quote:So Sheik Aedh al-Garni's religious advice, delivered in response to a question from a Saudi woman in France, generated some opposition from those less compromising. One cleric said it was better for Muslim women to avoid traveling to such countries unless absolutely necessary.
"We should not confront people in their countries or elsewhere," al-Garni was quoted as saying in the Saudi-owned daily Al-Hayat. "In case a ban is enforced against a Muslim woman there - and as a consequence there is a reaction or negative implications or harassment or harm - it is better for the Muslim woman to reveal her face."
This brings me closer to figuring that you could make a rough guess at a number of years in the future where veil laws have been removed from the most populous Islamic countries. We see the precepts changing in action: a religious requirement, muting into a nonobligatory 'custom' — good!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Welcome to France where they take so much pride in keeping religion and government separate. Surprise surprise, people still use power to oppress people for having beliefs that are different than theirs.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Why ban a scarf? Doesn't seem to gel with "live and let live."
Apparently that principle only applies to people whom you agree with.
Is that a serious question?
The French government doesn't want fundamentalist Muslims to feel comfortable in their country. They also want to combat what they see as systematic cultural subjugation of women. You may not agree with their perspective or actions, but it's not like they're mystifying.
Plus, having a problem with some people that you don't agree with (and at least a significant subset of which are horrible people bent on your destruction) doesn't mean that you only allow freedom to people you agree with.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Welcome to France where they take so much pride in keeping religion and government separate.
The french headscarf ban isn't about that at all. That's the justification. The reason is because they are terrified of muslim immigration in the same way that the citizens of arizona are terrified of mexican immigration.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Welcome to France where they take so much pride in keeping religion and government separate.
The french headscarf ban isn't about that at all. That's the justification. The reason is because they are terrified of muslim immigration in the same way that the citizens of arizona are terrified of mexican immigration.
You're right, and it's still one side using power to oppress another because of a difference in cultural backgrounds and beliefs.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd say they're a couple degrees more terrified than southern Americans are. Some of the literature I've read about French people who fear Muslim immigrants makes it sound like they're an invading army out to stamp out the French way of life. There's a history rife with animosity following WWI and WWII from colonial soldiers and subjects flooding into France after the wars, and most recently, there's a lot of unrest among immigrant youths who feel the French government is specifically denying them jobs and oppressing them. The majority of the population doesn't seem to interested in ameliorating the issue. I haven't seem a specific number, but illegal immigration doesn't seem to be the real problem there, it's all legal. The polling data in Arizona on legal vs. illegal immigration is dramatically enough different to suggest to me that the problems in France vastly outweigh those in Arizona. Besides, I think much of the problem in Arizona is from a political narrative that has been repeated too many times to inflame tension, whereas in France, it's far more home grown.
Also, I wonder how long before the Sheikh who issued the fatwah is threatened, or killed.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Why ban a scarf? Doesn't seem to gel with "live and let live."
Apparently that principle only applies to people whom you agree with.
Is that a serious question?
The French government doesn't want fundamentalist Muslims to feel comfortable in their country.
Plus, having a problem with some people that you don't agree with (and at least a significant subset of which are horrible people bent on your destruction) doesn't mean that you only allow freedom to people you agree with.
1)What's wrong with a fundamentalist Muslim? Unless the fundamentalist wants to kill me, I'm cool. I don't know how many civil rights movies or history lectures you need to listen to to be nauseated by a headscarf ban.
I mean, what the heck is a ban on headscarfs supposed to accomplish? If fundamentalism is a problem, take away the scarf and they lose their ideology? I'd suppose it's arguable that you are dissuading fundamentalists from living in your country, but personally, I'd be a lot more concerned about the anger it causes. Fundamentalist Muslims are not known for controlling their anger.
2) I'd also like to point out that if this had happened in Israel...
3) Sometimes we make no sure not to compromise on our principles at all, for the sake of protection of those principles. Compromises can be justified in cases like national security and such - I don't see how the compromise is justified here.
