Printable View
Aimless keeps claiming in many unrelated threads without backing it up that Muslims are unfairly victimised in the west. See the BPD thread at the moment.
I'd like to see some basis for that claim. Somehow for instance I suspect that if I was to go into a bank or airport etc in a burka or go wearing a balaclava which is a direct equivalent then the latter is the one that would be treated worse.
That's the evidence you'd like to offer in support of your claim that the West panders to Muslims? Really?
Really? A balaclava? You are trolling.
Wearing a burka and wearing a balaclava are identical. Well a burka is worse but near enough identical...
I suppose there might be a culture somewhere where the balaclava has the same status as the burka and niqab and the Sikh turban have in other cultures.
Afaik no such culture exists and that is one of several reasons why the balaclava would likely be treated differently. Another reason is that a dude wearing a balaclava while trying to go through security can reasonably be assumed to be, at the very least, a complete twat trying to make life difficult for others and would (perhaps) be treated accordingly.
In the west, a woman veiling her face for cultural reasons may be required to show her face to an officer at an airport. If she refuses, she may be denied entry, as was the case recently in France.
Several western countries have enacted bans on attire that conceals a person's identity by covering his or her face.
What's more telling though is that, even when it's legal and acceptable by reasonable standards of security and hygiene, wearing a simple hijab may cost a Muslim woman a job. Which is weird because apparently the West panders to Muslims.
One is worn to rob people, the other is worn by women to go shopping...
I think that's a pretty narrow-minded and regressive view Loki. The balaclava can also be used to riot, vandalize and, of course, to troll. Ya gotta get with the times man
I always find it amusing how liberals, who often celebrate their role in the woman's lib movement, are the ones championing the burka. Not sure if it is funny or sad.
Few western liberals think the burka is good in and of itself and few "champion" it. Since you seem to dislike burkas, would you like to kill people who wear burkas? Or would you be satisfied with just putting them in jail? I ask because I would like to know how much you'd like to infringe on a person's right to dress in a way that you disapprove of. I don't like burkas but I don't feel like I can justify banning them on feminist grounds.
If you can't identify who the person is I see a concern for law enforcement. That being said I'm actually not in favor of wholesale banning it but it seems odd that people who champion woman's rights are the loudest voices speaking up about the issue. The burka is basically a symbol of woman's oppression, real oppression not 'big boobed video game characters are evvvvil' oppression. The vast majority of Muslims don't even believe it is a requirement for Islam, it is highly regional.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
For a supposed libertarian, you don't seem to care much about people's right to wear whatever they want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
That's actually not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
And I think it's hypocritical of you, as a self-described Christian and Libertarian.....to make distinctions in religious garb. You wouldn't expect Catholic nuns take off their habit or headwear, or that Amish or Mennonite women take off their hats or bonnets, would you? You wouldn't say Orthodox Jewish women couldn't wear wigs, because that might mean they're wearing a disguise, would you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
:confused:
To Rand, there's nothing incompatible between Islam and "the west". But there is a debate about which western nation best protects an individual's religious beliefs.....even when they're a minority. It's pretty clear that the US has better policies, even if the majority of refugees are banging on Europe's door.
But it's quite possible that the US is still spouting best scenario ideology, since we haven't agreed to accept refugees in appropiate ratios. (Reminds me of Korean and Viet Nam wars.)
A turban doesn't cover the face so is not relevant to the discussion. Note I said Burka and not Hijab for a reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
So you presume that we should pander to what other cultures find acceptable when deeming what we find acceptable. Which is kind of appropriate as we do so.
One is worn to rob people, one is worn to dehumanise and oppress women and to hide your identity to commit crimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
What are you saying, Rand? That people who believe in hiding their face, for religious reasons, shouldn't be allowed to do so?
Since it already is about dress codes; my main bone is with the respect people supposedly should show towards headscarves, burqa's and what have you. The thing is; I don't respect them. As far as I am concerned they are pieces of cloth that express backwardness, disdain for one's environment more than anything else. Having said that, except for those pieces of clothing that result in the complete hiding on one's identity I think there should be no restrictions on religiously inspired dress.
