So today there was an attack on French newspaper Charlie Hebdo that killed 12 people. I was in Paris a few months ago and noticed the tension in the city - there were armed soldiers (or policemen dressed up like soldiers in combat gear) outside of every train station and in the metro. It's kind of sad to see the amount of violence being caused by extremist Muslims in the country. Hopefully they catch the bastards who did this. And also, hopefully, this doesn't scare more people into silence.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It probably won't and all this is going to accomplish is the advancement of xenophobic parties in France, because what the hell else do you do when this starts happening to your country
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: It probably won't and all this is going to accomplish is the advancement of xenophobic parties in France, because what the hell else do you do when this starts happening to your country
I agree. Especially when one of the guys killed had publicly stated (paraphrasing a translation) "I'd rather die standing up than live kneeling." I'm sure his statement will be repeated often in Paris now.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: what the hell else do you do when this starts happening to your country
Are you saying you support the advancement of xenophobic parties in this case or just acknowledging that it will be the likely result? I'd agree with the second statement but I'm not sure xenophobia would be an effective long-term solution to Islamic extremism.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
This came about for a couple of reasons.
First of all, good old fashioned European racism. French people brought the Muslims in as cheap labor, and were never really interested in seeing them as real citizens or as equals.
Secondly, the Muslims themselves have created their own communities and resisted assimilation, holding on tight to even the most horrible parts of the old country culture.
There is fault on both sides here, but the sad truth is that while people claiming that America is going to be taken over by immigrants who refuse to join the culture is laughable, in places like France and Britain this claim is less laughable.
French people are rightly going to be looking at this issue, and at the kind of brainwashing, poor morality, and extremism that young Muslims are exposed to in their separated communities and what can be done to both defend against that and to try and prevent it in the future.
Sadly, in the short term, there is going to be more focus on the former then the latter, and innocent Muslims who just want to live a quiet peaceful life (both those who believe that their women shouldn't vote or drive a car and should stay in their burkha, and those who are civilized), are probably going to be the focus of some persecution.
It's a bad problem for both sides, and it has been building for a while now, but the issue has been building for decades and there sure as hell aren't going to be any easy solutions now.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Are you saying you support the advancement of xenophobic parties in this case or just acknowledging that it will be the likely result? I'd agree with the second statement but I'm not sure xenophobia would be an effective long-term solution to Islamic extremism.
I don't think so either, but what's the better solution in this case? You have a group of people coming into your country who despise everything about who you are, the values you hold, and the culture you live in. When you have to live in constant fear of being executed for disagreeing with them, or having your family blown apart by one of their bombs, or having your business looted and destroyed because they don't like the religion you follow, it starts feeling less like immigration and more like an invasion.
Xenophobic policies are eventually self-defeating - they'll simply increase the hostility, distrust, and misunderstanding already present. But on the other hand, you have one group that values freedom, justice, and equality, and another that despises those values and wants to kill anyone and everyone who disagrees with them. It's not a "lets stop this fighting and come to a mutual understanding" type deal, but more of "let's try to survive as a people and a culture."
Honestly, I think a good response is to assert that the French government is the law of the land, not Sharia. Thus the law banning full body covering. I'd like to see more intervention into the child and spousal abuse that happens under Sharia, stronger public education, and harsher condemnation of violence against women, to make sure the cycle of violence stops after one generation. It's sad that young men born and raised in France are being brainwashed into Islam like this.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
I'd support parties that many might call xenophobic, so long as their message centered more around calling for all citizens and people in their country to give up the barbaric practices of whatever place they came from, and support the rights of women, freedom of religion, etc, and less on just hating immigrants.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Are you saying you support the advancement of xenophobic parties in this case or just acknowledging that it will be the likely result? I'd agree with the second statement but I'm not sure xenophobia would be an effective long-term solution to Islamic extremism.
I don't think so either, but what's the better solution in this case? You have a group of people coming into your country who despise everything about who you are, the values you hold, and the culture you live in. When you have to live in constant fear of being executed for disagreeing with them, or having your family blown apart by one of their bombs, or having your business looted and destroyed because they don't like the religion you follow, it starts feeling less like immigration and more like an invasion.
Xenophobic policies are eventually self-defeating - they'll simply increase the hostility, distrust, and misunderstanding already present. But on the other hand, you have one group that values freedom, justice, and equality, and another that despises those values and wants to kill anyone and everyone who disagrees with them. It's not a "lets stop this fighting and come to a mutual understanding" type deal, but more of "let's try to survive as a people and a culture."
Honestly, I think a good response is to assert that the French government is the law of the land, not Sharia. Thus the law banning full body covering. I'd like to see more intervention into the child and spousal abuse that happens under Sharia, stronger public education, and harsher condemnation of violence against women, to make sure the cycle of violence stops after one generation. It's sad that young men born and raised in France are being brainwashed into Islam like this.
I completely agree with this.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg: There is fault on both sides here, but the sad truth is that while people claiming that America is going to be taken over by immigrants who refuse to join the culture is laughable, in places like France and Britain this claim is less laughable.
This unfortunately causes the problems caused by Islamic immigrants in Europe to either be ignored, underplayed, or dismissed as racism here in the U.S. Mostly because our right wing loves comparing the situations and pointing to the current violence and culture war going on in Europe as a "dire warning" of things to come if we don't change our ways, blah blah blah. (which is laughable) So this causes people who know that Latino immigrants don't pose such threats to falsely equate the situation in Europe to that in the U.S., and assume anyone who is concerned about immigration in Europe is a racist old coot.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I wish there was a reddit "I'm am Islamic extremist who believes in Sharia Law, AMA."
I want to understand how someone can rationalize and justify these acts to themselves.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
That's religious radicalization. You can do it with any made up fairy tale about the universe. Just bury it deep in a kid's head long before they have the capacity for independent rational thought and make sure they know who god says is the enemy and what acts god knows is punishable by death.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Its going to be a constant cycle of increased racism, discrimination, and religious radicalization.
