help liberate those who suffer the most, the women, even, if you suggest, they want to remain tight to their religion. I would have this reaction to any religion where one sex was forced to do something that the other sex is not forced to do.
But I can be convinced with some better points.
In the case of an emergency, that is where complying would have to take place. We can't treat everyone specially the entire time, but we can make things more manageable for those with opposing views. Most women who wear the burqa or niqab don't even drive. I've actually never seen a woman who wears either driving a vehicle. When it comes to driving, in a niqab, one can still see. A burqa is a different story, and believe me, I don't like head coverings any more than you do. We very sadly accommodate many other religions, so I don't see how respecting one more changes anything. As far as terrorism goes, it isn't as large a problem for us westerners, so again, I don't see why respecting the coverings are such a large problem.
I don't disagree with you at all, honestly. This is merely a personal opinion based on having many Muslim friends facing the discrimination since ISIS became prevalent.
Quote from: SGOS on April 13, 2015, 10:38:33 AM
It's probably not your place. But if you're working for Homeland Security, and your job is to keep terrorists from entering the US House of Congress, you will have to lay down the law to some unidentifiable person wearing enough cloth to conceal a bazooka. Especially, when your religion preaches killing infidels, and you are wearing expressions of your religious culture of violence.
Pretty sure concealing a bazooka is much more difficult than that and for those who enter the White House, don't they have to pass through metal detectors and be searched? I find that Americans are far too scared of terrorists when many are homegrown.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on April 13, 2015, 10:32:58 AM
Continuing to demonstrate the aforementioned behaviors: check.
Refusing to address people's points: check.
Not just a social justice warrior, but an obvious troll.
You would know if I were trolling. But again, look at you not even attempting to argue your point. You're the troll here.
You may also notice that I even cited two Islamic pages, explained the Charter a tad, and we all know that what my leader is doing is illegal. It's been talked about for the last few weeks. I even explained why I used another colour, which by the way was not present in the response, and also an explanation for an "attitude". Grow up and learn how to interact on a forum.
Charter: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html
Harper: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-seeks-to-expand-canadian-airstrikes-into-syria-1.2294461
actually the US is not as open to religious rights even for Christians. There are many laws prohibiting religious freedoms from the Santeria and their sacrifices to the American Indians use of Peyote to christians arguing for polygamy, lots of stuff that is prohibited from many religions. Sometimes society has to bend and if everyone bends a little society works better. But nobody gets off free.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on April 09, 2015, 01:51:14 PMYep, we've got a Social Justice Warrior.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Quote from: Atheon on April 13, 2015, 11:08:49 AM
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Because it is.
social justice warrior
A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle.
The SJW's favorite activity of all is to dogpile. Their favorite websites to frequent are Livejournal and Tumblr. They do not have relevant favorite real-world places, because SJWs are primarily civil rights activists only online.
"Religious Freedom" is turning into an empty word much the same way 'terrorism" has. It means something different for all who use it and all who hear it. Does religious freedom allow a pharmacy to refuse to fill a prescription from a doctor because it goes against the pharmacy's morals? Does religious freedom allow a person to refuse service to someone because they are gay, a mud person, of another religion, or no religion at all? Does religious freedom allow a parent to withhold medical treatment from a child? Or themselves? Where is the line to be drawn so that their freedom does not become the dictate of how I must live my life? Religion and it's practice should be restricted to where it belongs--in your house and your 'place' of worship.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 13, 2015, 11:15:04 AM
"Religious Freedom" is turning into an empty word much the same way 'terrorism" has. It means something different for all who use it and all who hear it. Does religious freedom allow a pharmacy to refuse to fill a prescription from a doctor because it goes against the pharmacy's morals? Does religious freedom allow a person to refuse service to someone because they are gay, a mud person, of another religion, or no religion at all? Does religious freedom allow a parent to withhold medical treatment from a child? Or themselves? Where is the line to be drawn so that their freedom does not become the dictate of how I must live my life? Religion and it's practice should be restricted to where it belongs--in your house and your 'place' of worship.
Well said, squire! :clap:
OP did not address any of the comments pointing out it is not the womans CHOICE, but forced upon her. She may think or say it is her choice, but when your "choice" is wear the Islamic covering your male relatives and/or Imam require you to, or be disowned or worse, that isn't a CHOICE.
Please, continue telling us how it's a woman's choice to be abused and subjugated.....
Quote from: Aroura33 on April 13, 2015, 12:46:30 PM
OP did not address any of the comments pointing out it is not the womans CHOICE, but forced upon her. She may think or say it is her choice, but when your "choice" is wear the Islamic covering your male relatives and/or Imam require you to, or be disowned or worse, that isn't a CHOICE.
Please, continue telling us how it's a woman's choice to be abused and subjugated.....
I answered that to other people. It is the woman's choice in some cases, and not her choice in others. Look into it, love. I even mentioned my own Muslim friends, who were given the option by their families.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on April 13, 2015, 11:13:10 AM
Because it is.
social justice warrior
A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle.
