|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
posted December 02, 2009 11:32 AM |
|
|
@Joker:
Some of your analogies are silly, but on the whole you're right. In some situations the freedom of religion needs to be halted because it violates other freedoms. Likewise, the freedom of speech sometimes needs to be halted because it violates other freedoms. So on and so forth. The general principle to follow is that you don't have the freedom to impede on other people's freedoms.
In the matter of dress, I don't see a legitimate reason why a woman shouldn't be able to wear a burqa in public, or wear a bodysuit when swimming. Those are silly laws that are a retaliation from the native French constituents, and they're not going to do anybody any good. I don't see the ban on minarets being any different.
As for dress code in offices and such, she can wear the lighter hijab garments and still be fully within the bounds of her tenets.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 12:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
That point isn't valid, of course, because you are never forced to be part of anything - you can always go elsewhere, leave, if somewhere for some reason your rights are violated. If a woman is molested in some dive, well, she did voluntarily come in there didn't she?
...
No. Not at all. That's not even close to being similar.
Oh? It's not? You have to explain why.
For me the situation is the same: at some point you are in a certain situation:
a) member of a religion;
b) in a dive;
Suddenly something happens.
a) you are 21, wear a sexy shirt, since it's summer, and you get hit by your family members and called a snow because you do.
b) you are in a dive in the same shirt and are called a snow and molested.
If you say, well, you can't leave your religion, you can say just as well you can leave the dive.
@ blizzard
Thanks for the silly analogies - the point I raised yesterday was a bit with a view on why muslimic and Western civilizations clash and why muslims are met with, well, something you may call intolerance.
I think, that groupings have a right to demand a ban on symbols that stand for oppression. If you live in a society where women have fought hard for equal rights, it's completely understandable, that these women may demand a ban on things that may symbolize an inequality.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 01:11 PM |
|
|
Ok. I strongly disagree  I see no basis that a hijab is violating other people's rights, and banning them is a stain to that nation's dignity. Maybe it offends some people's sensibilities (which is essentially your argument), but that's life. Natives offend each other all the time. There's a sad irony when your idea of nondiscrimination involves a woman forcefully taking off her headscarf.
|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 01:19 PM |
|
Edited by Geny at 13:19, 02 Dec 2009.
|
Quote:
in the matter of dress, I don't see a legitimate reason why a woman shouldn't be able to wear a burqa in public...
There's a difference between wearing something in public and wearing something in public places.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 01:33 PM |
|
|
@ blizzard
Quote:
Quote:
A law created by males to reduce the feminine identity is prehistoric now. Still they apply it, in a modern society. It is not about religion or xenophobia, but about oppressing the woman rights to agree or disagree.
It's irrelevant how prehistoric we think it is. The question is whether she is being forced to wear it (she is not), and whether she is harming anybody or violating other people's liberty by wearing it.
I know you find it hard to believe, but it's not like the several hundred million Muslim women in the world are all being forced to dress the way that they do. Most of them do it because they want uphold the religion that they ardently support. When you forcefully take it away, shockingly, you piss them off.
That's the position you had, but I think it's not quite valid. It sounds right, but that's why I went round it the other way. The question is this:
If we have a WESTERN civilization that lives and teaches complete equality of rights between genders, a religion that upholds INequality doesn't fit in. Simply and easy. It just doesn't. Consequently you may say freedom of religion and all, but that same civilization is bound to reject that religion and all culture based on it because they have the wrong ethics, sotospeak.
See it the other way - if you live in a country of the Near East with mostly muslim population, do you have the right, as non-muslimic woman to be a lightly clothed female teacher?
I do not think so. You'd have to follow local demands and clad like everyone else.
The main difference isn't the religion, mind you.
The main difference is that Western civilization is secular, while the Eastern is still strongly religion dominated. That's a pretty massive wall.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 04:30 PM |
|
|
Yes. A teacher couldn't show up to work with shirt and jeans in an orthodox Muslim state without facing legal repercussions. But as I said earlier, just because they wouldn't give us certain rights doesn't mean we should do the same to them, otherwise our claim of having a better system becomes false in that respect.