In Quebec a big issue that I think contributed to toppling the secular government of the Parti Quebecois was a proposed law that would ban "overt" religious symbols from public employees, which was very controversial; as (rightly in my opinion) is mostly affected Muslims and barely inconvenienced Christians and Catholics. Particularly when "cultural exceptions" were made for Christian iconography, such as the crucifix in the National Assembly.
Additionally things got worse when supporters of the law suffered from Foot-in-Mouth syndrome such as saying comments like "I'd fear for my life if a Muslim doctor was in the hospital with me."
Its one thing to not be able to see the face of a public employee but I don't see how anything else matters.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Xenophobic policies are eventually self-defeating - they'll simply increase the hostility, distrust, and misunderstanding already present. But on the other hand, you have one group that values freedom, justice, and equality, and another that despises those values and wants to kill anyone and everyone who disagrees with them. It's not a "lets stop this fighting and come to a mutual understanding" type deal, but more of "let's try to survive as a people and a culture."
False dichotomy is false. You have many groups, first of all, and a very, very small few among them who are violent murderers. There are not two groups in conflict here. There is the overwhelming majority of French, muslim and Catholic and other, and the tiny minority of murderers, who happen to have a huge microphone, because they're capable of murder. That's it. None of this "two groups" nonsense.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I want to understand how someone can rationalize and justify these acts to themselves.
This you will never understand, because the rationalizations are not particularly cogent, or coherent, and don't need to be. It is about rage, not about reason.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: False dichotomy is false. You have many groups, first of all, and a very, very small few among them who are violent murderers. There are not two groups in conflict here. There is the overwhelming majority of French, muslim and Catholic and other, and the tiny minority of murderers, who happen to have a huge microphone, because they're capable of murder. That's it. None of this "two groups" nonsense
\
Well, you do have two groups, and you just defined them in your own post. One group of murderers, and everyone else. My whole argument was against the "maybe if we just come to an understanding this will stop" argument - a lot of the harshest condemnation of this attack is coming from French Muslims. It has nothing to do with that, because the group that is doing the murdering (the extremist, sharia law, infidels must die group) doesn't give two shits about "understanding" or conflict resolution. It cares about Jihad.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oversimplification is overly simple. As with nearly any situation involving extremists, it's not enough to simply say that the fringe is representative only of itself, tied to no one else. There is also the broader group of more moderate members in any religion or ideology, and to what extent if any they support or keep silent towards the fringe.
In this case, I don't think it's unfair to point out that insofar as there is an overall Islamic stance on freedom of speech with respect to speech that criticizes Islam in general and Mohammed in particular, well support for such freedom is not remotely widespread.
Of course that's not a uniquely Muslim reality, but what I think might be a *present* reality is that theirs is the religion with the largest and most actively violent and international fringe. For a lot of reasons, of course.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I don't think establishing that people can be broken in two groups is oversimplification when applied to a specific point. I.e, me saying "well, you have left handed people and you have right handed people" isn't necessarily an oversimplification of humanity when applied to a discussion of, say, the ergonomics of a pair of scissors. It doesn't mean I don't recognize the existence of groups more granular than that, or defined along different terms.
Likewise, there are many, many different groups and ideologies at play here, many overlapping or variable depending on how you define them. And false dichotomies annoy me as well - I read an article saying that Charlie Hebdo "deserved" what they had coming, because they were a voice for far-right racist white privilege and part of the system of oppression in France. Because the author chose to frame the conflict in a paradigm of "evil white racist French vs. poor oppressed Muslim POC." (And chose to ignore that CH is leftist and not particularly Christian-friendly)
But I feel it's possible to make a simplified generalization - within a narrow context - without having to explain the bigger picture every time. It's partially laziness on my part, but also because I don't like getting lost in the weeds and losing sight of the point being made. So in this context - the possibility of coming to a peaceful compromise with murderous lunatics - I would argue that compromise is a *bad* idea, and the only moral response really is to reenforce the liberal, secular ideals upon which your society is built.
[ January 09, 2015, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I want to understand how someone can rationalize and justify these acts to themselves.
This you will never understand, because the rationalizations are not particularly cogent, or coherent, and don't need to be. It is about rage, not about reason.
I was once flipping channels and came across a news station where a reporter was speaking with a Muslim who believed Sharia Law should be implemented in all Westernized nations and was attempting to explain why it should be with practical and rational reasons. The reporter did an absolutely atrocious job at pointing out all the flaws in his logic and after he made a *point* about how his freedom of speech should allow him to demand that the reporter cover herself from head to toe and that she should be obligated to do so because of religious discrimination and that it was infringing on his rights and blah blah blah and the reporter basically conceded the point and said something like "Well, I just don't agree that I should have to."
I was dying for someone intelligent to jump in and demolish everything he said, point by point.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
This particular political question makes me miss Christopher Hitchens. He took aim more than once at the intersection of freedom of speech and religious extremism-other forms of oppression as well, in fact.
I was reminded powerfully of him when in much of the initial coverage on NPR on the way home that day, multiple commentators expressed concern with how targeted the satire against Islam was. Not that it excused anything of course, but wasn't it vaguely disgraceful and even racist (ha!) that they were so harsh on Muslims?
Such remarks were mostly unchallenged, and more often agreed with. As for me? The religions or groups that are most adamant that they ought never be criticized are the ones I am happy to see most mocked and challenged. I will admit to an added layer of antagonism for those who demand a freedom from criticism, but also claim to know what God wants for them and for me and to speak in the name of the divine.
No. You get your holiest figure lampooned, because frankly it's worthwhile to expose your beliefs to ridicule and challenge.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... multiple commentators expressed concern with how targeted the satire against Islam was. Not that it excused anything of course, but wasn't it vaguely disgraceful and even racist (ha!) that they were so harsh on Muslims? ...