The SJW's favorite activity of all is to dogpile. Their favorite websites to frequent are Livejournal and Tumblr. They do not have relevant favorite real-world places, because SJWs are primarily civil rights activists only online.
You're a fucking idiot. I have provided you with links to back up my apparent lack of facts. I have explained why I have an attitude present and why I used a different coloured font. All you have done is sat here trolling me. You have contributed nothing of value to this thread. All you feel the need to do is share stupid memes and complain that I'm some sort of social justice warrior, which by the way, is also not the case. Come back and start problems again later on when you learn how to interact. If you have nothing of use to say, don't fucking say it. You're wasting my time by sitting here acting like you're all high and mighty because we have different views, without actually adding in your opinion or explaining why you think mine is incorrect. I'm done engaging with you until YOU have something intelligent to say. You're the troll, sweetie, and I would love nothing more than to make you go away, but this site doesn't offer a feature for such things.
I have no idea what you said since I turned on the Ignore feature long ago, but I can only imagine it is the same misinformed, condescending drivel you've been spouting throughout this thread.
If it is a woman's choice, explain why they would make the choice to wear them? Solitary
Quote from: PunkPingu on April 13, 2015, 01:49:27 PM
I answered that to other people. It is the woman's choice in some cases, and not her choice in others. Look into it, love. I even mentioned my own Muslim friends, who were given the option by their families.
And when a person is indoctrinated to believe the only good women are the modest ones who cover their hair? The women were GIVEN the choice by their families....I see.
I know not every Muslim man forces these things on his women, but the fact that he CAN (and it has become the new social norm as well) kind of nullifies the choice argument.
So, why did Muslim women in the 60's and early mostly chose NOT to wear any of that stuff, but now most do? Ithink the answer to that also puts paid to the "choice" argument.
(Sorry, I'm not a free-will proponent in the first place, and I simple cannot see how anyone could look at the coercion of any major religion, then announce that it's adherents made a choice to practice one of it's dogmas)
Quote from: Solitary on April 13, 2015, 02:11:41 PM
If it is a woman's choice, explain why they would make the choice to wear them? Solitary
As my friend Minal said, she wanted to respect her religion, so she made the choice. That being said, she is also a very vocal feminist.
Quote from: Aroura33 on April 13, 2015, 02:18:34 PM
And when a person is indoctrinated to believe the only good women are the modest ones who cover their hair? The women were GIVEN the choice by their families....I see.
I know not every Muslim man forces these things on his women, but the fact that he CAN (and it has become the new social norm as well) kind of nullifies the choice argument.
So, why did Muslim women in the 60's and early mostly chose NOT to wear any of that stuff, but now most do? Ithink the answer to that also puts paid to the "choice" argument.
(Sorry, I'm not a free-will proponent in the first place, and I simple cannot see how anyone could look at the coercion of any major religion, then announce that it's adherents made a choice to practice one of it's dogmas)
Believe me, I don't understand it much either, nor do I agree with it. I just don't feel like banning such things is fair, legally, as it goes against our charter here in Canada. I didn't mean to be sassy with you, I'm just annoyed at certain other assholes who have done nothing but cause problems rather than actually discuss. I apologize.
So long as it is a decision made by the individual, it should be allowed, but for those who don't have the option, like I said, should have the ability to escape. We should be providing a support system. A lot of the changes, I think, came following changes in governments, but not all are radical in their beliefs and that should be recognized. Their government may be corrupt and forcing sharia law, but that doesn't mean all agree with it.
My entire post is simply an opinion. It is meant to generate discussion, and I was hoping to learn more from others who disagree, in the event that it sways how I feel. That's why I'm here. To discuss and discover. Having people jump on me and go straight into attack mode...not so beneficial.
Quote from: PunkPingu on April 13, 2015, 02:19:04 PM
As my friend Minal said, she wanted to respect her religion, so she made the choice. That being said, she is also a very vocal feminist.
Thanks for the reply! So it is their religion that says they should dress that way, just like nuns do, correct? Solitary
Quote from: PunkPingu on April 13, 2015, 02:24:21 PM
Believe me, I don't understand it much either, nor do I agree with it. I just don't feel like banning such things is fair, legally, as it goes against our charter here in Canada. I didn't mean to be sassy with you, I'm just annoyed at certain other assholes who have done nothing but cause problems rather than actually discuss. I apologize.
So long as it is a decision made by the individual, it should be allowed, but for those who don't have the option, like I said, should have the ability to escape. We should be providing a support system. A lot of the changes, I think, came following changes in governments, but not all are radical in their beliefs and that should be recognized. Their government may be corrupt and forcing sharia law, but that doesn't mean all agree with it.
My entire post is simply an opinion. It is meant to generate discussion, and I was hoping to learn more from others who disagree, in the event that it sways how I feel. That's why I'm here. To discuss and discover. Having people jump on me and go straight into attack mode...not so beneficial.
I do see what you are trying to say (and don't worry, I'm not offended and I see what happened.)
I'm doing something right now, but promise to come back and reply shortly. :)
Ok, so as far as legality is concerned, as has already been pointed out, government has the perfect right to put limits on religious practices if those practices are dangerous or possibly harmful to other people, or infringe on the rights of others.
