PDA

View Full Version : no more Burka in Belgium



Benedikt
30-04-2010, 01:22
and good for them.
but there are others who cry foul, 'freedom of expression' and the sort of thing.
Tell it to the Saudis. There in the restaurants you can not have chicken in red wine. The sheik said no more and so is it. "We are a moslem country and therefore no alcohol'.ASK THEM IF YOU CAN PUT UP A CHRISTIAN CHURCH WITH A BELL TOWER. They send you packing very quick. or turn off the oil and gas. and everyone kowtows to them. After all a warm flat or house is more important, and don't forget dividends for the share holders, than the right of free religion and expression.
France is going to be the next on the list if 'yes' or 'no'. And could be a test case for Germany where there is a big Moslem minority. Suppose the Swiss will also say no, after all they said so already to the putting up of Mosques and minarets. Also there was little noise in Switzerland. After all everyone wants Emmental cheese, Milka chocolates and don't forget the bankers.
Life is great indeed.
In Moscow's Victory park there is an orthodox church, a jewish temple, a Mosque and a (VERY) little catholic chapel. But all in one place and no one bothers the other.
This is ONE big + for our good mayor who decreed that all faith's should be there. After all they all were fighting the war and no one was asking who did you believe in.
Need more places like that, life would be a little bit less complicated.

ReallyGreatConcerts
30-04-2010, 02:24
In banning what people can choose to wear, the idiot Belgians have proven themselves on the same level as the Saudis. In fact on the level of President Berdymukhamedov of the famously "advanced" country of Turkmenistan.

I hope people defy this fascist "law".

I would like to see some moronic Belgian cops trying to arrest veiled Belgian brides entering churches for their own weddings?? But of course, we all know that this "law" is intended only to discriminate against muslims.

trebor
30-04-2010, 07:48
In banning what people can choose to wear, the idiot Belgians have proven themselves on the same level as the Saudis. In fact on the level of President Berdymukhamedov of the famously "advanced" country of Turkmenistan.

I hope people defy this fascist "law".

I would like to see some moronic Belgian cops trying to arrest veiled Belgian brides entering churches for their own weddings?? But of course, we all know that this "law" is intended only to discriminate against muslims.

If you really cared about people's right to choose you wouldn't have forgotton to mention that muslim women who wear the veil come from societies where the right to choose is no-existant.
That means no choice if they get educated, who they marry, if they have children. if they can work, if they can drive a car etc. etc. or wear the veil.

Also, how many muslim women will have the choice to defy this law and how many will be forced to?

While this law does seem radical and is well worthy of discussion, not to at least acknowledge the fact that muslim women are forced to wear the veil does nothing to advance the rights of 'freedom of choice' does it?

trebor
30-04-2010, 07:53
and good for them.
but there are others who cry foul, 'freedom of expression' and the sort of thing.
Tell it to the Saudis. There in the restaurants you can not have chicken in red wine. The sheik said no more and so is it. "We are a moslem country and therefore no alcohol'.ASK THEM IF YOU CAN PUT UP A CHRISTIAN CHURCH WITH A BELL TOWER. They send you packing very quick. or turn off the oil and gas. and everyone kowtows to them. After all a warm flat or house is more important, and don't forget dividends for the share holders, than the right of free religion and expression.
France is going to be the next on the list if 'yes' or 'no'. And could be a test case for Germany where there is a big Moslem minority. Suppose the Swiss will also say no, after all they said so already to the putting up of Mosques and minarets. Also there was little noise in Switzerland. After all everyone wants Emmental cheese, Milka chocolates and don't forget the bankers.
Life is great indeed.
In Moscow's Victory park there is an orthodox church, a jewish temple, a Mosque and a (VERY) little catholic chapel. But all in one place and no one bothers the other.
This is ONE big + for our good mayor who decreed that all faith's should be there. After all they all were fighting the war and no one was asking who did you believe in.
Need more places like that, life would be a little bit less complicated.

Benedikt, i worked in Saudi Arabia for 5 years. Not having chicken in red wine sauce is the least of the problems for women there.
Apart from the lack of choices i outlined in my previous post, women have no birth certificate, they cannot give evidence in court (because they will say what men have told them to say) and many more violations of their human rights.
The veil is a symbol of those violations.

Swordfish90293
30-04-2010, 08:49
In banning what people can choose to wear, the idiot Belgians have proven themselves on the same level as the Saudis. In fact on the level of President Berdymukhamedov of the famously "advanced" country of Turkmenistan.

I hope people defy this fascist "law".

I would like to see some moronic Belgian cops trying to arrest veiled Belgian brides entering churches for their own weddings?? But of course, we all know that this "law" is intended only to discriminate against muslims.

This is an unfortunate by-product of terrorism, which is being perpetrated by the countrymen of these women, who may well be innocent babes (and babes). It's too bad, but in war, especially in guerilla conflicts, it's difficult to tell friend from foe. I'm sure Bin Laden is gleefully rubbing his hands.

In my old neighborhood in L.A., during WWII the army rounded up every Japanese, nationals and American citizens, and encamped them for the duration. It wasn't a racist statement, it was war.

I don't think one can have a passport with a photo of your face covered, can you? It's part of necessary security in today's world, not a racial move.

I think the cops would stop anyone, a Swede or a Russian, were they to wear a face covering like Muslims do...

Nobbynumbnuts
30-04-2010, 09:14
This is an unfortunate by-product of terrorism, which is being perpetrated by the countrymen of these women, who may well be innocent babes (and babes). It's too bad, but in war, especially in guerilla conflicts, it's difficult to tell friend from foe. I'm sure Bin Laden is gleefully rubbing his hands.

In my old neighborhood in L.A., during WWII the army rounded up every Japanese, nationals and American citizens, and encamped them for the duration. It wasn't a racist statement, it was war.

I don't think one can have a passport with a photo of your face covered, can you? It's part of necessary security in today's world, not a racial move.

I think the cops would stop anyone, a Swede or a Russian, were they to wear a face covering like Muslims do...

Those are good points regarding security and i'm sure they figured in the decision to introduce the new law but i think the main reason was freedoms for muslim women.

Does anyone think as the law stood before that muslim women were free to choose whether they wore the veil or not? Of course not. Their husbands will decide if they wear it or not.

SpinaPubica
30-04-2010, 09:22
Are we going to talk about Saudi Women's rights in their country? Are we going to plan liberating these poor souls?
Or are we going to talk about a stupid law, banning people's choice of clothing (doesnt matter her choice or somebody elses it's non of your business as goverment).
If the main concern was really security, then if you are suspicious about a woman in Burka carriying bombs or whatever, then stop her and search.
If we are going to talk about freedom for Saudi women, then i agree with trebor, unfortunately they dont have any..

trebor
30-04-2010, 09:31
Are we going to talk about Saudi Women's rights in their country? Are going to plan liberating these poor souls?
Or are we going to talk about a stupid law, banning people's choice of clothing (doesnt matter her choice or somebody elses it's non of your business as goverment).
If the main concern was really security, then if you are suspicious about a woman in Burka carriying bombs or whatever, then stop her and search.
If we are going to talk about freedom for Saudi women, then i agree with trebor, unfortunately they dont have any..

Agreed. This law does seem a strange way to attract attention to the plight of some muslim women, if that's what it was intended to do but i find it hard to understand people complaining on the grounds that it restricts freedoms. It makes absolutely no difference.
If the wearing of a veil or not is an issue to a muslim woman then she comes from an ultra conservative family. In an ultra conservative muslim family the men decide everything. Simple as that.
There never was a choice.

yakspeare
30-04-2010, 09:52
The burkha is a sign of repression and should be banned everywhere. Just like binding feet, forcing women into corsets somewhat(in the 1920s my grandma had broken ribs from it) and other signs of signalling women are subservient to men.

The Burkha is a human right violation and should be banned on those grounds, the argument about terrorism is a weak one(though relevant as they have been used to disguise terrorists previously). Also in France they take their secular society very seriously with no outward display(crucifix or skull cap) to signify christian or jew permitted.

There are plenty of muslims who do not wear the Burkha and dress with modesty and in a conservative fashion. there is no basis for it in Islam itself- it is a by product of the Arab world's treatment of women from an aeon ago with concubines and selling women into slavery(which still all occurs today).

saying well it is someone's choice is an error in law. the husband or father is not the woman who wears it so there opinion doesn't matter. It is her right to free from the Burkha. what you argue is like it is okay for a man to attack a woman, even though she doesn't like it, because he feels it is his right to do so. Yes let's advocate that.

mistygris
30-04-2010, 15:33
Belgium should get first a gvmt before voting laws.....

ReallyGreatConcerts
30-04-2010, 18:50
i find it hard to understand people complaining on the grounds that it restricts freedoms. It makes absolutely no difference.

Bwaaaaaaaaaahahahaha!!!

What is it you "can't understand" about a law which BANS something restricting freedoms??

Although we all know where you really stand on this issue.

Nobbynumbnuts
30-04-2010, 19:07
Bwaaaaaaaaaahahahaha!!!

What is it you "can't understand" about a law which BANS something restricting freedoms??

Although we all know where you really stand on this issue.

Your ranting and not making much sense.

Please enlighten me on where i really stand on this issue. I thought i made it pretty clear.

ReallyGreatConcerts
30-04-2010, 21:26
Your ranting and not making much sense.

Please enlighten me on where i really stand on this issue. I thought i made it pretty clear.

How many log-ins do you actually have on this messageboard?

"Your ranting" - that pretty much sums up your level of intellect, doesn't it?

Swordfish90293
01-05-2010, 00:27
Those are good points regarding security and i'm sure they figured in the decision to introduce the new law but i think the main reason was freedoms for muslim women.

Does anyone think as the law stood before that muslim women were free to choose whether they wore the veil or not? Of course not. Their husbands will decide if they wear it or not.

Good point...free dem Muslim wimmings. They're relly hot under all that garb. Now I retract...Bin Laden's organs are likely churning at all the Arabic women who now have to show their beautiful, exotic faces to the world...

Nobbynumbnuts
01-05-2010, 02:26
How many log-ins do you actually have on this messageboard?

"Your ranting" - that pretty much sums up your level of intellect, doesn't it?

Trebor and Nobbynumbnuts. Trebor i've had since the begining of time and the other one clearly states trebor at the bottom. As you can see lower down on this post. Nothing sinister or hidden. Now you on the other hand, how many have you had?

Stop crying and continue debating if you've got anything left to argue.

trebor
01-05-2010, 04:02
Good point...free dem Muslim wimmings. They're relly hot under all that garb. Now I retract...Bin Laden's organs are likely churning at all the Arabic women who now have to show their beautiful, exotic faces to the world...

Right. As you've pointed out the 'veil' means more than just a piece of cloth covering the face.
To muslim women it means a headscarf brought right down over the forehead to level of the eye brows. The head and sholders are completely covered. It also means a black tent like garment that covers the entire body, except the hands and feet. Muslim women get a choice of colours as long as it's black!

I've never seen a muslim woman wearing a veil in jeans and t. shirt or any other clothing they might freely choose.

rusmeister
01-05-2010, 15:21
I think that the arguments can be broken down to their roots rather easily here:
One, if a nation or community is not free to determine for itself what will be the standards of the nation or community it is not free, but rather under some form of imperialism.

Two, who has the right to impose the standards of their own culture on others?
It should be obvious that only someone whose philosophy is actually true - actually and correctly describes the nature of the universe could be acknowledged to actually have such a right. We can not agree with the imposition of a wrong philosophy by force.

I find that as long as we are talking about imposing standards that deny that there is truth, they get widespread support and spin from the media, whether or not they get the political support to effect the change. But when we talk about imposing standards that assume there IS truth, then the media stand up like a wall and nearly universally (saving some genuinely small and independent operations) condemn any such imposition. So the "public outcry" (actually media-orchestrated) is actually self-contradictory at its root. There is an explanation for this self-contradiction:


It showed me quite clearly
the fundamental truth of the modern world. And that is this:
there are no Fascists; there are no Socialists;
there are no Liberals; there are no Parliamentarians.
There is the one supremely inspiring and irritating
institution in the world; and there are its enemies.
Its enemies are ready to be for violence or against violence,
for liberty or against liberty, for representation or
against representation; and even for peace or against peace.
It gave me an entirely new certainty, even in the practical
and political sense, that I had chosen well.
The Well and the Shallows
http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/Well_And_Shallows.txt

ReallyGreatConcerts
01-05-2010, 20:35
Trebor and Nobbynumbnuts. Trebor i've had since the begining of time and the other one clearly states trebor at the bottom. As you can see lower down on this post. Nothing sinister or hidden. Now you on the other hand, how many have you had?

Stop crying and continue debating if you've got anything left to argue.

So you admit you're using two different online identities - yourself and your own sockpuppet?

Voodoo
01-05-2010, 21:33
Just a couple of points of clarification here. Firstly, wearing the veil is not really muslim but cultural. All the Quran has to say about it is that women must be modestly dressed and must cover their 'jewels' without any further explanations of what and how something should be covered. All the 'black blob' women that we see are dressed that way due to cultural norms rather than any Islamic laws. As a result, we have the 'hijab', 'burqa', 'chadoor', 'niqab', etc., etc., ranging from a loose scarf worn like a light colourful Hermes scarf thrown around the hair only, all the way to what the Saudis and Taliban prefer which is to have the woman desexualised to the extent humanly possible with everything covered up (sometimes including the eyes). In Sudan for example, a country that has Sharia law, it is expected that a women will wear a 'toob' which is a very light, colourful completely see through wrap that goes around the body and barely covers the hair. In Egypt, the world's largest Arab muslim country there is nothing forcing women to cover up at all, and if you walk around Cairo most of the women you see veiled are doing so through choice. Let me stress again, covering up a woman is NOT Islamic.

Another important point to make is that the muslim world is NOT one monolithic entity, and wearing the veil is not compulsory in most muslim countries. Certainly in pretty much all of North Africa and Asia, not to mention Western countries. Even within the muslim heartland of the Gulf standards and attitudes vary widely, from the ultra repressive Saudis, to the liberal sheikdoms of the UAE, Bahrain, etc. In most of the countries that have looser interpretations of the 'veil' most educated and urban women wear the veil through choice, not because they are forced to by their husbands or fathers. It is a conscious decision of theirs to show their piety in front of everyone, similar to the way some women in Russia choose to cover up their hair for modesty reasons, or Jewish ladies cover up their hair (excepting the Hassidim who are obliged to cover their hair - sometimes their eyes too). A lot of muslim women are not forced to cover up, although it may be frowned upon if they don't, just like we as parents might frown up our daughters wearing micro skirts and high heels to school.

Now, I am not saying that in a lot of cases women are not forced to cover up - they may be. No, what I am saying is that picture is a lot more nuanced, there is a large element of free choice, and that covering up is not necessarily Islamic to start with.

Voodoo
01-05-2010, 21:54
As I mentioned the Quran doesn't say much about dress except that women (and men) should dress 'modestly'.

Here's the quote on men dressing modestly:

"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do."
24:30

Here is the reference to women:
"And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments (jewels) except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, [a list of relatives], [household servants], or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss."
24:31

That's IT! No more, no less. Black blob women is cultural not Islamic. For those western countries wrestling with what to do with the veil I say pass a law giving a woman the right to choose for herself what to wear. This shouldn't be too difficult as her right to do so (to express herself) is given in almost all constitutions as long as it doesn't offend standards of decency or harm others which in the west shouldn't be the case.

yakspeare
01-05-2010, 22:16
well i would say you are mostly right. Although there is little choice in the matter in the stricter states it can sometimes be choice in more liberal choice(or her families choice and expectation). I know a lot of muslim women will wear head scarf for Ramadan but not at other times or after they are married(like a hermes type scarf as you said).

The Burqa itself i have issue with and not headscarfs in general. It is a vastly different concept. i think western nations should have the right to ban such clothing for identification purposes and also as a human right issue. People can volunteer for all sorts of strange behaviour and customs but society does decide in the end what is acceptable. In a secular society like France where crosses and skullcaps are restricted it also seems right to ban the burqa on the same grounds.

having seen how some women are treated by some muslims in far less strict cultures of central asia there is certainly far more to the symbol of the burqa than not wanting the world to see the princess. In Uzbekistan, for example, 40% of households experience domestic violence. A woman must be a virgin to marry, 50% of marriages are arranged (even to cousins-i taught some offspring of these unions and the marriages went generations back too), if a woman marries-she must serve his parents for 40 days as help around the house. Should she marry the youngest son she must live with the parents forever and is at the mercy of the mother in law and now must do all the cooking and cleaning for everyone.the upside is the two get the house(older sons dont) for taking care of the parents in old age. also a woman is not allowed to say her man is bad (beating or cheating on her) or it is her shame(not his).

If this is life in a liberal muslim society-you can imagine how much worse it can be in the stricter states.

We should respect culture to a point and embrace multi-cultural but just as we don't condone female circumcision and other practices we should not allow the Burqa and what it represents.

ReallyGreatConcerts
02-05-2010, 01:09
As I mentioned the Quran doesn't say much about dress except that women (and men) should dress 'modestly'.

Here's the quote on men dressing modestly:

"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do."
24:30

Here is the reference to women:
"And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments (jewels) except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, [a list of relatives], [household servants], or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss."
24:31

That's IT! No more, no less. Black blob women is cultural not Islamic. For those western countries wrestling with what to do with the veil I say pass a law giving a woman the right to choose for herself what to wear. This shouldn't be too difficult as her right to do so (to express herself) is given in almost all constitutions as long as it doesn't offend standards of decency or harm others which in the west shouldn't be the case.

Thank you for bringing a level of informed discusion to a debate previously dominated by know-nothing trolls.

Nobbynumbnuts
02-05-2010, 02:29
So you admit you're using two different online identities - yourself and your own sockpuppet?



Pipe down and switch to decaf. You're a big drama queen. ;)

rusmeister
02-05-2010, 05:03
Thank you for bringing a level of informed discusion to a debate previously dominated by know-nothing trolls.

I guess you must've missed my post.

My comment to Voodoo is to ask whether we should grant freedom to a nation to arrange its own laws as they see fit or whether we should impose our own philosophy on them? That assumes that we have power over them. This automatically grants the reverse - should anyone have power over our country, they should be free to force their ideology on us. Does might make right, or does freedom mean freedom to go against the grain? If democracy means that the people rule, or even only that a majority of the people rule (in theory), then in this case a democratic people has expressed their will, which some here would override because they are deeply undemocratic. They support democracy only as long as people agree with their philosophy.
(Not that I think that our own society is truly democratic.)

ReallyGreatConcerts
02-05-2010, 06:03
I guess you must've missed my post.

I said "dominated", rather than being entirely monopolised. ;)

I see our resident sockpuppet racist is still churning-out his online hatespeech, though :( A pity he doesn't join his friends on the "other" forum. Although I forgot - he's Johnny No-Mates.

trebor
02-05-2010, 06:27
I said "dominated", rather than being entirely monopolised. ;)

I see our resident sockpuppet racist is still churning-out his online hatespeech, though :( A pity he doesn't join his friends on the "other" forum. Although I forgot - he's Johnny No-Mates.

You're a windbag. Give it a rest you're killing me! :rofl:

GaNozri
02-05-2010, 15:03
It may come as a surprise to you, but many Muslim women CHOOSE to cover themselves. I am in Northern Iraq at the moment, and as secular as it is, most women wear scarfs with older women covering their faces when outdoors. I've asked several (younger) women about it, and they said that they feel that it is the correct thing to do according to tradition and religion. None of them are married, all uni educated. One girl actually had a falling out with her father who felt that it is not right for a US educated woman to wear a scarf, even in the M. East.

As far as Belgian law goes - its a disgrace for a society which positions itself as democratic and even liberal. It's even a bigger shame reading how some members bring up the laws in Saudi to justify it. Comparing Saudi with Belgium and Switzerland is absolutely unacceptable. Unless of course, Belgium and Switzerland are looking up to Saudi as an example to strive for.

rusmeister
02-05-2010, 16:59
It may come as a surprise to you, but many Muslim women CHOOSE to cover themselves. I am in Northern Iraq at the moment, and as secular as it is, most women wear scarfs with older women covering their faces when outdoors. I've asked several (younger) women about it, and they said that they feel that it is the correct thing to do according to tradition and religion. None of them are married, all uni educated. One girl actually had a falling out with her father who felt that it is not right for a US educated woman to wear a scarf, even in the M. East.

As far as Belgian law goes - its a disgrace for a society which positions itself as democratic and even liberal. It's even a bigger shame reading how some members bring up the laws in Saudi to justify it. Comparing Saudi with Belgium and Switzerland is absolutely unacceptable. Unless of course, Belgium and Switzerland are looking up to Saudi as an example to strive for.

I could make a similar point about Orthodox women vis-a-vis men. If you suggested that in covering their heads they were "submitting to 'male domination'", they would laugh at you. They see it in entirely different terms than the western publicly educated person sees it, and it is the WPEP that looks ignorant.

ReallyGreatConcerts
02-05-2010, 17:30
You're a windbag. Give it a rest you're killing me! :rofl:


Reported.

Nobbynumbnuts
02-05-2010, 18:38
Reported.

One word answers. That's better. :D

Swordfish90293
02-05-2010, 20:50
[QUOTE=yakspeare;656463]The burkha is a sign of repression and should be banned everywhere. Just like binding feet, forcing women into corsets...

I like women in corsets...

yakspeare
02-05-2010, 22:21
i like women in corsets too but the old corsets of the 1920s actually deformed ribs they were so tight and were worn so frequently.

as for nothern iraq etc, again a lot of this is cultural and what is often expected as a sign of piety too. just like , as i said, many women wear it for Ramadan but not at other times. they get my respect for this but i am talking headscarfs versus the burqa-the latter defemininises women.

Thing is that France is a secular society and no outward display of religion is tolerated...if jewish scullcaps and overt crucifixes etc are banned...SURELY the burqa must follow suit or it becomes one rule for muslims and one rule for everyone else.

ReallyGreatConcerts
02-05-2010, 22:53
if jewish scullcaps and overt crucifixes etc are banned....

But they're not banned.

They are not allowed in schools in France, but the French restriction on the kippah (proper name, please) - or cruxifix, or turban, or niqab etc - currently does not apply outside schools.

yakspeare
02-05-2010, 23:42
This was the original ban:

Last Updated: Thursday, 2 September, 2004, 11:36 GMT 12:36 UK


French scarf ban comes into force

Pupils wearing headscarves will not be automatically excluded
A law banning Islamic headscarves and other religious symbols from French state schools came into effect on Thursday, the first day of term.
So far, most pupils have been observing the law by removing the headscarf or other symbols before entering school.

The lives of two French reporters, held by Iraqi militants who want the ban scrapped, still hang in the balance.

The French government has refused to give in to the militants, who have threatened to kill the two.

But Paris is continuing a diplomatic effort to secure their release.


HEADSCARF BAN
Ban proposed in December 2003 and backed by parliament in March
Came into effect at start of new school year on 2 September
Lays down that "conspicuous" religious items may not be worn in schools
Forbidden items will include Muslim headscarf, Sikh turbans, Jewish skullcap and large Christian crucifixes

French education authorities with a large Arab population were on high alert on Thursday. Teams of mediators were on hand to intervene in any dispute.

Schools have been told not to automatically exclude pupils who arrive wearing headscarves, but to try and avert a showdown through dialogue.

The law, which affects 12 million children, calls for a period of dialogue, although Education Minister Francois Fillon has stressed that there is no room for negotiations.

"There is no question today of excluding. It is a question of convincing," he said.

As classes opened, one Muslim girl in the working-class Paris suburb of Aubervilliers said she had left her headscarf at home.

"I was always treated badly and I felt uncomfortable, so I decided to take it off," Nadia Arabi, 16, told the Associated Press before heading through the gates of Henri Wallon school.

The ban is not only affecting Muslims. Sikhs argue that their turbans are not religious symbols.

Young Sikh Ranjit, 15, went to the Jean-Rostand school in the Parisian suburb of Villepinte on Thursday morning to get his new timetable, wearing a thin strip of material on his hair rather than his customary turban, AFP news agency reports.

Unity

The ban is designed to maintain France's tradition of strictly separating state and religion.


HAVE YOUR SAY
This is opportunism at its height, it is just posturing and flexing of muscles on the part of the kidnappers
Matt, UK

Send us your comments
It forbids state school students from wearing "conspicuous" religious apparel. Jewish skullcaps, Sikh turbans and large Christian crosses are also banned.

The BBC's Caroline Wyatt in Paris says the hostage-takers' demands have had one unintended consequence - to unite France against them, making it much harder for radical Muslims to protest against the ban.

Nobody in France wants to be seen siding with the kidnappers, our correspondent says.




They are not allowed in schools in France, but the French restriction on the kippah (proper name, please) - or cruxifix, or turban, or niqab etc - currently does not apply outside schools.


Kippah
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Kipa" redirects here.
Kippah


A kippah, (כִּפָּה or כִּיפָּה, plural: kippot כִּפוֹת or כִּיפּוֹת), hech cap (US only), or yarmulke pronounced (Ya-mea-kah) pronunciation (help·info) (also called a skullcap or kappel) is a thin, slightly-rounded skullcap traditionally worn at all times by observant Jewish men, and sometimes by both men and women in Conservative and Reform communities.

I am currently studying Hebrew(ok i started a few weeks ago www.hebrewonline.com) and I am a proud Zionist. Please do not try to tell me what terminology to use. You are not a Politically Correct Police Officer.

Yes i concede that i was incorrect in the extent of the current ban, that it only applied to schools.

This, below, is an opinionated article but a very good one-which discusses the role of the burqa etc in the Arab world:
» 02/08/2010 10:52
ISLAM - EUROPE
An anti-burqa law to renew Islam in Europe
by Samir Khalil Samir
Wearing the all-enveloping outer garment is not a religious requirement, but a cultural tradition from Saudi Arabia. It is the symbol of an attack by extremist Islam on Europe, and this has generated contempt for a certain retrograde form of Islam. A law is needed against wearing full-face veil in public spaces, but what is even more needed is a broad dialogue between East and West that would allow Islam to be modernised and integrated into European culture, and thus have an opportunity to contribute to world civilisation.


Beirut (AsiaNews) – The practice of wearing the veil has spread across the Islamic world in recent years. Hundreds of articles have been written about it in the Arab-Muslim world. Among Muslims, the practice has been met by a number of reactions and points of view. In some cases, it has been totally or partially banned (especially the full-face version); in others, women have been encouraged to wear it, in some cases at all times. This shows that the Ummah’s is far from being unanimous (ijmâ‘) over the “Islamic nature” of this type of garment, or about the attitudes towards it. In any event, the veil is an issue around the Muslim world. The full-faced veil is indeed a major problem.

The full-face veil scares

The burqa and the niqab raise fear . . . for good reason. They scare Muslims and non-Muslim alike. When this practice is associated with Islam, when it is made into one of its essential elements, this fear is not only about Muslims, but also about Islam itself. The term phobia in “Islamophobia” in fact stands for “fear”.

Indeed, many Westerners do “fear” Islam. The more Muslims try to advance their demands in the name of Islam, the more Islamophobia will grow. Westerners will ask why should are they so different and special that they would want to come to live in a social, cultural, political, economic, vestimentary and culinary milieu that is not theirs, one that existed long before their arrival.

The feeling that Islam pervades every aspects of daily life, that it demands a certain type of behaviour, has created a sense of “invasion”. And this raises fears. Many begin to wonder: If I give in on this issue, which one will be the next? Will there ever be an end? Some ask themselves whether Islam can ever be integrated in Europe”.[1]

Is the veil compulsory?

When the veil is discussed, many raise the issue of religious traditions and freedom. According to Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, the dean of Al-Azhar University, the most famous institution of higher learning in the Muslim world, the burqa and the niqab are not Islamic. Both are a sign of tribal affiliation. For this reason, he had the full-face veil banned from hundreds of buildings that come under al-Azhar’s jurisdiction. Elsewhere, the two articles of clothing have been banned on grounds that they belong to another culture (i.e. Arabia).

Gamal al-Banna, brother of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, wrote a book and signed several articles in which he argued that the Qur‘an does not require Muslim women to wear the veil.

A’ïchah, Umm al-Mu’minin, is known to have reacted negatively when she saw one of her slave girls (amah) go out wearing a veil. She slapped her, saying: “How dare you? You are but a servant!” [2] In fact, the veil symbolised the dignity of upper-class women (especially the wives of the Prophet). Equally, it is hard to imagine a woman working in the fields with an all-enveloping outer piece of clothing, even more so, if it includes a full-face veil.

In Egypt on 16 November 2006, Culture Minister Faruq Hosni (later a candidate for the post of UNESCO director general) in a telephone interview complained about the growing acceptance of the veil. “There was a time,” he said, “when our mothers went to university and work without a veil. We grew up in that spirit. Why should we go back now?”

The stranglehold of the Muslim Brotherhood on parliament is such that the organisation called for his resignation . . ., which did not occur because Egypt’s First Lady, Suzanne Mubarak, intervened on his behalf. Often women are more courageous in our Arab countries . . . because they have nothing to lose.

Would banning the veil be against freedom?

Some say that a law banning the veil would be an attack on freedom. That is true, but there is a reason for it. Are not all laws attempts against freedom? Freedom has limits defined by common sense and shared values, which also have the right to be protected. Hence, in France (and elsewhere in Europe), walking naked in public spaces is banned (except in designated places). Hence, where is freedom then?

As Paul, who hailed from Tarsus, an important centre of Stoic philosophy, put it, “[Y]ou were called for freedom (eleutheria), brothers. But do not use this freedom as an opportunity for the flesh” (Gal, 5:13). By flesh, Paul meant passions and all that is opposed to the spirit.[3] In this sense, law frees us from bad dispositions.

Why a law?

The women who wear a full-face garment (niqab or burqa) do not do so out of respect for tradition. They are usually young Muslim women, born and bred in France (where the debate over the veil is the most heated), or French women who converted to Islam. If the two pieces of clothing were part of a tradition, no one could object to see women wear them. For example, many old women in Sicily wear black from head to toe, even when they carry heavy loads on their head. This might come as a surprise to some, but no one has criticised them because they respect a traditional practice of their country.

In France, the issue is very different. Women who wear the burqa or the niqab do so for ideological reasons, to challenge Western society, which they consider corrupt. Whether they are conscious of it or not, they are advancing a dangerous political project, which is dangerous not because it is political, but because it is not out in the open but is rather presented as something religious. The fact remains that the full-face veil is not required by either the Qur‘an or the Sunnah.

The experience of other countries makes this even clearer; that of Egypt for instance, the largest country in the Arab. The ordinary headscarf was an oddity in 1975; now it is the rule. The full-face veil, which used to be rare in 1995, now is becoming commonplace![4] Following the fall of ideologies and in the absence of democracy, justice or equality, religion has become the only certainty in the Muslim world. Such a trend, observable across the Middle East and North Africa, shows that if we allow things to continue the way they are, covering the head can only become more widespread.