Frankly, this annoyed me a lot too.
First, two wrongs don't make a right. Accepting for the sake of argument that there is "too much" satire of Muslims (I don't agree), there are actually *two* solutions. One is to have less satire of Muslims and one is to have a lot more satire of other religious groups. Many more commentators seem more comfortable with the former while completely ignoring the latter.
Second, I don't buy the idea that satire needs to be even-handed. Some ideas are more wrong and inherently need more mocking than other ideas.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Targeted satire where I think things get understandable if it were legit defamation and hate speech, like the propaganda that Mohammed was a pedophile or was originally catholic etc.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Targeted satire where I think things get understandable if it were legit defamation and hate speech, like the propaganda that Mohammed was a pedophile or was originally catholic etc.
How are either of those "legit defamation" or hate speech? What exactly are you saying here?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Even if they were, it still doesn't.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't agree with banning full body coverings.
I think it's a display of religious expression, or barring that, a simple display of personal expression, all of which should be protected.
The problem is when the law says you have to wear a burkha or die. The law shouldn't say you CAN'T wear the burkha, which isn't hurting anyone, or you go to jail.
Other than that, the situation in France is complicated. Historically, most Arab immigrants were coming from North Africa, which France owned until a few decades ago. After "decolonization," French soldiers left, and most (not all) French citizens had already left a decade before when crap started to hit the fan. But hundreds of thousands of Arabs made it out of North Africa and into France at a time when France WANTED integration of the two lands.
Many of them, in Paris' case settled into a ring of suburban ghettos around the city, where youth unemployment is very, very high, and tensions are higher. It's why riots break out occasionally.
We shouldn't be totally surprised that this is happening in France. They dug themselves a pretty deep hole for over a century. Xenophobia is what the Algerians had when the French showed up at the shores of the Med, and they were right to be wary.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't agree with banning full body coverings.
I think it's a display of religious expression, or barring that, a simple display of personal expression, all of which should be protected.
If by religious expression you mean expression of violence, abuse and oppression, then sure. If you seriously think that the vast majority of women are wearing burkhas because they choose to do so, rather than out of fear of severe verbal, physical and spiritual abuse by male family members and religious brainwashing, then you're delusional.
quote:The problem is when the law says you have to wear a burkha or die. The law shouldn't say you CAN'T wear the burkha, which isn't hurting anyone, or you go to jail.
Wait, what?
quote:which isn't hurting anyone
Seriously dude?
Aside from heat exhaustion deaths, catching on fire while cooking, migraines, Osteomalacia and other illnesses caused by severe vitamin D deficiency, skin disorders, respiratory problems... there's the huge issue of violence being committed against women for not being "properly covered" by Muslim men. Anything from beatings, throwing acid on their face, rape, mutilation, and murder, all justified by Sharia law.
Which is exactly why civilized countries need to limit the impact of Sharia law whenever possible. I can't believe this is even something that needs to be debated, but honestly you saying that burqas "don't hurt anyone" is incredibly ignorant.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Anyway, the gunmen have now been killed by the French police. There was another attack on a kosher grocery store that resulted in a hostage situation, with 4 hostages murdered before the police were able to stop it. All in all, not a good week for France. I'm kind of disappointed the attackers weren't captured alive, as I would have preferred to see them face justice in a courtroom and face the mundane reality of life in prison (or suicide) rather than a glorious death that will make them into martyrs. But I can understand that the police didn't want to take unnecessary risks (to themselves or civilians) trying to capture them.
Frankly, I wouldn't struggle too much to link this to France's treatment of immigrants.
While this is true, let's face it. They got the same shi*t over there that we got here. If it were just a matter of racism toward immigrants, we'd have Chinese, Indian, and Latino terrorists running rampant across North America and Europe.
You really need active conflict in places like Yemen, Afghanistan, and Iraq in order to get what we're calling radical or extremist Muslims launching terrorist attacks around the world, whether it be Sydney, Ottawa, Paris, or Kunming.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't agree with banning full body coverings.
I think it's a display of religious expression, or barring that, a simple display of personal expression, all of which should be protected.
If by religious expression you mean expression of violence, abuse and oppression, then sure. If you seriously think that the vast majority of women are wearing burkhas because they choose to do so, rather than out of fear of severe verbal, physical and spiritual abuse by male family members and religious brainwashing, then you're delusional.
quote:The problem is when the law says you have to wear a burkha or die. The law shouldn't say you CAN'T wear the burkha, which isn't hurting anyone, or you go to jail.
Wait, what?
quote:which isn't hurting anyone
Seriously dude?
Aside from heat exhaustion deaths, catching on fire while cooking, migraines, Osteomalacia and other illnesses caused by severe vitamin D deficiency, skin disorders, respiratory problems... there's the huge issue of violence being committed against women for not being "properly covered" by Muslim men. Anything from beatings, throwing acid on their face, rape, mutilation, and murder, all justified by Sharia law.
Which is exactly why civilized countries need to limit the impact of Sharia law whenever possible. I can't believe this is even something that needs to be debated, but honestly you saying that burqas "don't hurt anyone" is incredibly ignorant.
I don't really think you're arguing against my actual argument.
I never said France should be enforcing or allowing all aspects of Sharia Law.
And come on, in that fire example she was wearing a hijab. Are we going to make just regular scarves illegal too?
I'd also add that, if the burkha itself is what's harming you, that's probably still not a good enough reason to ban it, not given the standards we tend to use for banning harmful things. Cigarettes exist for the purpose of converting plants into toxic chemicals for your body, but we don't make them illegal. Hell, French people smoke way more than we do.
And if your other argument is that we need to make something illegal because of its SECONDARY effects, then geez, we need to make a crap ton of stuff illegal, including drawing the Prophet, because while drawing it won't kill you directly, there's apparently a strong change it will kill you with secondary effects, to say nothing of the riots and other problems.