Covering your face means it is harder, if not impossible, to identify a person. Shop and business owners and employees have the right to feel safe from their customers. People HAVE put on Burkas and robbed places in the guise of being an Islamic female, so their concern is warrented.
People do NOT have the right to harass or acted violently against someone just because they dress Islamic (I know it happens, and I too find it sad), but business owners absolutely have the right to refuse service to someone who has their face covered.
As far as choice goes, yet again, I say they only have the illusion of choice. You said
Quote from: PunkPingu on April 13, 2015, 02:19:04 PM
As my friend Minal said, she wanted to respect her religion, so she made the choice. That being said, she is also a very vocal feminist.
So what was her actual choice, to NOT respect her religion?? That's....not a choice. If Dogma says do X Y or Z or else be shunned at best, killed at worst, then "respect"ing that Dogma is NOT a choice. She may feel she made that choice, but really, did she have other options??
How many practicing Islamic women do you know that made the choice to wear western clothing and not wear one of those hair/head/body covering garments? There are Muslims where I live, too, and the women all wear the garb, while their husbands all dress western.
When I was a girl, I was given the "choice" of going through the first communion ritual. The other option was to sit with the toddlers while all the big kids and grown ups went up to get the honor of receiving communion. Yes, I was given a choice, as were all the kids, but not really.
Again, she may feel as if she is choosing to honor her religion, but really she is just conforming to the society she was born into, with her other option being to leave the people and practices she is familiar with. People do it, but often pay a heavy price.
Quote from: Aroura33 on April 13, 2015, 06:41:49 PMAgain, she may feel as if she is choosing to honor her religion, but really she is just conforming to the society she was born into, with her other option being to leave the people and practices she is familiar with. People do it, but often pay a heavy price.
And she is conforming to a religious norm in which, to quote Sarkozy, women are "prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity". And this from a supposed feminist, to boot!
The Canadian law was passed as a safety precaution against terrorism. I doubt that law makers sat around dreaming up ways to discriminate against Muslim women just to insult the cultural heritage of Islam. But a major part of the cultural heritage of Islam is to get insulted over any real or imagined slight to Islam, so warriors for social justice need to reframe the debate into an issue of discrimination, rather than safety.
The original poster tries to do this by negating the safety issue and simply declaring it "not a safety issue." In this way she can create a flap over a straw man, and do her "I'm standing up for the oppressed because I'm butt hurt over this other thing that isn't the real issue so I can do my 'harp on discrimination' " routine. But the Canadian government didn't pass that law to create equality for Muslim women. Nor was it done to offend Muslim women. Some Muslims are bound to get offended, because Muslims have a whole religion built around taking umbrage, but that's too bad.
Why are we even still talking about this?
Muslim women have other options then the burqa. The burqa is very clearly a safety issue. When driving or many other social activities in the free world it is a hazard. It has nothing to do with religious freedom. Muslim women are free to observe this so called "religious" garment in countries where it is acceptable. But in countries where it's not acceptable they will have to adapt as they do have other religious garments that they can wear. In any other country than the free world this wouldn't even be questioned. Muslims would be forced to adapt culturally and no complaint would be tolerated.
They come to our land gain a little freedom and think our culture should change to suit them. Well its the other way around. You came here now adapt.
I wonder if Canada allows people to wear surgical type masks in public?
Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 14, 2015, 08:48:32 AM
I wonder if Canada allows people to wear surgical type masks in public?
It depends on how this law is written. An appropriately written law would be written so as to exclude wearing of any apparel designed to conceal identity. In fact, it may be written that way.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 14, 2015, 08:48:32 AM
I wonder if Canada allows people to wear surgical type masks in public?
I see people wearing them all the time. It's more common to see that in Asia, though, I find.
People in masks are intimidating.
If two men walk into a jewellery store, no one thinks anything of it. If the same two men walk in wearing balaclavas it's a different story.
Quote from: PunkPingu on April 14, 2015, 12:09:00 PM
I see people wearing them all the time. It's more common to see that in Asia, though, I find.
I used to think this was because a lot (say, Chinese) people were afraid of things like pollution and their non-Indo-Chinese air or something.
Then a Chinese friend of mine informed me they actually wear them more when they are ill to prevent infections spreading from coughs, to which I think it's actually a really good idea.
Quote from: Fidel_Castronaut on April 15, 2015, 07:56:56 AM
I used to think this was because a lot (say, Chinese) people were afraid of things like pollution and their non-Indo-Chinese air or something.
Then a Chinese friend of mine informed me they actually wear them more when they are ill to prevent infections spreading from coughs, to which I think it's actually a really good idea.
Well, I'll be. I remember watching a documentary years and years ago, which showed people in China going about their business peddling their bikes all wearing surgical masks. The documentary specifically stated that the Chinese believed it protected against pollution. I no longer depend on the media as an accurate source of information, so your friend's comment isn't that big of a surprise to me.