Orthodox Islam and secularism cannot be reconciled because they have totally different approaches. But how is putting restrictions on their religious garments and other things going to help? It's not going to make their ideology disappear.
In my opinion, there are two humane courses of action:
1) Cease Muslim immigration, or at least put a lot more efforts into naturalization. Nobody is obligated to let people move in, so there's nothing wrong with just saying "No".
2) Treat them completely indiscriminately and accept the potential consequences.
Letting them flow into your country and then acting surprised when they don't fit it and then implementing restrictions isn't a good idea, especially since they're getting larger, not smaller. It's a recipe for conflict.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 04:43 PM |
|
|
I found some very interesting posts in this thread and decided to reply.
I've no intention of "scaring people off", or anything likewise.
I reply with the following idea in my mind:
It's about getting the maximum amount of freedom possible without limiting anyone else.
@blizzardboy
Quote:
"Most people agree to it" doesn't make it okay.
Exactly, but I don't think the method of letting the people decide through vote "suck", I think the problem is, that it's not the right questions that's begin asked.
Do you ask the people if minarets should be allowed? No!
You ask the people if you're allowed to build what you want on private property giving the following list of attributes are true:
<Attributes that describes minarets, but also other things>.
You do this, because that way no single person will get the impression "This doesn't matter to me", rather the single person will think "This might matter to me, because I just might want to event A, therefore I'll better consider the risk of accepting this in the first place".
Quote:
In some situations the freedom of religion needs to be halted because it violates other freedoms. Likewise, the freedom of speech sometimes needs to be halted because it violates other freedoms.
I didn't understand the previous (page 5) post by JollyJoker, so I don't understand how you've arrived at your conclusion. I'd like if you'd share under what conditions it's necessary to limit those freedoms?
@TheDeath
Quote:
Quote:
This was a folks decision, not the government.
You mean tyranny by majority? 
Good post 
Quote:
Why would the native-born feel threatened? Because the muslims outnumber them in votes and elections? Isn't that the fault of democracy? (where every idiot's vote counts)
A problem rises when you decide the right thing is what the majority things, because the majority is those who reproduce the most.
We need informed answers, we need people to change in according to get what they want, and first and foremost, we need to agree upon the most basic rights that should apply to everyone in existance.
These are rights that should not be changeable through majority, but through arguments. The problem of course is, as I think JollyJoker often have said, the one who decides is the one in power, the one in power is the majority.
But I think if the majority gets what they want, they'll not want to change from situation
A) I get what I want, so does my neighbour
Into
B) I get what I want, but I don't want that for my neighbour
Especially if the person doesn't even know if it applies of said neighbour.
I think the idea of public vote is a very good idea, but the questions must be generalizing and be about what truely matters, not whether your neighbour may have a swimming pool, or similar.
Because otherwise we cannot expect informed answers, and it'll be like a kindergarden where no one cares unless it's about themselves.
So make it about everyone.
Quote:
What if a specific religion does discriminate people because of their gender?
As long as it only affects the practitioners, and the practitioners aren't forced to practice it, then what exactly is the problem?
Exactly, one must note the difference of thought and action.
Applying religion in a way that oppresses you (i.e. nothing you want, or it wans't oppression), that's illegal.
However is the way in this thread something that oppresses someone else? Unless it directly violates others right, I can't see why it should be illegal.
Believing in a religion, is the right to think whatever you want.
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, eventually the minority becomes majority (or more often, an influential minority). Theoretically speaking, the next government may have to rely on the support of a Muslim party. Wearing a hijab at university will be the first trade-off. What's next? Where does it end? If you're sympathetic for the rights of one side, surely you can understand that the other side doesn't want to waive theirs either.
Simple. Make a system that doesn't allow others to take your rights. No matter the voting outcome.
I think it's possible to actually create such a system, it's more about the questions that must be asked.
However it's also important to remember if the most power end up in the same direction, and the direction is against this, it can't stand, because to stand you need more power, and that does not exist because the most power is on the other side.
So if we want to continue and also improve the way of our life, it's our duty towards ourselves to become informed and to inform others as well, to only believe if it's made sufficient likely to be true, and not ever regard our own knowledge as absolute.