[ January 11, 2015, 02:50 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:I don't really think you're arguing against my actual argument.
I never said France should be enforcing or allowing all aspects of Sharia Law.
I actually think I am. The Burqa is one of the more oppressive, brutal public enforcements of Sharia, and your assertation that it's completely harmless is absolutely absurd. And I think you realized this too, since you changed your tune radically with this post.
quote:I'd also add that, if the burkha itself is what's harming you, that's probably still not a good enough reason to ban it, not given the standards we tend to use for banning harmful things. Cigarettes exist for the purpose of converting plants into toxic chemicals for your body, but we don't make them illegal. Hell, French people smoke way more than we do.
Yeah, except smoking isn't considered a mandatory duty for muslim women. Muslim women aren't threatened with beatings or mutilations or murder for not smoking two packs a day. Muslim women aren't brainwashed from an early age that they're inherently sindful, and the only way to please God and avoid tempting good Muslim men with their evil bodies is by lighting up. Your comparison is completely absurd, and I don't know if you're just ignorant or being obstinate.
What you're not grasping here is allowing the public wearing of burqas - an expression of "personal freedom" as you call it - is perpetuating and enforcing a system of oppression and abuse more terrible than you can probably imagine. I've seen it. I've seen a school that was bombed because they dared educate women, met a 6 year old girl with her legs blown off because she could read and write. Seen women murdered for going out alone and being raped by another man, seen the haunted look in these women's eyes - when I could see them at all. We had to start using Female Engagement Teams to talk to Muslim women for fear that they would be beaten for speaking to a man outside of their family.
You completely ignored my point about how the overwelming majority of burqa wearers are coerced into doing so. And really, this sort of willful ignorance, the belief that the wives and daughters of extremist Muslim men are just hunky dory with covering themselves from head to toe and cutting themselves off from society - and hey this is just an expression of religious freedom just like wearing a cruxifix right? - is dangerous and stupid. France did the right thing is banning it, and I hope they continue to combat Sharia in the years to come.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I actually think I am. The Burqa is one of the more oppressive, brutal public enforcements of Sharia, and your assertation that it's completely harmless is absolutely absurd. And I think you realized this too, since you changed your tune radically with this post.
I don't think I've changed my position radically. I will say though that the "isn't hurting anyone" comment, with regards to the burkha and the niqab, was incorrect. I don't necessarily think the same applies to the hijab, which is just a scarf. Granted, an elaborate scarf that covers your head, but a scarf all the same, clearly not outlawed for its primary effects.
As for the rest?
Look that's all terrible, obviously. You're insane if you think I'm in favor of any of those enforcement methods under Islamic Law.
If we apply the same logic to why you'd like to outlaw the physical parts of a thing that has many many damaging primary and secondary effects, then you have to outlaw a huge amount of other things too. Guns? Illegal. Drugs? Illegal. Alcohol? Illegal. The list goes on.
You're picking something that's just going to make these women suffer in many other ways. You've driven them out of the public sphere and into their homes - the very place you say is MOST dangerous for them but now they feel they cannot leave. And for those who still venture into public, many now feel uncomfortable.
You aren't solving the problem. You're just making yourself feel better about it at their expense.
So what's the next step? Is the French equivalent of Family Services going to remove women from any home of which they suspect oppressive Islamic activity is happening? Because the veil ban is a teeny tiny bandaid in the grand scheme of what you're trying to undo. One that might do more damage than good for many women.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: [QUOTE] You completely ignored my point about how the overwelming majority of burqa wearers are coerced into doing so.
And what about the women who wear it voluntarily for religious reasons?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Also, I didn't ignore your point on coercion.
I just don't know if it's particularly relevant.
Are we banning everything that someone is coerced into doing?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Look that's all terrible, obviously. You're insane if you think I'm in favor of any of those enforcement methods under Islamic Law.
Of course I don't think you're in favor of it. The problem in this case is that not banning it is giving it tacit approval. If you think of it as two Venn diagrams, all the space that isn't covered by French law is filled in by Sharia, which is why the French have been pretty good about making and enforcing these rules - it's about denying another legal system from gaining power or influence.
quote:If we apply the same logic to why you'd like to outlaw the physical parts of a thing that has many many damaging primary and secondary effects, then you have to outlaw a huge amount of other things too. Guns? Illegal. Drugs? Illegal. Alcohol? Illegal. The list goes on.
Again, you're missing the entire point here. It's not about the fact that it's dangerous. It's that it's dangerous and that these women are being coerced into doing it. If you want a similar Christian example, look at snake handling: there were churches in the U.S. that used to practice holding venomous snakes as part of their religious services. (based on an apocryphal segment of the gospel of Mark) Most states where this was practiced (correctly, IMO) banned this practice and arrested people for attempting it after a couple people were killed by it. The thing is, though, wearing burqas has killed far more women than juggling snakes has. And certainly made their day-to-day lives far worse.
quote:You're picking something that's just going to make these women suffer in many other ways. You've driven them out of the public sphere and into their homes - the very place you say is MOST dangerous for them but now they feel they cannot leave. And for those who still venture into public, many now feel uncomfortable.
You aren't solving the problem. You're just making yourself feel better about it at their expense.
This is a bad argument and you know it.
1) Why arrest someone for publicly beating his wife? If you make public wife beating illegal, it'll just cause more problems at home. Hopefully you know why this logic is problematic. You have to confront the problem whenever possible. But in this situation, burqas are usually only worn outside of the home, so it's ending an absolutely massive problem.
2) They'll still have to leave the home. As a matter of fact, they still *do* leave their home This has been the law in France for some time now, it's not like we're talking about a hypothetical situation here. To be frank, most of these men can't afford not to have their wives and daughters running errands. And the amount of "discomfort" they may feel is not nearly as uncomfortable of wearing a stifling black tent that restricts their breathing, causes skin disorders, makes it dangerous for them to drive, and causes a much higher risk of heat stroke and illness in general.