The reasons behind the full-face veil

In the West, the practice of covering comes as a cultural shock. It cannot be justified in the name of religion because nothing requires it. Tradition cannot be used as justification because those who wear it now are doing it for the first time, and the countries where they live are opposed to it. Why adopt it then?

At best, I think it is a defensive reaction to a certain laxity in Western morals and behaviour. Even though morality may be loose in the West, should people respond to one extreme with another? Or even do something shocking?

Modesty is the ideal for every person in his or her right mind. However, modesty does not require this kind of clothing. In fact, the notion of modesty varies across time and space, in the West as well as in the Arab and Muslim world. Modesty is a virtue that applies to all humans, men as well as women. If the full-face veil (or even just then ordinary veil) were the best way to practice modesty, or should it become the rule, why are men not wearing it? That is because it is not part of the tradition.

Collective or national customs define, here and now, how modesty is expressed. In France (and Europe), French (European) customs and rules decide what is right. Above all, clearly no religious obligation exists. The fact that even Muslims are far from any consensus with regards to this garment means that it is not compulsory for Muslims. By contrast, ALL MUSLIMS agree that the five daily prayers (and more generally the five pillars of Islam) are compulsory for every Muslim, even though many do not perform them. Undeniably, there is no agreement on the veil.

Impact on Western reactions

It is clear that the full-face veil is contrary to French customs and way of seeing things. It is especially in contradiction with the fundamental notion of gender equality and the idea that religious or philosophical beliefs should not be expressed too ostentatiously. Like all customs, these notions are not laid out in a law or included in the constitution, but are the result of a national consensus that accurately reflects an aspect of the France’s “national identity”, an issue that is much discussed at present.

Since the veil is viewed in many countries (most notably in France) as a symbol of cultural regression, the 2,000 French women (who might not even be French citizens but might simply be residents in the country) who want to wear the full-face veil are, in my opinion, hurting Islam, all Muslims and Arabs.

Unwittingly, they are creating an image of Islam that is reinforcing Western stereotypes in which Islam is seen as a religion that trailing behind the rest of humanity, one that will inevitably pull the West backward. Sadly, all expert opinions, by Arab scholars and others, have highlighted this backwardness, supported by data. Is it wise then to add some religious element every day to prove that Islam is the cause of our backwardness? For this reason alone, opposing the full-face veil is worthwhile.

What is the solution? Should the state legislate on the matter?

Who must “fight” the full-face veil? Should the state adopt a law? If the latter were the case, it would be very sad. On the one hand, we may ask whether it is necessary for a state to legislate in a matter that affects only 2,000 people out of a population 62,500,000 people (0.003 per cent). Our answer is in a Latin expression: De minimis non curat praetor (the government does not concern itself with trifles). On the other hand, if the law says nothing and Salafist pressures continue—something that is very likely because they are for a cause that seeks victory, one that will be followed by others—, then the issue will not be dealt with. Some short gap solutions might be found, with some general guidelines laid to give local communities or institutions the power to decide.

Unfortunately, the “de Creil” affair[5] of 18 September 1989 suggests that conflicts of this nature are not healed by the passage of time alone. The French government had to set up the Stasi Commission and pass a law (on the separation of state and religion and ostentatious religious symbols) on 15 March 2004 to reduce tensions. Yet, the letter that Ernest Chénière, headmaster at the Collège Gabriel Havez in Creil, wrote to the parents of Fatima (13) and Leila (14) Achahboun and those of Samira Saidani was reasonable for it said, “Our goal is to limit the excessive showing of all religious or cultural affiliation. Please, have them [the daughters] respect the secular character of our school.”

Can Muslims find a solution?

The most reasonable solution can only come from within. Muslims must solve the problem themselves. It would be great if we had a group of “sages” who could explain the actual nature of the issue, and go into the reasons that limited in past its appeal in most Muslim countries, whilst favouring its recent sudden appearance in the Muslim world as well as Europe.

Sadly, that is crux of the matter. A certain kind of solidarity based on clan or ancestral affiliation is preventing us from conducting self-criticism, especially of things that appears to be religious in nature. For some reason, we are paralysed. The overwhelming majority of Western Muslims are against the full-face veil. Yet no one has the courage to take the issue to the streets to demonstrate against it or put pressure on fellow Muslims, much less on imams.

We should explain publicly why such a garment is ethically contrary to French (and Western) culture and why it is deemed degrading to women. Islam must more than ever rethink itself. Practicing Muslims must help their co-religionists separate Islam from certain outdated cultural practices; they must also help them understand where the line runs between religion and politics within Islam . . . in other words, they must help them build a modern Islam, based on its beliefs, one that can make a spiritual contribution to world civilisation.

Conclusion

What is the way out? In spite of inevitable reactions among Muslims and some non-Muslims, a law would lay down limits of a ban, in schools and universities, government offices and in places people have to show their identity.

At the same time, Muslims must go through their own tanwîr (enlightenment) in order to create an enlightened Islam, undertake their own Aufklärung. This must be done using the internet (on sites like www.oumma.com), in forums, in radio and TV discussions, in every media. Indeed, we should do this in conferences, round-tables and in mosques, emphasising the positive aspect of this goal, namely how to rethink Islam in today’s Europe.

For my part, as an Arab Christian, of Islamic and Christian culture, I am certain that Islam (like other religious traditions) has a cultural and spiritual role to play in world civilisation. We must identify what is best in Western and Islamic civilisations and what is less so. This process is best done together because confrontation serves no purpose, except to poison the atmosphere and increase tensions. As such, it will not be easy. It would nevertheless be beneficial to Islam and Christianity as well as to the Arab and the Western worlds.

For the indigenous population, the large number of Muslims in Europe is seen as a threat . . . . Sadly, it is so at present. Both sides are responsible for the situation, but the presence of so many Muslims can also be a source for reflection and balance for either tradition. Such work of understanding must be done jointly, in a cultural, ethical and spiritual dialogue that includes everyone (agnostics and non-believers as well, since ethics and spirituality are not a preserve of believers alone).

As a believer, I think that the presence of a large number of Muslims in Europe can be seen as something providential, an act of divine Providence (al-‘inâyah al-ilâhiyyah) . . . for them as well as for the Europeans because both can renew themselves in justice and equity, acknowledging each other as legitimately different and yet complementary. W-Allâhu samî‘un ‘alîmun! (َاللهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ! ), Allah is Hearing, Knowing.[6]

[1] I am thinking about Prof Giovanni Sartori, a sociologist and political scientist who is well known in Italy and the United States who recently wrote an editorial article on the issue that was published in Italy’s Corriere delle Sera newspaper, on 20 December 2009.

[2] Quote from the Life of the Prophet (Sirah Nabawiyyah).

[3] Here, flesh refers to nafs in the Qur‘an, as in the expression (إنَّ النَّفْسَ لأَمَّارَةٌ بِالسُّوءِ . . . most surely (man's) self is wont to command (him to do) evil (Shura Yusuf, 12:53).

[4] All we need to do is compare photos taken at Cairo University in the 1970s with today’s reality to see how far the veil has come!

[5] In Creil, three female Muslim students were suspended for refusing to remove their veil in school.

[6] Qur‘an, 2:224,256 ; 3:34,121; 9:98,103; 24:21,50.

rusmeister
03-05-2010, 09:34
While brevity may be the soul of wit, it's pretty clear that the body of wit requires words. I'd say that there is some relation between the number of words a person writes himself (so quotes don't count) and his general intelligence. Unfortunately, this means that intelligent posts - which normally DO require a lot of words, will tend not to get read. This says a good deal about the intelligence of readers who will not read, but it is the way things stand.

The trouble with short answers, though, is that we all hold different assumptions and start from different worldviews. Since so little is held in common, everything needs to be clarified, and even different understandings of the same words exposed.

For example, in yakspeare's extended quote (I wonder who has the patience to read something of that length here - on the internet, it exceeds the average person's attention span, as ADS is the rule, rather than the exception) we get statements like this:

The most reasonable solution can only come from within. Muslims must solve the problem themselves.
Now this starts from assumptions that vary radically from the assumptions of people who disagree. The basic idea behind the statement is that one's beliefs should make no difference in public life. What exactly "within" is is not clarified/identified. Within France? Or Belgium? But it IS coming from within those countries. Within Islam? What exactly does that mean, in terms of geopolitics?


Westerners will ask why should are they so different and special that they would want to come to live in a social, cultural, political, economic, vestimentary and culinary milieu that is not theirs, one that existed long before their arrival. The intense irony - regarding religion, above all - the one thing not mentioned - that our culture is now post-Christian, and assuming that our own culture has not changed dramatically is absurd.


As a believer, I think that the presence of a large number of Muslims in Europe can be seen as something providential, an act of divine Providence (al-‘inâyah al-ilâhiyyah) . . . for them as well as for the Europeans because both can renew themselves in justice and equity, acknowledging each other as legitimately different and yet complementary. W-Allâhu samî‘un ‘alîmun! (َاللهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ! ), Allah is Hearing, Knowing.[6]

The assumptions of this writer extend into a form of universalism that even George MacDonald would have a hard time swallowing. To suggest that Christianity and Islam can be "complementary" shows a profound ignorance of the traditional theologies (indicating possibly a complete dependence on certain modern - and quite small, relatively speaking - movements within Christianity and Islam). A Trinitarian God cannot also be a Unitarian God and they produce very different religions and cultures that do not complement, but contradict. Jesus cannot be both God incarnate and only a prophet. While there are things that the religions can agree upon - and also agree with Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, etc, they can hardly be described as complementary by any but the ignorant.

I would recommend, yakspeare, that you put a short and critical quote from his text and link to the rest, especially as it's not your writing. I know for a fact that people won't read lengthier texts of Lewis, Chersterton, Belloc, or whoever just because I post them. I also recommend that you distinguish clearly between what you quote and what you write yourself.

trebor
03-05-2010, 09:52
It may come as a surprise to you, but many Muslim women CHOOSE to cover themselves. I am in Northern Iraq at the moment, and as secular as it is, most women wear scarfs with older women covering their faces when outdoors. I've asked several (younger) women about it, and they said that they feel that it is the correct thing to do according to tradition and religion. None of them are married, all uni educated. One girl actually had a falling out with her father who felt that it is not right for a US educated woman to wear a scarf, even in the M. East.

As far as Belgian law goes - its a disgrace for a society which positions itself as democratic and even liberal. It's even a bigger shame reading how some members bring up the laws in Saudi to justify it. Comparing Saudi with Belgium and Switzerland is absolutely unacceptable. Unless of course, Belgium and Switzerland are looking up to Saudi as an example to strive for.

It's true that there are some older muslim women who choose to cover themselves with the veil but this reminds me of the story of the man who owned a bird and kept it in a small cage all of it's life. One day his friend finally asked him, "isn't it cruel to keep that bird locked up like that"?
The man open the cage door, the bird jumped out, but was confused about it's freedom, it didn't feel secure so it promptly jumped back in.
The man quickly closed the door and said, You see! She likes It!

Whatever the case i think there are other strong reasons to consider curbing the more excessive customs of muslims in Europe.

The people of Europe have been submitted to large scale immigration (not just muslims) for a long time now. It's a testament to their tolerance that social tensions haven't gotten completely out of control.
They have been asked to except a lot and for the most part have done so. It is the responsibility of politicians to manage the social consequences of this immigration. They have to strike a balance between what the population will tolerate, freedoms and the desires and beliefs of the muslim community. People can talk about freedoms and choices all they want but if Europeans eventually reject what they believe to be an encroachment on their way of life the result could be anarchy. This is the reality.
Is it too much to ask muslims to pay the small price that they refrain from wearing the veil? Refrain from the call to prayer as well for example? Things many, if not most Europeans take issue with.
At the end of the day these measures will surely benefit them as well. Their integration in to European life would be smoother and more complete.

yakspeare
03-05-2010, 11:48
While brevity may be the soul of wit, it's pretty clear that the body of wit requires words. I'd say that there is some relation between the number of words a person writes himself (so quotes don't count) and his general intelligence. Unfortunately, this means that intelligent posts - which normally DO require a lot of words, will tend not to get read. This says a good deal about the intelligence of readers who will not read, but it is the way things stand.

The trouble with short answers, though, is that we all hold different assumptions and start from different worldviews. Since so little is held in common, everything needs to be clarified, and even different understandings of the same words exposed.

For example, in yakspeare's extended quote (I wonder who has the patience to read something of that length here - on the internet, it exceeds the average person's attention span, as ADS is the rule, rather than the exception) we get statements like this:

Now this starts from assumptions that vary radically from the assumptions of people who disagree. The basic idea behind the statement is that one's beliefs should make no difference in public life. What exactly "within" is is not clarified/identified. Within France? Or Belgium? But it IS coming from within those countries. Within Islam? What exactly does that mean, in terms of geopolitics?

The intense irony - regarding religion, above all - the one thing not mentioned - that our culture is now post-Christian, and assuming that our own culture has not changed dramatically is absurd.



The assumptions of this writer extend into a form of universalism that even George MacDonald would have a hard time swallowing. To suggest that Christianity and Islam can be "complementary" shows a profound ignorance of the traditional theologies (indicating possibly a complete dependence on certain modern - and quite small, relatively speaking - movements within Christianity and Islam). A Trinitarian God cannot also be a Unitarian God and they produce very different religions and cultures that do not complement, but contradict. Jesus cannot be both God incarnate and only a prophet. While there are things that the religions can agree upon - and also agree with Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, etc, they can hardly be described as complementary by any but the ignorant.

I would recommend, yakspeare, that you put a short and critical quote from his text and link to the rest, especially as it's not your writing. I know for a fact that people won't read lengthier texts of Lewis, Chersterton, Belloc, or whoever just because I post them. I also recommend that you distinguish clearly between what you quote and what you write yourself.


I am sorry that you feel people lack the patience to read, consider and learn. I am certainly not one of them and I read as much as I possibly can about every subject. When it comes to forums wild opinions are often thrown around without support and I have been called a liar or worse for making statements. So i back those statements up(like when Carbo went at me i posted the Fed Reserve chairmen himself stating how dire the situation is in the US economy).

I posted this before the article:

"This, below, is an opinionated article but a very good one-which discusses the role of the burqa etc in the Arab world"

Thus I made it clear it was not my opinion but that of an Arab Christian writer. What he essentially says is there is NO basis for the burqa in islam itself and this is a modern thing that has appeared outside some arabic states. What he is also saying, in this i agree, is that the burqa(which is also a symbol of defiance of assimilation) is seen as hostile and alien to others. That encouraging women to wear the burqa marginalizes these people and is counter-productive. People begin to associate being muslim as being someone who wears a costume and mask and walks the streets without us knowing who they are. It is quite an unfriendly gesture and it is understandable that people may not like. I know of reports where young children have been genuinely frightened of them.

What the muslim world needs to do, to fight our own prejudices especially with terrorists etc, is to show they are "just like us". By all means show respect to their deity and i truly support them wearing headscarfs and dressing modestly. They should promote how the arab world gave us technology, our number system, spices etc and display their art, music and language. Choosing to arrive in foreign countries and yet isolate themselves from us, only creates fear and suspicion. Yes the majority have to compensate for the minority, muslim leaders have a responsibility.

You talk about christianity and islam not being complementary and move onto a religious debate about the differences in the nature of their respective God/Gods. The Jewish God is unitarian also, yet there seems to be room for them- aren't muslims the children of Abraham also? The point is we live in a world where many religions do exist and do not have to be hostile to each other.You can respect a man, respect his right to believe what he likes, and yet not agree with aspects or the whole of his religion. I think the writer is talking more on these lines. How did Paul give his message to the Jews, he became one of them, no? To the gentiles he was a Roman.

the thing is with governments is they legislate to guarantee a result. I don't really like the French secular model but i respect it and they should follow what they have based their constitution on. I believe the people have a right to decide what form their country will make. Australia, my homeland, is probably the most multi-cultural society on earth. Of my school of some 1000 students there were only 20 of us "white" kids. It is isn't always perfect but works a million times better than in America. Muslims have been in our country for 150 years and opened up the desert for us. We are proud to have them as part of our community. Still, there is one Mosque in Australia, and it is only one that preaches Jihad, australia/america are bad, remain seperate from australians etc. It is also the one that advocates the Burqa. The rest of the muslim population distance themselves from it and i dare say a lot in france think the same. The Burqa attracts negative attention on muslims as a whole. i dare say, though, that Australia may not even have the English language as its major language in another 200-300 years. We are simply too young a country and dependent on immigration that our culture and accent and other aspects of our lives will change. Though this will be a pity it is understandable but in the case of much older countries such as France and the UK etc I believe the "status quo" of their culture should be preserved. Australian culture is in a state of flux and is quite limited, with these older countries it is not.

Turkey is a secular Muslim state and currently bans the use of headscarfs at universities(something many people are challenging). Not burqas, headscarfs.

the writer i quoted also discussed the issue in Egypt and how burqas and the like are a recent thing which were never seen 20-30 years ago. Just like in Australia i never saw them, despite living in the neighbouring suburb to Australia's largest muslim population, but now you see them quite often. I am all for muslims having freedom to express themselves but i do consider Wahhabism something of grave concern that has only really been a powerbroker in Saudi Arabia since the 1920s revival...and this style of islam is very confrontational and hostile to our way of life. The muslims themselves should try to limit its influence lest governments do it for them.

ReallyGreatConcerts
03-05-2010, 13:20
Whatever the case i think there are other strong reasons to consider curbing the more excessive customs of muslims in Europe.

Why aren't we surprised you think that? How's your pal Nick Griffin? Still wearing the jackboots, is he??

trebor
03-05-2010, 13:36
Why aren't we surprised you think that? How's your pal Nick Griffin? Still wearing the jackboots, is he??

Windbag, when are you going to get it through your thick scull you're not smart enough to upset me? ;)

rusmeister
03-05-2010, 13:48
I am sorry that you feel people lack the patience to read, consider and learn. I am certainly not one of them and I read as much as I possibly can about every subject. When it comes to forums wild opinions are often thrown around without support and I have been called a liar or worse for making statements. So i back those statements up(like when Carbo went at me i posted the Fed Reserve chairmen himself stating how dire the situation is in the US economy).

I posted this before the article:

"This, below, is an opinionated article but a very good one-which discusses the role of the burqa etc in the Arab world"

Thus I made it clear it was not my opinion but that of an Arab Christian writer. What he essentially says is there is NO basis for the burqa in islam itself and this is a modern thing that has appeared outside some arabic states. What he is also saying, in this i agree, is that the burqa(which is also a symbol of defiance of assimilation) is seen as hostile and alien to others. That encouraging women to wear the burqa marginalizes these people and is counter-productive. People begin to associate being muslim as being someone who wears a costume and mask and walks the streets without us knowing who they are. It is quite an unfriendly gesture and it is understandable that people may not like. I know of reports where young children have been genuinely frightened of them.

What the muslim world needs to do, to fight our own prejudices especially with terrorists etc, is to show they are "just like us". By all means show respect to their deity and i truly support them wearing headscarfs and dressing modestly. They should promote how the arab world gave us technology, our number system, spices etc and display their art, music and language. Choosing to arrive in foreign countries and yet isolate themselves from us, only creates fear and suspicion. Yes the majority have to compensate for the minority, muslim leaders have a responsibility.

You talk about christianity and islam not being complementary and move onto a religious debate about the differences in the nature of their respective God/Gods. The Jewish God is unitarian also, yet there seems to be room for them- aren't muslims the children of Abraham also? The point is we live in a world where many religions do exist and do not have to be hostile to each other.You can respect a man, respect his right to believe what he likes, and yet not agree with aspects or the whole of his religion. I think the writer is talking more on these lines. How did Paul give his message to the Jews, he became one of them, no? To the gentiles he was a Roman.

the thing is with governments is they legislate to guarantee a result. I don't really like the French secular model but i respect it and they should follow what they have based their constitution on. I believe the people have a right to decide what form their country will make. Australia, my homeland, is probably the most multi-cultural society on earth. Of my school of some 1000 students there were only 20 of us "white" kids. It is isn't always perfect but works a million times better than in America. Muslims have been in our country for 150 years and opened up the desert for us. We are proud to have them as part of our community. Still, there is one Mosque in Australia, and it is only one that preaches Jihad, australia/america are bad, remain seperate from australians etc. It is also the one that advocates the Burqa. The rest of the muslim population distance themselves from it and i dare say a lot in france think the same. The Burqa attracts negative attention on muslims as a whole. i dare say, though, that Australia may not even have the English language as its major language in another 200-300 years. We are simply too young a country and dependent on immigration that our culture and accent and other aspects of our lives will change. Though this will be a pity it is understandable but in the case of much older countries such as France and the UK etc I believe the "status quo" of their culture should be preserved. Australian culture is in a state of flux and is quite limited, with these older countries it is not.

Turkey is a secular Muslim state and currently bans the use of headscarfs at universities(something many people are challenging). Not burqas, headscarfs.

the writer i quoted also discussed the issue in Egypt and how burqas and the like are a recent thing which were never seen 20-30 years ago. Just like in Australia i never saw them, despite living in the neighbouring suburb to Australia's largest muslim population, but now you see them quite often. I am all for muslims having freedom to express themselves but i do consider Wahhabism something of grave concern that has only really been a powerbroker in Saudi Arabia since the 1920s revival...and this style of islam is very confrontational and hostile to our way of life. The muslims themselves should try to limit its influence lest governments do it for them.

Hi yakspeare,
I have a lot of sympathy with what you are saying; probably the first thing is to get clear that I am not suggesting that you or of everybody lacks a serious attention span, but a great many people - who post here, unfortunately - do.
I've crossed swords with Carbo, Adamodeus and other intelligent people here, only to find in the end that they had no final response. Obviously, that leaves me with a solid impression of having defeated them solidly in debate, but it also says that even the more intelligent posters here are usually unwilling to engage with serious and deep thought, and longer texts. I myself, if I know the gist of an argument, am unwilling to read long posts of certain types, and especially quotes from third parties of those types. In those cases I feel that I already know the arguments that are going to be defended over the next half-hour (or ten pages) of text, and don't wish to waste my time on shallow thought, when I've already been deeper, myself.

I've found GK Chesterton to be a far deeper thinker than me, but I've also found that no one is willing to engage with Chesterton's ideas. And understandably - as I see it, to argue with Chesterton is to lose.

It was difficult to pick up what was your words and what was not from the way you posted the text with quotes. Using the quote button, or different colored text, or something would help tell which words are yours.

On your point on religions and the apostle Paul, I'd say that he did put the message in local terms, as he said. But he did not compromise the message, or present the nature of God and Christ as the Jews and the Greeks already imagined them, but as what they actually had been revealed to be. He would not, today, begin by saying to Muslims, "There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet." He would not be 'a Muslim to the Muslims' in that sense.

You are right that people of different religions do not have to be hostile to each other. but the religions themselves ARE hostile to each other, as secular pluralism is hostile to them all, most especially to traditional Christianity. The ideas are most definitely hostile and mutually exclusive. And it is impossible to build and run a society without adopting the ultimate principles of one of them - any society must have, and has, a foundational philosophy, whether it is openly declared/discussed or not. Secular pluralism appears to create peace between them, but only on the principle that what they teach/believe is not important, that what they believe does not, and can not, reflect truth that also affects others, and that above all, what they believe should be private and not allowed to sway public policy, which is de facto one that denies there IS any truth, as Pilate essentially did to Christ. In short, what you should be concerned about is already upon you - that is, if you think it matters what you believe, and that what you believe is actually the truth and jolly well ought to affect public policy. I'd say that those who don't have been successfully conditioned by our public schools and our media to hold the beliefs that they do, but that's another conversation.

yakspeare
03-05-2010, 14:39
hi rusmeister,

certainly Paul wouldn't say he a follower of Mohammed but i read a very interesting book long ago about how a group of christians got the message across about what they believed at a new age folk festival. you got to talk their lingo and show what you have in common , as well as show the clear differences. but you need a common ground too.

there is a controversy at the moment in Malaysia over non-muslims using the name Allah to describe God. It is much like Messianic Jews....you don't ask the person to stop being Jewish, rather you show them that Jesus fulfilled that prophecy...of course this means various aspects of Judaism are incorrect but it is how you handle this. To a muslim you would show that you all believe in the same God, Allah. That he gave every person the same birthright as the Jews by the sacrifice of his son. They may not agree with you but there is a certain level of respect you can gain from each other. I first came across a lot of this when i started writing my book(about Angels) and I decided to explore the Jewish and Islamic beliefs in Angels to get some ideas. So i read a lot about their belief systems and continue to do so. The problem is the variation between respective scriptures and actual practice.

I do indeed believe in absolute truth and not relative truth. I have no real answer for the pious Jew or Muslim who steadfastly follows Hashem or Allah about whether they get entrance to Heaven. I do not know the boundaries of God's grace. I am aware of "not by Father except by me" but perhaps he intercedes in this and they get a free pass....i don't know....i just know where it is guaranteed.

As well read as I consider myself I don't know much about Chesterton(i know a lot about Lewis) and i think i have read everlasting man when i was younger but it is hazy. Shaw i know about too. I will read some more :)

The real difficulty in both the christian religion and islam is they are both evangelical in nature. You are supposed to show the light to your fellow man. Judaism actually escapes this by not prosletzying(sp) and indeed allows anyone who follows the seven laws of Noah as a gentile the ability to gain Heaven(or be chosen in this life for those Jews who do not believe in an afterlife). Thing is we have to have governments and if we ran around converting people in the fashion we ought there would be quite a bit of anarchy....if every christian was supposed to be a full time missionary. Now this might actually be the right thing to do(if the message is that important you would think so) but it is very much anti-governments in nature. Personally i think the greatest mistake of christianity is becoming a mainstream religion under Rome. When it was cell/home based and outlawed i consider it far more effective at what it was supposed to do. Much like the church in CHina today and indeed Christianity under communism in Russia.

ReallyGreatConcerts
03-05-2010, 15:02
Windbag, when are you going to get it through your thick scull you're not smart enough to upset me? ;)

That's spelled "skull". If you're going to lobby for the National Front, at least learn to spell the languge you claim to be your own??

You've been reported to Moderators for simulataneous use of two accounts. Hopefully you'll be banned.

trebor
03-05-2010, 15:23
[QUOTE=ReallyGreatConcerts;657576.........Hopefully you'll be banned.[/QUOTE]

Very tolerant of you! ;) :D

That reminds me. Thanks to your interventions, my difficulties logging in should soon be resolved.
If i have anymore problems i'll let you know. Cheers! :10518:

Did you get a warning? Honest answers only please! :rofl:

xfactor2000
03-05-2010, 15:26
Good to hear that burqas are slowly being removed from the face of Europe. As I read in one article, freedom and equality do not mean anyone can do anything, but it's rather a system of values that everyone in the society have to accept.

Specifically, Western values cannot accept the freedom of humiliating women and treating them like dirt, whatever is written in Qur'an. Religious symbols are fine, but enough is enough...:redcard:

ReallyGreatConcerts
03-05-2010, 15:41
Very tolerant of you! ;) :D

my difficulties logging in should soon be resolved



Like we give a stuff about your "problems"?? I certainly don't!!

You've been exposed as a filthy racist and a BNP Nazi supporter. Your vile posts are cut-pasted from racist hate-sites.

You're not wanted in this community at all, on either of your log-ins. You're not wanted in Russia - the Russian Government opposes racist thugs. Stay out of Russia.

trebor
03-05-2010, 15:47
Good to hear that burqas are slowly being removed from the face of Europe. As I read in one article, freedom and equality do not mean anyone can do anything, but it's rather a system of values that everyone in the society have to accept.

Specifically, Western values cannot accept the freedom of humiliating women and treating them like dirt, whatever is written in Qur'an. Religious symbols are fine, but enough is enough...:redcard:

The problem in Europe is that the politicians are not listening to the voters. They are losing support to the right wing parties like the BNP in the UK.
As i mentioned before people are getting fed up with present immigration policy. If politicians don't listen and take some action the situation will deteriorate further.
A vast number of people are against the Burqa and the veil. What they symbolize has been debated at length on here so no need to go over it again. Neither are compulsory in Islam so it seems reasonable to consider an outright ban.
One thing is for sure though the voters have to be appeased or unfortunately right wing parties are only going to get stronger.

trebor
03-05-2010, 15:51
Like we give a stuff about your "problems"?? I certainly don't!!

You've been exposed as a filthy racist and a BNP Nazi supporter. Your vile posts are cut-pasted from racist hate-sites.

You're not wanted in this community at all, on either of your log-ins. You're not wanted in Russia - the Russian Government opposes racist thugs. Stay out of Russia.

So you did get a warning then? :D
PMSL What a drama queen!
Calm down you windbag. :D

ReallyGreatConcerts
03-05-2010, 16:26
Windbag, when are you going to get it through your thick scull you're not smart enough to upset me? ;)


Looks like I did, Adolf!! Now sling your hook. BNP racists aren't wanted here. Or are you too thick to understand that, you illiterate wazzock? Go bother your friends on the other site, Billy No-Mates.

trebor
03-05-2010, 16:57
Looks like I did, Adolf!! Now sling your hook. BNP racists aren't wanted here. Or are you too thick to understand that, you illiterate wazzock? Go bother your friends on the other site, Billy No-Mates.

I feel sorry for you i really do. :D
You make a complaint about me then you get a warning. Classic!!
What a loser! :rofl:

rusmeister
03-05-2010, 17:03
We'll try to keep intelligent conversation alive without all of the personal insults exploding like bombs around us. Maybe we'll have a civilizing effect on barbarian behavior...



hi rusmeister,

certainly Paul wouldn't say he a follower of Mohammed but i read a very interesting book long ago about how a group of christians got the message across about what they believed at a new age folk festival. you got to talk their lingo and show what you have in common , as well as show the clear differences. but you need a common ground too.

there is a controversy at the moment in Malaysia over non-muslims using the name Allah to describe God. It is much like Messianic Jews....you don't ask the person to stop being Jewish, rather you show them that Jesus fulfilled that prophecy...of course this means various aspects of Judaism are incorrect but it is how you handle this. To a muslim you would show that you all believe in the same God, Allah. That he gave every person the same birthright as the Jews by the sacrifice of his son. They may not agree with you but there is a certain level of respect you can gain from each other. I first came across a lot of this when i started writing my book(about Angels) and I decided to explore the Jewish and Islamic beliefs in Angels to get some ideas. So i read a lot about their belief systems and continue to do so. The problem is the variation between respective scriptures and actual practice.

No argument.


I do indeed believe in absolute truth and not relative truth. I have no real answer for the pious Jew or Muslim who steadfastly follows Hashem or Allah about whether they get entrance to Heaven. I do not know the boundaries of God's grace. I am aware of "not by Father except by me" but perhaps he intercedes in this and they get a free pass....i don't know....i just know where it is guaranteed.

That is actually a very Orthodox attitude! (meant as a compliment) :)


As well read as I consider myself I don't know much about Chesterton(i know a lot about Lewis) and i think i have read everlasting man when i was younger but it is hazy. Shaw i know about too. I will read some more :)

Only Shaw is Chesterton's ideological archfoe - kind of like Moriarty to GKC's Holmes. Shaw's the atheist.