4)It sure seems like they allow freedom only to people they agree with. I mean, It's a situation like this that really tests the limits of whom you're willing to extend freedom to. I mean, unless you're alleging that fundamentalist Muslims are enemies in their midst. In which case, I suppose you can make the case that it's convenient to lump em all together and dispose of them. Is that what you are arguing?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean, what the heck is a ban on headscarfs supposed to accomplish? If fundamentalism is a problem, take away the scarf and they lose their ideology? I'd suppose it's arguable that you are dissuading fundamentalists from living in your country, but personally, I'd be a lot more concerned about the anger it causes. Fundamentalist Muslims are not known for controlling their anger.
haha. um, so they should be dissuaded from a headscarf ban out of concern for a violent response?
Also, while it may be impossible to correct the thread drift at this point, what interests me about the subject is not france's ban at all — it's just the typical reactionary response of people afraid of their culture being overshadowed — but the response by the cleric in question, and how it actually acts as a pretty significant bellweather indicating the possibility of advanced degradation of a religious mandate that keeps women scarved. It's how this stuff starts. It begins with "they must always be scarved in public" to "well, see, there are exceptions, and uh" to "well that's really more of a recommendation" at some point in the future.
I almost want to start taking bets!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with the scarf is that many women don't willingly wear it. The religion says you have to or die so you wear it. So, some governments view the ban as a way to protect those women from tyranny opposed by their religion. I am not sure how I feel about that. Also, there is a security risk in not being able to see people's faces in public buildings. While these might just be bs reasons and fear is really the reason, they are worth considering I think.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp: It just seems kinda of silly to look at tertiary results and say the primary and secondary stuff is bad, but oh well, the stuff after that is pretty good!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Fundamentalism is bad ----> Oppressing people using the law is bad -----> turning an often oppressive head scarf rule into a custom or personal preference is good!
So now some oppression is good because it unintentionally produces some good.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't find a single point of your contrived interpretation of my argument that I've actually argued. Like, not a single portion of it. Categorically. Not even "fundamentalism is bad!"
You appear to be confused, or, at the very least, testily reacting.
I could grant "turning an oppressive head scarf law into a nonobligatory custom is good" deriving from the observation of religious precepts muting in the face of cultural necessity, but the whole 'therefore oppression is good' is just flat-out wrong.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We see the precepts changing in action: a religious requirement, muting into a nonobligatory 'custom' — good!
Having said this without any sort of rebuke of the law itself, and then later another jab at "Fundamentalist Abrahamic" religions, led me to think you were inappropriately focusing on the "tertiary" results being of positive import, and not paying due attention to the two much bigger problems that seem to eclipse any benefit derived.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For what it's worth, I interpreted it as "the change to something less restrictive to women is good".
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: and then later another jab at "Fundamentalist Abrahamic" religions,
It's absolutely true. All of them hold women to be inferior to men, and the positions of power from which the religious rules are made are held by men and are not allowed to women. if it's a jab because that is an insulting trait, then there you go.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back Blade, just because something is "bad" does not mean that everything produced from it must also be so. Neither did SamP really say that the scarf-ban was good, just that this reaction to it was a breathe of fresh air in terms of women being treated equally ( better ) under Islamic law. Really the whole thread here is based on the fatwah, not the headscarf ban itself.
I could go on for awhile here, but in general: moral perfectionism is not a good way of thinking. That and many forms of oppression are "good" it simply depends on who you are "oppressing". I am all about oppressing serial killers, rapists, etc. In that sense I'm also all about oppressing totalitarian regimes etc., however I understand to a point what you are trying to communicate when you use the word oppress. However, you are trying to use both a limited definition and an expanded definition in your argument Blackblade and it is part of the reason why your line of reasoning is faulty.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: and then later another jab at "Fundamentalist Abrahamic" religions,
It's absolutely true. All of them hold women to be inferior to men, and the positions of power from which the religious rules are made are held by men and are not allowed to women. if it's a jab because that is an insulting trait, then there you go.
OK, we both agree that oppressing women is bad. So now what about the state telling female disciples of Islam who believe in wearing the headscarf out of a sense of modesty and propriety that they have to just stuff their beliefs? They aren't harming other people or inhibiting their freedom. In general, there are many women of the newer generation who are feeling a strong desire to return to traditional values such as modesty. Many Muslim girls out of their own choice are choosing to wear the hijab again. We wouldn't tell an American girl who wanted to wear dresses with sleeves and gloves that that's just not OK.