3)No, it is solving a problem. It's saved and/or improved the lives of thousands of French women since it's been implemented. I don't think it's there to make me feel better, it's there to make *them* feel better.
quote:So what's the next step? Is the French equivalent of Family Services going to remove women from any home of which they suspect oppressive Islamic activity is happening?
If there's evidence that abuse is occurring then yes, absolutely they should! (And do!) Being Islamic doesn't make beating your wife or daughter or sister any more ok.
quote:Because the veil ban is a teeny tiny bandaid in the grand scheme of what you're trying to undo.
Again, this is a logically fallacy. First, it's actually a pretty significant change. It publicly refutes the power and influence of Sharia. It says that you are under the protection and authority of the government of France, not Allah. If for symbolic reasons alone, that's enough.
Second, to quote Cloud Atlas, "What is an ocean but a multitude of drops?" I know that's rather melodramatic (which is perhaps the best 1-word description of Cloud Atlas, along with maybe incomprehensible), but the point is that even a small change for good is still worth it.
quote:One that might do more damage than good for many women.
How exactly? The ban has been in place since 2010, how has it done more damage than good for French women in these past 5 years? Because this is the same argument that was used against integration, for example. That it would do more damage than good for black kids to be integrated with whites in schools, because of bullying, mistreatment by teachers, etc. That separate bathrooms, separate schools, separate seats of buses was there for the *protection* of blacks. You and I both know this argument is a load of crap.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Also, I didn't ignore your point on coercion.
I just don't know if it's particularly relevant.
Are we banning everything that someone is coerced into doing?
Yes!
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
You know what would make life better for thousands of LGBT people? Banning Christian homophobia. It leads to drug use, mental illness, beatings, rape, and suicide.
Reverse Russia's law and outlaw propaganda denigrating or dehumanizing people based on their orientation or gender presentation. It would publicly refute the power and influence of Christianity thought. Christian homophobia killed far more people than burqas and snake-handling combined. This change would tell LGBT people that they're under the protection and authority of the government, not God. If for symbolic reasons alone, that's enough.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: [QUOTE] You completely ignored my point about how the overwelming majority of burqa wearers are coerced into doing so.
And what about the women who wear it voluntarily for religious reasons?
Where and if some women exist outside of an extremely oppressive patriarchal Islamic household that either utilizes physical abuse (and the threat thereof) to enforce wearing the burqa, or verbal and psychological abuse to convince women from an early age that there's so dirty and impure that just the site of them could corrupt a man and make him want to rape them, then I suppose it's not an issue. Realistically, you'll have a very hard time finding them.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by NobleHunter: You know what would make life better for thousands of LGBT people? Banning Christian homophobia. It leads to drug use, mental illness, beatings, rape, and suicide.
Reverse Russia's law and outlaw propaganda denigrating or dehumanizing people based on their orientation or gender presentation. It would publicly refute the power and influence of Christianity thought. Christian homophobia killed far more people than burqas and snake-handling combined. This change would tell LGBT people that they're under the protection and authority of the government, not God. If for symbolic reasons alone, that's enough.
If you're talking about, say, making it illegal for parents to force their kids to go through "pray the gay away" camps and so forth, then you have an analogous situation and I agree they should be banned.
If you're talking about just Christian homophobia in general where said homophobes *aren't* literally forcing dramatic lifestyle choices on people on a day to day basis, then you're just being absurd. I'm not arguing for banning Islam here, even extremist Islam. Just banning some of the things they do which are immoral and harmful.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
Second order effects. Sermon to parents to kids. Not to mention some of the reasons you gave for supporting the burqa ban aren't being done by family members, but people engaged in "morality" policing.
What about making it illegal to force kids to go to church? Some churches are as toxic as those camps. And those homophobes usually are forcing dramatic "lifestyle" choices on a day to day basis. "Christian" parents drove Leelah Alcorn to suicide with their attempts to force her to adhere their lifestyle choices.
I'm going in a twisty direction with this argument. On a idealist level, sure ban the **** out of objectionable religious practices (Christianity should go up against the wall frst, being the majority religion). On a pragmatic level, it can't help privileging the majority at the expense of the minority. Christian homophobia is intended as an absurd counter-example because it would be politically impossible. Further, it widens the acceptable justifications for legal action which would greatly expend the government's ability to control the private lives of individuals.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dogbreath -
I'll post more later.
But wow, the line you're drawing there is vapor thin. If you really play out the logic you used for Islamic teachings, then Christianity gets a pretty big hit as well.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: [QUOTE] You completely ignored my point about how the overwelming majority of burqa wearers are coerced into doing so.
And what about the women who wear it voluntarily for religious reasons?
Where and if some women exist outside of an extremely oppressive patriarchal Islamic household that either utilizes physical abuse (and the threat thereof) to enforce wearing the burqa, or verbal and psychological abuse to convince women from an early age that there's so dirty and impure that just the site of them could corrupt a man and make him want to rape them, then I suppose it's not an issue. Realistically, you'll have a very hard time finding them.
Can you back that last sentence up with any facts or evidence? I don't know any Muslim women but I know plenty of educated Jewish women who voluntarily cover their hair with wigs or scarves when out in public because they believe it's God's will. They are not under threat of violence (I know this for a fact, some are close family members) and it's not because they're taught to believe they're "dirty and impure", it's just considered modesty in Orthodox Judaism. A burqa is obviously more covering then a head scarf, but it's the same concept.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Dogbreath -
I'll post more later.
But wow, the line you're drawing there is vapor thin. If you really play out the logic you used for Islamic teachings, then Christianity gets a pretty big hit as well.
I think it's a pretty big line, and I think that it's crossed when you force someone to do something harmful for religious reasons. Yes, that includes parents who refuse to take their kids to the doctor because Jesus will make them better.