The real difficulty in both the christian religion and islam is they are both evangelical in nature. You are supposed to show the light to your fellow man. Judaism actually escapes this by not prosletzying(sp) and indeed allows anyone who follows the seven laws of Noah as a gentile the ability to gain Heaven(or be chosen in this life for those Jews who do not believe in an afterlife). Thing is we have to have governments and if we ran around converting people in the fashion we ought there would be quite a bit of anarchy....if every christian was supposed to be a full time missionary. Now this might actually be the right thing to do(if the message is that important you would think so) but it is very much anti-governments in nature. Personally i think the greatest mistake of christianity is becoming a mainstream religion under Rome. When it was cell/home based and outlawed i consider it far more effective at what it was supposed to do. Much like the church in CHina today and indeed Christianity under communism in Russia.


Indeed bad things crept in with the legalization of Christianity and its subsequent domination of Empire. (I think about the sacrament of Confession, a big stumbling block for Protestants - it sure was for me, as an ex-Baptist cum agnostic, and the history of Confession in the Church is rather illuminating - did you know that confessing to God before a priest was actually a relaxing of the ancient standard of confessing before the whole church - which the growing nominalization of a government religion really made impossible; I mean, if a nominal (non-serious Christian) hears you confessing, say adultery, and then goes and gossips about it everywhere, that kind of clamps a lid on public confession. It's a bit of a surprise to the person who says, "Why can't we just confess to God without any priest?" to discover that modern conceptions of totally private confession are out of line with ancient Church practice. But I digress. I was just pointing to the nominalization and its effects in support of your comment. (PS - don't forget that Orthodox understandings are NOT identical to catholic understandings!)

MickeyTong
04-05-2010, 02:36
To a muslim you would show that you all believe in the same God, Allah. That he gave every person the same birthright as the Jews by the sacrifice of his son.

I think that once you mention the idea that God had a son you'll be moving into territory which a Muslim will consider to be your misguided ignorance. For a Muslim, God has no offspring.

Jesus is considered a Messenger, a person who received communications from God to be relayed to his people. His message was not to the whole world, but is seen as the final message to the Jews as the Chosen People, to bring them back on track (on message).
When Muslims refer to Christians as "people of the Book" they are referring to very early Christians, who did not believe (according to Islam) that Jesus was the son of - or an incarnation of - God. A belief that God has any type of partner (a la trinitarianism) is called shirk (polytheism).

MickeyTong
04-05-2010, 02:57
As I mentioned the Quran doesn't say much about dress except that women (and men) should dress 'modestly'.....

It is the bane of Muslim clerics that many Muslims regard the Quran as the sole arbiter of what constitutes Islam (bear in mind that many Muslims are merely nominally so). Indeed, the Quran is also known as al-furqan (The Criteria), but, like other religious texts, it contains apparently vague or contradictory statements which require tafsir - exegesis or commentary. The best tafsir is considered that of the Messenger himself, as recorded in his statements and actions ((Hadith).

Now, some ahadith are also apparently vague or contradictory, which gave rise to the Islamic "sciences" of tafsir ul hadith, fiqh (jurisprudence) and fiqh us-Sunnah (what the Messenger said and did). This resulted in the 4 Sunni schools of jurisprudence (madh'ab): Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali and Shafi'i. (Plus the Shia.)

rusmeister
04-05-2010, 07:32
It is the bane of Muslim clerics that many Muslims regard the Quran as the sole arbiter of what constitutes Islam (bear in mind that many Muslims are merely nominally so). Indeed, the Quran is also known as al-furqan (The Criteria), but, like other religious texts, it contains apparently vague or contradictory statements which require tafsir - exegesis or commentary. The best tafsir is considered that of the Messenger himself, as recorded in his statements and actions ((Hadith).

Now, some ahadith are also apparently vague or contradictory, which gave rise to the Islamic "sciences" of tafsir ul hadith, fiqh (jurisprudence) and fiqh us-Sunnah (what the Messenger said and did). This resulted in the 4 Sunni schools of jurisprudence (madh'ab): Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali and Shafi'i. (Plus the Shia.)

This is what makes Islam look so much like Protestantism to me. When people say "The Koran says..." they are going from a text directly to their own interpretation of the text, based on their own understandings - or lack thereof. That IS the essence of Sola Scriptura, so it is natural that both Muslims (those many you refer to, which sure seem to be a majority to me) and Protestants (that operate from SS) would begin sentences with "The xxx says..." Since that leaves everybody to interpret texts individually and variously, it inevitably results in division and destroys unity.


PS: There is no reason for the English speaker writing to other English speakers to spell the Islamic holy book with a 'Q'. It's the same thing as writing 'Rome' as 'Roma'. Sure, that's how the people who own the city call and spell it, but it's not the English convention. If there's an English convention you should go with that in dealing with English speakers. (With Arabic speakers, of course, the gloves are off...) Granted, some English conventions on the Arabic world were worked out only in the early twentieth century. Mohammed was spelled with a 'u', 'muslim', otoh, with an 'o', or they were even called "Mohammedans".

It's something that irritates me like when people write (in English) representing the 'y' (consonant) sound with a 'j', using European/non-English conventions. So yes, it may represent a certain level of cultural/linguistic "savvy" (Fr: 'savoir") :P to write with non-English conventions, but it ain't English. "Ain't" is more English than that.

Voodoo
04-05-2010, 09:12
It is the bane of Muslim clerics that many Muslims regard the Quran as the sole arbiter of what constitutes Islam (bear in mind that many Muslims are merely nominally so). Indeed, the Quran is also known as al-furqan (The Criteria), but, like other religious texts, it contains apparently vague or contradictory statements which require tafsir - exegesis or commentary. The best tafsir is considered that of the Messenger himself, as recorded in his statements and actions ((Hadith).

Now, some ahadith are also apparently vague or contradictory, which gave rise to the Islamic "sciences" of tafsir ul hadith, fiqh (jurisprudence) and fiqh us-Sunnah (what the Messenger said and did). This resulted in the 4 Sunni schools of jurisprudence (madh'ab): Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali and Shafi'i. (Plus the Shia.)

Mickey, you're right that a lot of the hadiths provide commentary to what the Quran (or Koran to keep Rusmeister happy) says, however the Quran is the literal word of God whereas the hadiths are the fallible word of man and therefore the Quran is always considered to be the final word.

There are two main issues here I think. Firstly, as I mentioned, unlike most of the Bible for example, the Quran is the literal word of God given in a dictation to Mohamed and is written in the first person. This makes it very difficult to interpret without incurring blasphemy. Secondly, the majority of Islam does not recognise a clergy or a church as such. There is the Umma, the muslim community at large, and various Imams (those who lead prayer) and scholars. There is no central authority to lay down the law so to speak, similar to caliphs of old. So, unlike with the Catholic church for example, where the pope can say, "Well, for 1900 years divorce has not been allowed, but now feel OK about it", there is nobody in Sunni Islam who can do the same thing - interpret holy scripture and give guidance (the Shiites do actually have a clergy so they are an exception).

This means that opinions and attitudes can vary widely and, much more importantly, to have the maximum amount of believers agree to an interpretation the most literal and harshest interpretation is adopted. So having a woman modestly dress means turning her into a black blob, the rule on burying a man with all of his bodily bits (i.e. collecting all of his extremities that were hacked off in battle and burying them all together) means that no organ donation is allowed, etc.,etc. Anybody can stand up, claim to be more pious than others and say that we should now behead people for spitting in the street and there isn't much that can be done about it.

I fully concur with the view that it is upto the muslim communities themselves to clean up their own houses. In a very gross generalisation it could be said that Islam has become more fundamentalist over the last 2-4 generations. If that is the case it could also be said that Islam has it within itself to become more liberal too. There are authoritative sheikhs, imams and scholars who do not buy into the fire and brimstone fundamentalist interpretations, and what is needed is for them to band together push out a consistent message countering the hate mongers.

rusmeister
04-05-2010, 11:36
Mickey, you're right that a lot of the hadiths provide commentary to what the Quran (or Koran to keep Rusmeister happy) says, however the Quran is the literal word of God whereas the hadiths are the fallible word of man and therefore the Quran is always considered to be the final word.

There are two main issues here I think. Firstly, as I mentioned, unlike most of the Bible for example, the Quran is the literal word of God given in a dictation to Mohamed and is written in the first person. This makes it very difficult to interpret without incurring blasphemy. Secondly, the majority of Islam does not recognise a clergy or a church as such. There is the Umma, the muslim community at large, and various Imams (those who lead prayer) and scholars. There is no central authority to lay down the law so to speak, similar to caliphs of old. So, unlike with the Catholic church for example, where the pope can say, "Well, for 1900 years divorce has not been allowed, but now feel OK about it", there is nobody in Sunni Islam who can do the same thing - interpret holy scripture and give guidance (the Shiites do actually have a clergy so they are an exception).

This means that opinions and attitudes can vary widely and, much more importantly, to have the maximum amount of believers agree to an interpretation the most literal and harshest interpretation is adopted. So having a woman modestly dress means turning her into a black blob, the rule on burying a man with all of his bodily bits (i.e. collecting all of his extremities that were hacked off in battle and burying them all together) means that no organ donation is allowed, etc.,etc. Anybody can stand up, claim to be more pious than others and say that we should now behead people for spitting in the street and there isn't much that can be done about it.

I fully concur with the view that it is upto the muslim communities themselves to clean up their own houses. In a very gross generalisation it could be said that Islam has become more fundamentalist over the last 2-4 generations. If that is the case it could also be said that Islam has it within itself to become more liberal too. There are authoritative sheikhs, imams and scholars who do not buy into the fire and brimstone fundamentalist interpretations, and what is needed is for them to band together push out a consistent message countering the hate mongers.

Hi, Voodoo,
A problem with or clarification needed on your comments - on "interpretation". There must always be some sort of interpretation - meaning basic understanding of a text, so even if it is solidified dogma - which can be a good or bad thing - it has to have been interpreted by somebody at some point.

You'd have to define the term "fundamentalist - which is too often used as a rhetorical weapon whose strength lies in being undefined.

The essential problem you describe in Islam is the same problem you have in protestant Christianity. Since Protestantism rests on the fundamental principle that there shall be no central authority for faith - that the individual is the 'authority' who can understand what they call "the word of God"* on his own.

When you say "what is needed" you are springing from an assumption that Islam is NOT the truth. Now I happen to agree that that is the case, and also agree that "hate-monging" - if that can be defined - is not a good thing; but what is usually behind such assumptions in our time is the assumption that there is no truth; that truth is relative and individual, and with this I do not agree, as well as other pluralistic assumptions ("make those people be quiet and live in peace with their own delusions..." on a general assumption that truth is what you make of it - a purely modern fashion of thought). Since the word "liberal" itself is incredibly ill-defined - and since definitions and semantics in general is one of our biggest problems in dialog, the sensible thing is to define terms carefully before using them. That way, we'd get to the roots of disagreement much more quickly. For example, I understand the word modern to mean something likely very different from how most here imagine it. "Modern" means temporary, that which is now (something always in flux), from the Latin "moda" (fashion)


"of or pertaining to present or recent times," c.1500, from M.Fr. moderne, from L.L. modernus "modern," from L. modo "just now, in a (certain) manner," from modo "to the measure," abl. of modus "manner, measure" (see mode (1)). In Shakespeare, often with a sense of "every-day, ordinary, commonplace." Slang abbreviation mod first attested 1960. Modern art is from 1807 (by contrast to ancient); modern dance first attested 1912; first record of modern jazz is from 1955. Modern conveniences first recorded 1926
Thus, its understanding must always be changing, as what is modern gradually goes out of fashion and becomes archaic. In short, it is more of an insult than a complement in my book. The last thing I want to be is modern. I'd rather have some eternal truths on my side, things that never go out of fashion.

Anyway, the point is that we are very likely to misunderstand each other while thinking we understand if we don't know the understandings other people hold behind words.

*In Orthodoxy, Jesus Christ Himself is the Logos, the Word of God, rather than the Bible.

yakspeare
04-05-2010, 14:39
In Protestant religions Jesus IS the word of God

You confuse semantics. The bible is the word of God insomuch as it is the "word from God" ie it is divinely inspired or God breathed.

You talk about the variety in Christianity and look for a church hierachy for guidance on top of scriptures....Orthodoxy has not been without its own problems either....old believers versus new, possessors(those who believed the church could hold land versus those who thought they couldn't), the fact that some of the leadership of the Orthodox church kowtowed to various Tsars(or were replaced in the case of the Metropolitans) plus of course the Church being under state control under communism. You made the point previously that an Orthodox person can visit churches in neighbouring countries (like Greek etc) and still break bread etc with them...that they are so similar...well a Baptist is equally welcome in an Anglican church, Church of Christ, Salvation Army, Assemblies of God, Methodist, Brethren etc...the major difference is not of doctrine but in style of worship. They generally disagree as much as one church in russia may have a different opinion than another(such as the case of the possessors).

My real criticism of Orthodox Church is its lack of evangelical approach. It generally maintains the status quo- when was the last time there were hundreds of Orthodox missionaries in the depths of Africa, in the hill tribes of Papua new guinea, China or elsewhere? If Orthodoxy is the "true" church it has an appalling history of spreading its message. That is why the Protestants view Catholics(who you do see everywhere), Orthodox and Protestant together as the church made up of those who believe.

Muslims of various types from Ishmaelis , Sunni, Shia etc don't challenge that the others are not muslim-just that they are wrong in what they believe on various points.

MickeyTong
04-05-2010, 16:35
Muslims of various types from Ishmaelis , Sunni, Shia etc don't challenge that the others are not muslim-just that they are wrong in what they believe on various points.

Some Sunni ulema consider most Shia madh'ab to be heretical non-Muslims: the Sunni regard it as an act of kufr (non-belief) to criticise the character of any of the Sahaba - Muslims who were companions of the Prophet. The Shia believe that Ali should been (or actually was) the first Caliph after the death of the Prohet, but was circumvented by Abu Bakr, then Omar and Usman.

MickeyTong
04-05-2010, 17:00
.......There is no central authority to lay down the law so to speak, similar to caliphs of old......Anybody can stand up, claim to be more pious than others and say that we should now behead people for spitting in the street and there isn't much that can be done about it.

....There are authoritative sheikhs, imams and scholars who do not buy into the fire and brimstone fundamentalist interpretations, and what is needed is for them to band together push out a consistent message countering the hate mongers.

Al-Azhar in Cairo and Dar-ul-uloom Deoband in India (and their satellites/affiliates elsewhere) are considered as centres of religious authority as to what constitutes orthodox (i.e. "true") Islam. They are the arbiters of any fatwas proclaimed by people who claim to be more pious than others, but they have no means of enforcing their authority (some maintain that there has been no legitimate Caliphate for 800 years).

The above-mentioned seminaries maintain that they are pushing out the consistent message dictated by God to his Messenger and exemplified by his life.

yakspeare
04-05-2010, 17:08
Some Sunni ulema consider most Shia madh'ab to be heretical non-Muslims: the Sunni regard it as an act of kufr (non-belief) to criticise the character of any of the Sahaba - Muslims who were companions of the Prophet. The Shia believe that Ali should been (or actually was) the first Caliph after the death of the Prohet, but was circumvented by Abu Bakr, then Omar and Usman.


Yes i know what they believe(origins of Sunni and Shia) and i am sure some believe all number of things. It is not my experience, however, in real life dealings of them having any enmity towards each other(of course in places they indeed do but then that's like saying protestants and catholics hate each other because of nothern ireland). I have had sunni muslims talk about the fighting spirit of Shia and the reasons for this go back to Ali himself was a warrior. They had respect for him, though they don't agree.

as for your argument that you will switch off the moment you mention jesus/god scenario that can be completely true....but then you have messianic jews too who seem to manage to get around that. It is certainly not how you start a conversation with them. Plenty of muslims become christian(plenty of christians become muslim) so for some people it isn't so difficult.

yakspeare
04-05-2010, 17:18
Mickey, although we disagree on some things in the nature of religion, it is entirely refreshing to have informed debate with you and i certainly confess i understand the judeo-christian world far more than the Arabic one...something i would like to correct one day. One of my options this year was to spend a year in cairo studying modern standard Arabic and then branch out from there. But i will put if off for now..but it is a language I intend to learn(instead I am learning Hebrew which does bear some similarity).

vodnistadion
04-05-2010, 17:51
Like Stalin said "No people, no problem"!

The problem isn't burqa, it is rather those who wear it. Prohibiting the burqa will not solve any problem. Limiting the people, sending them back to their lovely country where the burqa is a way of life, would.

FatAndy
04-05-2010, 18:36
2 vodnistadion:
Like Stalin said "No people, no problem"! - don't distort original source :) - " The person means the problem, no person means no problem"
BTW it's not Stalin approach - yet Lenin started it ;)

Regarding original question - it is completely democratic decision. No remorse. :D

Nobbynumbnuts
04-05-2010, 19:02
This is an issue increasingly grabbing the headlines in Europe at the moment. Another article, this time from Italy.

If you click on the link below, at the bottom of the page is a good pictorial display of the different types of headwear worn by Muslim women.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8658017.stm

Police stop Muslim woman wearing veil in Italy
Several European countries are tightening laws on the veil
A woman visiting a post office in Novara, north-western Italy, has been stopped by police for wearing an Islamic veil covering her face.

A police official told the AFP news agency the woman would have to pay a 500-euro (£430) fine.

It is the first such police action since Novara brought in a by-law in January banning clothing preventing immediate identification in public.

The city is run by the anti-immigration Northern League.

The party is a powerful junior coalition partner in Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's national government.

'Not tolerated'

Novara Mayor Massimo Giordano said the by-law was meant to deter women from covering themselves with the veil in public.

"But unfortunately it is apparently not yet clear to everyone that clothes preventing the wearer's identification can be tolerated at home but not in public places, in schools, on buses or in post offices," he said, according to the Italian state news agency Ansa.

"There are still some people that refuse to understand that our community in Novara does not accept and does not want people going around wearing the burka."

He said the by-law was "the only tool at our disposal to stop behaviour that makes the already difficult process of integration even harder".

The woman, described as a Tunisian national, was apparently visiting the post office with her husband when she was stopped by police.

When her husband refused to let her be identified by male officers, they called in a female colleague, AFP reported.

Tighter rules

Italy has, since 1975, had a national anti-terrorism law which forbids any mask or clothing that makes it impossible to identify the wearer.

However, the law permits exceptions for "justified cause", which has often been interpreted by courts as including religious reasons for wearing a veil, Ansa reports.

Several local authorities have introduced tighter regulations, and a Northern League bill currently before parliament would specifically outlaw Islamic face veils.

Similar moves have been taking place in other Western European countries.

A ban on wearing masks and veils in public has passed the Belgian lower house and is set to go before the Senate. It would be the first such national law in Europe if approved.

The French government is pressing for similar legislation, and at the weekend a German member of the European Parliament said a ban should be enforced across the EU.

TitusV
04-05-2010, 21:33
In banning what people can choose to wear, the idiot Belgians have proven themselves on the same level as the Saudis. In fact on the level of President Berdymukhamedov of the famously "advanced" country of Turkmenistan.

I hope people defy this fascist "law".

I would like to see some moronic Belgian cops trying to arrest veiled Belgian brides entering churches for their own weddings?? But of course, we all know that this "law" is intended only to discriminate against muslims.

Asshat. Women are property in Islamic society. The Burka exists to protect the property because if the women are "damaged" in the eyes of extreme Islamic society they get stoned to death.

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/media/stoning.htm

ReallyGreatConcerts
04-05-2010, 21:49
Like Stalin said "No people, no problem"!

The problem isn't burqa, it is rather those who wear it. Prohibiting the burqa will not solve any problem. Limiting the people, sending them back to their lovely country where the burqa is a way of life, would.

Perhaps you could tell us exactly what "problem" women in burkas causes you, in your everyday life?

Or be quiet until you have, perhaps?


Asshat.

Another "intellectual" has joined us, I see.

Are you another of our friend Trebor's multiple personalities on this forum, or a new star in the firmament of tolerance and light?

rusmeister
04-05-2010, 22:10
In Protestant religions Jesus IS the word of God

You confuse semantics. The bible is the word of God insomuch as it is the "word from God" ie it is divinely inspired or God breathed.

You talk about the variety in Christianity and look for a church hierachy for guidance on top of scriptures....Orthodoxy has not been without its own problems either....old believers versus new, possessors(those who believed the church could hold land versus those who thought they couldn't), the fact that some of the leadership of the Orthodox church kowtowed to various Tsars(or were replaced in the case of the Metropolitans) plus of course the Church being under state control under communism. You made the point previously that an Orthodox person can visit churches in neighbouring countries (like Greek etc) and still break bread etc with them...that they are so similar...well a Baptist is equally welcome in an Anglican church, Church of Christ, Salvation Army, Assemblies of God, Methodist, Brethren etc...the major difference is not of doctrine but in style of worship. They generally disagree as much as one church in russia may have a different opinion than another(such as the case of the possessors).

My real criticism of Orthodox Church is its lack of evangelical approach. It generally maintains the status quo- when was the last time there were hundreds of Orthodox missionaries in the depths of Africa, in the hill tribes of Papua new guinea, China or elsewhere? If Orthodoxy is the "true" church it has an appalling history of spreading its message. That is why the Protestants view Catholics(who you do see everywhere), Orthodox and Protestant together as the church made up of those who believe.

Muslims of various types from Ishmaelis , Sunni, Shia etc don't challenge that the others are not muslim-just that they are wrong in what they believe on various points.

Hi yakspeare!
(As long as people are having parallel conversations...)
I never in all my years as a Baptist, and for many years after that (in my family, which mostly remained Baptist) I never once heard Christ referred to as the Word of God outside of direct readings of John ch 1, but I heard thousands of references to the Bible as the Word of God.

Your own attitude seems closer to Orthodoxy than most Protestant ones I'm familiar with (although old Anglicans/Anglo-Catholics also qualify) - which is probably why I don't have so many bones of contention with you.

I've never claimed that a Church that claims to be the Church (as the Orthodox Church does) doesn't/won't have problems. On your comment on national Orthodox Churches, I should probably clarify that the Churches are in communion, and are in fact one Church - even if they speak different languages. I don't imagine that Protestants - Baptist or otherwise would have trouble recognizing fellow believers regardless of language; so it is with our national Churches. There IS a critical difference, of course, in that we practice closed Communion - all are welcome to worship, but only Orthodox believers who participate in the life of the Church may receive Communion.

But when you say there is little difference in doctrine, I am staggered. I beg to completely contradict you - there is a world of difference between Baptist conceptions, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, etc in actual doctrine. There is no comparison with Orthodox Churches, which really are united doctrinally, and separated primarily by language.

Your conception of Orthodox missionary work is widespread but mistaken. Where you are right is that we are not aggressive, going door-to-door to try to convince people of our message. The philosophy is more one of living the Christian life, and our deeds being far more effective than our words.

The question of what the Church is certainly is a big one. But that seemingly noble view held of a purely ephemeral Church is patently false - the most obvious contradiction being that the Church cannot be divided against itself. The Holy Spirit does not lead us into confusion and division. While God's mercy is great, and I believe that a great many people will ultimately be saved crossing all lines of faith, it certainly follows that the Church must be a united thing. that it must be a physical thing, too, follows sooner or later - it must have a physical presence and it must have definite teaching. But that, as I said, is a huge topic.

On your last point, neither does the Orthodox Church deny that there is such a thing as a non-Orthodox Christian - they are called heterodox Christians. Clear understanding of what the term "Orthodox" means shows that one group claiming to be the Church - the thing actually established by Christ and the Apostles - is actually right, and the others are actually wrong - although they may be fairly close to or significantly far from that original Church.

yakspeare
04-05-2010, 22:45
Hi yakspeare!
(As long as people are having parallel conversations...)
I never in all my years as a Baptist, and for many years after that (in my family, which mostly remained Baptist) I never once heard Christ referred to as the Word of God outside of direct readings of John ch 1, but I heard thousands of references to the Bible as the Word of God.

Your own attitude seems closer to Orthodoxy than most Protestant ones I'm familiar with (although old Anglicans/Anglo-Catholics also qualify) - which is probably why I don't have so many bones of contention with you.

I've never claimed that a Church that claims to be the Church (as the Orthodox Church does) doesn't/won't have problems. On your comment on national Orthodox Churches, I should probably clarify that the Churches are in communion, and are in fact one Church - even if they speak different languages. I don't imagine that Protestants - Baptist or otherwise would have trouble recognizing fellow believers regardless of language; so it is with our national Churches. There IS a critical difference, of course, in that we practice closed Communion - all are welcome to worship, but only Orthodox believers who participate in the life of the Church may receive Communion.

But when you say there is little difference in doctrine, I am staggered. I beg to completely contradict you - there is a world of difference between Baptist conceptions, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, etc in actual doctrine. There is no comparison with Orthodox Churches, which really are united doctrinally, and separated primarily by language.

Your conception of Orthodox missionary work is widespread but mistaken. Where you are right is that we are not aggressive, going door-to-door to try to convince people of our message. The philosophy is more one of living the Christian life, and our deeds being far more effective than our words.

The question of what the Church is certainly is a big one. But that seemingly noble view held of a purely ephemeral Church is patently false - the most obvious contradiction being that the Church cannot be divided against itself. The Holy Spirit does not lead us into confusion and division. While God's mercy is great, and I believe that a great many people will ultimately be saved crossing all lines of faith, it certainly follows that the Church must be a united thing. that it must be a physical thing, too, follows sooner or later - it must have a physical presence and it must have definite teaching. But that, as I said, is a huge topic.

On your last point, neither does the Orthodox Church deny that there is such a thing as a non-Orthodox Christian - they are called heterodox Christians. Clear understanding of what the term "Orthodox" means shows that one group claiming to be the Church - the thing actually established by Christ and the Apostles - is actually right, and the others are actually wrong - although they may be fairly close to or significantly far from that original Church.

Well my family history is a little bit interesting on the church front. My father is a devout atheist. My mother was salvation army orginally(all her family are salvation army officers including her parents). Still, we grew up Church of England initially(I am christened as such). It wasn't until I was in England at about 8 years of age did we start going to Baptist church.

When we returned to Australia when I was about 11 we would normally go to the Baptist Church but occaisonally go to the Anglican church on the military base( My Dad was Navy).

When I was about 13-14 I left the church in defiance as one often does and studied Theravada Buddhism. I became a christian again when i was about 16 in a rather personal experience and went Pentecostal as that was where my friends were. Doctrine wise I am probably more inclined towards them than others and indeed when I was 19 I was accepted into Bible College Assemblies of God. I was actually talked out of it by my Pastor which is ironic. I joined the Navy instead which I considered a grave mistake now on reflection.

Also mention for a short while when I was 17 or so I was a Mormon and I am very proud of my excommunicated "do not approach" status.

I have done my fair share of church hopping and I can tell you the main doctrinal differences between most of the churches (baptism via immersion or not, pre-destination, gifts of the spirit). These are fairly minor points(some such as Salvation Army do not have communion or Baptism but there is a very good reason for this). Indeed within individual churches there can be variations such as Pentecostal Anglican churches and more stricter Baptist churches...the denominations have some flexibility.

My chief complaint about the Pentecostals is there lack of discernment. My time with them was an interesting time with the "toronto blessing" and other strange things happening which the jury is still out on.

Toronto Blessing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

vodnistadion
05-05-2010, 00:12
Perhaps you could tell us exactly what "problem" women in burkas causes you, in your everyday life?

Or be quiet until you have, perhaps?

Oh they didn't cause *me* problems, I haven't the big chance to live in Muslim Europe! To Europeans, I just read online the news and am able to see the problems that burqa active lovers create on a daily basis.

BTW if you would have read - and understood, it is a bit harder for some people - what I mean, I didn't say that women in burka caused problems, but that people who love burqa, do. As it seems hard to understand, I am more clear:

Women in burka seem to cause a problem for Europeans as their Representatives VOTED and are going to make a law. (Or maybe you are not a democrat and do not respect their laws?)

Women in burka are Muslims

Muslims cause problems (read above, read the online news about what happens in Europe)

=> Remove muslims, you will at the same time remove problems AND remove women in burka => No more "burka problem".

Understood, or you want I explain you again?

ReallyGreatConcerts
05-05-2010, 00:48
Understood, or you want I explain you again?

No, baseless bigotry is easy for me to understand, thanks!

yakspeare
05-05-2010, 00:51
Oh they didn't cause *me* problems, I haven't the big chance to live in Muslim Europe! To Europeans, I just read online the news and am able to see the problems that burqa active lovers create on a daily basis.

BTW if you would have read - and understood, it is a bit harder for some people - what I mean, I didn't say that women in burka caused problems, but that people who love burqa, do. As it seems hard to understand, I am more clear:

Women in burka seem to cause a problem for Europeans as their Representatives VOTED and are going to make a law. (Or maybe you are not a democrat and do not respect their laws?)

Women in burka are Muslims

Muslims cause problems (read above, read the online news about what happens in Europe)

=> Remove muslims, you will at the same time remove problems AND remove women in burka => No more "burka problem".

Understood, or you want I explain you again?

It is beyond my comprehension that people can still believe such nonsense in this day and age. I mean Russia was under Muslim rule for centuries(directly or indirectly) and there are a great deal of peace loving muslims here, who don't wear burqas and the like nor do they cause "problems". Russia has issues in the caucaus but amongst the tatars and others there are none. scratch a russian and you will find a muslim tatar underneath.

vodnistadion
05-05-2010, 07:52
It is beyond my comprehension that people can still believe such nonsense in this day and age. I mean Russia was under Muslim rule for centuries(directly or indirectly) and there are a great deal of peace loving muslims here, who don't wear burqas and the like nor do they cause "problems". Russia has issues in the caucaus but amongst the tatars and others there are none. scratch a russian and you will find a muslim tatar underneath.

Did I speak about Muslims in general? We are speaking about Muslims that are in Western Europe. The best of the best! They make crime stats dramatically increase, and create problems in every day's life. No more bacon (as it is pork) in French burger restaurants. No more pork in many public hospitals, etc. No more pork on some airlines. Special vacation hours to pray in companies. Etc etc.
In Russia such things do not happen, despite there are 20 millions (or more) Muslims.
Bah, no need to talk here anyway, MOST guys already know this but don't want to post as they don't like being insulted by the 3 or 4 blind who continue to argue.

trebor
05-05-2010, 08:08
Did I speak about Muslims in general? We are speaking about Muslims that are in Western Europe. The best of the best! They make crime stats dramatically increase, and create problems in every day's life. No more bacon (as it is pork) in French burger restaurants. No more pork in many public hospitals, etc. No more pork on some airlines. Special vacation hours to pray in companies. Etc etc.
In Russia such things do not happen, despite there are 20 millions (or more) Muslims.
Bah, no need to talk here anyway, MOST guys already know this but don't want to post as they don't like being insulted by the 3 or 4 blind who continue to argue.