@Salamandre
Quote:
they refuse to live near non muslims
That's their choice, their rights are equal to the rest of us, so it's a burden they can put on themselves if they want.
Quote:
they refuse to enter a swimming pool because they go in water fully clothed only
Their choice as well.
Quote:
they refuse to do mixed marriage because not same religion
Their choice as well.
Quote:
they refuse to eat same things and need special stores everywhere
Their choice as well, also if they want to open special stores or what they'd like.
Quote:
they refuse to go to public school without burka from head to legs.
That should also be their choice, it's just clothes.
Quote:
Some rights have to be earned first.
No, every right we give, should be eternal, and independent of actions, to the degree possible.
Quote:
as long as he does not everyday call it back to me that he is different and proud to be.
So is that you go against, and supports here, really not the freedom of silence? I.e. you don't have to listen what others say if you choose to?
In a future world, it might be so that we can selectively remove sound waves we dislike, but as it is, it's also your responsibility to be able to ignore if someone says sounds you dislike as long as they don't force you to hear them.
It's of course your right first and foremost to not having to listen to others.
Quote:
Do a research to find out WHY burqas are wear only by muslim women and not males.
If I recall correct, then when the whole deal went earlier it was something along the lines of burqas represent oppression or similar.
Here's my 2 cent, what something represents, but not actually do, is a matter of interpretation, we don't make rules against interpretation, because it's impossible to make everyone happy that way. Just imagine if I interpretated your name as highly offensive against me, is that not silly to be concerned about?
The real question is, what does the burqa actually do? The burqa in itself does nothing, it's a piece of clothes, so the question becomes, if any force is applied, from what part? It's this part that should be focused on.
Making these types of laws where you ban something, because someone might be oppressed if they perform this action is no good, as an example, there've been debated of banning prostitutes, because some of these people come to the country against their will and are actually sex slaves.
You don't attack the problem by banning prostitutes, you attack the problem by rescuing those who're sex slaves.
Or child porn for that matter, I fear that most often child porn is done, not for the profit in selling, but because these people have a lust for it. How does it help the child escaping from the situation of abuse that you punish the people who watch this stuff?
Quote:
Let's give them the choice in a democracy, and then see the results.
But you don't give them the choice, by banning their ability to choose.
Do I give you the choice between pants and dress if I ban you from wearing a dress after you've done so the last couple of years?
Quote:
it is about muslims not adapting to their second country laws.
Maybe I lost something somewhere, but I thought this thread was about what laws we decide upon, i.e. what's right and wrong?
@Vlaad
Quote:
Let's not oversimplify; it's not about fashion - the clothes are just a symbol of a completely different set of values.
I'm not certain I understand your point, but just to be on the safe side, it's also important to realise the clothes in themselves aren't the problem, and therefore no ban can be justified. An anaolgy (if I understand you correct), you do not solve the problem of people in prison not being able to be a part of society by banning them from society all together (locking them up), you solve it by helping them rehab to society.
Quote:
Where do you draw the line?
I don't understand what line you exactly are talking aboutl
Quote:
I'm pretty sure gender discrimination is illegal in most western countries, private property or not.
Certainly, but what exactly is it to discriminate?
If I for good reasons need someone as a male to a job, does it then mean I can be forced to hire a female?
Or is it more a matter of reasonings behind decisions, and in what cases can my reasons then be required?
With firing people, it's simple, because these people you make an agreement with when hiring, and so when firing, you need to have reasons sufficient relevant for the job they're hired for, before you can justify fire them. If not, you can still fire them, but have to compensate the expected time without a job.
People who gets hired have no such expected time, so unless I tell it to you directly, then I don't think we can talk about discrimination, because you can't know. If I tell it to you directly however, then I'm in fact also discriminating you directly, independent on what scence I do it.
@Geny
Quote:
You shouldn't mix duties with rights however.
Well said!
@Adrius
Quote:
What do we know? How do we know that a woman wearing a burqa is forced? Maybe she just does it to honour her country/religion?
Good point.
@JollyJoker
Quote:
The trouble seems to be that one human right - religious freedom or the right not to be discriminated because of your religion - seems to collide with another one: the right not to be discriminated because of your gender.