The more actual Muslims I have talked to, as well as non-Muslims who have tried the hijab, the more and more I don't have a problem with a woman choosing to wear it... I feel that for the majority of Western Muslim women it IS just as much a choice as wearing a bikini to a beach for a "regular" Westerner.
I completely understand the hatred of the burqa and niqab in-so-much as one might hate Victorian-era clothing and it's repression of women (except they take it a bit further), but yes... the hijab is a cultural norm that women conform to... what is your point? That's kinda the whole thing about different cultures; they don't always look like us, drink like us, eat like us or dress like us. That's...okay.
To answer a question I saw earlier; part of the reason it is being worn more (in the West, anyways) is an increasing desire by women to appear "modest" and not follow the culture norm of you HAVE to be sexy otherwise you have no worth as a woman. To me that is admirable, and coming from ACTUAL women who wear them for that reason... I am prone to believe their opinion on why they are wearing them rather than people who have never met them, never talked to them and view them with an automatic air of suspicion and "pity".
The more I see muslim familys with young boys wearing a fresh pair of nikes, pressed dockers and a sensible sweater and the daughters eyes peering out from their all black garb the more I know it's not a choice. Comparing it to child abuse would diminish what real child abuse is but it's definiatly not fair.
Quote from: TrueStory on April 16, 2015, 11:10:38 AM
The more I see muslim familys with young boys wearing a fresh pair of nikes, pressed dockers and a sensible sweater and the daughters eyes peering out from their all black garb the more I know it's not a choice.
It's a brainwashed choice.
I have no problem with a woman or girl wearing a hijab. There choice, their culture. I have no problem with the Skiks turbans or the Arab turbans, or the beards of the men or the Mennonite women's plain dresses and small back hat, or their husbands beards, or the JH Witless carrying their trash, er literature, or any number of other gabrs or stuff they wear--they can wear whatever they like; that's their right. But wearing masks or other items that hide one's identity, do make me a bit nervous. On the other hand I should be able to walk around in my t-shirt telling the world I'm an atheist. I don't do that because I'm not brave enough. In other countries I'd be dead rather quickly. So my heart does not bleed too much over any religious group that does not get to wear whatever they want. As a matter of fact, I regard these types of displays of their religion as an advertisement of their willful ignorance and stupidity.
A Muslim female has no choice, not in the way that non Muslim women have.
The Muslim female is totally subservient to the Muslim male, be that her father, husband, brother and even son.
Freedom in the western sense of meaning does not exist in Islam.
For the female everything is arranged by males, by force if necessary.
Education, marriage, her whole life (which incidentally includes what to wear) is dictated by Muslim males.
So when you say "it is her choice" is true in a sense that if she does not, then she is punished by family, relatives and ostracized by the tribe, and community.
Aqsa Parvez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Aqsa_Parvez) chose not to wear the hijab.
Quran 4:34
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
Quote from: pr126 on April 17, 2015, 01:10:30 AM
A Muslim female has no choice, not in the way that non Muslim women have.
The Muslim female is totally subservient to the Muslim male, be that her father, husband, brother and even son.
Freedom in the western sense of meaning does not exist in Islam.
For the female everything is arranged by males, by force if necessary.
Education, marriage, her whole life (which incidentally includes what to wear) is dictated by Muslim males.
So when you say "it is her choice" is true in a sense that if she does not, then she is punished by family, relatives and ostracized by the tribe, and community.
Aqsa Parvez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Aqsa_Parvez) chose not to wear the hijab.
Quran 4:34
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
Depends whether they are fundamentalist or progressive. Not all muslims are the same.
Quote from: Youssuf Ramadan on April 19, 2015, 06:12:46 AM
Depends whether they are fundamentalist or progressive. Not all muslims are the same.
Islam really is one of those plain as day things where the more seperated from it people are, the more they seem like decent people overall. Distancing from such beliefs just makes you into a better person, not the other way around, as the indoctrinated would believe.
Quote from: Munch on April 19, 2015, 11:18:35 AM
Islam really is one of those plain as day things where the more seperated from it people are, the more they seem like decent people overall. Distancing from such beliefs just makes you into a better person, not the other way around, as the indoctrinated would believe.
I think that is true of all religions, Munch, not just Islam. It seems more pronounced for Islam, maybe, because Islam is one of the more controlling religions going. I would even go so far as saying that people, in general, want to, and strive to, do good. Religion subverts that. In other words, this world would be better off without any organized religions at all.
What is the vast majority of progressive Muslims do to stop the tiny minority of fundamentalist from indiscriminate mass slaughtering all over the world in the name of Allah?
Do you think that if there was a tiny minority of Christians going on a murderous rampage the rest of Christianity would silently look the other way? Could they go on brutally slaughtering year after year?
Quote from: pr126 on April 19, 2015, 11:53:36 AM
What is the vast majority of progressive Muslims do to stop the tiny minority of fundamentalist from indiscriminate mass slaughtering all over the world in the name of Allah?
Do you think that if there was a tiny minority of Christians going on a murderous rampage the rest of Christianity would silently look the other way? Could they go on brutally slaughtering year after year?
Yeah, I do.