There are lots of pointless insults flying around on here. Go with the flow and take no notice.
I don't know about the situation in France but in the UK Muslims generally speaking are better behaved than the locals, in my opinion. You don't see hoards of Muslim teen 'lager louts ' terrorising city centers for a start. I haven’t lived there for a while so i might be wrong.
I don't think there is any evidence that crime increases either, they have their own halal restaurants, air travel and special vacations are not an issue as far as i know.

The issue as far as i'm concerend is the veil.

yakspeare
05-05-2010, 08:14
Did I speak about Muslims in general? We are speaking about Muslims that are in Western Europe. The best of the best! They make crime stats dramatically increase, and create problems in every day's life. No more bacon (as it is pork) in French burger restaurants. No more pork in many public hospitals, etc. No more pork on some airlines. Special vacation hours to pray in companies. Etc etc.
In Russia such things do not happen, despite there are 20 millions (or more) Muslims.
Bah, no need to talk here anyway, MOST guys already know this but don't want to post as they don't like being insulted by the 3 or 4 blind who continue to argue.

France has its unique problems relating to its colonial presence and former presence in muslim regions of Africa. No we aren't blind. but hey lets take this further...all afro-americans are drug addicted bandits who terrorise american streets and kill us poor white folk in the crossfires of their shootouts. oh and every Gypsy is a thief so we should just arrest anyone of that race on sight and clear up our streets. to stereotype muslims in europe it means the majority of the good muslims there become isolated and marginalised and penalised because some have trouble integrating. you can't get away with it in America or anywhere else so you can't get away with that attitude in europe either.

trebor
05-05-2010, 08:25
France has its unique problems relating to its colonial presence and former presence in muslim regions of Africa. No we aren't blind. but hey lets take this further...all afro-americans are drug addicted bandits who terrorise american streets and kill us poor white folk in the crossfires of their shootouts. oh and every Gypsy is a thief so we should just arrest anyone of that race on sight and clear up our streets. to stereotype muslims in europe it means the majority of the good muslims there become isolated and marginalised and penalised because some have trouble integrating. you can't get away with it in America or anywhere else so you can't get away with that attitude in europe either.

Very well put.

tvadim133
05-05-2010, 11:34
In Russian there is a proverb:

In another monastery, they should not come with their own charter (в чужой монастырь со своим уставом не входят)

On the one hand, people should be tolerant, but on the other hand, the strangers' influence on the traditional ways of living of local communities will never be considered with pleasure by locals.

At any rate, we can accept and understand (well, just accept) the rules and traditions in Asia, Africa when we travel there.

Why can not emmigrants do the same if they see that something is not understood and welcomed?

Voodoo
05-05-2010, 11:59
Actually there are very few practices that muslims bring with them to Western Europe that are NOT compatible with western lifestyles. Trebor and yakspeare are right (at least in the UK). Muslim immigrants tend to be harder working and value family life and education more so than the average. They are disproportionately represented in higher education and some professions. In general most of them are model citizens.

Some of the traditions they have that raise eyebrows are cultural rather than religious. Arranged marriages for examples (although these become more rare within the 3rd generation). The same for respecting women. In fact, it could be argued that it is precisely them coming over, adapting to the UK that causes them to abandon outmoded traditions and perhaps even export some of this new thinking back to their countries of origin.

With regards to strictly muslim practices I don't see that there are that many that interfere with the wider community.

Mosques - No requirement to either have a tower or to have the muazzin call the faithful to prayer. Any large hall will do.
Not eating pork - This in no way interferes with the way others live. Jews don't eat pork, and so what? Hindus don't eat beef. Vegetarians don't eat meat - does that interfere with anybody else? No.
Prayer - There is a requirement to pray every day, but there is no absolute necessity to pray 5 times a day. One prayer in the evening can make up for all the other prayers missed during the day. Attending Friday prayers whilst desirable is not compulsory.
Attending the Hajj pilgrimage - Doesn't interfere with anybody in the wider community.
Giving alms - If more people did this the better.

So Islam per se can not be said to be incompatible with modern life. Its more cultural traditions that can cause friction, and these traditions can AND DO change after a while. And if they don't then I am happy to have the British basic laws and liberties enforced against them.

If they work hard, if they strive to better themselves, if they contribute to society (as they clearly do in the UK), then I would welcome them in to the country. I feel that Britain has been blessed by the influx of vibrant and rich new cultures.

yakspeare
05-05-2010, 12:00
Australia is far from perfect and we do have our share of haters like everyone else but i think we are the most successful multi-cultural society there is.

We have no national dish(maybe the meat pie? lol) and our cuisine is a mixture of asian and european food. we don't tend to call ourselves greek-australians(melbourne is the second largest greek city in the world) or italian-australians...just simply australians. We have a wonderful and diverse muslim community(some have been there for over 150 years) as well as a vibrant chinese and vietnamese community. Greeks and Italians make up a significant portion of the population as do maltese, lebanonese and others from around the med. We generally accept different culture, ways of dress and style of living.

You find that the first generation of newcomers migrate to suburbs of people like their own. Many in this first generation will never actually learn English but there children certainly will. They all contribute to our society.

Our problems? Ongoing with the Aborigines who suffer the same alcohol, substance addiction and isolation as north american tribes do(without the benefit of casinos lol). There is some racism towards them by some but we also learn a lot about their culture at school and we are certainly trying our best with giving them employment in the desert etc with the mines etc, as tour guides i and rangers in other remote regions or more closer assimilation in our cities for those who live there.

We have had an influx of refugees and illegals of late and some from Sudan were children fighters, have very different views on women than us and a difficult to integrate.

We also have a rise of radical islam which is ironic as it is often white converts who seek to fight us and not the muslim population that has emmigrated here. Australians don't blink an eye at headscarfs and even to see women in the "swimsuit burqa"(like a wetsuit) bathing at the beach. I would think most Australians find the burqa itself as very confrontational and alien to our way of life, and that is why there is resistance. It is of concern that fundamentalist islam is taking root more and more in Australia, where our Australia is a very tolerant society in general. We are a land of immigrants and a young country. It just seems so foreign to me to hear anyone attack muslims in general(or jews or whoever) with a send em back from whence they came attitude. within reasons of immigration numbers, we should be welcoming them into our community and engaging them, not marginalizing them. The Burqa is a complex issue because i would normally advocate freedom of expression(hell you can even burn the aussie flag without any problems-just as long as an aussie does it). I do think though that the Burqa is a overt sign of a refusal to assimilate even partially, to take the benefits of our country without adding to the culture or giving back something. I am aware that many of these people don't even wear the burqa in their home country, it seems a misguided attempt to hold onto the "onslaught" of the new culture and to keep control of the wife etc. The Burqa is unique in humanizing a person into a masked blob of fabric walking down the street. In open society it is the very opposite of what people seek. Unlike russians , if you walk down the street in australia you will often see people singing dancing and certainly smiling and greeting strangers. The Burqa doesn't allow that and thus is extremely unfriendly. We can learn and take a lot from muslim culture but the burqa, in my opinion, has no place.

Nobbynumbnuts
05-05-2010, 12:40
In my mind, there is no better example of a tolerant society than Australia. Australians have embraced peoples and cultures from around the world and made them their own.
In return it's quite reasonable for them to ask a very small minority of Muslims to respect the sensibilities Australians and refrain from the wearing the burqa.
When considering how the country has enabled many to escape oppressive regimes, poverty and violence back home in their countries of origin for a land of opportunity, it's a very small price to pay.

Voodoo
05-05-2010, 13:10
Personally I have no real problem with women wearing the full veil - as long as it is by choice (theirs) and it doesn't contravene any local laws. However if they do contravene legislation, making it difficult to ID someone, then they should go, especially as we have already established that they are not Commandment from God burned into stone. Incidentally, in London there are Khassidic jews that don't allow women to show their hair or eyes in public. They get around this by wearing wigs and large dark glasses. Should these be banned too? After all its difficult to ID someone just by looking at their mouth and nose.

More importantly for me is that immigrants accept the laws and mores of the society that they have emigrated to. Respect for women, personal freedoms and liberty, inalienable rights of children to a childhood, school, etc. Right to get the best healthcare (hear I'm thinking of folks like Jehovah's Witnesses go disregard modern healthcare). Right to have a woman chose her own husband. Etc., Etc. These things are vastly more important I feel than something as superficial as what a woman chooses to wear. Of course forcing women to wear anything should be banned, and the ban enforced.

MickeyTong
05-05-2010, 14:42
.
Prayer - There is a requirement to pray every day, but there is no absolute necessity to pray 5 times a day. One prayer in the evening can make up for all the other prayers missed during the day. Attending Friday prayers whilst desirable is not compulsory.


Sorry Voodoo - this is not correct.

It is an absolute obligation on a post-pubescent Muslim to perform ritual prayers 5 times every day, during their stipulated time slots (unless there is a valid reason preventing him/her).

The Friday congregational prayer is obligatory on all post-pubescent males.

http://www.sunna.info/prayer/TheBasicsoftheMuslimsPrayer.php#Introduction

ReallyGreatConcerts
05-05-2010, 14:48
Of course forcing women to wear anything should be banned, and the ban enforced.

And are your feelings (for which you cite no evidence other than your own POV) equally strong about forcing women NOT to wear something which they CHOOSE to wear?

Who appointed you the arbiter of fashion suddenly?

Where does your rule cease? Will you prevent Ashkenazi men from wearing their own choice of headwear? Although it hardly tallies with your proscription that clothing must conform to the local norms of European countries.

Or are you saying (admitting) there is a double standard when it comes to muslims? Because it seems to me that you are.

ReallyGreatConcerts
05-05-2010, 14:52
In my mind, there is no better example of a tolerant society than Australia. .


Daily Telegraph - Race riot fears turn Bondi Beach into a no go zone (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/1505720/Race-riot-fears-turn-Bondi-into-no-go-zone.html)

trebor
05-05-2010, 14:58
Sorry Voodoo - this is not correct.

It is an absolute obligation on a post-pubescent Muslim to perform ritual prayers 5 times every day, during their stipulated time slots (unless there is a valid reason preventing him/her).

The Friday congregational prayer is obligatory on all post-pubescent males.

http://www.sunna.info/prayer/TheBasicsoftheMuslimsPrayer.php#Introduction

Mickey you are right. Illness being a valid excuse to miss prayer. Prayer times are not fixed and change with the movement of the sun.
They are one of the 5 pillars of Islam

yakspeare
05-05-2010, 15:08
Daily Telegraph - Race riot fears turn Bondi Beach into a no go zone (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/1505720/Race-riot-fears-turn-Bondi-into-no-go-zone.html)

Oh my God lol lol lol...this was about some teens full of hormones having a small clash because some lebanese were hitting on some girls and leering and making some off comments...a lifesaver stepped in and said hey lets have none of that and they attacked him. there is one thing you never do in australia is attack a lifesaver. so people were pretty angry and tempers flared. nothing really came of it, wasnt like riots in france or even afro-american riots after rodney king etc...a lot of threats to do things and that was all.

The situation now? The Bra boys (the gang of bondi beach) extended the hand of friendship straight away to the lebanese youth and taught them how to surf!

Now they are best of friends...life's a beach. Yeah that was a real good example you had there. We DO have some issue with Indian students at present in Melbourne(home to 60,000 Indian students) and we are trying to resolve that(rich indian students are being attacked at night and having them ipods stolen etc-soft targets mostly). Now if you had used that then fair enough but you used an example of how Australia avoided inter-racial conflict.lol.

MickeyTong
05-05-2010, 15:14
Mickey you are right. Illness being a valid excuse to miss prayer. Prayer times are not fixed and change with the movement of the sun.
They are one of the 5 pillars of Islam

Yep. But you will find many Muslims who will dispute this - the Quran does not specifically stipulate the number 5........the number, timings and techniques of the prayers are elucidated in the Hadith.

xfactor2000
05-05-2010, 15:44
The problem in Europe is that the politicians are not listening to the voters. They are losing support to the right wing parties like the BNP in the UK.
As i mentioned before people are getting fed up with present immigration policy. If politicians don't listen and take some action the situation will deteriorate further.
A vast number of people are against the Burqa and the veil. What they symbolize has been debated at length on here so no need to go over it again. Neither are compulsory in Islam so it seems reasonable to consider an outright ban.
One thing is for sure though the voters have to be appeased or unfortunately right wing parties are only going to get stronger.

I completely agree with you, current immigration laws are insane. These days, it's easier to get European citizenship if you're an African refugee who has already broken couple of dozen of laws by merely getting there, then if you're a normal, educated, law-abiding person.

I find it deeply insulting that me, my friends and my family have to go through multiple checks and interviews to get a tourist visa, while all kinds of suspicious people get EU passports in dozens..:10241:

trebor
05-05-2010, 15:46
Personally I have no real problem with women wearing the full veil - as long as it is by choice (theirs) and it doesn't contravene any local laws. However if they do contravene legislation, making it difficult to ID someone, then they should go, especially as we have already established that they are not Commandment from God burned into stone. Incidentally, in London there are Khassidic jews that don't allow women to show their hair or eyes in public. They get around this by wearing wigs and large dark glasses. Should these be banned too? After all its difficult to ID someone just by looking at their mouth and nose.

More importantly for me is that immigrants accept the laws and mores of the society that they have emigrated to. Respect for women, personal freedoms and liberty, inalienable rights of children to a childhood, school, etc. Right to get the best healthcare (hear I'm thinking of folks like Jehovah's Witnesses go disregard modern healthcare). Right to have a woman chose her own husband. Etc., Etc. These things are vastly more important I feel than something as superficial as what a woman chooses to wear. Of course forcing women to wear anything should be banned, and the ban enforced.

Some great points there.
For me, to consider a ban because of security reasons is the least compelling of all. If a muslim women behind the veil or burqa cannot satisfy the necessary security requirements at the time then they should not be allowed to enter that building or have access to the service they are seeking.
There are two reasons where it's reasonable to consider a ban. First, wearing a veil or burqa inhibits integration. If people are coming to a foreign country then it's essential they settle into the community for the long term and social harmony. That's impossible behind a complete face covering or one with just a narrow slit for the eyes. Human nature requires we see the face when communicating in person. The mouth, facial gestures along with the eyes. Without these people will never accept each other.
Secondly and the most compelling is i have lived and worked in the middle east. I have seen these cultures first hand. There is no way that women from these backgrounds are free to take off the veil if they wanted to. Forcing a woman to shut herself away like that (and all the other practices that go with it) are absolute abhorrent to me.

trebor
05-05-2010, 15:58
I completely agree with you, current immigration laws are insane. These days, it's easier to get European citizenship if you're an African refugee who has already broken couple of dozen of laws by merely getting there, then if you're a normal, educated, law-abiding person.

I find it deeply insulting that me, my friends and my family have to go through multiple checks and interviews to get a tourist visa, while all kinds of suspicious people get EU passports in dozens..:10241:

I have to agree that if a country is to open it's self up to immigration it would be wise to select people that have something to offer. Seems common sense to me. crazy as it is a lot of the time that's not the case.
Also, it has to be said there needs to be a certain amount of immigration on humanitarian grounds as well. Genuine refugees and asylum seekers.

The point i was trying to make there was that the people of Europe are speaking. The politicians are not listening though. No sensible person wants to see ultra right wing parties in power. Anyone who suggests curbing immigration or making changes to the rules the govern us is often times labeled racist, facist etc.etc.
At the end of the day if Euroeans are not listened to on these issues social cohesion could come undone.

Alek_world
05-05-2010, 16:57
If you really cared about people's right to choose you wouldn't have forgotton to mention that Muslim women who wear the veil come from societies where the right to choose is no-existant.
That means no choice if they get educated, who they marry, if they have children. if they can work, if they can drive a car etc. etc. or wear the veil.

Also, how many muslim women will have the choice to defy this law and how many will be forced to?

While this law does seem radical and is well worthy of discussion, not to at least acknowledge the fact that Muslim women are forced to wear the veil does nothing to advance the rights of 'freedom of choice' does it?

Dear "trebor" while I am not surprised with the "arguments" you are using to justify this truly fascist law given the ongoing and intoxicating islamophobic media campaign I'd like an honest answer to a single question.
How many Muslim women who ware burkas do you personally know or you have spoken with?

My other questions could just be a subject for reflection to all the readers.
- Who decides on whats politically correct and what is not?
- How does the burka offend and harm you personally? (please avoid serving me the ready-made-tv-phraseology such as "we are fighting for the right of the women" or "we have the right to see your face if you can see ours")
- The Moscow suicide bombers did not ware a burka.
- Saudi Arabia truly does not allow other religions within its borders and I can't say that I approve of that, but do you think it would be possible to raise a mosque in Vatican or a synagogue for that matter? The fact of the matter is that what Vatican represents for us Catholics the same thing that Saudi Arabia represents for the Muslim people .
- concerning the feminist ideas and "we are fighting for the rights of the women" line:
Did it ever cross your mind that not all of the women suffer from penis envy? A perfect example is Russia where gorgeous, feminine, gracious and pure blooded Slavic, Russian women REJECT the ideas of feminism with horror and despise and most of them to our great surprise do not want to have the initiative and occupy the leading role in the relationship, and they are happy and expect the man to occupy that role.
Should we accuse the Russian men for the ill treatment of women? Should we say that Russia is a country that discriminates against women? Well there are a lots of Muslim women who do not attach a negative connotation to the burka and embrace it as an integral part of their cultural heritage.

All I am trying to say is that we should be curious respectful and tolerant of other cultures instead of being reluctant, dismissive and prejudiced of something we have no knowledge about apart from the poison served to us by the TV. How many lies have we been served by that TV? think from the WMDs in Iraq, to the biased and one sided reporting on international conflicts....

ReallyGreatConcerts
05-05-2010, 17:19
Dear "trebor" while I am not surprised with the "arguments" you are using to justify this truly fascist law given the ongoing and intoxicating islamophobic media campaign I'd like an honest answer to a single question.
How many Muslim women who ware burkas do you personally know or you have spoken with?

:hooray: :hooray: :hooray:

Don't forget to ask "NobbyNumbNuts" the same questions - it's another of Trebor's sockpuppet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)) online personalities, that he maintains here (against the rules of these Forums) to give the impression that someone agrees with him.

yakspeare
05-05-2010, 17:40
Dear "trebor" while I am not surprised with the "arguments" you are using to justify this truly fascist law given the ongoing and intoxicating islamophobic media campaign I'd like an honest answer to a single question.
How many Muslim women who ware burkas do you personally know or you have spoken with?

My other questions could just be a subject for reflection to all the readers.
- Who decides on whats politically correct and what is not?
- How does the burka offend and harm you personally? (please avoid serving me the ready-made-tv-phraseology such as "we are fighting for the right of the women" or "we have the right to see your face if you can see ours")
- The Moscow suicide bombers did not ware a burka.
- Saudi Arabia truly does not allow other religions within its borders and I can't say that I approve of that, but do you think it would be possible to raise a mosque in Vatican or a synagogue for that matter? The fact of the matter is that what Vatican represents for us Catholics the same thing that Saudi Arabia represents for the Muslim people .
- concerning the feminist ideas and "we are fighting for the rights of the women" line:
Did it ever cross your mind that not all of the women suffer from penis envy? A perfect example is Russia where gorgeous, feminine, gracious and pure blooded Slavic, Russian women REJECT the ideas of feminism with horror and despise and most of them to our great surprise do not want to have the initiative and occupy the leading role in the relationship, and they are happy and expect the man to occupy that role.
Should we accuse the Russian men for the ill treatment of women? Should we say that Russia is a country that discriminates against women? Well there are a lots of Muslim women who do not attach a negative connotation to the burka and embrace it as an integral part of their cultural heritage.

All I am trying to say is that we should be curious respectful and tolerant of other cultures instead of being reluctant, dismissive and prejudiced of something we have no knowledge about apart from the poison served to us by the TV. How many lies have we been served by that TV? think from the WMDs in Iraq, to the biased and one sided reporting on international conflicts....

the amount of muslims in France who wear the Burqa is expected to be about 2000 out of a muslim population of between 4 and 6 million. A lot of us have taught in muslim countries and know other muslim's attitudes to the burqa and various other expectations of women. What the Burqa does is become a symbol of islam to others, that if islam becomes more commonplace we can expect more of the same-even though only a tiny fraction wear it.

It is a symbol of refusal to integrate, it is confrontational. I mean does darth vador look like your friend in his outfit? do you wish to have a chat and a barbeque with the ku klux klan? For a small child the burqa is positively frightening, for the rest it makes us feel uncomfortable. in effect 2000 women give an excuse(and for most if not all it wasn't there choice anyway) for the haters and anti-muslim brigade to rally. give them their right to wear it and you will set the course back for the millions of muslims of France and elsewhere.

Islam in France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Mosque_Paris_Aug_2006_002.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/Mosque_Paris_Aug_2006_002.jpg/260px-Mosque_Paris_Aug_2006_002.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/5/5b/Mosque_Paris_Aug_2006_002.jpg/260px-Mosque_Paris_Aug_2006_002.jpg

trebor
05-05-2010, 17:51
.........It is a symbol of refusal to integrate, it is confrontational. I mean does darth vador look like your friend in his outfit? do you wish to have a chat and a barbeque with the ku klux klan? For a small child the burqa is positively frightening, for the rest it makes us feel uncomfortable. in effect 2000 women give an excuse(and for most if not all it wasn't there choice anyway) for the haters and anti-muslim brigade to rally. give them their right to wear it and you will set the course back for the millions of muslims of France and elsewhere...............

It's not just a symbol of the refusal to integrate it is physically impossible to integrate if they are wearing one. I like the reference to darth Vador. :)
The fact that it makes people uncomfortable in itself is not a reason to ban it for me though. I can think of many 'costumes' worn by people who have the freedom to choose them, that are more than a bit strange.
For me it's all about a woman's freedom to take it off if she wants.

yakspeare
05-05-2010, 17:59
true(oh by the way i am not a trebor account...i could be carbos or ruumeister's second account to argue with myself but I am not Trebors).

it is unthinkable for a woman who wears the Burqa to entertain the thought of not being in it...once there then there is no going back.

I have no problem if it became vogue for every woman to wear a headscarf, indeed once upon a time most did. Mary, mother of Jesus, probably wore one. I have seen some beautiful silk ones in Uzbekistan that some choose to wear.

a society and a government has the right to decide what it stands for and desires. If the general population of France do not wish to have the burqa then it is at your peril that you ignore the people. They will find people who will listen to them and bring in other policies too. I would much rather the muslims self-regulate this themselves then governments get involved but government does have a responsibility too and there only answer is to legislate.

yakspeare
05-05-2010, 18:02
i don't think it is an unreasonable request for this one thing considering:

(from news.com.au)

BRITISH tourists visiting Dubai have been issued an official "Don't Do" list to keep them out of jail following a spate of clashes with strict Muslim authorities.

The British Embassy in the United Arab Emirates warns that dancing, sharing a holiday hotel room when unmarried and even holding hands is "provocative" and could lead to arrest, The Sun reports.

Expats and tourists are told on the embassy's website: "If you want to face possible arrest and imprisonment, ignore the advice."

They warn sex outside marriage - and even sharing a hotel room - is illegal. Holding hands is tolerated for married couples, but kissing and hugging is considered an offense against public decency.

In March Britons Charlotte Adams, 26, and Ayman Najafi, 24, were jailed for sharing a kiss in a restaurant.

Dancing in public is classed as indecent and provocative, while offensive language, spitting and aggressive behaviour is also unacceptable.

Alcohol is only allowed in licensed restaurants, pubs, clubs and private venues and an alcohol licence is required for drinking at home.

A Foreign Office spokesman said Monday: "It is common-sense advice intended to keep Britons out of trouble."



In Dubai they are controlling what you even do in your hotel room- so a restirction on burqas in public seems quite minor in comparision. Of course when we go to foreign countries we should respect both their rules and their cultural rules and taboo.

ReallyGreatConcerts
05-05-2010, 18:20
In Dubai they are controlling what you even do in your hotel room- so a restirction on burqas in public seems quite minor in comparision. Of course when we go to foreign countries we should respect both their rules and their cultural rules and taboo.


So you are content with Arabian laws in your own country too, then?

Alek_world
05-05-2010, 18:23
Burka inhibits the Integration!

We talk a lot about integration across Europe, unfortunately this notion is most often used as an argument for justifying the right wing bigotry than anything else.

First of all it should be noted that there are different models of integration currently in place across Europe.

There are functional ones such as the UK model, where the notion of the integration is associated with the contribution to the community and the obedience of the laws and does not infringe in any way with the peoples identity. It is a model that confirms the cultural differences and praises the diversity as a wealth rather than the danger for the native culture.
Hence in London we can see a beautiful sight of people proudly wearing their traditional clothes, achieving good results in the professional plan, finding seats in the government etc etc

and on the other end we have the non functional integration models, that deny and reject the difference such as the one that we have in France.
Where people are expected to erase their cultural identity and simply "format" themselves adopting the French culture and habits to the point where a person who changes his name to a French name, will have much better chances to obtain a nationality than a person who chooses to keep his original name. How does a French name contribute to a persons productivity and the capacity to contribute to the community? How is a French name better than the one given to a child by his parents? Does this sound just like dumb ass colonialism to anyone else?
This model implies that a person needs to completely part with its cultural heritage that is deemed inferior to the French heritage if he expects to achieve anything. This is largely proven by some shameful facts such as the one that France a country of 63 millions out of which 5 millions are Arabs does not have a single representative of Arab origin in either house of the parliament (neither senate nor the parliament)...in France people live in the ghettos with extremely high levels of segregation, without real chances of contributing to the community since they cannot get the work in spite of their qualifications.....finaly it is needless to remind anyone of the consequences of those policies such as the suburban riots several years ago.

So if Integration means creating productive members of the society whose work contributes to the greater general well being, without infringing on the personal liberties and without dehumanizing and vilifying peoples cultural heritage than the discussion on burka is clearly superfluous.

if on the contrary Integration means legalizing supremacist ideas according to which immigrants and their cultures are viewed as so primitive that their coexistence on the national territory of the host country is simply considered as unacceptable, than we are clearly talking about a pretext to let go of the hysterical xenophobia and compensate for the political elites incompetence and a total lack of governance skills, incredible corruption and not Integration. According to this model to be in Europe one should be made to the image of Europeans! And what is next? Should all the immigrants of different religions convert to Christianity because Europe is mainly Christian? Should the Africans change the color of their skin? Should the Russian girls stop wearing mini skirts and high heals because to some embittered European girls who dress exclusively in jeans and flat shoes it seams vulgar?

yakspeare
05-05-2010, 18:29
So you are content with Arabian laws in your own country too, then?

you are tripping on something and whatever it is i hope you don't get busted for it....peace brother just keep inhaling...

I don't support Arabic laws in Australia , I argue quite the opposite. The Burqa is a symbol of oppression by a small minority that ruins it for everywhere else. In Arabic countries i will certainly obey their laws and customs and dress as much as i can like them. In russia i am russian, in uzbekistan i was an uzbek. I learn the local languages and adopt the native dress style.

yakspeare
05-05-2010, 18:46
Burka inhibits the Integration!

We talk a lot about integration across Europe, unfortunately this notion is most often used as an argument for justifying the right wing bigotry than anything else.

First of all it should be noted that there are different models of integration currently in place across Europe.

There are functional ones such as the UK model, where the notion of the integration is associated with the contribution to the community and the obedience of the laws and does not infringe in any way with the peoples identity. It is a model that confirms the cultural differences and praises the diversity as a wealth rather than the danger for the native culture.
Hence in London we can see a beautiful sight of people proudly wearing their traditional clothes, achieving good results in the professional plan, finding seats in the government etc etc

and on the other end we have the non functional integration models, that deny and reject the difference such as the one that we have in France.
Where people are expected to erase their cultural identity and simply "format" themselves adopting the French culture and habits to the point where a person who changes his name to a French name, will have much better chances to obtain a nationality than a person who chooses to keep his original name. How does a French name contribute to a persons productivity and the capacity to contribute to the community? How is a French name better than the one given to a child by his parents? Does this sound just like dumb ass colonialism to anyone else?
This model implies that a person needs to completely part with its cultural heritage that is deemed inferior to the French heritage if he expects to achieve anything. This is largely proven by some shameful facts such as the one that France a country of 63 millions out of which 5 millions are Arabs does not have a single representative of Arab origin in either house of the parliament (neither senate nor the parliament)...in France people live in the ghettos with extremely high levels of segregation, without real chances of contributing to the community since they cannot get the work in spite of their qualifications.....finaly it is needless to remind anyone of the consequences of those policies such as the suburban riots several years ago.

So if Integration means creating productive members of the society whose work contributes to the greater general well being, without infringing on the personal liberties and without dehumanizing and vilifying peoples cultural heritage than the discussion on burka is clearly superfluous.

if on the contrary Integration means legalizing supremacist ideas according to which immigrants and their cultures are viewed as so primitive that their coexistence on the national territory of the host country is simply considered as unacceptable, than we are clearly talking about a pretext to let go of the hysterical xenophobia and compensate for the political elites incompetence and a total lack of governance skills, incredible corruption and not Integration. According to this model to be in Europe one should be made to the image of Europeans! And what is next? Should all the immigrants of different religions convert to Christianity because Europe is mainly Christian? Should the Africans change the color of their skin? Should the Russian girls stop wearing mini skirts and high heals because to some embittered European girls who dress exclusively in jeans and flat shoes it seams vulgar?

interesting reading. Firstly muslims have been in france for a while now without any real problem and these things have only surfaced in recent years. All over the world the comments have been the same, suddenly the burqa has appeared in places among muslim populations where it had not even existed before( i posted previously about Egypt having almost none 20 years ago to becoming more and more commonplace today).

Some of it is a resistance to the west, some of it is good ol fashion subjection of women and some of it is the radicalizing of islam today.

you say what next-should they all become christian etc because of christian europe? lets take the opposite view....what's next should we allow sharia law and female circumcision because these are cultural things too? people have the right to say where the line is.

As for representation, these things take time but moves are under foot for change:

http://www.caleidoscop.org/Members/Marius/stiri-caleidoscop/women-make-gains-in-french-parliament-but-minorities-struggle

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4098

A sad tale of what it is in France:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/13/60minutes/main617270.shtml

Alek_world
05-05-2010, 18:46
the amount of muslims in France who wear the Burqa is expected to be about 2000 out of a muslim population of between 4 and 6 million. A lot of us have taught in muslim countries and know other muslim's attitudes to the burqa and various other expectations of women. What the Burqa does is become a symbol of islam to others, that if islam becomes more commonplace we can expect more of the same-even though only a tiny fraction wear it.

It is a symbol of refusal to integrate, it is confrontational. I mean does darth vador look like your friend in his outfit? do you wish to have a chat and a barbeque with the ku klux klan? For a small child the burqa is positively frightening, for the rest it makes us feel uncomfortable. in effect 2000 women give an excuse(and for most if not all it wasn't there choice anyway) for the haters and anti-muslim brigade to rally. give them their right to wear it and you will set the course back for the millions of muslims of France and elsewhere.