We seem quite OK with women popping off to beaches and removing their tops. Are we trying to deal with one of the results of male oppression or the oppression itself? Why not stick with legislation that states when a state official requires a women to remove her scarf she oblige? Or what about protective legislation so that women who wish to leave Islam are not threatened or harmed? No, instead they discuss a blanket ban on full face veils.
edit: BlackFox: *shrugs* That's fine you feel that way. I'm not arguing that bad things can ultimately turn out to be a net positive (Though usually on accident). But if he just wanted to talk about the benefits of the ban, you don't increase the scope of the thread by making jabs at "Abrahamic Fundamentalism."
Look maybe I'm overreacting, but I wanted to see how Samp felt about the hijab ban in general. Whether he sees it as good, or merely a net good.
posted
The veil ruling is the byproduct of terrified cultural purists. The veils themselves are the byproduct of the religious subjugation of women. So there's no love lost on either of them. I commented on both of those when they were the topic du jour (and the minaret ban in switzerland — what the ****) but am here primarily interested in how the veil ban in france has now, unintentionally, off in saudi arabia, unleashed the start of the predictable process via which a religion will justify away a religious requirement which is, due to various reasons, becoming less and less plausible to demand and enforce in the way it previously did.
quote:Look maybe I'm overreacting,
Assuredly, between your rapid, reactive mistranslations and suppositions of my position and now a nonsensical statement about whether or not I have "increased the scope of the thread" by pointing out that something is factually a trait of all fundamentalist abrahamic religions.
Like I said, if it's an insulting trait of abrahamic religions that makes what I said TEH JABS, then, there you go. Maybe they should stop being so vapidly sexist.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
True BB, the vibe I get from SamP is one that Islam oppresses women in general and that forcing all the women to not wear the nijab ( which I do believe is the one that is banned) allows those that do not want to wear it all in the first place to live without fear of retribution from others. At least something along those lines.
At this point you enter the real world of difficult moral choices. Is it better to let things lie and have some women forced into them or force some to not wear it and expose their face in public. Either way some "bad" will occur, which is better?
Or from the point of view from some of the French, what do we do when we feel that another culture is encroaching upon our own in a way that is not at odds with our legal system. Seems that the French are just going to change the law to make France less attractive to Islamists, not so much the protection of women.
Interesting side note, and I apologize if this derails things, I was watching European CNN and had to laugh when they ran a story about what will Arizona do with all the illegal immigrants leaving their state. What they really did with the story is show that Arizona's law is already successful in doing what it was intended to do, regardless of your opinions on the law. Now it is a question of if getting rid of illegal immigrants was a good thing.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp: Well then we have less to talk about than I thought, but this time it's not a bad thing.
I submit more often than not people post just as soon as they can get their thoughts written down, and in that sense your replies are no more "rapid" than mine.
Further, by definition anything I say in response to your words is, "reactive." My own point of view concerning what you are saying is of course a "supposition." For better or worse I have to construct what I'm seeing in your words so you can tell me if I'm getting it right or wrong. I respectfully disagree regarding my statement that your jabbing at "abrahamic fundamentalism" opened up the scope of the thread was "nonsensical."
I admit that it is of interest to me that somewhere far away a Muslim scholar of theology is attempting to loosen up restriction so as to make life for Muslims women more tenable.
I was taking some issue with your jabbing at "Abrahamic Fundamentalism." Not because I myself am married to the philosophy, but you tend to see nothing of value in it, and so I get frustrated with the multitude of arrows you have ever at the ready to loose.
quote:Maybe they should stop being so vapidly sexist.
I actually read this three times as, "Maybe you should stop being so vapidly sexist." I only literally before hitting add reply realized that was not what you were saying. This probably means I need to eat something, drink something with electrolytes, and sleep 9 hours tonight instead of 7. Carry on.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
IS the arizona law really appreciably decreasing the amount of illegal immigrants in the state? I would expect the reactionary departure to be ... no more than five percent, and not even that offsetting the population growth via illegal immigration and children of immigrants.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was taking some issue with your jabbing at "Abrahamic Fundamentalism." Not because I myself am married to the philosophy, but you tend to see nothing of value in it, and so I get frustrated with the multitude of arrows you have ever at the ready to loose.