As for Muslims being targetted? I am not so certain that really is the case. Christians and Jews are the butt of jokes that nobody dares make about muslims. A good deal about this whole islamophobia has its base in Muslims having to get to terms with being members of a (small) minority religion where most of them have their roots in countries where Islam is excessively dominant. To the point where it makes it (near) impossible to be openly critical of it. A lot of Muslims also don't quite get how many Europeans are so happy that they have managed to push the Church out of a position of power, that they have little patience for the Mosque making silly demands.
But the US is supposedly based on individual religious freedom....which means anyone who claims their religious garb is part of their faith can't be forced to remove it. If a person shows up at an airport fully veiled, they can't be denied from flying. But they also can't expect to fly without some form of background check or secondary screening.
edit: and when it comes to War refugees, their religion/faith should be the last metric used......
Not unless hiding your face for non religious reasons is acceptable too. We shouldn't thrown a bone to religions and say "we don't think this is OK but since its for your religion it magically is".Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Just as Christian doctors shouldn't be able to deny abortions, Muslims shouldn't be able to conceal their identity.
Well said. Agreed 100%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
No freedom of religion does not mean freedom from laws. No law should target the religion but if the law says don't cover your face then don't cover your face. So long as that applies equally to everyone for sound and valid reasons then that should be OK. Once the government starts picking religions that can break the law then that violates the first amendment principles.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
This might be anecdotal, but my grandparents had a condo in Birmingham, MI when it was transitioning from an 'exclusive' suburb (for white male auto executives) into a diverse community. They were part of the GM community, but weren't part of the Cranbrook school elite...there was always a white supremacy with its own heirarchy during that time.
Anyway, that was the first time I heard about Islam, or knew about Muslims making their way into the US, to live out the American Dream. I liked Birmingham's diversity and was confused when they sold the condo and moved to Tuscon, Arizona. There was nothing there but desert and cactus, and golf courses, and private swimming pools. None of it made sense, even to a young visitor like me.
It wasn't until I was older that I realized my family was racist....and that my grandfather, who'd made his career in the auto industry, couldn't think his retirement was successful until he moved to an all-white golfing community in Bloomfield Hills. My mother's mindset just kept going along....and my father walked out of the James Bond movie where he kissed a black woman. He was a Goldwater guy.
I'm probably racist, too. I wouldn't want my sons to bring home a black girl, no matter how many ribbons she wore in her hair.....it's just too damn complicated. Their first baby-sitter was a Muslim girl, and I made pork chops, so what do I know?
This isn't about race. There is no racial reason to deny women an identity by covering them up 100%. If you don't like the balaclava analogy a burka is like a KKK outfit to cover up completely.
Is it, really? I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of religious freedom. I don't particularly like it when anyone covers up, and claims it's religious-based modesty, but that's not my call. I think a lot of religious behaviors are a bunch of malarky...but I wouldn't prevent it, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
When kids go out on Halloween, dressed as a ghost, they might look like a member of the KKK...but they're really not.
What do you think of the first US woman to win the Olympic Gold in fencing?
If we say covering up isn't ok, if we say treating women and gays as second class isn't ok, then it's not ok. Saying some sky fairy says it is OK does not make it so.
I know nothing and have no opinion about the US winning a gold in fencing. Well done.
If, as we are supposed to believe, those burqa's and other face veils are religious commands, we also have to wonder why millions of muslim don't seem to think so. Or that even in Saudi Arabia the niqab only relatively recently became the norm.
Because interpretation of religious texts changes over time and place.
So the idea it's a religious need is patently bollocks of the most extreme order and even if religious extremists want to make it a necessity then it begs the question so what? Why should we pander to the requirements of religious extremists?
If a Christian fundamentalist sect starts supporting selling your youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7 should we support that?
Exodus 35:2 says those who insist on working on the sabbath should be put to death, if a religious extremist enforces that religious law should we pander to that?