Islam in France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_France)


You are positively a racist my friend. I have never seen any of those Muslim women across the world go and lynch people and much less so in France. I have not seen any of those women hold rallies to call for the extermination of any Europeans nor the Christians yet you allow yourself the liberty to compare religious women (not fanatics) with Ku Klux Klan simply because they are different.

Children are frightened of what you teach them to fear, otherwise the children of 1.5 billion Muslims in the world who live in Muslim countries surrounded by or at least occasionaly crossing the women in burkas would live in permanent state of fear including the fear of their mothers sisters and neighbors.

I'll tell you what the children are truly afraid of? They are afraid of being labeled as something they are not nearly for being different and that is the pest of todays paranoid societies and that is what you propagate with the kind of idiotic comparisons.

Incidentally do the Hasidim Jewish wide black hats and the funny hair cuts and the absolute ban to marry outside of their religion represent a symbol of the ABSOLUTE refusal to integrate. Because I don't hear you nor anyone else in here bitch about that, nor characterize that as something shocking or negative. Nor do I hear you bitch about the Indian women wearing their traditional clothes and drawing red dots on their forehead, nor the Sikh man wearing black turbans at all times?

I belive everyone should be allowed the right to be different, because contrary to the bigoted opinions the difference does NOT represent any kind of a danger.
And why in the gods sake do you all pretend to care so much to the possibility of those women to communicate with the people on the street in societies where people live and die in total isolation in the cities whose population exceeds millions. In countries such as France that you so generously mention in your post where there are tenths of old people who were left to die in their apparentness during the heat wave in 2000 because they had NO ONE INCLUDING THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS TO visit them.http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,477899,00.html don't you think we should really concern ourselves with ourselves prior to lecturing the others and teaching them how to live their lives.

yakspeare
05-05-2010, 19:06
Yes i am apparently racist lol. That is why i learn foreign languages, study culture around the world. I grew up in suburban sydney in parramatta, a postively melting pot of cultures. only two of my friends at school were white(and one was a kiwi-yes i am racist towards them :P) the rest were lebanese, korean, Pakistani and vietnamese. Some of them I am still in contact with. How easy it is for you to throw the racist card! I lived in muslim countries, i adore their culture and drink it in.....

here I am , filthy racist at Samarkhand at one of the pillars of Islamic culture and learning on the great Silk road-amazed at their knowledge of astronomy:

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=42105&id=602520641&l=2c3b11d24a


I am zionist in that I believe in Israel's rights to a homeland, but i also support an independent Palestine state as drawn up in 1948.....clearly a sign of my racist tendencies.

These holidays I tried to get to Georgia and Armenian but the land border was closed....again a sign of xenophobia.

the reference to ku klux klan is a reference to wearing of masks(actually the KKK copied them out of a Spanish Catholic festival) but the point is they are frightening and it is unnatural as a part of the human race to not see a persons face and eyes. I have no problem with my bus driver wearing a turban, nor my doctor or nurse in a muslim headscarf or to have a dot on their head....not the least....a person in a burqa in all the above situations i would feel very uncomfortable in my dealings with them.

By the way if i am a racist which race am i supposed to be against? Arabs, well sorry they are semites like the jews and i am currently studying Hebrew and long to visit that county. Africans? By God's no-they are my salvation as when i meet them here they are the only one's guaranteed to speak English.

So to confirm your racist view of me i can confess i am racist towards:

Irish because they can drink me under the table
Kiwis well because they are all wannabe aussies
Wookies(i am strictly a member of the dark side)

MissAnnElk
05-05-2010, 19:44
Sheesh! This conversation is amazing because you are generally arguing, yet saying the same things.

The point no one has mentioned, and I find it odd, so maybe it was in the depths of a longer paragraph . . .

If I don't want to observe the rules of behavior in Saudi for example, I stay out of Saudi. I like to drive, drink alcohol, and kiss my husband in public. Saudi isn't going to be a lot of fun for me. Why would I want to go there?

I think if a country wants to create laws or rules of behavior, that is its right. But if I don't like those rules, I am free not to live there. It seems clear to me that this is what the French are doing and have always done. The French will welcome anyone into their country, BUT you have to do things the French way. And what's wrong with that?

yakspeare
05-05-2010, 19:56
Totally agree. oh and i did write it but it was in reference to Dubai not Saudi Arabia.

Alek_world
05-05-2010, 20:21
interesting reading. Firstly muslims have been in france for a while now without any real problem and these things have only surfaced in recent years. All over the world the comments have been the same, suddenly the burqa has appeared in places among muslim populations where it had not even existed before( i posted previously about Egypt having almost none 20 years ago to becoming more and more commonplace today).

Some of it is a resistance to the west, some of it is good ol fashion subjection of women and some of it is the radicalizing of islam today.

you say what next-should they all become christian etc because of christian europe? lets take the opposite view....what's next should we allow sharia law and female circumcision because these are cultural things too? people have the right to say where the line is.

As for representation, these things take time but moves are under foot for change:

http://www.caleidoscop.org/Members/Marius/stiri-caleidoscop/women-make-gains-in-french-parliament-but-minorities-struggle

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4098

A sad tale of what it is in France:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/13/60minutes/main617270.shtml

Firstly muslims have been in France for a while now without any real problem ????
LOL You must be French or very poorly informed to make such a groce understatement. Obviously the presence of the ghettos is not a real problem to you, nor is it not being able to get a single representative since the time that the Arabs first came to France (and as you generously mention it has been quite a while that they have been in France now), is not a real problem either????
I personally find that statement arrogant and racist. How about the rest of you?


About your IGNORANCE "female circumcision" is an OXYMORON circumcision implies the presence of PENIS FYI it is in the act of the removal of the foreskin commonly practiced by the Jews and many christian Americans for purely hygienic and maybe aesthetic reasons.
You see you are bigoted and this is not a personal attack against you its merely a statement of facts since you attack something that you do not have the clue about :nono:
And again in order to debunk your hmmm very inconsistent line of thinking ,,,, Muslim women are NOT IMPOSING THEIR HABITS ON YOU unlike the Belgium parliament that is IMPOSING SOMETHING ON THEM. OK????
These women are not obliging anyone to ware a burka and certainly not the little French or Belgian girls! But they are being denied the right to ware it themselves. and yes what is next.

Sharia is not even practiced in 90percent of Muslim countries and NO ONE is trying to instate it in EUROPE and certainly not a group of 2000 women. And concerning the crap about burka in Egypt could that possibly have something to do with the fact that the country was colonized and could that have something to do with someones superficial observations?

About the link you have just sent me a COMPLETE CONFIRMATION OF MY WORDS for the ones who failed to read it the article confirms that there are still NO Arab representatives in the parliament, and that the French are "not ready to elect minorities" NOT READY????? How backward are those people the entire Europe, hell even Russia that is considered by most European countries as a country where human rights are violated is READY to have the representatives of the minorities including the CHECHENS !

About the deplorable CBS attempt to portray the Arabs living in the ghettos as savages and animals I would personally line up, the isolated groups of criminals that ARE NOT representative of the Arab population in France against the wall and have him shot dead. Just as I would any rapist including the one In Austria who had his daughter raped and locked up in his basement for over 20 years and the parents of the 10-20 % of sexually assaulted children across Europe by their own parents
http://book.coe.int/EN/ficheouvrage.php?PAGEID=36&lang=EN&produit_aliasid=820...and the Central and western European members of the child pornography rings http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/ppncpt4.htm
notice that the book is not available from some crap womens magazine but the Council of Europe library

And this is more likely the real sad image of what France is http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1214

or this http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/10/french-minister-caught-race-row

P.S. I still didn't receive any comments on the Hasidim Jews "refusal to integrate"??? You afraid to comment on that one? Could that be a sign of double standards.... LOL

Alek_world
05-05-2010, 20:33
Sheesh! This conversation is amazing because you are generally arguing, yet saying the same things.

The point no one has mentioned, and I find it odd, so maybe it was in the depths of a longer paragraph . . .

If I don't want to observe the rules of behavior in Saudi for example, I stay out of Saudi. I like to drive, drink alcohol, and kiss my husband in public. Saudi isn't going to be a lot of fun for me. Why would I want to go there?

I think if a country wants to create laws or rules of behavior, that is its right. But if I don't like those rules, I am free not to live there. It seems clear to me that this is what the French are doing and have always done. The French will welcome anyone into their country, BUT you have to do things the French way. And what's wrong with that?

Well there are a lot of things that are wrong with that.
Firstly
Soudis never invaded Europe colonized it for centuries, exploited it and stole a max of resources and are not up to this date actively maintaining political instability in their ex-colonies in order to keep the prices on the natural ressources from those countries cheep.
And the French have been and are doing exactly that.
Secondly
Most of those people have been brought to France against their will, and they've rebuilt France after the wars so I believe that they are a "little bit" entitled to live in that country. So its not exactly the same situation as if you are choosing to go there or not. And drawing a parallel from your logic my dear you would probably say that we should have given to the African Americans the same choice of living in ghettos etc and if they didn't like being discriminated against they could return to Africa.... lol

yakspeare
05-05-2010, 20:50
Firstly muslims have been in France for a while now without any real problem ????
LOL You must be French or very poorly informed to make such a groce understatement. Obviously the presence of the ghettos is not a real problem to you, nor is it not being able to get a single representative since the time that the Arabs first came to France (and as you generously mention it has been quite a while that they have been in France now), is not a real problem either????
I personally find that statement arrogant and racist. How about the rest of you?


About your IGNORANCE "female circumcision" is an OXYMORON circumcision implies the presence of PENIS FYI it is in the act of the removal of the foreskin commonly practiced by the Jews and many christian Americans for purely hygienic and maybe aesthetic reasons.
You see you are bigoted and this is not a personal attack against you its merely a statement of facts since you attack something that you do not have the clue about :nono:
And again in order to debunk your hmmm very inconsistent line of thinking ,,,, Muslim women are NOT IMPOSING THEIR HABITS ON YOU unlike the Belgium parliament that is IMPOSING SOMETHING ON THEM. OK????
These women are not obliging anyone to ware a burka and certainly not the little French or Belgian girls! But they are being denied the right to ware it themselves. and yes what is next.

Sharia is not even practiced in 90percent of Muslim countries and NO ONE is trying to instate it in EUROPE and certainly not a group of 2000 women. And concerning the crap about burka in Egypt could that possibly have something to do with the fact that the country was colonized and could that have something to do with someones superficial observations?

About the link you have just sent me a COMPLETE CONFIRMATION OF MY WORDS for the ones who failed to read it the article confirms that there are still NO Arab representatives in the parliament, and that the French are "not ready to elect minorities" NOT READY????? How backward are those people the entire Europe, hell even Russia that is considered by most European countries as a country where human rights are violated is READY to have the representatives of the minorities including the CHECHENS !

About the deplorable CBS attempt to portray the Arabs living in the ghettos as savages and animals I would personally line up, the isolated groups of criminals that ARE NOT representative of the Arab population in France against the wall and have him shot dead. Just as I would any rapist including the one In Austria who had his daughter raped and locked up in his basement for over 20 years and the parents of the 10-20 % of sexually assaulted children across Europe by their own parents
http://book.coe.int/EN/ficheouvrage.php?PAGEID=36&lang=EN&produit_aliasid=820...and the Central and western European members of the child pornography rings http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/ppncpt4.htm
notice that the book is not available from some crap womens magazine but the Council of Europe library

And this is more likely the real sad image of what France is http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1214

or this http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/10/french-minister-caught-race-row

P.S. I still didn't receive any comments on the Hasidim Jews "refusal to integrate"??? You afraid to comment on that one? Could that be a sign of double standards.... LOL

such anger lol...i come from Australia and we are very proud of our multicultural heritage and the ability for people to integrate(considerably better than even in Britain where you can have stereotypes of "pakis" etc doing various jobs and often looked down on).

When I am talking about France, since you have so little comprehension skills, is that the French Muslims who have been there since the 1920s have caused little problems. I am not in anyway suggesting that living in ghettos is desirable and correct. We have one in Australia, by the way, Eveleigh street in Redfern where even the police were afraid to go. Full of Aborigines, they were dispersed into the wider community and given assistance so we don't have the problem France has today. We have suburbs with major ethnic groups but they are almost entirely integrated.

Someone comes from Africa and the government provides housing for them...ok it is an outdated model(we disperse our hard working migrants around australia and encourage them to live in country areas where their hard work ethic rewards the local community). Still the situation in France isn't a lot different than a black growing up in the slums of New York. There have been blacks in America for how many years before they got representation?

About your IGNORANCE "female circumcision" is an OXYMORON circumcision implies the presence of PENIS FYI it is in the act of the removal of the foreskin commonly practiced by the Jews and many christian Americans for purely hygienic and maybe aesthetic reasons.
You see you are bigoted and this is not a personal attack against you its merely a statement of facts since you attack something that you do not have the clue about :nono:

I don't make up terms so here you go, get an education:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2313097.html
http://www.womenshealth.gov/faq/female-genital-cutting.cfm
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

As for various Jews...choosing to not marriage outside your religion etc is entirely people's right. I welcome a mixture of people and cultures walking down the street, i have not the least issue of race or custom or with muslim headress of anything else except the burqa. I am not alone in this and those who make their wives wear the burqa in france and other western places provide a stereotype that only encourage people who are actually racist(of which i am not-except kiwis,irish and wookies)

ReallyGreatConcerts
05-05-2010, 20:53
you are tripping on something and whatever it is i hope you don't get busted for it....peace brother just keep inhaling...

Then let me phrase the question in a simpler way for you.

Your "rationale" (insofar as you have a rationale at all) goes like this:

1) In Dubai I heard they have a rule about not holding hands, and I think that sucks.

2) In fact it sucks so much I think I'll have a rule just like that sucky rule in my country, to teach those damn infidels a lesson.

3) We'll make the rule something that only applies to muslims, because that's who we hate

4) We don't need a rule like that, and wearing the burka hurts no-one, and affects a tiny number of people, and presents no threat

5) But we want a rule which establishes that WE are the White People and you will do whatever we say, even if it's a stupid and petty thing

6) And we don't care if our sucky laws are just as dumb and petty as their sucky laws, and drag us down to the level of their petty and sucky laws, because this is about being vindictive, petty and racist.

Alek_world
05-05-2010, 20:54
And in spite of your miserable attempt to detour the readers view from the facts that lay within your own words, yes I maintain that you are a racist and someone suffering from islamophobia.

You never rebutted any of my arguments with arguments and you never responded rationally to any of the allegations.

Since when does learning foreign languages and traveling exempts someone from being racist? I have been traveling since the age of 16, I have lived in 5 different countries on four different continents and I currently live about 8 000 miles from home, so I could say that I met quite a pack of travelers on the road and: "NO being or not being a racist has nothing to do with traveling and learning languages" I met an American in Berlin who told me he hates the African Americans, I met a Frenchman in Morocco who told me he hates the Arabs, I met a Japanese guy in Paris who told me he couldn't stand the Koreans, so what I even met an incredible number of Expats living in Russia who despise everything that is Russian yet they live here, hell some of them are even married to Russian women, I met a Russian traveling in China who told me he couldn't stand the Asians....Yeah it sounds like a paradox but those are facts. Your "arguments" are hollow!


Just one little example of poopoo hollow arguments

By the way if i am a racist which race am i supposed to be against? Arabs, well sorry they are semites like the jews and i am currently studying Hebrew and long to visit that county.

Knock Knock???? Hello
You are telling me that because you are learning Hebrew and longing to visit Israel you are not a racist against Arabs.. LOL dude


PS I will accord you one think maybe you do not realize this but your words are truly racist and I suggest re reading your posts and soberly analyzing them prior to getting all fired up at my just observations...


Yes i am apparently racist lol. That is why i learn foreign languages, study culture around the world. I grew up in suburban sydney in parramatta, a postively melting pot of cultures. only two of my friends at school were white(and one was a kiwi-yes i am racist towards them :P) the rest were lebanese, korean, Pakistani and vietnamese. Some of them I am still in contact with. How easy it is for you to throw the racist card! I lived in muslim countries, i adore their culture and drink it in.....

here I am , filthy racist at Samarkhand at one of the pillars of Islamic culture and learning on the great Silk road-amazed at their knowledge of astronomy:

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=42105&id=602520641&l=2c3b11d24a


I am zionist in that I believe in Israel's rights to a homeland, but i also support an independent Palestine state as drawn up in 1948.....clearly a sign of my racist tendencies.

These holidays I tried to get to Georgia and Armenian but the land border was closed....again a sign of xenophobia.

the reference to ku klux klan is a reference to wearing of masks(actually the KKK copied them out of a Spanish Catholic festival) but the point is they are frightening and it is unnatural as a part of the human race to not see a persons face and eyes. I have no problem with my bus driver wearing a turban, nor my doctor or nurse in a muslim headscarf or to have a dot on their head....not the least....a person in a burqa in all the above situations i would feel very uncomfortable in my dealings with them.

By the way if i am a racist which race am i supposed to be against? Arabs, well sorry they are semites like the jews and i am currently studying Hebrew and long to visit that county. Africans? By God's no-they are my salvation as when i meet them here they are the only one's guaranteed to speak English.

So to confirm your racist view of me i can confess i am racist towards:

Irish because they can drink me under the table
Kiwis well because they are all wannabe aussies
Wookies(i am strictly a member of the dark side)

MickeyTong
05-05-2010, 20:55
I think if a country wants to create laws or rules of behavior, that is its right. But if I don't like those rules, I am free not to live there. It seems clear to me that this is what the French are doing and have always done. The French will welcome anyone into their country, BUT you have to do things the French way. And what's wrong with that?

Nothing at all wrong with that. And orthodox Islamic scholars would have little sympathy for Muslims complaining that they have to follow non-Muslim laws:

http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/14235

http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/82681

yakspeare
05-05-2010, 21:10
And in spite of your miserable attempt to detour the readers view from the facts that lay within your own words, yes I maintain that you are a racist and someone suffering from islamophobia.

You never rebutted any of my arguments with arguments and you never responded rationally to any of the allegations.

Since when does learning foreign languages and traveling exempts someone from being racist? I have been traveling since the age of 16, I have lived in 5 different countries on four different continents and I currently live about 8 000 miles from home, so I could say that I met quite a pack of travelers on the road and: "NO being or not being a racist has nothing to do with traveling and learning languages" I met an American in Berlin who told me he hates the African Americans, I met a Frenchman in Morocco who told me he hates the Arabs, I met a Japanese guy in Paris who told me he couldn't stand the Koreans, so what I even met an incredible number of Expats living in Russia who despise everything that is Russian yet they live here, hell some of them are even married to Russian women, I met a Russian traveling in China who told me he couldn't stand the Asians....Yeah it sounds like a paradox but those are facts. Your "arguments" are hollow!


Just one little example of poopoo hollow arguments

By the way if i am a racist which race am i supposed to be against? Arabs, well sorry they are semites like the jews and i am currently studying Hebrew and long to visit that county.

Knock Knock???? Hello
You are telling me that because you are learning Hebrew and longing to visit Israel you are not a racist against Arabs.. LOL dude


PS I will accord you one think maybe you do not realize this but your words are truly racist and I suggest re reading your posts and soberly analyzing them prior to getting all fired up at my just observations...

lol lol lol....as i have stated i love people of all cultures( minus kiwis, irish and wookies) and yes i lived in muslim countries, learnt there language, went to there bazaars and embraced there culture too. Infact i know the history of central asia better than most of the locals. I adore it there and i am making arrangements to go back. Oh I am studying Arabic too, was going to study it seriously in Cairo for a year, but i have delayed it. One of the reasons i want to learn Arabic is actually to study the Koran, just like a similar reason for Hebrew...Hebrew was just easier to study first. I have posted i fully support Palestine too but i guess you missed that/

I am the complete definition of someone without a racist bone in his body, what don't you understand? I earnestly desire to study and learn of the Islamic faith(mickeytong has a better grip on it than I) and i have dealt with afghan and iraq aslyum seekers in australia on a regular basis. The person who comes across racist here seems to be yourself, in an anti-french tirade.

yakspeare
05-05-2010, 21:21
Then let me phrase the question in a simpler way for you.

Your "rationale" (insofar as you have a rationale at all) goes like this:

1) In Dubai I heard they have a rule about not holding hands, and I think that sucks.

No it is entirely their right. I have no opinion on it rather than that. I certainly wouldn't try and change that.

2) In fact it sucks so much I think I'll have a rule just like that sucky rule in my country, to teach those damn infidels a lesson.

um no I am not French . I am Australian

3) We'll make the rule something that only applies to muslims, because that's who we hate

I don't judge people on being muslim or any other religion or being any particular race. Indeed probably 60% of my friends are muslim.

4) We don't need a rule like that, and wearing the burka hurts no-one, and affects a tiny number of people, and presents no threat

Actually the Burqa is a sign of subjection and oppression and denial of a woman's rights. I have no issue with any other form of dress(including muslim dress).

5) But we want a rule which establishes that WE are the White People and you will do whatever we say, even if it's a stupid and petty thing

Well muslims are many different races(like Indonesia for example our neighbour) and indeed there are plenty of white muslims too. I am also mixed blood myself so I have no grounding to think my race is better than another.

6) And we don't care if our sucky laws are just as dumb and petty as their sucky laws, and drag us down to the level of their petty and sucky laws, because this is about being vindictive, petty and racist.

No there laws are what they chose and some have merit and ought be respected unless they infringe on basic human rights. I will always adhere to the laws in all countries.

Alek_world
05-05-2010, 21:41
Anger ?
You wish ))) its amusement at the sight of an ignorant bigot.
Concerning your remark about my comprehension skills I suggest you rather focus on your skills to clearly and concisely express your "ideas" or rather their absence in your case.

female genital mutilation is the term that is widely accepted and the act of
circumcision has traditionally been and remains associated with the removal of the foreskin and not the mutilation of the female genitalia, which is a barbaric custom,
In conclusion read the articles and definitions before you send them
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/circumcision

Why do you keep insisting on the fact that Australia is a super duper ideal example of a multicultural country in your previous posts? I mean everyone knows that you have done the same thing with the Aborigines that we have done with the Indians and that is: decimated them, culturally destroyed them and made them into second rate citizens and now you are complaining about the fact that they are bitter and that their ghettos are unsafe???? LOL
Does the Aborigineese child snatching program otherwise known as the Victorian Aboriginal Protection Act 1869. ring a bell in your mind????
Since when has Australia became an example of successful integration, judging from your words its rather a failure.




such anger lol...i come from Australia and we are very proud of our multicultural heritage and the ability for people to integrate(considerably better than even in Britain where you can have stereotypes of "pakis" etc doing various jobs and often looked down on).

When I am talking about France, since you have so little comprehension skills, is that the French Muslims who have been there since the 1920s have caused little problems. I am not in anyway suggesting that living in ghettos is desirable and correct. We have one in Australia, by the way, Eveleigh street in Redfern where even the police were afraid to go. Full of Aborigines, they were dispersed into the wider community and given assistance so we don't have the problem France has today. We have suburbs with major ethnic groups but they are almost entirely integrated.

Someone comes from Africa and the government provides housing for them...ok it is an outdated model(we disperse our hard working migrants around australia and encourage them to live in country areas where their hard work ethic rewards the local community). Still the situation in France isn't a lot different than a black growing up in the slums of New York. There have been blacks in America for how many years before they got representation?

About your IGNORANCE "female circumcision" is an OXYMORON circumcision implies the presence of PENIS FYI it is in the act of the removal of the foreskin commonly practiced by the Jews and many christian Americans for purely hygienic and maybe aesthetic reasons.
You see you are bigoted and this is not a personal attack against you its merely a statement of facts since you attack something that you do not have the clue about :nono:

I don't make up terms so here you go, get an education:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2313097.html
http://www.womenshealth.gov/faq/female-genital-cutting.cfm
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

As for various Jews...choosing to not marriage outside your religion etc is entirely people's right. I welcome a mixture of people and cultures walking down the street, i have not the least issue of race or custom or with muslim headress of anything else except the burqa. I am not alone in this and those who make their wives wear the burqa in france and other western places provide a stereotype that only encourage people who are actually racist(of which i am not-except kiwis,irish and wookies)

tvadim133
05-05-2010, 21:46
Sheesh! This conversation is amazing because you are generally arguing, yet saying the same things.

The point no one has mentioned, and I find it odd, so maybe it was in the depths of a longer paragraph . . .

If I don't want to observe the rules of behavior in Saudi for example, I stay out of Saudi. I like to drive, drink alcohol, and kiss my husband in public. Saudi isn't going to be a lot of fun for me. Why would I want to go there?

I think if a country wants to create laws or rules of behavior, that is its right. But if I don't like those rules, I am free not to live there. It seems clear to me that this is what the French are doing and have always done. The French will welcome anyone into their country, BUT you have to do things the French way. And what's wrong with that?


That is right!

Each society, country can establish their own rules of behaviour.

If in the restaurant it is forbidden to enter without clothes, does it mean, the onwer of the restaurant discriminates naked people?

When people hide their faces, for me it is warning and hurting (call me rasist), no matter they are criminals or women in burka.

I wonder why we should always be afraid of being politicaly incorrect or
being called rasist in case we are against "envasion" of other cultures, traditions, habbits to our own cultures, traditions and habbits;

yakspeare
05-05-2010, 21:58
Anger ?
You wish ))) its amusement at the sight of an ignorant bigot.
Concerning your remark about my comprehension skills I suggest you rather focus on your skills to clearly and concisely express your "ideas" or rather their absence in your case.

female genital mutilation is the term that is widely accepted and the act of
circumcision has traditionally been and remains associated with the removal of the foreskin and not the mutilation of the female genitalia, which is a barbaric custom,
In conclusion read the articles and definitions before you send them
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/circumcision

Why do you keep insisting on the fact that Australia is a super duper ideal example of a multicultural country in your previous posts? I mean everyone knows that you have done the same thing with the Aborigines that we have done with the Indians and that is: decimated them, culturally destroyed them and made them into second rate citizens and now you are complaining about the fact that they are bitter and that their ghettos are unsafe???? LOL
Does the Aborigineese child snatching program otherwise known as the Victorian Aboriginal Protection Act 1869. ring a bell in your mind????
Since when has Australia became an example of successful integration, judging from your words its rather a failure.

lol...you digging something up from 1869? Yes i can tell you a great deal about the many terrible things done to Aboriginal people. That is why our Prime Minister publically apologised on behalf of the nation to them , that is why we have aboriginal land rights far more generous than the reservation system of America/Canada. That is why an Aborigine gets more in welfare, more to study, has job opportunities with the public service that only they can apply for...yes we treat them so terrible THESE days. We have gone to great lengths to repair the sins of the past. to some it isn't enough but we are trying. yes we HAD one ghetto and we don't anymore...AS I SAID. It was one entire street. That's it, we recognised our mistake and moved on.

By the way, how did we decimate the Aborigines...there are more in Australia now then when Austalia was colonized 200 years ago..culturally destroyed them how? A lot of them still live in their communities without any inteference from us obviously bigoted white folk. We are taught Aboriginal culture all through school, we are never taught Christian religion or anything else. Oh they have the option to be trialed under tribal law too.
but we do stop them from bashing a newborn babies head against the ground as a form of abortion. i hope you dont consider that an infringement on aboriginal rights by us "whiteys".

Female circumcision is not an oxymoron, but perhaps it is an euphenism...but as my articles stated it is still a common used term to describe the practice of MOSTLY muslim nations in Africa and something we should never allow into our countries. I am simply pointing out that we can allow some practices and some cultures to enrich our own but we can also say no to some things too, as is our right(and their right in their respective countries of origin).

Alek_world
05-05-2010, 22:25
You have flipped so many times each time finding different reasons to vilify the burka

1: "It is a symbol of refusal to integrate, it is confrontational"
Rebuttal:
It has nothing to do with integration:
So if Integration means creating productive members of the society whose work contributes to the greater general well being, without infringing on the personal liberties and without dehumanizing and vilifying peoples cultural heritage than the discussion on burka is clearly superfluous.
It is not confrontational because:
And again in order to debunk your hmmm very inconsistent line of thinking ,,,, Muslim women are NOT IMPOSING THEIR HABITS ON YOU unlike the Belgium parliament that is IMPOSING SOMETHING ON THEM. OK????
These women are not obliging anyone to wear a burka and certainly not the little French or Belgian girls! But they are being denied the right to wear it themselves. and yes what is next.

2: " For a small child the burqa is positively frightening, for the rest it makes us feel uncomfortable"
Rebuttal:
Children are frightened of what you teach them to fear, otherwise the children of 1.5 billion Muslims in the world who live in Muslim countries surrounded by or at least occasionally crossing the women in burkas would live in permanent state of fear including the fear of their mothers sisters and neighbors.
I'll tell you what the children are truly afraid of? They are afraid of being labeled as something they are not nearly for being different and that is the pest of today's paranoid societies and that is what you propagate with the kind of idiotic comparisons.


3: "they are frightening and it is unnatural as a part of the human race to not see a persons face and eyes"
Rebuttal:
You said eyes, by golly you are a menace to the sunglasses industry and additionally a hypocrite if you claim that it is frightening not to see a persons eyes .
And how about we make a little pause and see how rational is your fear???
Could you rationally explain what is frightening in the fact that you cant see a Muslim women's face. What exactly are you afraid of?
What's so scary about that? Do what kind of menace to your existence does she represent?

While I can see objective reasons behind a non "Aryan" persons fear at a sight of a shaven head siting on some Neanderthals shoulders that translate in a danger of physical violence and the even the preservation of ones life. I somehow fail to put a real menace behind the women in a burka.

4: "Actually the Burqa is a sign of subjection and oppression and denial of a woman's rights."
Bla bla
Many of the women who appeared EVEN on the "TV" and many of the ones who live in those countries where you lived bu never spoke to them, consider this as a part of their cultural heritage.

And finally people were always afraid of differences and that is what gave way to racism, but instead of being backward thinking most of the non neanderthals learned to accept the difference and not consider it as a menace hence we now have multicultural and interracial marriages and multicultural societies. Why should it be different with burka????

I couldn't care less about burka itself it is the idea of banning something not because it represents a real danger or a menace but nearly because we don't like it that BOTHERS ME. Its a step back to the dark ages.

and Again mixing mutilation of someones genitals with wearing a burka is NONSENSE

Alek_world
05-05-2010, 22:41
Well Vadim you have the answer in your own question, you should be afraid to sound politically incorrect because it is bad to have the kind of attitude that you have towards other cultures, habits and traditions where you automatically label them as invaders when they are objectively not endangering you ...

I wonder why we should always be afraid of being politicaly incorrect or
being called rasist in case we are against "envasion" of other cultures, traditions, habbits to our own cultures, traditions and habbits;

Alek_world
05-05-2010, 22:53
Yep its a real little paradise that you got going for those "little savages" , you are really spoiling them. But, gosh I wonder why is that vile little organization called Amnesty International telling people such despicable lies about it?

http://www.treatyrepublic.net/content/amnesty-international-australia-violating-rights-aboriginals?quicktabs_2=9



lol...you digging something up from 1869? Yes i c
an tell you a great deal about the many terrible things done to Aboriginal people. That is why our Prime Minister publically apologised on behalf of the nation to them , that is why we have aboriginal land rights far more generous than the reservation system of America/Canada. That is why an Aborigine gets more in welfare, more to study, has job opportunities with the public service that only they can apply for...yes we treat them so terrible THESE days. We have gone to great lengths to repair the sins of the past. to some it isn't enough but we are trying. yes we HAD one ghetto and we don't anymore...AS I SAID. It was one entire street. That's it, we recognised our mistake and moved on.