... I'm going to guess that in all likelihood it IS because you're married to the philosophy, and have been reacting recently in a stressed manner because you are frustrated with what you see as challenges and criticisms of your religion, here and in other threads.
Already this is very interesting. I 'tend to see nothing of value in it?' Perhaps I tend to see nothing of value in the subjugation of women by religions that consider women unworthy of positions of religious leadership.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm going to guess that in all likelihood it IS because you're married to the philosophy, and have been reacting recently in a stressed manner because you are frustrated with what you see as challenges and criticisms of your religion, here and in other threads.
That's ridiculous to me, Religious Fundamentalism and I went on a few dates, and we still write each other but that's it! But in all seriousness, you're simply echoing Orincoro's assertion that I can't handle having my beliefs challenged. It's not true, and if years of discussing my views on hatrack has not persuaded you I doubt anything else I could reasonably do would.
Who is defending the subjugation of women? Fundamentalism, has been going through a strange transition in terms of usage for the last 30 years or so. Fundamentalism is merely holding to a belief regardless of the direction popular opinion goes. Now a weakness of that approach to things is it often means you throw out new facts as they come, but it can also mean that when people start boarding the crazy train or the sin-mobile you just wave as they leave.
I'm 100% with you against religions that think women are "unworthy" to hold positions of religious leadership. But I said seeing nothing of value in "religious fundamentalism." Not in one principle that frequently comes up in fundamentalism. You were certainly able to see the value of a hijab ban causing clerics to change rules regarding the full body veil, so I should think you could just as easy point out something that is unabashedly good in religious fundamentalism.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now when did we go from "you have been reacting recently in a stressed manner because you are frustrated with what you see as challenges and criticisms of your religion" to "you can't handle having your beliefs challenged." Note how one is much more categorically accusatory than the other. In fact, the two are quite different. You are going further down the road of aggressively mistranslating my position via what I now am pretty sure are your own frustrations.
quote:Who is defending the subjugation of women?
Nobody, but nothing I'm standing up for here has to do with any perception that someone has defended that yet.
quote:I'm 100% with you against religions that think women are "unworthy" to hold positions of religious leadership. But I said seeing nothing of value in "religious fundamentalism."
Exactly. YOU said that. "seeing nothing of value" in it? Your assertion. Not mine. You can, in fact, not point to a single thing I have ever said that indicates that I see nothing of value in ANY abrahamic religion.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp: That's the whole point. You frequently point out where there is ill in religion. When you do not take occassion to point out anything good about it, it colors your criticisms down the road.
Parkour: Nope, my religion absolutely does not believe that women are not "worthy" to be leaders in the church.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, given that this is a community that is high-drama short-fuse and filled with mormons who take critical viewpoints of their church with extreme discomfort, I kind of want to know if I can make a thread this month which is not about the mormon church's misdeeds and have that thread continue to not be about the mormon church's misdeeds. perhaps it can instead be about the tea party. or a fatwah in saudi arabia. or, i don't know, cookies. I will try playing that thread out in my head right now.
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Okay back to the real world.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes it's the high drama Mormons who want only to stoke their martyr complexes and so turn every thread into one about Mormonism.
Why don't you go read your other thread again. Steven drops yet another, "yes I agree with this, btw Mormons are <insert negative accusation here> too."
Geraine decides to address steven, you address his comments and wallah! We have a thread about Mormons now.
edit: Heck, read this thread. I didn't bring up Mormonism, Parkour did.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Samp: That's the whole point. You frequently point out where there is ill in religion. When you do not take occassion to point out anything good about it, it colors your criticisms down the road.
This is weak. I don't have to manage a quota of positive comments about a religion in order to have my negative comments about a religion be any more or less valid. If you consider that a practical requirement to not be discomforted by a fact which I can mention that stands on its own, that is your prerogative.
I'm not going to humor it. I might as well say "You frequently defend the mormon church. When you do not take occasion to mention something bad about it, it colors your support down the road." then sit and hope you say something like 'okay fine that whole tablets of gold thing is pretty suspect' so that I can free myself of finding your support of the church 'colored.'