Etc, etc, etc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
The question isn't whether or not we should respect the burqa itself but whether or not we should respect a person's right to dress in a burqa. I reject all religions and many/most outmoded religious practices and beliefs along with many aspects of the culture of my society. But I believe we should think long and hard before using the law to infringe on people's right to do things we disapprove of. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm opposed to burqa-bans, it just means that I'm not as close to Trump as RB and Lewk seem to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
It's extremely relevant. A turban can be used to hide an explosive device or substance, or a weapon. Most people have to remove their hats at airport security. Sikhs very rarely have to remove their turbans.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I believe we should live according to our own deeply held values about freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination, at least when it comes to things that have little or no significant impact on others.Quote:
So you presume that we should pander to what other cultures find acceptable when deeming what we find acceptable. Which is kind of appropriate as we do so.
A Christian doctor who doesn't want to participate in performing abortions can easily get another job as some other kind of doctor and still continue to participate in society. The comparison is not a very good one.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Saying that something isn't "OK" shouldn't automatically make it illegal. It's extremely telling btw that you excluded "blacks" from your list of people who it isn't okay to treat as second class citizens :haha: :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
This is a puzzling objection. We already know that views on religion and culture vary over time and between different groups. The veracity of a specific religious belief isn't particularly relevant from a secular or atheist perspective except to the extent that it may have a direct and significant harmful impact on people who do not share that belief. All religions are false. Nevertheless, people have the right to have false beliefs and even to act in accordance with their false beliefs, as long as they don't infringe significantly on the rights of others who do not share their beliefs. If that weren't the case we'd have to consider putting people like Lewk and RB in jail for their misguided beliefs that they've acted in accordance with, actually to the detriment of others (spanking, Brexit, etc).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I'm not sure I agree with your characterisation of the situation, but it's beside the point because the claim that provoked this thread was not about whether or not Muslims are mistreated but rather whether or not the West panders to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I'm not saying we should ban burqas, I'm saying if covering your face is banned already then your belief in a sky fairy should not excuse you in removing that ban.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Let alone getting into the discussion of whether we should respect the horrid practice of dehumanising women. It should be viewed with contempt along the same lines of other non-physical legal but unacceptable abuse of women.
If a hat is banned so should the turban then, fair's fair.Quote:
It's extremely relevant. A turban can be used to hide an explosive device or substance, or a weapon. Most people have to remove their hats at airport security. Sikhs very rarely have to remove their turbans.
Absolutely which is why we should be free to express how vile a religion is that treats women and gays as second class citizens.Quote:
I believe we should live according to our own deeply held values about freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination, at least when it comes to things that have little or no significant impact on others.
A female Muslim who wants to wear a burqa in an inappropriate situation can easily get another religion as some other kind of woman and still continue to participate in society.Quote:
A Christian doctor who doesn't want to participate in performing abortions can easily get another job as some other kind of doctor and still continue to participate in society. The comparison is not a very good one.
Why is it telling? I was including those in my list that the horrible religion we are discussing DOES treat as second class citizens. Does it also treat blacks as second class citizens as well? :mad::down:Quote:
Saying that something isn't "OK" shouldn't automatically make it illegal. It's extremely telling btw that you excluded "blacks" from your list of people who it isn't okay to treat as second class citizens :haha: :up:
Unless its acceptable to eg wear a balaclava or KKK mask in a public place then tolerating a burqa that is as contemptible as a KKK mask and as covered up as a mask or a balaclava is causing harm. Otherwise why are the others banned?Quote:
This is a puzzling objection. We already know that views on religion and culture vary over time and between different groups. The veracity of a specific religious belief isn't particularly relevant from a secular or atheist perspective except to the extent that it may have a direct and significant harmful impact on people who do not share that belief. All religions are false. Nevertheless, people have the right to have false beliefs and even to act in accordance with their false beliefs, as long as they don't infringe significantly on the rights of others who do not share their beliefs. If that weren't the case we'd have to consider putting people like Lewk and RB in jail for their misguided beliefs that they've acted in accordance with, actually to the detriment of others (spanking, Brexit, etc).
And it does. We have heard repeatedly in this thread "but its the culture" or "its the religion" as justification to allow the otherwise unacceptable.Quote:
I'm not sure I agree with your characterisation of the situation, but it's beside the point because the claim that provoked this thread was not about whether or not Muslims are mistreated but rather whether or not the West panders to them.
Interesting. You seem to believe that a religion is the same as a profession. How retarded.