I'll admit the gray area comes into play with the psychological vs. physical abuse area. A dad who beats his son black and blue for being gay? I think we can both agree that should be illegal. A dad who yells at his son and demeans and verbally abuses him? Well yes, actually "verbal assault" *is* illegal in a lot of places, and he could be jailed for doing so. But it's harder to define.
I think it comes with pushing into a certain area of someone's psyche. I.e, the kind of things they do at these pray the gay away camps - sleep deprivation, extreme verbal abuse, mind games, and sometimes even physical abuse - are pretty horrendous and can severely damage a child psychologically. Listening to a pastor drone on and on about how homosexuality is an abomination before God is more background noise. It may cause legitimate problems for the child (up to and including suicide), but it's not a direct, deliberate attack on the child.
But that's all secondary. The thing is, forcing a girl or a woman to wear a burqa (which is physically dangerous) *is* physical abuse. It doesn't really fall into that gray area.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: [QUOTE] You completely ignored my point about how the overwelming majority of burqa wearers are coerced into doing so.
And what about the women who wear it voluntarily for religious reasons?
Where and if some women exist outside of an extremely oppressive patriarchal Islamic household that either utilizes physical abuse (and the threat thereof) to enforce wearing the burqa, or verbal and psychological abuse to convince women from an early age that there's so dirty and impure that just the site of them could corrupt a man and make him want to rape them, then I suppose it's not an issue. Realistically, you'll have a very hard time finding them.
Can you back that last sentence up with any facts or evidence? I don't know any Muslim women but I know plenty of educated Jewish women who voluntarily cover their hair with wigs or scarves when out in public because they believe it's God's will. They are not under threat of violence (I know this for a fact, some are close family members) and it's not because they're taught to believe they're "dirty and impure", it's just considered modesty in Orthodox Judaism. A burqa is obviously more covering then a head scarf, but it's the same concept.
quote:Pupils at the Madani Girls School in East London, some as young as 11, are all required to wear the burka or a full-face veil and long black coat at all times outside the premises. No choice at all.
Can you honestly say you'd have the same reaction if, say, little boys were being forced to go to school with plastic bags over their heads, and all opposition to it or arguments against it - it's dangerous, it'll cause respiratory illness, it'll shorten their lifespan, etc. - were refuted with "it's just their religious expression."? Just because these are girls and women doesn't make them somehow less important or worth protecting.
Honestly, there are so many articles out there talking about the oppressive nature of the burqa - many written by Muslim women who have been subjected to it - that comparing it to Jewish head covering is a little absurd. How many Jewish women wear their head coverings out of fear of being beating by their husband, father or brother if they don't?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
This would be the religion which includes statements of gender equality as a traditional morning blessing praising God for not being made a woman, gentile, or slave, yes?
As for outright abuse, physical or psychological I would hesitate to go so far as to apply that across the board. As for systemic misogyny taught as being literally built into the university by God's will?
Well, Orthodox Judaism is perhaps not a good point to take a stand in support that this doesn't happen.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
quote:it's not a direct, deliberate attack on the child.
Tell that to the kid.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Funny, half a page up, being taught that women's bodies were bad things was heinous oppression. But when it's christians teaching gays are evil, it's just "background noise."
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Rakeesh: I certainly don't think Orthodox Judaism is free of overt or systematic sexism, if that's what you're getting at, nor am I hunky dory with the gender inequality that's built into it. I just don't think the two situations are analogous.
NobleHunter: What's your point here, exactly?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Funny, half a page up, being taught that women's bodies were bad things was heinous oppression. But when it's christians teaching gays are evil, it's just "background noise."
Stop being disingenuous, you know the difference. You cross the line when you force a woman to cover her body because it's bad. And you cross the line when you force your kid to subjected to sleep deprivation and brainwashing to make him "not gay." At any point did I say Muslim Imams should be jailed for preaching that women's bodies are evil? No? Then stop being a jackass.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
Depends if I'm wearing my radical hat or not.
If yes, I'm saying that supporting the burqa ban means supporting policing all sorts of religious expression that would effectively drive it from the public sphere and, ideally, wipe out anything but the blandest of low church episcopalians. If Church anything more than an excuse to show off your butter tarts and nanimo bars, up against the wall you go!
If not, then I'm pointing out the same logic as the burqa ban would allow for the expansion of government authority into regulating all sorts of expression and allow for significant invasion into people's private lives. Given that our society recognizes free expression of religion as one of the cornerstones of a free society, abridging it (particularly in such an uneven fashion) seems like a really terrible idea. And unless you want to argue that no muslim women have agency, even in a secular western society, then a burqa ban does abridge the freedom of religious expression.
What are weekly sermons if not brainwashing?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dogbreath -
I think you're applying your logic unevenly to different situations.
You and I agree, mostly, I think, on what we don't like and on what final effect we'd like to see happen.
I'm not at all convinced by the logic youre using to get there, which seems half formed and possibly dangerous when applied to everything in society. I also think you're applying a bit of a double standard.
And I don't think you're totally aware of how french Muslim women feel about this. Do you not remember that many women vocally opposed the banning of the hijab, which has none of your negative physical effect problems? And many women still defy the law by wearing the hijab in public.
I also agree with Nobehunter.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
Lyrhawn, with which hat? Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
While I agree with your stance here Dogbreath (my post was to Gaal), perhaps consider that you've gotten angry, and its coloring your posts more than you might otherwise like?
Put more directly: in spite of my agreement, I think 'jackass' was over the top.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by NobleHunter: Lyrhawn, with which hat?
The non radical. But I think the radical hat is useful discussion to keep in mind.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If you really play out the logic you used for Islamic teachings, then Christianity gets a pretty big hit as well.
Frankly, that sounds pretty good.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by NobleHunter: Depends if I'm wearing my radical hat or not.