What if a specific religion does discriminate people because of their gender?
I think, if I understand you corret, that where others talk about religion as the thought, which is the right we've, you talk about applying religion, independent of how, as still being a right, which I believe is wrong.
Because stuff like discrimination cannot happen without the discriminating actions.
Quote:
Oh? It's not? You have to explain why.
For me the situation is the same: at some point you are in a certain situation:
a) member of a religion;
b) in a dive;
Suddenly something happens.
a) you are 21, wear a sexy shirt, since it's summer, and you get hit by your family members and called a snow because you do.
b) you are in a dive in the same shirt and are called a snow and molested.
In your example you're not talking about religion as the right to think what you want, but applied religion. It doesn't matter what reasons there are behind hitting someone, it's not okay, so in that sense it's not an example of religion as the problem, but violence is the problem.
@E-J
Quote:
people are scared of what they don't know. the media gives the people the idea that the islam is nothing more than a big, scary thing that has to be stopped before it ruins our western civilisation.
I often as well tend to blame the media, but remember the responsibility is ultimately on our own hands, we're responsible for what we believe in, we're responsible for what we do, no matter what we've been told.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 05:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
as I said earlier, just because they wouldn't give us certain rights doesn't mean we should do the same to them, otherwise our claim of having a better system becomes false in that respect.
Orthodox Islam and secularism cannot be reconciled because they have totally different approaches. But how is putting restrictions on their religious garments and other things going to help? It's not going to make their ideology disappear.
In my opinion, there are two humane courses of action:
1) Cease Muslim immigration, or at least put a lot more efforts into naturalization. Nobody is obligated to let people move in, so there's nothing wrong with just saying "No".
2) Treat them completely indiscriminately and accept the potential consequences.
I think, there's a 3rd option. The problem with muslimic religion is that some basic principles of it are what I will simply call ILLEGAL in our Western society. I know that in the US there was a court decision to allow certain forbidden drugs for religious ceremonies, and that's exactly the kind of decision that makes things difficult.
A secular society - and we claim to be one - is based on the foundation that every human being of that society has certain rights. If a woman is hit by her husband or claims rape she has a right of being protected.
On the other hand, no matter the religion, if something isn't forbiddeen in a society, a person has the right to do that something, whether his or her kin is appreciating or not.
Muslims immigrating into a secular society MUST adapt to that, otherwise they are building a society within the society, and that is something most people don't want, if the law is affected. People don't want a crime syndicate and people don't want a religiously motivated crime syndicate where people have different rights than in other areas of society.
That means, if Muslims come into Western societies they must accept its rules where they collide with their religion. Otherwise, why even come?
This is no different from, say gipsies who, if it's right what I read, have a somewhat different stance on theft, and I don't mean that ironical (sorry if what I've read should be wrong).
In any case that's the same thing.
Of course that hasn't got anything to do with the building of minarets. Either you allow people to build churches for their service or not, and forbidding it, is absolute nonsense, since it doesn't address the underlying problem - it's just a symptom of the problem.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 05:03 PM |
|
|
Their choice, their choice, their choice. Parrot!
The main point is:
you can't ask a country to allow you using your religion restrictions and ask for integration and not discrimination WHILE on the other side everything you do or claim opposes to real integration.
Their choice? In their country YES. Outside, adapt or leave. A massive vote will acknowledge this for sure.
Isn't in your country that a comic drawer was threated by a fatwa for designing some Mahomet comics? What is your opinion about that?
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 05:14 PM |
|
|
@Joker: I agree.
But putting restrictions on things that don't violate other people's rights is not respecting liberty.
I.E.
A person can't chop another person's nose off, cook it, and eat it, because their religion tells them to do it, because they're violating another person's rights.
A person can put a plastic squid in their pants because their religion tells them to do it, because they're not violating another person's rights.
Sometimes, admittedly, the line between the two can become painfully hard to distinguish, but I'm sure you understand the guideline that I think should be followed.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 05:17 PM |
|
Edited by Vlaad at 17:22, 02 Dec 2009.
|
Quote:
@Vlaad
Quote:
Let's not oversimplify; it's not about fashion - the clothes are just a symbol of a completely different set of values.