By the way, how did we decimate the Aborigines...there are more in Australia now then when Austalia was colonized 200 years ago..culturally destroyed them how? A lot of them still live in their communities without any inteference from us obviously bigoted white folk. We are taught Aboriginal culture all through school, we are never taught Christian religion or anything else. Oh they have the option to be trialed under tribal law too.
but we do stop them from bashing a newborn babies head against the ground as a form of abortion. i hope you dont consider that an infringement on aboriginal rights by us "whiteys".

Female circumcision is not an oxymoron, but perhaps it is an euphenism...but as my articles stated it is still a common used term to describe the practice of MOSTLY muslim nations in Africa and something we should never allow into our countries. I am simply pointing out that we can allow some practices and some cultures to enrich our own but we can also say no to some things too, as is our right(and their right in their respective countries of origin).

yakspeare
05-05-2010, 23:19
http://www.peacewomen.org/news/Afghanistan/May05/burqa.html
http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/essay-01.html
Burqa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:TajMahalbyAmalMongia.jpg" class="image"><img alt="TajMahalbyAmalMongia.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4d/TajMahalbyAmalMongia.jpg/170px-TajMahalbyAmalMongia.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/4/4d/TajMahalbyAmalMongia.jpg/170px-TajMahalbyAmalMongia.jpg
http://www.husainiyouths.com/profiles/blogs/the-burqa-debate-a

To quote one site:

Supporters of the Ban on Full Veil Worn by Some Muslim Women

Many French legislators and citizens are leery of the burqa because they view it as a symbol of Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic oppression of women, and the threat of Islamic terrorism. According to the Ipsos poll in Le Point magazine, supporters of the anti-burqa legislation total nearly 60 percent of French citizens. Proponents of the ban say the burqa challenges the secularism of France and also makes it difficult to identify women in public places.

Mona Eltahawy, op-ed contributor to the New York Times wrote, “I am a Muslim, I am a feminist and I detest the full-body veil, known as a niqab or burqa. It erases women from society and has nothing to do with Islam but everything to do with the hatred for women at the heart of the extremist ideology that preaches it.”

Expressing much the same sentiment, President Sarkozy was quoted in the CNN article “France moves closer to ban on burqas” as saying, "The problem of the burqa is not a religious problem. This is an issue of a woman's freedom and dignity. This is not a religious symbol. It is a sign of subservience; it is a sign of lowering. I want to say solemnly, the burqa is not welcome in France."

MickeyTong
05-05-2010, 23:21
..... many of the ones who live in those countries where you lived bu never spoke to them, consider this as a part of their cultural heritage.


It is considered sinful for a Muslim woman to expose her 'awrat to a non-mahram male. A non-mahram male is one who is not a blood-relative, to whom marriage is theoretically permissable. The term 'awrat refers to parts of the body which must be concealed. In the case of women, the 'awrat also includes her voice: therefore, a pious Muslim woman - concerned to obey the orders of the creator of the universe and the decider of souls' fates on the Day of Judgement - will not speak to most men. At least, not in a friendly manner.

http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/5538

yakspeare
05-05-2010, 23:39
Yep its a real little paradise that you got going for those "little savages" , you are really spoiling them. But, gosh I wonder why is that vile little organization called Amnesty International telling people such despicable lies about it?

http://www.treatyrepublic.net/content/amnesty-international-australia-violating-rights-aboriginals?quicktabs_2=9

haha. I am a member of Amnesty international and have been for a number of years. Yes Aborigines who live in the desert( on non royalty land) with little services and chronic unemployment(because there is no work there) do suffer as a by product of the former missions.

The Indigenous Australian population is a mostly urbanised demographic, but a substantial number (27% as of 2002[58]) live in remote settlements often located on the site of former church missions. The health and economic difficulties facing both groups are substantial. Both the remote and urban populations have adverse ratings on a number of social indicators, including health, education, unemployment, poverty and crime.[59](source wiki)

so 73% urbanised and without any ghettos or slums I think we do okay. The issue Mrs Khan had was governmental intervention to try and match welfare payments to things like school attendance and to stop non aboriginals doing alcohol runs into the many dry communities.

Thats why we have things like this:

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2008/s2425547.htm
http://businessnsw.e-newsletter.com.au/link/id/a0d72227d13187cc8cf8/page.html?extra=c85990bd9d4b97a47004

An Australian Aborigine has the same rights as anyone else and infact more opportunities before him than the average person by nature of positive discrimination. The only caveat is those who live in the old mission camps-any who want to work can but it will mean leaving those areas. Mining companies and others are trying to employ as many of them as possible but you do realize each and every one of them in a remote community that isn't working is on welfare far, far higher than welfare of any other country in the world and infact enough for them to live in a city?

Oh by the way my cousins are Aboriginal. :)) Bobo! (That's Aboriginal kuku yulangi for bye!)

tvadim133
05-05-2010, 23:40
Well Vadim you have the answer in your own question, you should be afraid to sound politically incorrect because it is bad to have the kind of attitude that you have towards other cultures, habits and traditions where you automatically label them as invaders when they are objectively not endangering you ...


I do not go to arabic countries to express my attitude (no matter bad or good) and make them change their environment according to my interests and mentality.

More then that, in travelling to these countries, I fully accept the rules of the game and respect feelings and ways of thinking (behaviour) of locals.

But is not it endangering, when they try to do it here quite opposite?

That is the"envasion" to my mind.

Why must local assimilate with immigrants, but not immigrants assimilate with locals?

I do not think, that there will be an issue with tolerance, in case both parts are tolerant to each other.

Do you really think, that in France, Belgium, Italy people have just changed their good attitude?

ReallyGreatConcerts
05-05-2010, 23:53
If I don't want to observe the rules of behavior in Saudi for example, I stay out of Saudi. I like to drive, drink alcohol, and kiss my husband in public. Saudi isn't going to be a lot of fun for me. Why would I want to go there?

Not everyone goes to other countries for fun. Some are sent by the corporations they work for, and face being fired if they refuse to go. Some are their spouses. Some are diplomats. Others go for humanitarian causes etc.

Yakspeare's so-called "argument" of "hey, they have wacko laws in Saudi, so let's have some wacko laws of our own, huh?" is just intellectual bankruptcy at its most blind.

yakspeare
06-05-2010, 00:04
you are obviously incapable of reading. I fully support Saudis having their laws and others. Every country has the sovereign right to make its own laws. If the world community doesn't like it then there are measures(diplomacy and wars) to deal with it but I see no relation between Saudi laws and French laws except for the respect they deserve while in that country.

MickeyTong
06-05-2010, 00:10
Yakspeare's so-called "argument" of "hey, they have wacko laws in Saudi, so let's have some wacko laws of our own, huh?" is just intellectual bankruptcy at its most blind.


RGC - it's not a matter of tit-for-tat wacko laws, but I do think there's an element of non-rational discrimination involved: are "hoodies" also going to be prohibited? There's no law preventing me from wearing a ski mask wherever I want, but if I wore one to a bank I should, realistically, expect some problems.

ReallyGreatConcerts
06-05-2010, 00:49
you are obviously incapable of reading. I fully support Saudis having their laws and others. Every country has the sovereign right to make its own laws. If the world community doesn't like it then there are measures(diplomacy and wars) to deal with it but I see no relation between Saudi laws and French laws except for the respect they deserve while in that country.

You type and type, and never read replies. You are just bone-headed.

You claimed that the Saudis having a law about holding hands in public was justification for Belgium having discriminatory laws against muslims.

Can you see the inbuilt hypocrisy in your own position or would you like me to write you an essay about it?


There's no law preventing me from wearing a ski mask wherever I want, but if I wore one to a bank I should, realistically, expect some problems.

As I mentioned waaaay back on p1 of this discussion - I hope we're going to see Belgian cops hanging-out outside Churches in Ghent and Flanders, ready to arrest veiled brides arriving for their own weddings? Because the racist scum in Belgium who dreamed-up this particular piece of xenophobia didn't figure on that.

yakspeare
06-05-2010, 01:07
You type and type, and never read replies. You are just bone-headed.

You claimed that the Saudis having a law about holding hands in public was justification for Belgium having discriminatory laws against muslims.

Can you see the inbuilt hypocrisy in your own position or would you like me to write you an essay about it?



As I mentioned waaaay back on p1 of this discussion - I hope we're going to see Belgian cops hanging-out outside Churches in Ghent and Flanders, ready to arrest veiled brides arriving for their own weddings? Because the racist scum in Belgium who dreamed-up this particular piece of xenophobia didn't figure on that.


you are one angry man. I never claimed that Saudi having a law was JUSTIFICATION for it. Every country has the right to determine its own laws.

Unless Belgian weddings are different than others, a wedding veil still enables one to clearly see all aspects of the face. Hence it would not be a problem.

MissAnnElk
06-05-2010, 01:25
Well there are a lot of things that are wrong with that.
Firstly
Soudis never invaded Europe . . .

Maybe not the Saudis, but the Moors occupied Spain/Al Andaluz for . . . what? 800 years?

MickeyTong
06-05-2010, 01:31
Maybe not the Saudis, but the Moors occupied Spain/Al Andaluz for . . . what? 800 years?

Yep, and it was a thriving, multicultural society.

MissAnnElk
06-05-2010, 01:36
Yep, and it was a thriving, multicultural society.

In general, yes. The Moors of that period were surprisingly tolerant. If you didn't want to convert, you could just pay an additional tax.

Interestingly, dishes such as paella were designed to determine who was willing to eat seafood/pork. And even the French "Ooo la, la" is derived from "Inshallah."

Jason Webster has written several very interesting books about Spanish culture including this one: Amazon.com: Andalus: Unlocking the Secrets of Moorish Spain (9780552771245): Jason Webster: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51QKKpsuShL.@@AMEPARAM@@51QKKpsuShL

MickeyTong
06-05-2010, 01:39
The Moors of that period were surprisingly tolerant.

And then came the Inquisition.

MissAnnElk
06-05-2010, 01:41
And then came the Inquisition.

Yeah. And it all went pear-shaped.

I would love to go back to grad school, study Spanish and Arabic, and understand that period better. Because it is fascinating. And so, so much a part of Spanish culture.

In my next life.

After I get a handle on the Spanish Civil War. Which, every time I think I understand, I realize that I don't. Or that the side I thought were the heroes aren't. There were no winners in that one.

MickeyTong
06-05-2010, 01:42
In my next life.

Ooo, la, la.

MickeyTong
06-05-2010, 01:44
..the Spanish Civil War.....There were no winners in that one.

Franco did all right for himself.

MissAnnElk
06-05-2010, 01:48
Franco did al right for himself.

C**ks**cker, he was.

YouTube- saturday night live - franco

trebor
06-05-2010, 06:09
:hooray: :hooray: :hooray:

Don't forget to ask "NobbyNumbNuts" the same questions - it's another of Trebor's sockpuppet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)) online personalities, that he maintains here (against the rules of these Forums) to give the impression that someone agrees with him.

The right button on my mouse is sticking a bit. Go and complain and get it sorted for me.
Quickly! I find it irritating.
And listen loser, DON'T get a warning in the process! :doh: :rofl:

rusmeister
06-05-2010, 06:25
It's unfortunate that this topic has moved along so quickly - I might have responded to a number of comments - some good ones as well as some unexpressed assumptions that could be shown to be fallacious. I can't keep up with them all.


Yep, and it was a thriving, multicultural society.
Hey, Mickey!
This depends, of course, on your worldview - as does everything else. If you don't believe that there is truth, or care about it; if you are a materialist coming from materialist assumptions then multiculturalism would seem to bring peace and understanding of others, and you might use verbs like "thrive", which actually assume a specific and objective type of growth. However, a tumor can thrive just as much as a healthy organism. Furthermore, it doesn't lead to real understanding - first of all, of people who believe that there IS truth. In that important aspect, a Christian believer ignorant of Islamic culture in general already understands them better than an expert on Islam who is himself a pluralist and materialist, because they both grasp the idea that there is truth, and touching ultimate truths there is no such thing as a "point of view".


In general, yes. The Moors of that period were surprisingly tolerant. If you didn't want to convert, you could just pay an additional tax.
It is true that there was a degree of tolerance of conquered peoples. But only a degree. The restrictions on Orthodox believers and the Orthodox Church were actually somewhat heavier, and quite destructive. I wonder if you are familiar with the practices around how Jannissaries were recruited, and other policies aimed at destroying an incompatible faith?

Alek_world
06-05-2010, 14:59
Yaekpear or whatever your name may be there I've wasted enough time on you and you dumb reactions to arguments.
I mean for the past N posts you start your reply by HA HA or lol in absence of any rational arguments and than you just blabber on about unrelated stuff such as the crappy statement that "if one likes to travel and learn foreign languages he cannot be a racist" and often paradoxically offer arguments going against your claims and in my favor such as the situation with the full absence of the North African representatives in the French parliaments where you responded by sending me the news article where they confirm that fact. To finalize you always accuse others of their incapacity to correctly understand you... while upon the simple re-lecture of your posts in becomes evident that we are not talking about a lack of understanding but a the flip/flops in the wannabe arguments that you keep pushing through in order to defend your bigoted ideas and irrational fears.
I think you should get your ass kicked from amnesty international because FYI Amnesty International condemns the racist laws in Belgium because you are an apologist and I would hate to believe that that is the kind of people who make up Amnesty International.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/belgium-full-face-veil-ban-would-breach-international-law-2010-04-22

PS if having Aboriginal cousins implies that you have Aboriginal roots I would refer you to the speech given by Malcolm X on the Uncle Toms of the African american societies and the house slaves.... I do hope that you are getting my hint



haha. I am a member of Amnesty international and have been for a number of years. Yes Aborigines who live in the desert( on non royalty land) with little services and chronic unemployment(because there is no work there) do suffer as a by product of the former missions.

The Indigenous Australian population is a mostly urbanised demographic, but a substantial number (27% as of 2002[58]) live in remote settlements often located on the site of former church missions. The health and economic difficulties facing both groups are substantial. Both the remote and urban populations have adverse ratings on a number of social indicators, including health, education, unemployment, poverty and crime.[59](source wiki)

so 73% urbanised and without any ghettos or slums I think we do okay. The issue Mrs Khan had was governmental intervention to try and match welfare payments to things like school attendance and to stop non aboriginals doing alcohol runs into the many dry communities.

Thats why we have things like this:

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2008/s2425547.htm
http://businessnsw.e-newsletter.com.au/link/id/a0d72227d13187cc8cf8/page.html?extra=c85990bd9d4b97a47004

An Australian Aborigine has the same rights as anyone else and infact more opportunities before him than the average person by nature of positive discrimination. The only caveat is those who live in the old mission camps-any who want to work can but it will mean leaving those areas. Mining companies and others are trying to employ as many of them as possible but you do realize each and every one of them in a remote community that isn't working is on welfare far, far higher than welfare of any other country in the world and infact enough for them to live in a city?

Oh by the way my cousins are Aboriginal. :)) Bobo! (That's Aboriginal kuku yulangi for bye!)

MickeyTong
06-05-2010, 15:02
... it doesn't lead to real understanding - first of all, of people who believe that there IS truth. In that important aspect, a Christian believer ignorant of Islamic culture in general already understands them better than an expert on Islam who is himself a pluralist and materialist, because they both grasp the idea that there is truth, and touching ultimate truths there is no such thing as a "point of view".


It is true that there was a degree of tolerance of conquered peoples. But only a degree. The restrictions on Orthodox believers and the Orthodox Church were actually somewhat heavier, and quite destructive. I wonder if you are familiar with the practices around how Jannissaries were recruited, and other policies aimed at destroying an incompatible faith?

Hello Rus

The Islamic faith is incompatible with secular European pluralism, and banning the burkha (but not "hoodies", ski-masks, etc) will be perceived (by Muslims educated in the doctrines and ordinances of what they believe to be ultimate truth) as another policy of Satan's dupes (the fornicators, homosexuals, interest-consumers, liars and drinkers who make up....er....Europe and its governments). As a Christian believer, you will understand how a pious Muslim, trying to live as commanded by his/her Creator, feels. However, trials and tribulations are sent to good, faithful people as well as the others.

Alek_world
06-05-2010, 15:21
Pale brother
Moors NOT IS Turks!!! Turks very very very different and when pale bother talks about Janichari he talks about the Turkish Ottoman Empire
Moors = Moors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg" class="image"><img alt="Text document with red question mark.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg/50px-Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/a/a4/Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg/50px-Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg.png
Turks = Ottoman Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Ottoman_flag_alternative_2.svg" class="image" title="Flag"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2a/Ottoman_flag_alternative_2.svg/125px-Ottoman_flag_alternative_2.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/2/2a/Ottoman_flag_alternative_2.svg/125px-Ottoman_flag_alternative_2.svg.png
Janissary = Janissary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Yenitcheri-Agasi-Reis-Efendi-Tchaouch-Bachi-Chatir.jpg" class="image"><img alt="Yenitcheri-Agasi-Reis-Efendi-Tchaouch-Bachi-Chatir.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Yenitcheri-Agasi-Reis-Efendi-Tchaouch-Bachi-Chatir.jpg/230px-Yenitcheri-Agasi-Reis-Efendi-Tchaouch-Bachi-Chatir.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/8/82/Yenitcheri-Agasi-Reis-Efendi-Tchaouch-Bachi-Chatir.jpg/230px-Yenitcheri-Agasi-Reis-Efendi-Tchaouch-Bachi-Chatir.jpg

Thus unrelated to the Moorish, in deed by far the most civilized and tolerant, occupation at that time, even more civilized and tolerant towards the Spanish that the Spanish were on themselves like Mickey tongue mentioned. Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Seal_for_the_Tribunal_of_the_Holy_Office_of_the_Inquisition_(Spain).png" class="image" title="Seal for the Tribunal in Spain."><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Seal_for_the_Tribunal_of_the_Holy_Office_of_the_Inquisition_%28Spain%29.png/193px-Seal_for_the_Tribunal_of_the_Holy_Office_of_the_Inquisition_%28Spain%29.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/9/9f/Seal_for_the_Tribunal_of_the_Holy_Office_of_the_Inquisition_%28Spain%29.png/193px-Seal_for_the_Tribunal_of_the_Holy_Office_of_the_Inquisition_%28Spain%29.png

And just for the sake of the discussion the way that the Turks behaved was DEPLORABLE and Barbaric.


It's unfortunate that this topic has moved along so quickly - I might have responded to a number of comments - some good ones as well as some unexpressed assumptions that could be shown to be fallacious. I can't keep up with them all.


Hey, Mickey!
This depends, of course, on your worldview - as does everything else. If you don't believe that there is truth, or care about it; if you are a materialist coming from materialist assumptions then multiculturalism would seem to bring peace and understanding of others, and you might use verbs like "thrive", which actually assume a specific and objective type of growth. However, a tumor can thrive just as much as a healthy organism. Furthermore, it doesn't lead to real understanding - first of all, of people who believe that there IS truth. In that important aspect, a Christian believer ignorant of Islamic culture in general already understands them better than an expert on Islam who is himself a pluralist and materialist, because they both grasp the idea that there is truth, and touching ultimate truths there is no such thing as a "point of view".


It is true that there was a degree of tolerance of conquered peoples. But only a degree. The restrictions on Orthodox believers and the Orthodox Church were actually somewhat heavier, and quite destructive. I wonder if you are familiar with the practices around how Jannissaries were recruited, and other policies aimed at destroying an incompatible faith?

Alek_world
06-05-2010, 16:02
I do not go to arabic countries to express my attitude (no matter bad or good) and make them change their environment according to my interests and mentality.
More then that, in travelling to these countries, I fully accept the rules of the game and respect feelings and ways of thinking (behaviour) of locals.
TRAVELING is not the SAME as LIVING and being a CITIZEN with equal rights, those people are not Fxxx TOURSITS they are full scale citizens whose opinion should be taken into account COULD ALL OF YOU GRASP THAT?????



But is not it endangering, when they try to do it here quite opposite?
When I see a women wearing a traditional piece of cloth over the face dressed in a traditional female Muslim robe accompanied of her husband or sons and daughters. NO I don't think it is in anyway a threat to my health, life or integrity. Amongst other reasons because I embrace the difference and because I do not have identity problems and I know who I AM and because I know that seeing someone different next to me will not in anyway take my identity away, nor that of my children nor that of all of my non-feeble-in-mind-and-character friends.... )))



That is the"envasion" to my mind.
Invasion is the word you are looking for. And since the spelling was wrong refreshing the meaning of that word would do you no harm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion#Definition



Why must local assimilate with immigrants, but not immigrants assimilate with locals?
A: How are you being asked to ASSIMILATE WITH THE IMMIGRANTS??? Is someone asking you or the Belgian or the French girls to wear a burka? Is someone pushing you to convert to Islam.
B. Why should people need to assimilate (loose erase their identity and cultural heritage and become someone else) they could simply integrate (recognize the differences and find a common language while contributing to the prosperity of the community where they live and that they share)



I do not think, that there will be an issue with tolerance, in case both parts are tolerant to each other.
Have you been in any of the North African countries? Has anyone banned European girls in Egypt, Tunisia, Alger, Morocco, Libya, or Lebanon to walk in shorts or go to the beach in bikini ???? WTF



Do you really think, that in France, Belgium, Italy people have just changed their good attitude?
Yes I firmly believe that the right wing parties have increased their influence across entire Europe and I that is mostly because immigration is the easiest escape goat for anything
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1944157.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1160972/The-far-right-march-rise-Fascism-Austria.html
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5455829,00.html
http://eeuropeanrussianaffairs.suite101.com/article.cfm/rise-of-the-far-right-in-europe

nbogaard
06-05-2010, 16:04
I think that once you mention the idea that God had a son you'll be moving into territory which a Muslim will consider to be your misguided ignorance. For a Muslim, God has no offspring.

Jesus is considered a Messenger, a person who received communications from God to be relayed to his people. His message was not to the whole world, but is seen as the final message to the Jews as the Chosen People, to bring them back on track (on message).
When Muslims refer to Christians as "people of the Book" they are referring to very early Christians, who did not believe (according to Islam) that Jesus was the son of - or an incarnation of - God. A belief that God has any type of partner (a la trinitarianism) is called shirk (polytheism).

I have a simple question. Prior to the life of Jesus Christ, was there a "christian" religion? If the existence of Jesus was a necessary precondition to the existence of Christians, what was it about their religion, pre-Christ that differentiated it from other monotheistic religions?

I'm sure that there is a relatively simple explanation but if someone can explain, I would be happy for the explanation.

Nobbynumbnuts
06-05-2010, 17:33
Yes I firmly believe that the right wing parties have increased their influence across entire Europe and I that is mostly because immigration is the easiest escape goat for anything..................[/URL]


I Agree 100%

But unfortunatley millions and millions of people accross Europe don't see it like that. They are looking for answers from the main stream political parties about immigration. When they don't receive them social tensions rise and many switch to ultra right wing parties. That's dangerous.
You might not like it. I might not like it. But someone better start listening to some of their concerns.

yakspeare
06-05-2010, 17:39
Yaekpear or whatever your name may be there I've wasted enough time on you and you dumb reactions to arguments.
I mean for the past N posts you start your reply by HA HA or lol in absence of any rational arguments and than you just blabber on about unrelated stuff such as the crappy statement that "if one likes to travel and learn foreign languages he cannot be a racist" and often paradoxically offer arguments going against your claims and in my favor such as the situation with the full absence of the North African representatives in the French parliaments where you responded by sending me the news article where they confirm that fact. To finalize you always accuse others of their incapacity to correctly understand you... while upon the simple re-lecture of your posts in becomes evident that we are not talking about a lack of understanding but a the flip/flops in the wannabe arguments that you keep pushing through in order to defend your bigoted ideas and irrational fears.
I think you should get your ass kicked from amnesty international because FYI Amnesty International condemns the racist laws in Belgium because you are an apologist and I would hate to believe that that is the kind of people who make up Amnesty International.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/belgium-full-face-veil-ban-would-breach-international-law-2010-04-22

PS if having Aboriginal cousins implies that you have Aboriginal roots I would refer you to the speech given by Malcolm X on the Uncle Toms of the African american societies and the house slaves.... I do hope that you are getting my hint

I laugh at the start of my posts because what you accuse me of is quite preposterous. I am not in the least bit racist. As i have stated about 60% of my friends are muslims and they are dear equals to me with culture far greater than my own. Yes my cousins are , to be precise, Torres Strait Islanders with my Auntie considered a princess among them. It was ironic that she could marry a white man(my uncle) but then when she was divorced and married a common Torres Strait man she was considered an outcast. Most of my family have lived extensively overseas(some for a decade or more) and we share the same attitude that we are all equal. My brother is a director and teacher at a solely Aboriginal kindergarten. My sister as a public health worked extensively with Aboriginal people. I tried to start a water business in OZ in which the bottle art work was to be aboriginal and a sizeable royalty was to be paid to the local people to give them self sufficiency. It certainly wasn't tokenism.You know nothing of me and what I have done. Furthermore as a linguist i dealt routinely with Indonesian Muslims and Afghan and Iraq Asylum seekers.

Amnesty International is proud to have me as a member and one of the wonders of such an organization is they aim to educate and encourage and to raise awareness of issues but also don't tell their members WHAT to think. I do question the French(and especially the Belgian) politics in this but having spoken to plenty of muslims who don't wear the burqa- THEY see that the burqa wearing muslims and their supporters are creating trouble for the rest. A great deal of muslim women DETEST the burqa and what it represents.

There was no paradox in my statements on representation. Most muslims have been in France since the 1920s-how long did it take America to give representation to Afro-Americans or Native Indians??

The muslims are not native to France. So this is how it works. They need to field candidates, there is no gerrymander in France, so if they accrue enough votes they enter parliament...they are only 10% of the population afterall, so it is quite possible that the majority of French don't share their views and thus don't vote for them(afterall over 60% support the Burqa ban).

By the way we have two muslim MPs in Australian state parliaments and we have had several Aboriginal politicians including one Governor. We are a fairly progressive country, however, though we have done many wrongs along the way.

Why do i get the impression that you are yelling at your keyboard?

ReallyGreatConcerts
06-05-2010, 19:23
The muslims are not native to France.

Have you ever been to France? Or have you ever even been NEAR France?

If not, then perhaps you have seen the famous film CASABLANCA starring Humphrey Bogart and Claude Rains? It is set in Casablanca. What uniform is Claude Rains wearing in this picture? (This thread doesn't support images for some unknown reason, so you will have to click)

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/33/24133-004-CD656084.jpg

Let's go slowly.

Which country's previous Imperial colonies included Lebanon, Madagascar, Syria, Morocco, Algeria, Mauritania, Senegal, Guinea, Mali, Côte d'Ivoire, Benin, Niger, Chad, Central African Republic, and Republic of Congo?

Still with us?

Here is the Great Mosque of Paris. It was built in 1926, replacing a previous mosque. As you can see, it's a building that has cost enormous amounts of money to construct - this is merely one courtyard.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/GD-FR-Paris-Mosquée016.JPG/450px-GD-FR-Paris-Mosquée016.JPG

Have you explored Paris (assuming you've ever been to France, about which you're so deeply informed) beyond the Champs-Elysees? Have you maybe wandered down to Republique, to find the many Algerian and Moroccan cafes and tea-rooms, offering food and hospitality from the Orient?

Across the border from France is Spain. Andalusian Spain was an Islamic Califate in the Middle Ages, and much of European learning (medicine, mathematics, astronomy, geometry, rhetoric...) was the work of Andalusian scholars like Ibn Rushd (born in Cordoba, Spain, EUROPE, and known as "Averroes"), just like Al-Qurtubi, Ibn Hazm, and the poet and writer Wassada al-Mustakfi (who was blonde, beautiful, and female - another of your "chattels", eh? :rofl:)

So tell us again how Islam has no place in France, and no place in Europe?

Because you're talking arse-biscuits.

yakspeare
06-05-2010, 19:54
wow.

Let's go slowly:

Are the Muslims native to France?

The answer is no.

Does this mean they have no place in France, of course it doesn't.

What it DOES mean is there is no automatic right for their representation in parliament. A country like New Zealand, for example, has Maori guaranteed seats in parliament BECAUSE THEY ARE THE NATIVE PEOPLE. It was the nature of the treaty signed. Unfortunately Australia(to its shame but there is talk of this changing) being british and being able to easily conquer the native people of Australian have no treaty. However we have Aboriginal members of parliament anyhow but they get there on their merits and skill despite making up about 1% of the population.

Even Iran, as strict as it is, has a Zoroaster minister as part of its constitution.

I don't think you actually read what i say, I am a strong advocate of muslim people and their rights as i am of all people(sans kiwis , Irish and wookies). Have YOU been to the muslim world, admired their architecture, be amazed at their contribution to science and astronomy, to the exotic foods and spices and rich history?

As for France, I don't pretend to be an expert but so you know i have lived there(albeit when i was younger) and indeed my family used to shop in France every two weeks...I certainly wouldn't get lost there.

I am simply against the Burqa, JUST like many muslims are.

rusmeister
06-05-2010, 22:11
Hello Rus

The Islamic faith is incompatible with secular European pluralism, and banning the burkha (but not "hoodies", ski-masks, etc) will be perceived (by Muslims educated in the doctrines and ordinances of what they believe to be ultimate truth) as another policy of Satan's dupes (the fornicators, homosexuals, interest-consumers, liars and drinkers who make up....er....Europe and its governments). As a Christian believer, you will understand how a pious Muslim, trying to live as commanded by his/her Creator, feels. However, trials and tribulations are sent to good, faithful people as well as the others.
Yes, of course.
Of course, believing Islam to be almost as dangerous as pluralism, on the one hand, and feeling strongly about the right of a people to reject unlimited multiculturalism, I'm not terribly sorry about a ban on burkas. I do understand how Muslims would feel about this, and only a positive certainty that they are wrong allows me to hold that position.

rusmeister
06-05-2010, 22:22
I have a simple question. Prior to the life of Jesus Christ, was there a "christian" religion? If the existence of Jesus was a necessary precondition to the existence of Christians, what was it about their religion, pre-Christ that differentiated it from other monotheistic religions?

I'm sure that there is a relatively simple explanation but if someone can explain, I would be happy for the explanation.

Hi, nbogaard!
As put, your question doesn't seem to make much sense, because it looks like it's asking, "What was Christianity like before Christ?" - and the answer is that there was no such thing.

It seems like it ought to be obvious to anyone who knows the slightest about the history of Christianity, is that it was firmly rooted in Judaism; ie, the Jews were the people who brought forth the Christ, the Messiah.