Yeah, in fact they do look the other way. While things like Isis is an organised group of terrorists, and the moderate Muslims look the other way to this, the same can be said about Christians, who look the other way when church leaders sexually abuse children, or people brutally abuse their partners or children in the name of God, or those who now wish to not just take away rights to gay people to adopt or marry, some of them even quote the bible about stoning gays, not standing against such psychopaths but instead carrying on attending their churches.
Quote from: PunkPingu on April 09, 2015, 10:29:34 AM
I simply do not care about what you believe in, so long as you are a good person. That should not be a hard concept to grasp. Everyone deserves the opportunity to pray to whatever god they would like, to practice as they like, and to dress how they would like. No government has the right to take that away.
I spit on your words. Then I spit on my own.
So long as they see us as a rival, it's either us or them.
Don't bring up Coexist, it's a farce made up to bring cease-fire into out world.
By the way, there are no good people. There are only people who aren't just assholes.
Perhaps I am one of those assholes? Who cares?
So, how many gays were hung or thrown off buildings and stoned to death by those nasty Christians?
How many beheadings, crucifictions have they done?
how many non Christians have they slaughtered burned alive recently just because they were not Christians.
How many mosques and synagogues burned down with worshIpers still inside?
how many ancient relics, art have they mindlessly destroyed, how many towns have they turned to rubble?
I guess if CNN, ABC does not report it, it doesn't happen.
BTW, forgot to mention the crusades, the inquisitions and witch burning. Tsk, tsk.
I think better work on those moral equivalences.
QuoteYeah, in fact they do look the other way.
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxng8fVzpU1qljeo2o1_500.gif)
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/commonwordcommonlord/2014/08/think-muslims-havent-condemned-isis-think-again.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/muslim-leaders-worldwide-condemn-isis/5397364
QuoteThe most explicit condemnation came from Iyad Ameen Madani, the Secretary General for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the group representing 57 countries, and 1.4 billion Muslims.
Here is the problem Shiranu. They can condemn what the extremists do all they want, but the VERY EXISTENCE of moderates supports the existence of the extremists. The moderates (of any religion, let me be clear on that) claim belief in the SAME books that the extremists do, they just don't follow their own books as well as the extremists do.
But by demanding that their books, which do indeed include monstrous deeds done by their Abrahamic god and his minions, and commandmets supposedly from that same monstrous god and also his monstrous followers, be held sacred and holy by all people, then they are, without realizing it perhaps, still supporting their violent extremist cousins.
I can stand up and loudly DENOUNCE how Sea World treats their orcas. But if I continue to go every year, pay for tickets and take my family, then my condemnation of Sea World means nothing (except that I'm a hypocrite). This is the same relationship moderates and extremists seem to have, IMO.
Just saying "I don't agree with (insert action here)" means shit, if you continue to support the things that cause the action you supposedly don't agree with.
Quote from: Aroura33 on April 19, 2015, 04:03:05 PM
Here is the problem Shiranu. They can condemn what the extremists do all they want, but the VERY EXISTENCE of moderates supports the existence of the extremists. The moderates (of any religion, let me be clear on that) claim belief in the SAME books that the extremists do, they just don't follow their own books as well as the extremists do.
But by demanding that their books, which do indeed include monstrous deeds done by their Abrahamic god and his minions, and commandmets supposedly from that same monstrous god and also his monstrous followers, be held sacred and holy by all people, then they are, without realizing it perhaps, still supporting their violent extremist cousins.
I can stand up and loudly DENOUNCE how Sea World treats their orcas. But if I continue to go every year, pay for tickets and take my family, then my condemnation of Sea World means nothing (except that I'm a hypocrite). This is the same relationship moderates and extremists seem to have, IMO.
Just saying "I don't agree with (insert action here)" means shit, if you continue to support the things that cause the action you supposedly don't agree with.
I guess I am too much of a realist then to believe in a utopia without religion.
Tell me; you buy meat, do you not? You therefor are a huge contributor to global warming, to deforestation, to the murder of millions upon millions upon millions of innocent animals each year. Each dollar you spend is paying for hundreds of thousands of Amazonian trees to be cut down, for hundreds of millions of cows and chickens and pigs to be treated like absolute shit, to the destruction of our environment.
You are on a computer; who made it? You are wearing clothing; who made it? Every time you log onto this site, you are using a several hundred dollar piece of machinery that was made by some Chinese labourer who gets paid almost nothing for his or her job, who works in unsafe conditions and are supporting a authoritarian regime in China. Unless you exclusively wear American made clothing (with American [that didn't use migrant worker] fabrics), you are supporting a massive industry that exploits children in country like Guatamala, China, Bangladesh, India, El Salvador, etc. etc. into working at sweat shops. Hundreds of millions of children suffer everyday because you put money into a system that has children working in a situation where they can be locked in a building to burn to death by the hundreds, where they lose fingers and arms to machinery, where their lungs are filled with dyes and chemicals from the products they make.
You pay taxes, yes? You therefor, through your money, are paying for the bombing of hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children across the world. Your money went towards overthrowing democratic governments to install dictators. Your money paid for the occupation of two nations. Your money pays for the tax breaks of the rich and therefor the increased burden upon the poor.