If yes, I'm saying that supporting the burqa ban means supporting policing all sorts of religious expression that would effectively drive it from the public sphere and, ideally, wipe out anything but the blandest of low church episcopalians. If Church anything more than an excuse to show off your butter tarts and nanimo bars, up against the wall you go!
If not, then I'm pointing out the same logic as the burqa ban would allow for the expansion of government authority into regulating all sorts of expression and allow for significant invasion into people's private lives. Given that our society recognizes free expression of religion as one of the cornerstones of a free society, abridging it (particularly in such an uneven fashion) seems like a really terrible idea. And unless you want to argue that no muslim women have agency, even in a secular western society, then a burqa ban does abridge the freedom of religious expression.
There are other examples of cases where religious freedom comes up to - or crosses - the line of actively hurting someone, and most western governments have been pretty even handed about banning those as well.
But as far as Muslim women and agency. Well first, a lot of this is being forced on Muslim girls, who legally *don't* have such agency. But with grown women, I'd argue that the vast majority of those who where burqas live in households where they don't really possess agency in any real sense of the word. I.e, if you're in constant fear of beatings or worse for not doing as the men in your life tell you, then I'm not sure if wearing a burqa could be considered a free choice. Your other options are not wearing it and being beaten/mutilated/killed, or leaving your entire life behind (children, sisters, brothers, in laws, friends, neighbors, religious community) and seeking shelter from the law and hoping your male family members don't come after you. And there are a growing number of agencies that help provide relief for these women, battered women shelters, etc, but it's still a huge problem.
My point is I don't think domestic abuse becomes any more palatable when you dress it up in religious trappings. I.e, if a man forced his wife or daughter to walk around town with a sack over her head and wasn't Muslim, I would still think it was just as bad. (and indeed, France doesn't put any religious distinction in the law either)
quote:What are weekly sermons if not brainwashing?
More seriously, I think there's a line drawn between sitting in a building hearing nonsense being preached, and brainwashing. Like an actual, psychological difference. Brainwashing: screaming at someone for hours on end, sleep deprivation, shock therapy, etc. is a form of torture, and though it's frequently misused, an hour long sermon at a regular church is by no means brainwashing. The pastor grabbing the kid and shaking him and screaming at him for the "gay demons" to come out and having this practice repeated constantly most certainly is. And threatening to beat someone for acting a certain way definitely is. I don't really want to quibble over terminology, but I think the distinction is pretty clear - both legally and morally - and I don't think it's as much of a slippery slope as you make it out to be.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: While I agree with your stance here Dogbreath (my post was to Gaal), perhaps consider that you've gotten angry, and its coloring your posts more than you might otherwise like?
Put more directly: in spite of my agreement, I think 'jackass' was over the top.
No, I agree with you, and would like to apologize to Lyrhawn for the "jackass" comment. I'm sorry, it was out of line.
I think I'll step back from this for a few hours, as this is one of the few topics that has really, truly angered me on Hatrack. I have known many extremist Muslim women - probably more than most posters here on Hatrack - and my experience with the abuse they've been subjected to makes this a difficult subject for me.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Reminds me of the polygamy debate we had.
Is there a small minority of people that are properly giving consent for polygamous marriages? Of course. But the much larger number of abusive cases or cases where consent is coerced outweighs that so we ban polygamy across the board.
But that's a judgement call and I fully understand different societies making their own judgement calls.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
There's a difference between many or most and all. I'm not disputing that a large number of women are coerced into wearing a burqa, but does that justify violating the rights of those that freely choose to? And if you justify violating those rights, I don't there's a bright line of which other rights can't be violated.
I don't think the distinction is as clear as you make it out to be. To someone who grows up with it, sermons aren't nonsense. It's probably easier to reject overt coercive assaults than subtle and pervasive preaching.
I also don't think we're going to come to an agreement here. So I hope you enjoy the rest of your Sunday.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: [QUOTE] You completely ignored my point about how the overwelming majority of burqa wearers are coerced into doing so.
And what about the women who wear it voluntarily for religious reasons?
Where and if some women exist outside of an extremely oppressive patriarchal Islamic household that either utilizes physical abuse (and the threat thereof) to enforce wearing the burqa, or verbal and psychological abuse to convince women from an early age that there's so dirty and impure that just the site of them could corrupt a man and make him want to rape them, then I suppose it's not an issue. Realistically, you'll have a very hard time finding them.
Can you back that last sentence up with any facts or evidence? I don't know any Muslim women but I know plenty of educated Jewish women who voluntarily cover their hair with wigs or scarves when out in public because they believe it's God's will. They are not under threat of violence (I know this for a fact, some are close family members) and it's not because they're taught to believe they're "dirty and impure", it's just considered modesty in Orthodox Judaism. A burqa is obviously more covering then a head scarf, but it's the same concept.
quote:Pupils at the Madani Girls School in East London, some as young as 11, are all required to wear the burka or a full-face veil and long black coat at all times outside the premises. No choice at all.
Can you honestly say you'd have the same reaction if, say, little boys were being forced to go to school with plastic bags over their heads, and all opposition to it or arguments against it - it's dangerous, it'll cause respiratory illness, it'll shorten their lifespan, etc. - were refuted with "it's just their religious expression."? Just because these are girls and women doesn't make them somehow less important or worth protecting.
Honestly, there are so many articles out there talking about the oppressive nature of the burqa - many written by Muslim women who have been subjected to it - that comparing it to Jewish head covering is a little absurd. How many Jewish women wear their head coverings out of fear of being beating by their husband, father or brother if they don't?
First, I was picturing a hijab when thinking of a burka. But here is a quote from your third link:
quote: Of course, many veiled Muslim women argue that, far from being forced to wear burkas by ruthless husbands, they do so out of choice. And I have to take them at their word. But it is also very apparent that many women are forced behind the veil.