The Jews were the first solidly monotheistic religion, with no comparison in their world. "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord!" was an absolutely shocking statement in the thoroughly polytheistic pagan world surrounding the Jews. The concept that the same force - and a personal force at that - was behind the rivers, the harvests, the storms, and everything was totally novel.

If, however, you really mean to ask what it is that makes Christianity unique among monotheistic religions, the answer is rather different. It is of central importance that Christ appeared precisely among the one people who would find His statements most blasphemous and impossible - the one people among whom a person actually claiming to be God, to say the sacred words "I AM" in reference to himself, was least likely.

yakspeare
06-05-2010, 22:29
Ahura Mazda would disagree that Hashem/YHWH was the only monotheistic God and the earliest....

:)

ReallyGreatConcerts
06-05-2010, 23:23
What it DOES mean is there is no automatic right for their representation in parliament. A country like New Zealand, for example, has Maori guaranteed seats in parliament BECAUSE THEY ARE THE NATIVE PEOPLE. .

France extended its current borders in the C19th. It claimed that places like Gabon and Algeria were French. These colonies had French Governors sent to rule them.

The legacy of that astonishing hubris is that citizenship that was once forced upon people is now claimed as of right. Algerian and Moroccan and Syrian French people are FRENCH, and they are NATIVE FRENCH PEOPLE, born under French rule, educated within the French National School System and holding French passports. FRENCH = FRENCH. Many for the 4th or 5th generation.

DO YOU THINK "SARKOZY" IS A FRENCH NAME???????????

MickeyTong
06-05-2010, 23:54
Ahura Mazda would disagree that Hashem/YHWH was the only monotheistic God and the earliest....

:)

And Akhenaten had a stab at monotheism in Egypt.

I wonder where the Hebrews got their monotheistic ideas? They didn't, by any chance, spend some time in Babylon?

tvadim133
07-05-2010, 00:15
DO YOU THINK "SARKOZY" IS A FRENCH NAME???????????

Hungarian for 50%!

rusmeister
07-05-2010, 07:01
Ahura Mazda would disagree that Hashem/YHWH was the only monotheistic God and the earliest....

:)
I think you completely missed my point - when I specifically said :"the world surrounding them" I wasn't saying that there had never been such a concept anywhere, but that it was unique in its time and place; held by a whole people - and not just temporarily imposed by one man - and totally contradicted the general ideology of the surrounding nations (and of course that they were mostly not a dominant force in their own region).

yakspeare
07-05-2010, 07:19
this was a religion of a whole people, the aryan people of Persia and remained the dominant religion there until they were taken over by the Arabs more than a thousand years later. furthermore it was widespread in India, originally when people fled with parts of the sacred Avesta from Alexander the Great, and later in the 10th Century when Persia was under Arab rule, the Parsee came to India also. It was the dominant religion in Persia from which the Jews came(both in captivity and also originally from that region ie Abram).

yakspeare
07-05-2010, 07:31
France extended its current borders in the C19th. It claimed that places like Gabon and Algeria were French. These colonies had French Governors sent to rule them.

The legacy of that astonishing hubris is that citizenship that was once forced upon people is now claimed as of right. Algerian and Moroccan and Syrian French people are FRENCH, and they are NATIVE FRENCH PEOPLE, born under French rule, educated within the French National School System and holding French passports. FRENCH = FRENCH. Many for the 4th or 5th generation.

DO YOU THINK "SARKOZY" IS A FRENCH NAME???????????

you just don't get it, do you? I asked if they were native to FRANCE and the answer is no.

Did Britain have its colonies in parliament? An Australian born in the 1800s when it was still a British colony certainly considered himself British(we went to world war 1 even using the British flag) but he certainly couldn't be elected into British parliament unless he A) lived in England B) Achieved popular support in the vote. There was no tokenism that said oh we need someone in our parliament from this colony and we will leave a seat spare for them. No if a Muslim politician wants to enter parliament they have to have popular support and it is hardly the fault of the French people when a group that makes up only 10% of the population(and oftentimes may have policies others may not agree with) does not get get into parliament.

Affirmative action is not a bad thing to a point, certainly muslim politicians should be encouraged. But they still have to win over the majority in their electorate. We have some in Australia but they got there because of the person, not the religion and their policies are what people wanted.

nbogaard
07-05-2010, 08:10
this was a religion of a whole people, the aryan people of Persia and remained the dominant religion there until they were taken over by the Arabs more than a thousand years later. furthermore it was widespread in India, originally when people fled with parts of the sacred Avesta from Alexander the Great, and later in the 10th Century when Persia was under Arab rule, the Parsee came to India also. It was the dominant religion in Persia from which the Jews came(both in captivity and also originally from that region ie Abram).

"[T]his was a religion of a whole people...." What was the religion of a whole people? Judaism? Was Judaism the predominant religion of Persia?

rusmeister
07-05-2010, 09:17
"[T]his was a religion of a whole people...." What was the religion of a whole people? Judaism? Was Judaism the predominant religion of Persia?
He's obviously talking about Zoroastrianism. However, there is essentially no recorded history on the religion before 550 BC, making it younger than Judaism in any event, and completely validating my point.

Why a supposedly Protestant Christian would be seeking to prove his own religion of no greater significance than others is beyond me. But Judaism was, all the same, unique.

yakspeare
07-05-2010, 09:20
"[T]his was a religion of a whole people...." What was the religion of a whole people? Judaism? Was Judaism the predominant religion of Persia?

No i refer to Zorastrianism which is a monotheistic religion of the Persia people prior to Islam.

Zoroastrianism is of great antiquity.[1] In some form, it served as the national- or state religion of a significant portion of the Iranian people for many centuries before it was gradually marginalized by Islam from the 7th century onwards. The political power of the pre-Islamic Iranian dynasties lent Zoroastrianism immense prestige in ancient times, and some of its leading doctrines were adopted by other religious systems.(wiki)

yakspeare
07-05-2010, 09:37
He's obviously talking about Zoroastrianism. However, there is essentially no recorded history on the religion before 550 BC, making it younger than Judaism in any event, and completely validating my point.

Why a supposedly Protestant Christian would be seeking to prove his own religion of no greater significance than others is beyond me. But Judaism was, all the same, unique.

Remember absolute truth? It doesn't matter what my religion convictions are.


Zoroastrianism

A Zoroastrian is an adherent to Zoroastrianism, a monotheistic religion which was once one of the biggest religions on Earth, founded in the early part of the 12-10th century BCE. The religion is based on the teachings and philosophies of Zoroaster. The Zoroastrians (or "Parsis") are sometimes credited with being the first monotheists and having had significant influence in the formation of current, larger world religions. Today, some figures put the number of adherents to Zoroastrianism at up to 3.5 million,[41] ranging from regions in South Asia and spread across the globe.(wiki)

Monotheism:

Origin and development

The word monotheism is derived from the Greek μόνος[4] meaning "single" and θεός[5] meaning "God".[6] The English term was first used by Henry More (1614–1687).
The concept sees a gradual development out of notions of henotheism (worshiping a single god while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities) and monolatrism (the recognition of the existence of many gods, but with the consistent worship of only one deity). In the Ancient Near East, each city had a local patron deity, such as Shamash at Larsa or Sin at Ur. The first claims of global supremacy of a specific god date to the Late Bronze Age, with Akhenaten's Great Hymn to the Aten (speculatively connected to Judaism by Sigmund Freud in his Moses and Monotheism). Currents of monism or monotheism emerge in Vedic India in the same period, with e.g. the Nasadiya Sukta. Philosophical monotheism and the associated concept of absolute good and evil emerges in Judaism, later culminating in the doctrines of Christology in Early Christianity and finally (by the 7th century) in the tawhid in Islam.
Austrian anthropologist Wilhelm Schmidt in the 1910s postulated an Urmonotheismus, "original" or "primitive monotheism."
Historically, some Ancient Near Eastern religions from the Late Bronze Age begin to exhibit aspects of monotheism or monolatrism.
This is notably the case with the Aten cult in the reign of the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten, but also with the rise of Marduk from the tutelary of Babylon to the claim of universal supremacy.
In Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazda appears as a supreme and transcendental deity. Depending on the date of Zoroaster (usually placed in the Early Iron Age), this may be one of the earliest documented instances of the emergence of monism in an Indo-European religion. Also in Indo-Iranian tradition, the Rigveda exhibits notions of monism, in particular in the comparatively late tenth book, also dated to the Early Iron Age, e.g. in the Nasadiya sukta.(wiki)

Furthermore the origins of the Aryan people and their belief in one God predate Zoroaster himself who wrote of the sacred Avesta. Infact the Aryan people originated in the Khiva region of modern day Uzbekistan, such archaelogical and historical information was suppressed under soviet times as possibly be pro-fascist(until they realised that Aryans emerging from a part of the soviet union wasn't a bad thing).

It is true also that there are tribes in Papua New Guinea who follow one God and follow a fair equilavent of the Ten commandments in terms of their practices.

What I suggest is that it is quite natural to believe in one deity and a great deal of early man did so. This takes nothing away from the God's purpose of the Jews and rather shows that deep down a great more people realise there is just one God and polytheism is a choice to reject this.

yakspeare
07-05-2010, 11:25
The Hebrew Bible(WIKI)

The authorship of the various texts in Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) is an open topic of research. Therefore, assigning solid dates to any of the texts is difficult.
The range of dates assigned to the Torah (Pentateuch) is rather broad. It is certain to predate the 2nd century BC, and estimates of its oldest elements range from the 15th to the 6th centuries BC. The bulk of the Tanakh was likely complete by the end of the Babylonian captivity (537 BC).
[edit]Torah
The traditional view on the origin of the Torah is that it was written by Moses between 1446 BC and 1406 BC. While this view is still held by conservative Christians and Jews, modern scholars agree that the whole of the Torah was composed in the mid-1st millennium BC as a "prequel" to the prophetic books (books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings). There are currently three broad approaches to the question the date and method of its composition. The documentary hypothesis holds that the Torah was composed by interweaving four originally separate and complete narratives, each dealing with the same material: this, it is claimed, accounts for many of the puzzling features of the five books, notably the appearance of multiple names for God and doubled incidents. The documentary hypothesis held a near-monopoly on scholarly approaches to the date and composition of the Torah until the last quarter of the 20th century, since when many scholars have advanced alternative theories which can be grouped unto two broad models: the first is the "fragmentary" model, which holds that the Torah grew gradually from a host of fragments of various lengths; the alternative view is the "supplementary" model, which holds that it is largely the work of an "editor", or group of editors, working on ("supplementing") a mass of existing material.
Views on Torah
View Proposed Date
Traditional View Torah composed between 1446 BC and 1406 BC, with the remaining books composed between 1400 BC to 400 BC.
Documentary hypothesis Four independent documents (the Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist and the Priestly source), composed between 900-550 BC, redacted c 450 BC, possibly by Ezra
Supplementary models (e.g. John Van Seters) Torah composed as a series of authorial expansions of an original source document, usually identified as J or P, largely during the 7th and 6th centuries BC, final form achieved c. 450 BC.
Fragmentary models (e.g. Rolf Rendtorff, Erhard Blum) Torah the product of the slow accretion of fragmentary traditions, (no documents), over period 850-550 BC, final form c. 450 BC.
Biblical minimalism Torah composed in Hellenistic-Hasmonean period, c. 300-140 BC.

Alek_world
07-05-2010, 12:52
I laugh at the start of my posts because what you accuse me of is quite preposterous. I am not in the least bit racist. As i have stated about 60% of my friends are muslims and they are dear equals to me with culture far greater than my own. Yes my cousins are , to be precise, Torres Strait Islanders with my Auntie considered a princess among them. It was ironic that she could marry a white man(my uncle) but then when she was divorced and married a common Torres Strait man she was considered an outcast. Most of my family have lived extensively overseas(some for a decade or more) and we share the same attitude that we are all equal. My brother is a director and teacher at a solely Aboriginal kindergarten. My sister as a public health worked extensively with Aboriginal people. I tried to start a water business in OZ in which the bottle art work was to be aboriginal and a sizeable royalty was to be paid to the local people to give them self sufficiency. It certainly wasn't tokenism.You know nothing of me and what I have done. Furthermore as a linguist i dealt routinely with Indonesian Muslims and Afghan and Iraq Asylum seekers.

Amnesty International is proud to have me as a member and one of the wonders of such an organization is they aim to educate and encourage and to raise awareness of issues but also don't tell their members WHAT to think. I do question the French(and especially the Belgian) politics in this but having spoken to plenty of muslims who don't wear the burqa - THEY see that the burqa wearing muslims and their supporters are creating trouble for the rest. A great deal of muslim women DETEST the burqa and what it represents.

There was no paradox in my statements on representation. Most muslims have been in France since the 1920s-how long did it take America to give representation to Afro-Americans or Native Indians??

The muslims are not native to France. So this is how it works. They need to field candidates, there is no gerrymander in France, so if they accrue enough votes they enter parliament...they are only 10% of the population afterall, so it is quite possible that the majority of French don't share their views and thus don't vote for them(afterall over 60% support the Burqa ban).

By the way we have two muslim MPs in Australian state parliaments and we have had several Aboriginal politicians including one Governor. We are a fairly progressive country, however, though we have done many wrongs along the way.

Why do I get the impression that you are yelling at your keyboard?

Lets start from the bottom, you probably get that impression
A) Because believing that you can cause some kind of emotional reaction from another person who has clearly shown his capacity to rebut your "wanna be" arguments with rock sold logic and facts, probably makes it easier to swallow that big shovel of metaphorical sh*** that comes in a form of the knowledge that you have been publicly massacred in a debate and debunked to be a silly hypocrite and a silent racist .....
B) Because you are unstable and maybe in lack of attention and love ))) and desperately hope to get some kind of emotional response...
I mean why else would a grown man wave hysterical little accusations that people are angry at any one who rebutted him (both at me and RGT) when you can only inspire pity and a sad kind of amusement with your impotent arguments, dual standard logic, and your sorrow attempts to camouflage your true face of an Islamophobe and your web of lies....I mean reading your posts is a candy for a psychologist, with your little formulations "my Auntie considered a princess among them.", gosh how old are you to call your cousin Auntie? Do you call your mother Mommy and your dad Daddy??? + your little giggling when short of arguments is appropriate to that of pathetic little boy (although I doubt that you fit in that age group)

To question the peoples RIGHTS to exercise their BASIC personal freedoms that are a part of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a18) alone, is a sign of savagery to me. But then to turn to the kind of Fascist arguments in todays modern and democratic societies, where one implies that the right of a religion to be freely practiced can only be justified by the religions NATIVENESS, is going back to the dark ages and is exactly the discourse that one can hear from the far right parties.

"Article 18. Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to M-A-N-I-F-E-S-T his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

Are Arabs and Muslims native to France? YES THEY ARE, at least the ones who were BORN in that country, who pay the taxes, THEY ARE EQUAL CITIZENS.
For some dumb asses who have a problem grassing the idea of the citizenship it means that no matter where your ancestors came from once you get the CITIZENSHIP you BECOME 100% FRENCH, British, American CITIZEN in a sense where you are an integral part of that nation with all the rights obligations and the differences that you bring....
And you seam to imply that the Arabs in France and that Islam in France is not an integral part of France and that THEY should always have a status of a GUEST OR A VISITOR. WAKE UP!!! we don't live in RSA of the 50's nor in the Third Reich!

The Turks came to Germany in the 60's and account for over 2 million in a country of 82 million that is 3.3 percent and they have 5 representatives in the Bundestag + they have their political parties + a massive presence on all public TVs no one of which is the case in France where Arabs came much before the 1920 ....
Yet you assert that 10% of the French population does not have a single representative and that there is nothing alarming nor racist about it.

You mention the States and you compare the time that people over there took to recognize the rights of African Americans... That is exactly the kind of a discourse that could be expected of an APOLOGIST.
If we analyze that rationale you are saying that it is O.K. to discriminate in our times and that there is nothing wrong with IRRATIONAL FEAR AND REJECTION of differences, according to you its "just human" and the world should just give those poor racist bastards the time to psychologically, morally and economically destroy more young generations of FRENCH CITIZENS of immigrant descent until they don't get tired of it...
Hey it was WRONG for people to discriminate against African Americans and others, and the fact that it took so much time to recognize their rights was unforgivable back than and it is totally unacceptable to tolerate that kind of attitude in the modern times.

If there were more people like you and less people like me in the States, we would still have separate entrances for colored and separate entrances for white people, because racists are just fine with the way things are, and they'd like to push it even further and they'd never get tired of discriminating against the others.

PS there is bla bla and there are facts
You state that you have 60 of Muslim friends,
Firstly I am 99 percent sure that is a lie. Allow me to elaborate:
1 There is a difference between a friend and an acquaintance
and while I am ready to believe the latter I am more than reluctant to believe the first
2 I know of expats here in Moscow who have 80 percent Russian friends and that is not a singular case and yet they despise everything about Russia and consider them somewhat of a primitive bunch, (of course this being said amongst us foreigners and never in their presence)
3 I doubt and I doubt sincerely that a single self respecting Muslim would have you as a friend knowing some of the Islamophobic positions that you are advocating on this forum. And can one really call a person a friend if that "friendship" is based on deception and lies.

"Amnesty International is proud to have me"
What have you done so major or great to claim the gratitude of an entire organization? Do you have abundance issues and need to believe that you belong somewhere....

You say that I don't know anything about you. You told me enough I know everything there is to about you and your kind, you are guessing that it's nothing positive...

ReallyGreatConcerts
07-05-2010, 13:07
you just don't get it, do you? I asked if they were native to FRANCE and the answer is no..

I give up with you.

You're a scum racist who has LOST the argument but keeps on batting on.

I'm not going to reply to racist bullshit.

There's no point dicussing things with Neanderthals.

Alek_world
07-05-2010, 13:39
I give up with you.

You're a scum racist who has LOST the argument but keeps on batting on.

I'm not going to reply to racist bullshit.

There's no point dicussing things with Neanderthals.
:iagree:

I really like the strategies used by Yaekspeare to sabotage the topic, where he's obviously loosing ground by flooding the discussion about burka with unrelated quotations from the Torah and blab bla about Zoroastrianism.

I've seen the same strategy during the last years Israeli massacre campaign against Palestinian civilians where the Yeakspeare alikes were doing the same thing on all the forums and face book groups who dared condemn those acts of barbary and mass slaughter.

Yeiaicks :asskiss: and continue your rant ALONE

yakspeare
07-05-2010, 15:41
I give up with you.

You're a scum racist who has LOST the argument but keeps on batting on.

I'm not going to reply to racist bullshit.

There's no point dicussing things with Neanderthals.

and you wonder why i think you might be angry? lol.

yakspeare
07-05-2010, 16:07
Lets start from the bottom, you probably get that impression
A) Because believing that you can cause some kind of emotional reaction from another person who has clearly shown his capacity to rebut your "wanna be" arguments with rock sold logic and facts, probably makes it easier to swallow that big shovel of metaphorical sh*** that comes in a form of the knowledge that you have been publicly massacred in a debate and debunked to be a silly hypocrite and a silent racist .....
B) Because you are unstable and maybe in lack of attention and love ))) and desperately hope to get some kind of emotional response...
I mean why else would a grown man wave hysterical little accusations that people are angry at any one who rebutted him (both at me and RGT) when you can only inspire pity and a sad kind of amusement with your impotent arguments, dual standard logic, and your sorrow attempts to camouflage your true face of an Islamophobe and your web of lies....I mean reading your posts is a candy for a psychologist, with your little formulations "my Auntie considered a princess among them.", gosh how old are you to call your cousin Auntie? Do you call your mother Mommy and your dad Daddy??? + your little giggling when short of arguments is appropriate to that of pathetic little boy (although I doubt that you fit in that age group)

All i can see is your anger here, that the only person who might have animosity towards his fellow man is you and your sockpuppet. Actually my Auntie(not my cousins because they are her offspring) isn't considered a princess, it would be more correct to say she is one. As for my mother sorry she is dead so I don't call her anything. You can stop with the childish insults just because you have lost.
To question the peoples RIGHTS to exercise their BASIC personal freedoms that are a part of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a18) alone, is a sign of savagery to me. But then to turn to the kind of Fascist arguments in todays modern and democratic societies, where one implies that the right of a religion to be freely practiced can only be justified by the religions NATIVENESS, is going back to the dark ages and is exactly the discourse that one can hear from the far right parties.

You really do have a failure to comprehend. All people of France are afforded the SAME rights in representation. If they were a NATIVE people(ie there before the French) they may have(like some do) have special representation in parliament special for them alone. To give an interest group seats without being voted in by the people is purely tokenism. Of course it would be a positive step for muslims to be in parliament, but if they can't get popular support then that is the way it is. It would be good for Sikhs, Jews, Gay lesbian pregnant adopted Irish mothers to be in the French parliament too but unless they can garner the support they won't get in. That is what is called democracy. What you advocate is gerrymander like the whites did in South Africa. So who is the racist? :P
"Article 18. Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to M-A-N-I-F-E-S-T his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

Are Arabs and Muslims native to France? YES THEY ARE, at least the ones who were BORN in that country, who pay the taxes, THEY ARE EQUAL CITIZENS.
For some dumb asses who have a problem grassing the idea of the citizenship it means that no matter where your ancestors came from once you get the CITIZENSHIP you BECOME 100% FRENCH, British, American CITIZEN in a sense where you are an integral part of that nation with all the rights obligations and the differences that you bring....
And you seam to imply that the Arabs in France and that Islam in France is not an integral part of France and that THEY should always have a status of a GUEST OR A VISITOR. WAKE UP!!! we don't live in RSA of the 50's nor in the Third Reich!

Yes they are equal but this isn't orwellian some are more equal than others rubbish. They have equal rights and no more or less than other people. Yes they make a solid contribution to France.

The Turks came to Germany in the 60's and account for over 2 million in a country of 82 million that is 3.3 percent and they have 5 representatives in the Bundestag + they have their political parties + a massive presence on all public TVs no one of which is the case in France where Arabs came much before the 1920 ....
Yet you assert that 10% of the French population does not have a single representative and that there is nothing alarming nor racist about it.
Like i said they ought try to run which is good they are, then they need a platform that will garner popular support. We have Aboriginal representives on 1.5% of our population but they got in on their merits and NOT because someone just gave them a seat in parliament. Now in the case of Australia , where the Aborigines are the native people, they probably should have had the right to representation in our written in stone. The greeks, Lebanese , Italians, Vietnamese and Chinese who have came here since and make up a signifciant portion of our population do not cry out about their lack of representation. Those who want to enter parliament and are voted in on their merits and we are proud of them.
You mention the States and you compare the time that people over there took to recognize the rights of African Americans... That is exactly the kind of a discourse that could be expected of an APOLOGIST.
If we analyze that rationale you are saying that it is O.K. to discriminate in our times and that there is nothing wrong with IRRATIONAL FEAR AND REJECTION of differences, according to you its "just human" and the world should just give those poor racist bastards the time to psychologically, morally and economically destroy more young generations of FRENCH CITIZENS of immigrant descent until they don't get tired of it...
Hey it was WRONG for people to discriminate against African Americans and others, and the fact that it took so much time to recognize their rights was unforgivable back than and it is totally unacceptable to tolerate that kind of attitude in the modern times.

If there were more people like you and less people like me in the States, we would still have separate entrances for colored and separate entrances for white people, because racists are just fine with the way things are, and they'd like to push it even further and they'd never get tired of discriminating against the others.

PS there is bla bla and there are facts
You state that you have 60 of Muslim friends,
Firstly I am 99 percent sure that is a lie. Allow me to elaborate:
1 There is a difference between a friend and an acquaintance
and while I am ready to believe the latter I am more than reluctant to believe the first
I was a teacher of English in a muslim country. I arrived in Russia just 8 months ago. I am still in contact with most of my former students who ask me to come back, invite me to their weddings and we have some plans to do business together. I feel privelaged to have such warm and hospitable friends who I dearly love and would do anything for me and I for them. You can't cheapen that friendship here on this forum.

2 I know of expats here in Moscow who have 80 percent Russian friends and that is not a singular case and yet they despise everything about Russia and consider them somewhat of a primitive bunch, (of course this being said amongst us foreigners and never in their presence)
3 I doubt and I doubt sincerely that a single self respecting Muslim would have you as a friend knowing some of the Islamophobic positions that you are advocating on this forum. And can one really call a person a friend if that "friendship" is based on deception and lies.
Again most of my students, and most were actually female were much against the Burqa and it did come up in conversation from time to time. They were quite passionately opposed to it. Admittedly some were only nominal muslims but some were quite serious about it too. But you don't seem to care about their rights and feel it is okay for them to be enslaved in that garb
"Amnesty International is proud to have me"
What have you done so major or great to claim the gratitude of an entire organization? Do you have abundance issues and need to believe that you belong somewhere....

You say that I don't know anything about you. You told me enough I know everything there is to about you and your kind, you are guessing that it's nothing positive...

I have actively worked with Amnesty International on a few occasions, apart from that I am a normal member. Being in Uzbekistan where most NGOs are not welcome, a group of us spread word of those in prison on political grounds. We had the proud support also of UNDP and a few other organizations. I won't say who else was involved as they are still in country but we considered it important enough work.

yakspeare
07-05-2010, 16:41
This is why I don't like the Burqa and I make no apology for having the desire to lift women out of oppression.

This is from the book I am currently reading "A Thousand Splendid Suns". It is life about life of women in Afghanistan(because being the white supremist racist I am, i love to learn about these things). It is a fictionalized story but based on what life is really like there. The author Khaled Hosseini is an Afghan, his first novel "the Kite Runner" was also a bestseller like this one(and a movie). He is a goodwill ambassador to the United Nations Refugee Agency.

He also a winner of the 2010 Global women's rights awards.

http://feminist.org/globalwomensrightsawards/AwardRecipients.html

"Khaled Hosseini
Through his beloved novels The Kite Runner and A Thousand Splendid Suns, the world learned that the Taliban’s horrendous treatment of women and girls was not due to culture or custom; it was simply criminal. A U.N. goodwill envoy for refugees, Khaled Hosseini continues his efforts to invest in the education and other critical needs of Afghan women, children and refugees."


Plus he has a foundation working on the ground helping the women and children of Afghanistan.

I have taken the time to write out a extract from his book(copyright Riverhead books):

pge 75 Thousand splendid suns-

He fished a sky blue burqa from the bag. The yards of pleated cloth spilled over his knees as he lifted it. He rolled up the Burqa, looked at Mariam.

"I have customers, Mariam, men, who bring wives to my shop. The women come uncovered, they talk to me directly, look me in the eye without shame. They wear makeup and skirts that show their knees. Sometimes they even put their feet in front of me, the women do, for measurements, and their husbands stand their and watch. They allow it.They think nothing of a stranger touching their wives' bare feet! They think they're being modern men, intellectuals, on account of their education, I suppose. They don't see they are spoiling their own nang and namoos , their honor and pride."

He shook his head.

"Mostly, they live in the richer parts of Kabul. I'll take you there. You'll see. But they're here too, in this very neighborhood, these soft men. There's a teacher living down the street, Hakim is his name, and I see his wife Fariba all the time walking the streets alone with nothing on her head but a scarf. It embarrasses me, frankly, to see a man who's lost control of his wife."

He fixed Mariam with a hard glare.

" But I'm a different breed of man, Mariam. Where I come from, one wrong look, one improper word, and blood is spilled. Where I come from, a woman's face is her husband's business only. I want you to remember that, do you understand?"




I would suggest then that if you are not racist in advocating this kind of treatment of muslim women, then you are certainly sexist.

MickeyTong
07-05-2010, 18:29
....reading your posts is a candy for a psychologist...

No, but some people's posts are.

Alek_world
07-05-2010, 18:57
I have actively worked with Amnesty International on a few occasions, apart from that I am a normal member. Being in Uzbekistan where most NGOs are not welcome, a group of us spread word of those in prison on political grounds. We had the proud support also of UNDP and a few other organizations. I won't say who else was involved as they are still in country but we considered it important enough work.

Shite well you got me going again OK
You see anger because you are in denial and you refuse to see the hard truth about your real motivations, which I expected. )))
You amuse me as talking to you could only be compared to playing with a bug stuck on its back hysterically tingling its legs in the air trying to reach the ground in vain.

No one could care less about your Aunties status as being completely irrelevant to the burqua discussion and whilst I regret mentioning your mother as I had no way of knowing that she had passed away, you are deflecting the essence of my critique that was merely pointing out how infantile it is for a person of a grown age to use diminutive (pet) forms to address its relatives.
So much for that



You really do have a failure to comprehend. All people of France are afforded the SAME rights in representation. If they were a NATIVE people(ie there before the French) they may have(like some do) have special representation in parliament special for them alone. To give an interest group seats without being voted in by the people is purely tokenism. Of course it would be a positive step for muslims to be in parliament, but if they can't get popular support then that is the way it is. It would be good for Sikhs, Jews, Gay lesbian pregnant adopted Irish mothers to be in the French parliament too but unless they can garner the support they won't get in. That is what is called democracy. What you advocate is gerrymander like the whites did in South Africa. So who is the racist? :P

Again our little lost boys rant about being misunderstood. Gosh OK first of all the fact that the 10% of population is not in any way represented has nothing to do with democracy! It has everything to do with the marginalization of the people and the conscious obstruction of their emancipation in order to keep them from empowering themselves and participating in political processes. So who is racist? Answer: YOU ARE! :)) :10806:



Yes they are equal but this isn't orwellian some are more equal than others rubbish. They have equal rights and no more or less than other people. Yes they make a solid contribution to France.

How in the *** name did you just rebutte any of what I have just said????
One are more equal than the others. Yes the French (white and Christian) are more equal than the French (Brown and Muslim), so that Orwellian bullshit as you state is the current Orwellian reality in France :idea:



I was a teacher of English in a muslim country. I arrived in Russia just 8 months ago. I am still in contact with most of my former students who ask me to come back, invite me to their weddings and we have some plans to do business together. I feel privelaged to have such warm and hospitable friends who I dearly love and would do anything for me and I for them. You can't cheapen that friendship here on this forum.

And they make 60% of your friends ???? LOL
and if you still maintain 60 % than please read the next point
here it is just in case:
3 I doubt and I doubt sincerely that a single self respecting Muslim would have you as a friend knowing some of the Islamophobic positions that you are advocating on this forum. And can one really call a person a friend if that "friendship" is based on deception and lies.