I'm not certain I understand your point, but just to be on the safe side, it's also important to realise the clothes in themselves aren't the problem, and therefore no ban can be justified.
I think several posters have already addressed that issue. In addition I've already agreed they overreacted (but then again, I don't live in Switzerland). But let's not pretend to be naive: similarly the Swiss could claim the ban is due to architectural reasons, that minarets spoil the city skyline or like you said, they're too loud. After all, they voted to ban minarets, not mosques.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 05:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I.E.
A person can't chop another person's nose off, cook it, and eat it, because their religion tells them to do it, because they're violating another person's rights.
A person can put a plastic squid in their pants because their religion tells them to do it, because they're not violating another person's rights.
Sometimes, admittedly, the line between the two can become painfully hard to distinguish, but I'm sure you understand the guideline that I think should be followed.
Yes, of course, and I agree completely. It's things that are hard to distinguish that make the problems.
Let's construct a case with a chasitity belt, worn UNDER the skirt or trousers, so you can't see it from the outside.
Let's say further, that Western secular women just had some demonstrations where belts were openly burned as instruments of male oppression.
Law is, a woman can't be forced to wear such a thing. Now let's say it's something a woman must wear in some religion, when she goes out.
You have a problem now, since religiously spoken her husband has the right to force her, but the law says otherwise. This may bring problems.
Now let's say that a substantial part of the female members of that religion does indeed wear the belt and don't complain.
Of course, the women that just burned the things may feel threatened in their just won freedom and start demonstrations: GET RID OF THE BELT, and so on.
These things are then those which are hard to distinguish, right?
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 05:45 PM |
|
|
That one seems pretty clear to me. Women are allowed to wear the belt if they want, but the husband isn't allowed to force them to wear it, even if that's a right within his religion.
Some women might be upset about other women wearing the belts (and vice versa), but they'll just have to be offended because that's part of life. People disagree on things.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 05:48 PM |
|
Edited by Geny at 17:48, 02 Dec 2009.
|
This may seem like off-topic, but I want to hear an answer before I continue:
What if man is walking with a swastika on his shirt?
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 05:53 PM |
|
|
You went straight to the most offensive symbol imaginable
In the U.S. (I think that it is an individual state issue) you're allowed to walk around with a Nazi swastika in most states, and I agree with that.
I'm assuming that's banned in Germany and several other places, and although I'm highly sympathetic to why that is and can hardly blame them, I still think it should be allowed in theory.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 05:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You went straight to the most offensive symbol imaginable
That was the point.
And since you reacted the way you did, I now really do believe that nothing will sway your mind in the matter. Not that it's a bad thing, just wanted to know where you stand.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 06:00 PM |
|
|
My religion says, I am NOT allowed to wear any clothes at all.
Let's see what happens if I take a walk to downtown Ankara....or even worse, to downtown Teheran.
Let's see what happens if my wife get's braless on the beach of Istanbul.
Banning buildings doesn't mean the religion is banned. A true believer doesn't need a specific building to pray to his God, right?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 06:12 PM |
|
Edited by Vlaad at 18:16, 02 Dec 2009.
|
What is the situation in Germany? I understand wearing hijab at certain places is banned? Quote:
Let's see what happens if my wife get's braless on the beach of Istanbul.
It's perfectly fine at the southern seaside of Turkey.
____________
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 06:22 PM |
|
|
One more QP to go? Congrats! Admirable, legendary, how can you live under such high pressure?
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 06:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Actually, that's an interesting point. You were talking about how different clothing should or shouldn't be outlawed just because they offend people, but what about total lack of clothing?
I'm assuming you're mostly addressing me?
Muslims consider a woman's hair part of her nudity, and for a guy that lives in a place where he never sees women's hair, it can be rather arousing. Other places might not be quite as strict and consider just the boobs and vagina part of a woman's nudity. Other places might only consider the vagina to be nudity. Some remote tribal regions could care less if men and women walk around naked in public. The perceptions vary depending on the region.
To answer your question head on: I think people should be allowed to walk around naked. Although depending on social stigma, that doesn't mean people will do it very often, if hardly ever.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