Are you auditioning to be Trump's successor? Clothing worn by Muslim women for religious reasons is as bad as a KKK hood whose purpose is to intimidate blacks? Are you insane?
In some places, burqas are banned in accordance with that logic. In some other places (I think) they may not be completely banned because legislators recognize the importance of religious and cultural values for some individuals. How the balance between societal interests and respect for a person's integrity, autonomy and beliefs should be struck is obv. a matter for discussion. I have seen ltitle evidence to suggest that most of us live in societies where the state treats religion as being completely irrelevant and most documents delineating the rights of citizens/humans make a point of acknowledging the importance of religion to those who believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
And yet that is not the case, suggesting that views on fairness may differ. For example, forcing a Sikh to remove his turban may be less fair than forcing some random dummy to remove a random hat because it is more of a hassle, because it takes more time, because it means much more to the point of feeling like being forced to undress, etc. There are many ways to determine whether or not something is "fair".Quote:
If a hat is banned so should the turban then, fair's fair.
Because of your enthusiastic defense of the systematic victimisation of black Americans, of course.Quote:
Why is it telling?
This is nonsensical. Balaclavas and other such masks are not generally banned everywhere. In places with anti-mask laws, for the most part such laws specifically prohibit covering faces in such a way as to make identification difficult during demonstrations, riots or events that may directly threaten the public order. Even then the law may simply require you to remove the mask when requested.Quote:
Unless its acceptable to eg wear a balaclava or KKK mask in a public place then tolerating a burqa that is as contemptible as a KKK mask and as covered up as a mask or a balaclava is causing harm. Otherwise why are the others banned?
Moreover, our societies regularly distinguish between different forms of clothing and different symbols--and even different words--based on their context and cultural significance. For example, in some places swastikas may be banned. In France, where people apparently pander to Muslims, wearing a hijab at school is banned because it is viewed as an ostentatious display of religious belief. If you beat up a gay man while calling him a "f*ggot" or beat up a black man while calling him a "n*gger" you may get an enhanced punishment for committing a hate-crime.
This is where you're wrong. You assume these practices are unacceptable. I believe it's been made abundantly clear, over many centuries, that many reprehensible things are "acceptable" in our societies. That's how free societies are.Quote:
And it does. We have heard repeatedly in this thread "but its the culture" or "its the religion" as justification to allow the otherwise unacceptable.
So that's two libertarians we have here who don't think people have the right to wear what they think is appropriate. Rights are for white men apparently.
No its considerably less than a profession. A profession has merit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Clothing used to subjugate and dehumanise women is potentially WORSE than that used to intimidate blacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You think that dehumanising and subjugation women as an inhuman second class is at all acceptable? Are you insane?
Show me where I said that. I said if it is not ok to wear a balaclava then it's not ok to cover your face for religious reasons either. If you want to cover your face where it's perfectly acceptable to do so show me where I said that should be Banned? It represents a vile hateful belief we should find contemptible and ostracised in the same way as it's contemporaries like the KKK but that doesn't mean we should ban it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Or do laws only apply to the Secular? How is that libertarian?
Which is completely irrelevant. The point is that a profession is, for most people, not as integral a part of one's identity as a religious person's faith is to that person's identity. It's not my business to determine who is or is not meritorious. Obviously my profession is more meritorious than yours, whatever it is you do for a living, but that's beside the point. Other things that may be integral to a person's identity are family/clan, ethnicity or culture, nationality. In my experience, these other things are often less important than faith, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who isn't a braindead heartless little tyrant.*Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
* who is, ironically, obsessed with something far dumber than both professions and faiths, namely nationality. Oh you Little Englanders, you'll never cease to baffle and amuse
You've officially become the least liberal (in the sense of someone who actually values liberty) person here. Congrats. And if a woman wearing a burqa so offends your sensibilities that you want to see that attire banned, I would seriously suggest seeing a shrink.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Find where I said it should be banned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
And yes saying women are not worthy to be seen in public does offend my sensibilities. If it doesn't yours I suggest you reevaluate your priorities.
People's faith is their own business. I couldn't care less what they do in private. We are talking about in public.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I also couldn't give a fig about nationality. What makes you think I'm obsessed by it?