Again most of my students, and most were actually female were much against the Burqa and it did come up in conversation from time to time. They were quite passionately opposed to it. Admittedly some were only nominal muslims but some were quite serious about it too. But you don't seem to care about their rights and feel it is okay for them to be enslaved in that garb

Bla Bla and Bla having lived across the entire North Africa and Lebanon I have a considerably wider circle of acquaintances than you could ever presume to have (I was following one of my parents who is a scholar in ethnology) and a much deeper understanding of the Arabic culture and religion. In addition to that I would like to point out that sometimes (like in your case) people just hear what they want to hear. Do you seriously believe that your students represent the opinion of the majority of Muslims 1.5 BILLION????
What a preposterous presumption. If fact it would be closer to the truth to say that it suites your bigoted Islamophobic ideas to believe that.
You have completely failed to reply to my statement of facts where Muslim women gave interviews on TV stating that they want to wear a burka and that this is their indisputable right and there were no man involved in their action of protest.
Sky news (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Muslims-Protest-At-Dutch-Burqa-Ban/Article/200611413554811?lpos=Home_Article_Body_Copy_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_13554811_Muslims_Protest_At_Dutch_Burqa_Ban)
Women on face veil
Women on face veil
cnn
cnn2
http://www.euronews.net/2010/04/30/burqa-ban-blights-belgium-say-critics/ Notice that the first speaker is an AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL SPOKESMAN!!! So do avoid mention your participation to this organization to gain credibility for your pathetic bigoted ideas in this discussion as you have an 100 opposing opinion to their official attitude.

And if you knew "alif" from the Arabic and Islamic cultures you would not launch that crap about the "ill treatment of the women". And not mix potatoes with ice cream, when bringing the example of the Taliban regime (that was created by US to fight the soviets in the previously moderate Afghanistan) and use it to portray the rest of the Muslim world.

I affirm that you know jack sh** about Islam since you even fail to recognize the diversity of doctrines within Islam and you observe it and talk about it as one and the same thing, there are very different currents in Islam the Shiia and the Sunni, the Turkic currents of Islam present in the old soviet republics and Turkey etc... Instead you take the worse examples generally condemned by the rest of the Muslim world and and you make an amalgam between that and overall Islam.

The fact of the matter is that a women enjoys unlimited respect within a family and in society. The figure of a mother is the closest to a living saint and her authority is undisputed. the MYTH that Muslim man beet their wives is the greatest piece of CRAP and a RACIST RANT that I have ever heard. And whilst I am sure that the Muslim world is not deprived of assholes I am persuaded that the incidence of the domestic violence does not exceed the one in Latin America, Russia (byet znachit lyubit a russian proverb He beats me that means he loves me)or even Europe with the exception of maybe Sweden....

And again to conclude the story when you have failed to explain what real danger to the health and lives and the moral does the Burka represent to you or your keens you switched your position you little flip/flopper :twofaced: and started pushing the bullshit stereotype about the freedoms, feminism and the only CORRECT model of liberties and female moral given by GOD ALMIGHTY who happens to be white, Christian and desirably a native of Europe for whatever that means ....

About your amnesty international work I wonder how would they react to statements like :
"you just don't get it, do you? I asked if they were native to FRANCE and the answer is no.." + what I said earlier....

and about sock-puppets. That person whose identity I ignore and whom I would be proud to get to know, has more independent and clear thinking brains than you have ever had judging by the total absence of rhetorical skills, logic and bigotry, to be called anyones' sock-puppet...

On that realistically ta ta cheeri-o and my warmest :11513: LOL
this entire post FYI was written with a smile on the face and no anger whatsoever.

yakspeare
07-05-2010, 20:04
Shite well you got me going again OK
You see anger because you are in denial and you refuse to see the hard truth about your real motivations, which I expected. )))
You amuse me as talking to you could only be compared to playing with a bug stuck on its back hysterically tingling its legs in the air trying to reach the ground in vain.

No one could care less about your Aunties status as being completely irrelevant to the burqua discussion and whilst I regret mentioning your mother as I had no way of knowing that she had passed away, you are deflecting the essence of my critique that was merely pointing out how infantile it is for a person of a grown age to use diminutive (pet) forms to address its relatives.
So much for that



Again our little lost boys rant about being misunderstood. Gosh OK first of all the fact that the 10% of population is not in any way represented has nothing to do with democracy! It has everything to do with the marginalization of the people and the conscious obstruction of their emancipation in order to keep them from empowering themselves and participating in political processes. So who is racist? Answer: YOU ARE! :)) :10806:



How in the *** name did you just rebutte any of what I have just said????
One are more equal than the others. Yes the French (white and Christian) are more equal than the French (Brown and Muslim), so that Orwellian bullshit as you state is the current Orwellian reality in France :idea:



And they make 60% of your friends ???? LOL
and if you still maintain 60 % than please read the next point
here it is just in case:
3 I doubt and I doubt sincerely that a single self respecting Muslim would have you as a friend knowing some of the Islamophobic positions that you are advocating on this forum. And can one really call a person a friend if that "friendship" is based on deception and lies.



Bla Bla and Bla having lived across the entire North Africa and Lebanon I have a considerably wider circle of acquaintances than you could ever presume to have (I was following one of my parents who is a scholar in ethnology) and a much deeper understanding of the Arabic culture and religion. In addition to that I would like to point out that sometimes (like in your case) people just hear what they want to hear. Do you seriously believe that your students represent the opinion of the majority of Muslims 1.5 BILLION????
What a preposterous presumption. If fact it would be closer to the truth to say that it suites your bigoted Islamophobic ideas to believe that.

And if you knew "alif" from the Arabic and Islamic cultures you would not launch that crap about the "ill treatment of the women". And not mix potatoes with ice cream, when bringing the example of the Taliban regime (that was created by US to fight the soviets in the previously moderate Afghanistan) and use it to portray the rest of the Muslim world.

I affirm that you know jack sh** about Islam since you even fail to recognize the diversity of doctrines within Islam and you observe it and talk about it as one and the same thing, there are very different currents in Islam the Shiia and the Sunni, the Turkic currents of Islam present in the old soviet republics and Turkey etc... Instead you take the worse examples generally condemned by the rest of the Muslim world and and you make an amalgam between that and overall Islam.

The fact of the matter is that a women enjoys unlimited respect within a family and in society. The figure of a mother is the closest to a living saint and her authority is undisputed. the MYTH that Muslim man beet their wives is the greatest piece of CRAP and a RACIST RANT that I have ever heard. And whilst I am sure that the Muslim world is not deprived of assholes I am persuaded that the incidence of the domestic violence does not exceed the one in Latin America, Russia (byet znachit lyubit a russian proverb He beats me that means he loves me)or even Europe with the exception of maybe Sweden....

And again to conclude the story when you have failed to explain what real danger to the health and lives and the moral does the Burka represent to you or your keens you switched your position you little flip/flopper :twofaced: and started pushing the bullshit stereotype about the freedoms, feminism and the only CORRECT model of liberties and female moral given by GOD ALMIGHTY who happens to be white, Christian and desirably a native of Europe for whatever that means ....

About your amnesty international work I wonder how would they react to statements like :
"you just don't get it, do you? I asked if they were native to FRANCE and the answer is no.." + what I said earlier....

and about sock-puppets. That person whose identity I ignore and whom I would be proud to get to know, has more independent and clear thinking brains than you have ever had judging by the total absence of rhetorical skills, logic and bigotry, to be called anyones' sock-puppet...

On that realistically ta ta cheeri-o and my warmest :11513: LOL
this entire post FYI was written with a smile on the face and no anger whatsoever.


ok for the Auntie thing:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_to_use_Aunty_or_Auntie_in_grammar
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/396114

It is quite common for people to call them Aunt or Auntie or whatever. End discussion. The reason i brought up my Auntie was that my Uncle(as a white man) was treated better than when she married another native man. Which is a rather strange situation. We of course do not look at colour and she is one of the family and her remaining child is one of the most beautiful people you could have ever seen. Personally I believe people of "mixed blood" are the most beautiful of all...like typical miss universe winners from south america being mixed spanish and native blood...and even russian women who are mix of tatar/mongol and slav(plus finno-urgic and others)...it is just my own personal opinion and taste however.

I am sorry you are so misinformed about the plight of women in islamic countries. What i posted was actually set in pre-soviet times in Afghanistan and NOT under the Taliban. I know some wonderful muslim men who treat their wives very well, just as i know some christian and other "white" men who do disgusting things to their partners.

Still you are more than naive if you deny there is a problem. It has probably more to do with culture than religion as the bible and Talmud aren't always kind to women either. It is about education.

But i really can't fathom your response...in the country I lived a woman is forbidden to speak ill of her husband(who 50% of the time is arranged marriage and they haven't even met prior to nuptials) and a great deal of the men would boast about how many girlfriends and mistresses they had. The woman was not even allowed to go to her own parents as it was her shame to say bad of him if he cheated or beat her.

Incidence of domestic violence among Muslims

Domestic violence is considered by many to be a problem in Muslim-majority cultures.[24]
The incidence in many Muslim-majority countries (where women hide their bruises and little is ever reported to authorities) is uncertain, but believed to be great by Muslim feminists. In some Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia,[25] reports indicate that domestic violence is quite widespread. One recent study, in Syria, found that 25% of the married women surveyed said that they had been beaten by their husbands.[26]
One study found that half of Palestinian women have been the victims of domestic violence.[27] A WHO study in Babol found that within the previous year 15.0% of wives had been physically abused, 42.4% had been sexually abused and 81.5% had been psychologically abused (to various degrees) by their husbands, blaming low income, young age, unemployment and low education.[28]
A 1987 study conducted by the Women's Division and another study by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan in 1996 suggested that domestic violence takes place in approximately 80 percent of the households in the country.[29][30][31] In Pakistan, domestic violence occurs in forms of beatings, sexual violence or torture, mutilation, acid attacks and burning the victim alive (bride burning).[32]
According to the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences in 2002, over 90% of married women surveyed in that country reported being kicked, slapped, beaten or sexually abused when husbands were dissatisfied by their cooking or cleaning, or when the women had ‘failed’ to bear a child or had given birth to a girl instead of a boy.[33]
The prevalence of domestic violence has been cited as a cause of high rates of suicide, mostly through self-immolation, among Kurdish women in Iran.[34]


Turkey:

Aim
To determine the self-reported prevalence of domestic violence and associated risk factors in the Sivas province of Turkey.
Method
Five hundred and eighty-three households were chosen by the method of stratified random sampling. The average age among women was 28.65±4.64. A total of 45.3% of women were in 30-34 age-group, 76.5% were housewives, and 91.2% were married. The data were gathered by performing face-to-face interviews in participants’ homes. Demographic data were obtained by fill-in forms.
Results
We found a statistically significant relationship among the types of violence and annual income, type of family, education and occupation level of women, education level of perpetrators, watching violent films, and childhood experience of emotional abuse or negligence. Fifty-two percent of women were exposed to at least one type of violence. Verbal violence was the most frequent type of violence (53.8%), followed by physical violence (38.3%). About 45% of women exposed to violence were in the 30-34 age group, 41.6% completed only primary schools, 73.6% were housewives, 91.7% were married, 71.0% had been exposed to violence during their childhood, and 45.2%, had been exposed to violence several times in a month. Economic problems were reported as the most important reason for domestic violence (31.4%).
Conclusion
Our study found higher prevalence of domestic violence than expected. As an important public health problem, domestic violence requires multidisciplinary approach to understand its causes and plan preventive measures.

Lebanese Women: A study of 1418 Lebanese women attending primary health centers found that 35%
experienced domestic violence, including verbal abuse (88%) and physical violence (66%). (Usta et al 2007)
 Pakistani Women: A study of 1324 pregnant Pakistani women found that 51% had experienced verbal, physical or
sexual abuse in the six months prior to and/or during their pregnancies. (Karmaliani et al. 2008)
 Palestinian Women: In a study of 395 married women and men living in refugee camps, the majority of men
(60.1%) and women (61.8%) believed that wife beating is justified in most situations. (Khawaja et al 2008)
 Sudanese Patients: A study of 146 Sudanese women at an outpatient clinic found that 45.8% had been victims of
domestic violence. (Ahmed 2007)
 Turkish Women: In a study of 506 Turkish women attending health centers, 58% experienced domestic violence
(primarily psychological and physical) frequently and continuously (Alper et al. 2005)

WOMEN FACE ABUSE IN TAJIKISTAN

The authorities in Tajikistan must properly prosecute violence against women as a criminal offence, Amnesty International said in a report published on Tuesday.
Violence is not just a family affair: Women face abuse in Tajikistan, documents the physical, psychological and sexual abuse women face in the family and urges the authorities to address it as the crime it is and not to dismiss it as a "private family matter".
"Women in Tajikistan are beaten, abused, and raped in the family but the authorities tend to reflect the societal attitude of blaming the woman for domestic violence. They see their primary role as mediator, to preserve the family rather than protect the woman and to safeguard their rights," said Andrea Strasser-Camagni, Amnesty International's expert on Tajikistan.
"The traditional Tajik family values, reinforced after the break-up of the Soviet Union, impose further discrimination on women by narrowing their identity to that of wife and mother, or pushing them into the lowest paid sector of the job market."
"By writing off violence against women as a family affair the authorities in Tajikistan are shirking their responsibility to a large part of the population. They are allowing perpetrators of such crimes to act with impunity and, ultimately, denying women their human rights."
Violence against women, and especially in the family, is widespread in Tajikistan. One-third to one-half of women have regularly been subjected to physical, psychological or sexual violence at the hands of their husbands or their in-laws.
Often, Tajik women are economically dependent on their husband's family. They have told Amnesty International that upon setting foot in the in-law's home after marriage they may be subjected to harsh treatment not only from their husbands, but also from their in-laws, and in particular from their mothers-in-law who themselves may have been abused as young brides.
"Women are being treated as servants or as the in-laws' family property. They have no one to turn to as the policy of the authorities is to urge reconciliation which de facto reinforces their position of inferiority. This experience of violence and humiliation in the family makes many women to turn to suicide," Andrea Strasser-Camagni said.
There are insufficient services to protect the survivors of domestic violence, and most of these are provided by internationally funded local non-governmental organizations. The police, judiciary and medical staff are not sufficiently trained to deal with cases of domestic violence.
Education is a key factor in developing girls' empowerment and providing an escape route from violence and poverty. However, girls drop out early from schools; instead, they enter into early and often unregistered or polygamous marriages, all of which increase their dependency on their husbands.
Initial measures undertaken by the Tajikistani government to combat domestic violence have proved largely insufficient.
Although Tajikistan has ratified relevant international human rights treaties, it is falling short of its international obligation to protect and fulfil women's rights.
Amnesty International has called upon the Tajikistani authorities to:

prevent and prosecute violence against women in the family through the introduction of an effective domestic law and nationwide support services;
carry out a nationwide public awareness campaign in order to address the unlawful practices of unregistered, polygamous, and early marriages;
remove all barriers to girls' education and address the root causes of girls dropping out of education.


Now of course there is domestic violence in all countries(including Australia) and some "christian" countries like Uganda exceed the rates of some "muslim" countries. However, there is far more recourse for women who have suffered at the hands of domestic violence in western countries, with little or no support in any muslim countries(and in countries like Pakistani if a woman hasn't got four witnesses for a rape then she is condemned and NOT the man).

as i said earlier the book extract was from 1970s Afghanistan , with not a single Taliban around in that time.

My discussion of whether someone is native seems to confuse you, so to BE CLEAR native means the ORIGINAL INHABITANTS of a country. That is that in SOME countries( Like New Zealand and Fiji) the original inhabitants have automatic rights to a certain number of seats regardless of % of them there are in that country. French muslims have the same rights and chance to vote for whoever they please as anyone else. They don't get a free walk in to have an Arab in parliament unless he is voted by the people! I am quite sure Amnesty would agree with me on that point. All citizens are equal.

by the way Jesus, Moses,and Mohammed all had the same colour eyes and hair and texture of skin. They were not white and indeed Mary probably wore a headscarf.

yakspeare
08-05-2010, 10:19
i really can't fathom your argument to be honest and your personal attacks on me.

Firstly there technically is only one race, the human race. This aside you talk about white people and white God etc but ignore the differences between many cultures. How can I be anti-immigration when my own family were migrants? My family is half Scottish, Pict to be exact, who may or may not have been the aboriginal people of Scotland. Certainly they have disappeared today into only folklore and legend, their culture erased. The other half of my family is Prussian, and my homeland there is now part of Russia(Kaliningrad). Despite moving to Australia in the 1850s that entire side of my family was imprisoned during world war one as being "German" and all their lands confiscated by the government. This is in spite of this generation being born in Australia. It wasn't insignificant either, 1 million acres, 1/3 of the sugar cane farms in Queensland. So i know about such injustices.

As for myself, I am really quite the "gypsy", in that I feel I have no home. I went to England as a child and returned to Australia aware of a larger world out there, more aware of history and culture and finding a lack of it in Australia. Speaking with an English accent i was picked on at school until I went to a school that had only 20 "white" Australians in it. There i was welcome and my best friends had names like " Bakhsh"(Pakistani), "Phon Quach"(Vietnamese) and "Lee"(Korean). The group i normally got on best with were the maltese and the lebanonese. The ones i got on the least with were the Greeks. This was only a school age thing with the Greeks trying the "macho greek" stereotype thing.

I sincerely love muslim culture and I have dealt with people of Central Asia and of course Indonesia for the most part. The muslim world has its issues, just like any others and it is a bit behind the times when it comes to women's rights.
In 2006, women in the Gulf Co-operation Council states achieved a significant breakthrough in terms of participating in parliamentary elections, but the success of female candidates varied across the region. In the UAE, women stood for election for the first time in the country's history. Although just one female candidate - from Abu Dhabi - was directly elected, the government appointed a further eight women to the 40-seat federal legislature, giving women a 22.5 per cent share of the seats, far higher than the world average of 17.0 per cent. [2] In Kuwait, women participated in elections for the first time, but none won seats. Bahrain elected its first and only female MP in 2006. [3]
The role of women in politics in Arab societies is largely determined by the will of these countries' leaderships to support female representation and cultural attitudes towards women's involvement in public life. Dr Rola Dashti, a female candidate in Kuwait's 2006 parliamentary elections, claimed that "the negative cultural and media attitude towards women in politics" was one of the main reasons why no women were elected. She also pointed to "ideological differences", with conservatives and extremist Islamists opposing female participation in political life and discouraging women from voting for a woman. She also cited malicious gossip, attacks on the banners and publications of female candidates, lack of training and corruption as barriers to electing female MPs. [4] In contrast, one of UAE's female MPs, Najla al Awadhi, claimed that "women's advancement is a national issue and we have a leadership that understands that and wants them to have their rights." [5]
[edit]Women's right to vote in the Arab world
Women were granted the right to vote on a universal and equal basis in Lebanon in 1952[45], Syria (to vote) in 1949 [46] (Restrictions or conditions lifted) in 1953 [47], Egypt in 1956[48], Tunisia in 1959 [49], Mauritania in 1961[50], Algeria in 1962 [51], Morocco in 1963 [52], Libya [53] and Sudan in 1964 [54], Yemen (Partly)in 1967 [46] (full right) in 1970 [55], Bahrain in 1973 [56], Jordan in 1974 [57], Iraq (Full right) 1980 [56] Oman (Partly) in 1994 and (Fully granted) 2003 [58], and Kuwait in 2005 [56].
(wiki)

Perhaps your energy should be spent there, empowering women? I watched the videos...the first one is an interesting case. First just because she says something on camera doesn't mean it is true. Lets assume it is and that it is her choice. Her citizenship was denied because of inability to assimilate and have French values and her style of islam was considered radical. Now this MIGHT be true too. However I don't really agree with the French logic here. If her views are so radical then her husband shares the views. I guess since he is born there they can't kick him out so they punish her instead. What would be better is education and if there is a security risk then they would need to be monitored(but i guess you wouldn't want that). I don't see how her citizenship can be denied when her spouse and children are citizens. It would be different if she was applying on her own, then certainly they could stop her citizenship on radicalism grounds. It does seem an unfair case.it also has only indirect relationship with the burqa debate.

As for video two and three the debate was quite interesting but cut short. If you read the Amnesty International thing you posted to me, you only discuss half of it:

States do have an obligation to protect women against pressure in their homes or communities to wear full-face veils and should do this by intervening in individual cases through criminal or family law systems.

They must also combat gender stereotypes that result in the discrimination of women. This will require a range of social and public policy and education measures.

Here Amnesty recognizes the problem, much like the woman on the two videos, that there is considerable pressure to make women wear veils and this is not right. The problem for governments is they legislate as their main effective tool-rather than educate etc which takes much longer and consumes a lot more resources.

Lets look at the scenario of ban coming into place. Originally this would be quite negative for women, who may then have to stay at home as they no longer have the Burqa to display in public. But i mean for how long would this go on? Certainly a household wouldn't function without the woman leaving her home and she would have to do so, free of the burden of the Burqa. Her children can grow up without it and play with normal children and integrate into society and not just live there. They can still go to their mosques, still do their daily prayers, they can still fast for Ramadan, and they can still wear the headscarfs typical of muslim women in most countries. The Burqa is a throwback to a time when women were chattel. There is enormous pressure for some family groups to make their women wear them. The ban removes this pressure. Some women, and I note this in Afghanistan and Pakistan in particular, do not have the education they ought and simply believe "It is in the Koran". Which it simply isn't. If it is just expected of you to wear it from your family then it is hardly really your choice is it?

Still it is a government's choice what laws it makes. If the people don't like it they can vote them out, protest. If the international community doesn't like it they can sanction or war or whatever. Still comes down to the government decision. A friend of mine, yes a true friend, who lives in Norway is Persian. She was arrested when she was EIGHT years old for wearing a skirt too short and imprisoned for 3 days. I am sure she could tell you a few things about the compulsory dress codes. She now is a member of the Free Iran movement and all of us(computer gamers) worked together to make proxies so people inside Iran could get the message out about what was happening there.

The actual issue in Australia with some of the Lebanese is they are becoming more radical, after a muslim Sheikh was granted citizenship supported by a political party in exchange for votes. This chap basically calls for the destruction of Australia but we do believe in the freedom of expression(you can even burn the flag in australia with no problems). Apart from advocating terrorism, he advocated that muslim women be required to cover up completely and that women who show flesh are "asking for" rape. Thus some of his followers descended on Bondi Beach and started telling all the girls to give them sex. These are the same people who advocate the Burqa. Just like the book extract from Afghanistan in the 1970s.

A similar thing happened when i was in Uzbekistan when a girl (who was actually wearing black tight jeans underneath) had a short skirt on. She was covered to her ankles, it just appeared she was wearing a short skirt with tights. She was groped by a passing group of boys. She started yelling at them and they said "Hey you are muslim girl, why are you dressed like prostitute with small skirt"...the girl burst into tears and of course yelled at them, but these backward attitudes are just examples of the people who encourage women to dress in such a fashion and you understate the pressure on women to conform to this. The fact is these women in Belgium can't wear anything different from the burqa anyway. But the disease of radicalism and sexism is spreading, backed by apoligists like you-who think it is okay for a woman to be treated this way. You should be morally outraged that a woman has to have a robe over her head just to go in public, that in Saudi Arabia - where some of the most radical like the ruling wahhabism come from- women cannot vote in major elections and can't even drive a car. You talk about segregation of races, what about segregation of sexes in everything there?

MickeyTong
08-05-2010, 16:23
i really can't fathom your argument to be honest and your personal attacks on me.....

.........women who show flesh are "asking for" rape......

..... "Hey you are muslim girl, why are you dressed like prostitute with small skirt"...the girl burst into tears and of course yelled at them, but these backward attitudes are just examples of the people who encourage women to dress in such a fashion and you understate the pressure on women to conform to this....

......... You should be morally outraged that a woman has to have a robe over her head just to go in public......


I can't figure out Alek_world's vehemence towards you, either. He seems to think that a non-racist would never criticise aspects of other cultures (Rusmeister would probably wonder what his standards of judgement were).

Why wear any clothes? There are naturists (men, women and children) who seem able to mingle amicably without descending into explosions of orgiastic frenzy, lewd comments or, even, sly sideways ogling.

Of course, if a woman were to walk naked, or wearing just a thong, or a see-through top, or a fanny pelmet, into any of my local bars or just down the street - equanimity would not be the response.

And there are the Western women who (amazingly) seem surprised and offended that when they lie on an Indian beach in a bikini, or walk around a rural village in shorts and a skimpy top, that crowds of local men stare and furtively touch - as if they've never seen a woman's legs before!

Most of the women I know would never consider going to a nudist beach, not because the don't look good naked, but because they regard various parts of their bodies as being not for public display (and public judgement).

My parents and I were £10 migrants from UK to Australia in 1966. After initial culture shock, my mother's hemline rose above her knees - something considered positively sluttish back in the England's industrial working class North-East. And there were men - grown-up adult men - professionals, bank managers wearing shorts at work!!!! And some of these guys were eating meat pies as they walked down the street!!!!!!!!! Obviously people with no sense of propriety and public decency - but what can one expect from the descendants of murderers, rapists, whores and loaf-thiefs? In their favour (and probably their only claim to civilisation at that time) they only wanted White immigrants, apart from Greeks and Eyties. In my class of 44 at Bronte Public School everyone was a Euro but only 4 of us were of Anglo origin. And everyone hated my Geordie accent.

Anyway........"the past is another country". And some people are yellow Brits, or brown Poms, or Greek Aussies, or Afro-Americans. And some people are very, very foreign in ways that I have not and cannot imagine.

Yak - I don't think you're a racist. Personally, I don't like burkhas and I wouldn't know where to look (first or more often....or what to do if I got an erection) on a nudist beach................and, perhaps more pertinent, I observed my first wife over many years before she decided on wearing niqab.

Also Sprach Rusmeister.

.....as MT pours another glass of Aussie Merlot.

(apologies to the pure of whatever....but not too many apologies)

yakspeare
08-05-2010, 16:49
That's an interesting history you got there Mickey...one of the beaut things about oz is its lack of pretense. When most of the people are descended from loaf stealers etc it is hard to even shame an aussie. What it means to is we do try to give everyone a fair go, and don't even mind a rebel or too.

Back in your day we had the "white Australia" policy which was a strange term for it , since most of the people who came over were from around the Med and not really "white"(would you call Maltese and lebanese white?). It was the time of the cold war and "yellow peril" you have to look into the context that Australia almost became Japanese if not for a few miraculous battles. We can't condone it but we can understand it and then the vietnamese arrived in the 1970s after that. For the most part we all get on fabulously and can invite Mr Theolophus, Mrs Lee and Mr Janovic for a Barbeque on a saturday arvo.

Just because I don't like one bit of islamic clothing that a tiny % actually wear, because I think it is sexist and a throwback to times of unhealthy views about women- doesn't in the least make me racist. Cheers and beers!

MickeyTong
08-05-2010, 17:53
That's an interesting history you got there Mickey...

There's a Southern Africa war games chapter, a Talibani-type deendari episode, polydrug indulgence, rentboy flatmate, sporadic gusts of normality and all sorts in between.

yakspeare
08-05-2010, 18:00
i had a south african girlfriend as pretty, as crazy and as white as they come(though she considered herself black!) from Kimberley- i can promise you it was also a South African wargame too!

I do miss her cooking skills though, really opened a whole new world of cuisine from indian to boerdevors(sp) and so much spicy food.

is4fun
18-05-2010, 01:02
I would equate the burka, veil or any other ridiculous form of female repressive garment to an old apparatus termed as a chastity belt.

Men used them to control their women...

Despite the common misconception, the use of the chastity belt was not usually imposed by men on women in order to force them to be faithful. If we use medieval poetry as a reliable source, we discover that the use of chastity belts was often in consensus between both parties. The use of the chastity belt in these poems is a metaphor for a pledge of fidelity. No locks or iron parts are ever mentioned - these metaphoric 'chastity belts' are usually made of cloth. Real chastity belts became available later, and the majority of chastity belts were bought in the 19th Century, in England, by women. Often they would use the apparatus to avoid the consequences of sexual harassment in the workplace. Furthermore, the chastity belt was not imposed on people to avoid sexual intercourse. Medical reports describe the prescription of chastity belts (or similar devices, which might have no resemblance at all with a chastity belt1) to prevent youngsters (of both sexes) from masturbating (alternative link), which in the 19th Century was thought to be both physically and morally harmful.

Judge
19-05-2010, 00:34
Whatever next... Now we have ''Burka rage''



Burka rage as female lawyer rips veil off Muslim woman in French clothes shop





A 60-year-old female lawyer ripped a Muslim woman's Islamic veil off during a row in what French police described as the first known case of ‘burqa rage’.

The astonishing scene unfolded in a clothes shop in France when the pair came to blows before being arrested.

It came as racial tensions grow over of the country's plans to introduce a total ban on burqas and other forms of religious dress which cover the face.

The 26-year-old Muslim convert was walking through the store in Trignac, near Nantes, in the western Loire-Atlantique region, when she overhead the lawyer making ‘snide remarks about her black burqa'.

A police officer added: ‘The lawyer said she was not happy seeing a fellow shopper wearing a veil and wanted the ban introduced as soon as possible.’

At one point the lawyer, who was out with her daughter, is said to have likened the Muslim woman to Belphegor - a horror demon character well known to French television viewers.

The lawyer’s use of the name ‘Belphegor’ was particularly inflammatory, said police, because the demon was portrayed by classical writers as ‘Hell’s ambassador to France’.

Belphegor, who hates human beings, is usually portrayed as a monstrous demon with horns and pointed nails, but frequently disguises himself.

During a period in Paris, Belphegor was said to live with a group of vampires in the Louvre.

Police said the incident was still being investigated, and that charges could follow.

Neither woman has yet been named.

A ‘shouting argument’ started in the store before the older woman is said to have ripped the other woman’s veil off.



As they came to blows on Saturday afternoon, the lawyer’s daughter joined in, with the three women clashing.

‘The shop manager and the husband of the Muslim woman moved to break up the fighting,’ the police officer said.

‘All three were arrested and taken to the local gendarmerie for questioning.’

A spokesman for Trignac police said that ‘two complaints had been received’, with the Muslim woman accusing the lawyer of racial and religious assault. The latter, in turn, had accused her opponent of common assault.

The French parliament has adopted a formal motion declaring burqas and other forms of Islamic dress to be ‘an affront to the nation’s values'.
Anti-burka lobby: France's president Nicolas Sarkozy wants the burka banned because it's 'an affront to the nation's values'

Anti-burka lobby: France's president Nicolas Sarkozy wants the burka banned because it's 'an affront to the nation's values'

Some have accused criminals of wearing veils to disguise themselves. This includes everything from terrorists to minor shop lifters.

A ban, which could be introduced as early as autumn, would make France the second country after Belgium to outlaw the Islamic veil in public places.

But many have criticised the anti-burqa lobby, which includes President Nicolas Sarkozy, for stigmatising Muslim housewives.

Many French women from council estates are forced to wear the veils because of pressure from authoritarian husbands.

The promise of a ban has prompted warnings of racial tensions in a country which is home to some five million Muslims - one of the religion's largest communities in Europe.

Mr Sarkozy's cabinet is to examine a draft bill which will impose one-year prison sentences and fines of up to £14,000 on men who force their wives to wear a burqa.

Women themselves will face a smaller fine of just over £100 because they are ‘often victims with no choice in the matter,’ says the draft.

The law would create a new offence of 'incitement to cover the face for reasons of gender’.

And it would state: ‘No-one may wear in public places clothes that are aimed at hiding the face.’

Women would not be ‘unveiled’ in the street but instead taken to a police station to be formally identified, the draft law states.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1279349/Burqa-rage-female-lawyer-rips-veil-Muslim-woman-French-clothes-store.html