To quote you...
QuoteJust saying "I don't agree with (insert action here)" means shit, if you continue to support the things that cause the action you supposedly don't agree with.
...there ARE alternatives, and yet you are clearly not using them, otherwise you would not be here. The money you and I spend goes to the, in all honesty, torture and shitty living conditions of billions of people around the world, as well as the murder of billions of animals and the destruction of our planet.
So how can you sit here and judge the religious for finding peace in their faith, and how terrible they are for "supporting" terrorists in doing so, when you spend so much money to prop up a system that has been far more to destructive to humanity than Islam can ever dream of doing?
I am not judging you for this, as I am just as guilty of it; again, I am just a realist. I have far more blood on my hands than Muslim terrorists ever will, and I don't even have as good of an excuse; I am greedy vs legitimate political complaints that many Muslim terrorists actually fought for. But lets not act like we are somehow so much better than them.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 19, 2015, 04:18:39 PM
I guess I am too much of a realist then to believe in a utopia without religion.
Tell me; you buy meat, do you not? You therefor are a huge contributor to global warming, to deforestation, to the murder of millions upon millions upon millions of innocent animals each year. Each dollar you spend is paying for hundreds of thousands of Amazonian trees to be cut down, for hundreds of millions of cows and chickens and pigs to be treated like absolute shit, to the destruction of our environment.
You are on a computer; who made it? You are wearing clothing; who made it? Every time you log onto this site, you are using a several hundred dollar piece of machinery that was made by some Chinese labourer who gets paid almost nothing for his or her job, who works in unsafe conditions and are supporting a authoritarian regime in China. Unless you exclusively wear American made clothing (with American [that didn't use migrant worker] fabrics), you are supporting a massive industry that exploits children in country like Guatamala, China, Bangladesh, India, El Salvador, etc. etc. into working at sweat shops. Hundreds of millions of children suffer everyday because you put money into a system that has children working in a situation where they can be locked in a building to burn to death by the hundreds, where they lose fingers and arms to machinery, where their lungs are filled with dyes and chemicals from the products they make.
You pay taxes, yes? You therefor, through your money, are paying for the bombing of hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children across the world. Your money went towards overthrowing democratic governments to install dictators. Your money paid for the occupation of two nations. Your money pays for the tax breaks of the rich and therefor the increased burden upon the poor.
To quote you...
...there ARE alternatives, and yet you are clearly not using them, otherwise you would not be here. The money you and I spend goes to the, in all honesty, torture and shitty living conditions of billions of people around the world, as well as the murder of billions of animals and the destruction of our planet.
So how can you sit here and judge the religious for finding peace in their faith, and how terrible they are for "supporting" terrorists in doing so, when you spend so much money to prop up a system that has been far more to destructive to humanity than Islam can ever dream of doing?
I am not judging you for this, as I am just as guilty of it; again, I am just a realist. I have far more blood on my hands than Muslim terrorists ever will, and I don't even have as good of an excuse; I am greedy vs legitimate political complaints that many Muslim terrorists actually fought for. But lets not act like we are somehow so much better than them.
You are absolutely right! I AM a hypocrite when it comes to most global issues.
That doesn't excuse the moderate religious people from also being hypocrites. The I'm rubber your glue argument holds no water.
At any rate, I personally have taken some steps to stop contributing to global problems, as many here on these forums have. I ONLY buy meat that is farmed or grows locally. I only buy produce the same way. Little of my families food is shipped from Guam or even Florida. We've taken even more drastic steps as well. Do you know I sew most of my families clothing? I've posted pictures here before, but not sure anyone cared or remembers. Our clothing is not sewn in a shop on the other side of the world by kids for 5c an hour. I also only use upcycled material (I don't buy fabric new, I mean).
So yes, I use a computer and use electricity, etc, and am therefor part of the problem, but I've taken steps to actually do something about what I say I believe, more than just the act of saying it anyway, and I bet you have, too.
Most moderately religious people do nothing to stop extremists except what religious people always do, just SAY something, PRAY about it. Basically....nothing.
Take steps. The Imams could, for instance, get together and say that anyone that commits violence in the name of Islam is now an Apostate and use their own Sharia courts to perform Takfir (or however that is stated). But that isn't event he way Islam works, you can't BE kicked out the way other religions can.
And anyway, the Imams can't do that because.....the "extremists" are technically following the holy books, and not breaking it's laws.
You see, because I am unfettered by the belief that my beliefs and actions are sanctioned by the divine, I can drop a belief and/or change a behavior much more easily than those who think their actions are sanctioned by the creator of the universe.
So...I can go ahead and stop buying from Walmart, I can get solar panels for my house, I can raise chickens in my backyard (something we are considering, as my BiL has 3 and it's been great for him). I'm not invested in the way of life my parents showed me, I can change, I DO change.
Religious moderates also change their stance on things. Although they often still have to be dragged kicking and screaming forward.