I mean, really. I have no such expectation. It would be weak of me.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Samp: That's the whole point. You frequently point out where there is ill in religion. When you do not take occassion to point out anything good about it, it colors your criticisms down the road.
Parkour: Nope, my religion absolutely does not believe that women are not "worthy" to be leaders in the church.
It does, actually, but I want to know how you redefine "unworthy" so that it spontaneously does not apply to the church denying women the priesthood or positions of church leadership.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Yes it's the high drama Mormons who want only to stoke their martyr complexes and so turn every thread into one about Mormonism.
Why don't you go read your other thread again. Steven drops yet another, "yes I agree with this, btw Mormons are <insert negative accusation here> too."
Geraine decides to address steven, you address his comments and wallah! We have a thread about Mormons now.
edit: Heck, read this thread. I didn't bring up Mormonism, Parkour did.
I'm sorry, did I say that it was the mormons who are the ones derailing the threads towards talk about mormonism? No. And I'd like you to acknowledge this and that it makes the accusation you have made in this post absolutely misplaced.
posted
Seriously blackblade you have managed to misread practically every one of samprimary's posts on this entire page. Maybe you want to take a breather.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp: Yes you do. It's not an exact quota, but there *is* a current underneath everything a poster writes, people notice it. I don't keep quotas of who has said what about every topic, but don't tell me you don't subconsciously recognize any posters who have axes to grind on different topics. I certainly managed to get out a, "I think their beliefs were wrong." when I was discussing in the other thread. You managed a, "I disagree with the Mormon church strongly, but I don't hate them." Even that tickled me just a little bit. I actually appreciate that you don't hate my religion.
But again, just one nice thing about fundamentalist religion. You don't have to of course I wouldn't presume to boss you around, but I wouldn't be able to say another word on the matter if you did.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp: I really am sorry if I am misreading you, could you explain where I am parsing you wrong.
quote:Now, given that this is a community that is high-drama short-fuse and filled with mormons who take critical viewpoints of their church with extreme discomfort
OK so we have drama lhamas, and Mormons who don't like having their religion criticized. Am I good so far?
So then who is doing the derailing? Is it the people taking pot shots at Mormonism? Or is it the Mormons with their sensitive skins who hear somebody talk about, "Morons" and they just can't help it, it sounds too much like Mormons, and they jump in?
I know this thread has been completely derailed, and I bear some (heck maybe all of it) responsibility for it. For that I'm sorry, if you'd like we can end this part of the discussion and try to salvage it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
"Yes it's the high drama Mormons who want only to stoke their martyr complexes and so turn every thread into one about Mormonism."
The high drama mormons so turn every thread into one about mormonism. Because apparently they want only to stoke their martyr complexes.
Wow. a bunch of things I'm not saying. Which is, by now, the greatly entertaining (if not disappointing) theme for today, that has so far gotten to fill up quite a bit of posts!
Read my post.
Where am I stating who is the party that is derailing the thread. Where do I say that it is the mormons who did that. Where is the instance of the mormons being "high-drama mormons" as opposed to "a community that is high-drama short-fuse AND filled with mormons who take critical viewpoints with extreme discomfort." Where's me saying that the mormons 'want to stoke' a 'martyr complex.' Where have I even come up with the conceptualization of mormons having a 'martyr complex.'
Answers: all nowhere.
Like right now I am wondering how much sleep you've had.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Samp: Yes you do.
No, I don't have to give a timeshare of being nice to X in order to have factual assertions about X be any more or less valid. I certainly have the option to manage a quota of saying-nice-things to make my positions be more pleasantly received. I'm sure with time you can see how the two are quite different.
quote:But again, just one nice thing about fundamentalist religion. You don't have to of course I wouldn't presume to boss you around, but I wouldn't be able to say another word on the matter if you did.
I really have no need (or desire) to placate an entirely fallacious requirement. Like, to use a wonderfully godwin-esque example, if I'm arguing against racists and consistently say 'racism is terrible' I don't have to occasionally say something nice about racism (even if there are actually parts of racism I like) in order for my positions to be equally valid.
quote:...which is not about the mormon church's misdeeds and have that thread continue to not be about the mormon church's misdeeds.