BUT, they cannot give up the book that they are no longer following, so ironically their adherence to the dogma that the book(s) is divine is still the reason we have extremists. If Christians all suddenly decided to adopt the Jefferson Bible, for instance, that would be taking actual action to not only say, but mean that they no longer agree with the barbarism of their old book, and the extremism it can cause. The bible has already undergone a lot of revisions to stay "relevant".
The problem with Islam is that their book is actually still pretty much intact from the time it was written. It hasn't bee translated through 7 dead languages to get where it is today. With most Christians, you can get them to admit that the bible has flaws because of human handling. With Islam, even the moderates believe it really is the WRITTEN WORD OF GOD, untouched by human hands, unerring and perfect.
THAT supports extremism. :(
Quote from: Shiranu on April 19, 2015, 04:18:39 PM
I have far more blood on my hands than Muslim terrorists ever will...
??
Quote from: SGOS on April 19, 2015, 05:08:28 PM
??
To be fair, shopping regularly at Walmart is probably causing more suffering in the world than blowing up one building. I think that is what he is trying to say.
The difference is, he assumes all of us contribute equally to that kind of shit. It doesn't work that way.
Quote from: SGOS on April 19, 2015, 05:08:28 PM
??
I am, bluntly, a very materialistic person. I have spent thousands upon thousands upon thousands of dollars in my life that supports organizations that use child labour and fund corrupt governments that deny their people even the most basic of fundamental rights.
I am a monster. And why? Because I am greedy, because I am lazy. Religion is, to me, a better excuse than that.
QuoteThe difference is, he assumes all of us contribute equally to that kind of shit. It doesn't work that way.
If you live in the West, you contribute more to this than the average Muslim contributes to terrorism (or at the very least, the same amount, which is to say none at all because adults make their own choices). Simply in paying taxes you have contributed just as much to torture as Islam has.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 19, 2015, 05:16:02 PM
I am, bluntly, a very materialistic person. I have spent thousands upon thousands upon thousands of dollars in my life that supports organizations that use child labour and fund corrupt governments that deny their people even the most basic of fundamental rights.
I am a monster. And why? Because I am greedy, because I am lazy. Religion is, to me, a better excuse than that.
If you live in the West, you contribute more to this than the average Muslim contributes to terrorism (or at the very least, the same amount, which is to say none at all because adults make their own choices). Simply in paying taxes you have contributed just as much to torture as Islam has.
I don't pay taxes......I'm disabled.
I do see your point though, but you don't see mine.
Yes, western living often does contribute to global suffering. But why? Why do westerners feel so ok with wrecking the planet and enslaving people from other countries? Don't you think the underlying Christian belief that we are better, that we own the earth and the animals and God will make it ok for those poor starving children in the end is a driving force in our recklessness? After all, when westerners DO realize their mistakes and try to rectify it, it's Christians who scream that Global Warming is fake and God gave them the right to do whatever they want to animals.
And your assumption that all westerners contribute equally is BS. I know people who do not own computers or cell phones, who have done all they can to reduce their carbon footprint to 0, who live in a city but still grow most of their own food or buy it very locally, and who vocally oppose and vote against those who would take our country into bloody wars. Any of that is more than practicing religious persons can say about stopping their own extremist.
Even so, your argument is irrelevant, Tu quoque logical fallacy. Even if I AM a complete hypocrite and spend money willy nilly on things made in China, buy food farmed on rainforest land, and happily pay my government to go into illegal wars (and I don't do any of that, BTW), that still does not make the argument that moderate religious people support extremist religious people invalid.
Please tell me why this argument is actually invalid, if you believe it is.
Wow, really blowing that one out of the water there Shiranu. I think your find my point rests in the fact that people within religous groups DO turn a blind eye to the actions of extremists within those faiths, even those of a more moderate persuasion.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/80-of-london-muslims-support-isis/
http://pamelageller.com/2014/06/muslims-west-express-support-islamic-state-aka-isis.html/
And likewise it doesn't take much to look up people who support the insane bullshit christians do to minorities, not on a group scale but individuals who stand against progressive right, american Christians are some of the worst examples.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/01/opinions/granderson-indiana-pence-culture-wars/
http://mysticpolitics.com/anti-atheist-discrimination-in-america/
Quote from: Shiranu on April 19, 2015, 05:16:02 PM
I am, bluntly, a very materialistic person. I have spent thousands upon thousands upon thousands of dollars in my life that supports organizations that use child labour and fund corrupt governments that deny their people even the most basic of fundamental rights.
I am a monster. And why? Because I am greedy, because I am lazy. Religion is, to me, a better excuse than that.
If you live in the West, you contribute more to this than the average Muslim contributes to terrorism (or at the very least, the same amount, which is to say none at all because adults make their own choices). Simply in paying taxes you have contributed just as much to torture as Islam has.
I understand the point you are trying to make, but I'm not buying it. Join ISIS and cut off a few heads, and then come back and tell us you are a better person than the rest of us, and then I'll agree that you are truly a dickhead and an asshole. Until then, I'll just accuse you of being unnecessarily melodramatic.