So threads are constantly getting twisted into Mormon church is doing something wrong. You identified two elements, short fused drama folks, and Mormons who have their defensive weapons at the ready. Now by implication, either there are people obsessed with talking about how much the Mormon church sucks, or there are a bunch of Mormons who take every opportunity to talk about how they are being attacked, hence my saying, "Martyr Complex."
I'm asking you which is true, or are both true, or is there another explanation for why threads keep twisting into talks about Mormon church misdeeds?
quote:I really have no need (or desire) to placate an entirely fallacious requirement
Fallacious? I'm not sure why you are using that word, that's just how it is. Even now you are noting that lately, I've been getting stressed out and bent out of shape over comments people are making regarding religion. I'm glad you've noticed that. I'm certain your ability to track these things extends beyond a few weeks into months and even years.
quote:Like, to use a wonderfully godwin-esque example, if I'm arguing against racists and consistently say 'racism is terrible' I don't have to occasionally say something nice about racism (even if there are actually parts of racism I like) in order for my positions to be equally valid.
OK, could you then simply agree that, my perception regarding your completely negative opinion in regards to religion is wrong?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You still haven't addressed this. I'd prefer you did before we move forward.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Yes it's the high drama Mormons who want only to stoke their martyr complexes and so turn every thread into one about Mormonism.
Why don't you go read your other thread again. Steven drops yet another, "yes I agree with this, btw Mormons are <insert negative accusation here> too."
Geraine decides to address steven, you address his comments and wallah! We have a thread about Mormons now.
edit: Heck, read this thread. I didn't bring up Mormonism, Parkour did.
I'm sorry, did I say that it was the mormons who are the ones derailing the threads towards talk about mormonism? No. And I'd like you to acknowledge this and that it makes the accusation you have made in this post absolutely misplaced.
=)
Hopefully you comprehend this well enough now to be able to make that acknowledgement.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As an aside, I've seen a couple references to head scarfs and hijabs, which the French veil ban does not include. It refers to burqas and niqabs, or veils that cover the entire face, while the hijab only covers the top of the head (hair).
Large numbers of women wear the hijab in France, and are not affected by the law. Fewer than 20,000 are believed to wear full facial coverings.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: As an aside, I've seen a couple references to head scarfs and hijabs, which the French veil ban does not include. It refers to burqas and niqabs, or veils that cover the entire face, while the hijab only covers the top of the head (hair).
Large numbers of women wear the hijab in France, and are not affected by the law. Fewer than 20,000 are believed to wear full facial coverings.
It's about time someone pointed that out. I was waiting for that argument to start
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: As an aside, I've seen a couple references to head scarfs and hijabs, which the French veil ban does not include. It refers to burqas and niqabs, or veils that cover the entire face, while the hijab only covers the top of the head (hair).
Large numbers of women wear the hijab in France, and are not affected by the law. Fewer than 20,000 are believed to wear full facial coverings.
That is interesting. Do you know if this is a change from the original law? Because when it was first passed, Muslim friends of mine certainly seemed to think the hijab was forbidden by the law as well. (I haven't discussed it with any recently.)
Also, the hijab, while it does not cover much of the face, does cover the ears, a bit of the cheeks, and the neck.
Also, on a separate note, I love when people who know far less about my religion than they think they do tell me that I'm oppressed. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: We wouldn't tell an American girl who wanted to wear dresses with sleeves and gloves that that's just not OK.
Obviously. But this situation is a little bit different. What if someone was telling American girls that they HAD to wear dresses with sleeves and gloves? Would that be ok? If every woman in America was ok with that, would such a decree still be wrong or would that make it ok?
Now I would say banning dresses with sleeves would be a pretty silly way of dealing with the problem but if the law doesn't allow you to ban that someone from making such a decree, what else can you do? I don't know.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps you allow American women (in your theoretical) the dignity and self-determination to DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES what they wish to wear? And if you believe that they are being forced or coerced, address that.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: ... What's wrong with a fundamentalist Muslim? ... Fundamentalist Muslims are not known for controlling their anger.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