Yes, they are inherently worse people than us, but that is not who we are talking about. We are talking about how moderate religious are enablers, to which I respond that 99% of westerners are enablers of far worse crimes.
There are things we can criticize them for and I am all for that. Enabling is just not one that we have the moral high ground to do.
And that somehow makes me melodramatic to point out, and I am therefore defending radicalism... This is why I try not to discuss religion with atheists; we are far too quick to tell religious people exactly who and what they ACTUALLY believe instead of admitting that people can think differently than us.
The problem I see if that you are binding together religious fundamentalism within cultures, and those of the societies themselves, when honestly your condemnation of western cultures actions and what causes suffering to eastern provinces, doesn't come together.
Its like your saying buying shoes is harming a families religious belief. That doesn't go together, I will say it is a problem where poor countries manufacture products and the kind of suffering that go on in work houses and factories people there is well known, but religious belief and the impact of peoples lives doesn't come together. Its even like your accusing westerners of buying cheap products on purpose to cause suffering to poor countries, which isn't the consumers fault, if people in the western world have to buy fucking poorer products to live themselves.
Blames the major corporations if you have to blame someone, not the consumer, who doesn't have a choice but to go for the cheaper brands.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 19, 2015, 07:13:54 PM
Yes, they are inherently worse people than us, but that is not who we are talking about. We are talking about how moderate religious are enablers, to which I respond that 99% of westerners are enablers of far worse crimes.
There are things we can criticize them for and I am all for that. Enabling is just not one that we have the moral high ground to do.
And that somehow makes me melodramatic to point out, and I am therefore defending radicalism... This is why I try not to discuss religion with atheists; we are far too quick to tell religious people exactly who and what they ACTUALLY believe instead of admitting that people can think differently than us.
I understand your point Shiranu--if you live in a glass house don't throw stones. And I almost buy it. The problem as I see it, with any and all organized religions is that they demand that all believers be just that--believers. Faith is the cornerstone of that system. Without faith and belief, there is no religion of any kind (of the organized type). So, all religious are out of necessity, blind to reasoning. They don't 'think' in a fully rational way. Of course they turn a blind eye to what the extremists among them--they are not that far from them in belief and if they question them too much then they have to question more deeply what they believe themselves. And that is not good.
Yes, Corporate America is neutral at best and evil at worst (or usual). And our form of govt. is not the best that could be, no matter what the political hacks tell us. Capitalism, without regulation, turns into a hungry, evil beast that devours all that it can. So, how do we temper these issues? I really don't know and can get quite depressed if I think about it too long. But organized religion does not offer any relief from those problems--they simply compound those issues. So, getting rid of organized religion would be a step in the right direction.
QuoteThe most explicit condemnation came from Iyad Ameen Madani, the Secretary General for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the group representing 57 countries, and 1.4 billion Muslims.
Iyad Ameen Madani, the Secretary General for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, must know Quran 33:36. But he hopes that you don't:
“It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.â€
Firstly, I do not believe that this is anything more than damage control to save Islam's image to gullible westerners who WANT to believe this.
Secondly, if he truly holds to his condemnation, then he is condemning the Quran, Islam, it's teachings, and Muhammad.
That makes him an apostate and a target to any believing Muslim who is authorized by sharia law to kill him forthwith for apostasy.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 19, 2015, 07:13:54 PM
Yes, they are inherently worse people than us, but that is not who we are talking about. We are talking about how moderate religious are enablers, to which I respond that 99% of westerners are enablers of far worse crimes.
There are things we can criticize them for and I am all for that. Enabling is just not one that we have the moral high ground to do.
And that somehow makes me melodramatic to point out, and I am therefore defending radicalism... This is why I try not to discuss religion with atheists; we are far too quick to tell religious people exactly who and what they ACTUALLY believe instead of admitting that people can think differently than us.
I guess I just don't see how you have to have the moral high ground to make a valid point. I could be a true monster and still point a perfectly accurate truth about someone else's monstrous nature....and be perfectly accurate.
Westerns life styles can change.
Islam isn't going to let someone rewrite their book, full of directions for violence. That's why it keeps coming back to bite them in the ass.
That is also a fundamental difference between these 2 things you seem intent to compare.
But I'm done here, just tired. I'll let you have the final word, Shiranu. :)
Quote from: pr126 on April 19, 2015, 11:53:36 AM
What is the vast majority of progressive Muslims do to stop the tiny minority of fundamentalist from indiscriminate mass slaughtering all over the world in the name of Allah?
Not a great deal when it's the fundies who hold the power and actively seek out and kill moderates. Maybe you should go over there and show them how it's done.
Quote from: pr126 on April 19, 2015, 11:53:36 AM
Do you think that if there was a tiny minority of Christians going on a murderous rampage the rest of Christianity would silently look the other way? Could they go on brutally slaughtering year after year?
It's already going on in in Nigeria and Kenya. However, Christians murdering others isn't acceptable in western media and doesn't get reported in the mainstream.
Plus, you seem to have forgotten the crusades, Cortez in the Americas, Hitler's multiple references to scripture before and during the holocaust.
I think you hear what you want to hear, mate. But then, that's your choice....