This is what I meant by my original post. I was not disagreeing that many if not most Muslim women are forced against their will, I was asking how this law affects the women who do so voluntarily, and they do exist.
quote: Can you honestly say you'd have the same reaction if, say, little boys were being forced to go to school with plastic bags over their heads, and all opposition to it or arguments against it - it's dangerous, it'll cause respiratory illness, it'll shorten their lifespan, etc. - were refuted with "it's just their religious expression."? Just because these are girls and women doesn't make them somehow less important or worth protecting.
How is that analogous to what I said? The key word you threw in there is 'forced' that makes it irrelevant to my post.
quote: This would be the religion which includes statements of gender equality as a traditional morning blessing praising God for not being made a woman, gentile, or slave, yes?
As for outright abuse, physical or psychological I would hesitate to go so far as to apply that across the board. As for systemic misogyny taught as being literally built into the university by God's will?
Well, Orthodox Judaism is perhaps not a good point to take a stand in support that this doesn't happen.
Did I say anything about Judaism being the shining example for gender equality? I was merely using it as an example that there are Jewish women who, despite the inequalities present, voluntarily follow these laws, and that perhaps the same could be said for some Muslim women.
I think I'm done posting here, every post I write in these kinds of threads ends up getting mischaracterized before being refuted and then I spend the next several posts trying to clarify my original post. It's not that much fun.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: This is what I meant by my original post. I was not disagreeing that many if not most Muslim women are forced against their will, I was asking how this law affects the women who do so voluntarily, and they do exist.
quote:The law imposes a fine of up to €150, and/or participation in citizenship education, for those who violate the law. The bill also penalises, with a fine of €30,000 and one year in prison, anyone who forces (by violence, threats or by abuse of power) another to wear face coverings; these penalties may be doubled if the victim is under the age of 18.
The entire law is built around penalizing/jailing Muslim men who force their wives/sisters/daughters to wear a burqa, with a particular focus on protecting French minors. If you're wearing it of your own volition, it's a small slap on the wrist. And I won't deny it is sort of crappy for the handful of women who would choose to do so voluntarily, but Mucus made a good analogy to the whole polygamy issue. There's always going to be those exceptions, and the law has to strike a balance between ideals and doing what's best for the most people. I.e, if I belong to a religious that states I need to run around naked to make God happy, the state preventing me from doing so in public isn't an unreasonable impingement of my religious freedom.
quote: How is that analogous to what I said? The key word you threw in there is 'forced' that makes it irrelevant to my post.
Because you're arguing against a law meant to prevent that exact scenario? I don't think it's analogous, to what *you* said, because I don't think you would say that.
quote: I think I'm done posting here, every post I write in these kinds of threads ends up getting mischaracterized before being refuted and then I spend the next several posts trying to clarify my original post. It's not that much fun.
Is it so much your original post was mis-characterized (or misconstrued? characterization already implies some level of distortion...), or that you tried to argue using a scenario largely divorced from reality, and people are trying to show you how your views actually play out when injected into real world situations? I.e, with the voting thread, I know perfectly well (or at least strongly hope) you have no animosity towards or desire to marginalize poor, disadvantaged persons; but your original stance in that thread, along with your mistaken belief that getting a photo ID is easy (class privilege), would do just that when applied to the actual scenario. This is why ideals (gee, it would be great if everyone had a photo ID/gee, it would be great if everyone could freely express their religious beliefs in every possible way) have to be subjected to reality before an informed opinion can be synthesized.
Or to put it another way: being misunderstood, or feeling that people misunderstand you, sucks and I feel your pain man. But it's a great opportunity to learn about the flaws in how you present your beliefs, as well as learn a lot about how other people think and process the same information, and I'd honestly rather post here than somewhere where everybody just agreed with me all the time, or even used the same line of reasoning. I think you're one of the best posters here and I have a lot of respect for you, and I really hope you don't get discouraged and leave. Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by NobleHunter: There's a difference between many or most and all. I'm not disputing that a large number of women are coerced into wearing a burqa, but does that justify violating the rights of those that freely choose to? And if you justify violating those rights, I don't there's a bright line of which other rights can't be violated.
I don't think the distinction is as clear as you make it out to be. To someone who grows up with it, sermons aren't nonsense. It's probably easier to reject overt coercive assaults than subtle and pervasive preaching.
I doubt many of those subjected to "pray the gay away" camps and the like would agree with you. You are right that sermons aren't nonsense. I remember a lot of the stuff I was taught in church as a kid, too, and it does impact the way you think and act.
quote:I also don't think we're going to come to an agreement here. So I hope you enjoy the rest of your Sunday.
Probably not. Thank you, and you do the same! Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Out of curiosity, Dogbreath, do you think there is no substantive difference between the hijab, niqab and burka?
For the purposes of this discussion.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
No, not at all.
Edit: I see the niqab as a less restrictive but still harmful burqa. I think the hijab is fairly harmless (physically, I mean) and comparable to other head coverings in other religions. Also, plenty of Muslim women wear the hijab willingly and aren't really subjected to the same conditions that women who wear burqas almost universally are.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So yes, you see significant differences?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote: Because you're arguing against a law meant to prevent that exact scenario? I don't think it's analogous, to what *you* said, because I don't think you would say that.
No, I was arguing against the side effect of the women who wear the burka voluntarily for religious reasons being unable to do so. You equated that with a schoolboy scenario where they are *all* *forced* to wear plastic bags over their heads. That scenario is absurd because no schoolboy would have a legitimate reason for wanting to wear a plastic bag over his head, while a Muslim woman who believes it is her religious duty to cover up does have one, regardless of how ill-advised we think that belief is. Also, there's a pretty big difference between school rules and government law. I don't think any sane government would try instituting a dress code in their country and force their citizens to tuck their shirts in.
quote: The entire law is built around penalizing/jailing Muslim men who force their wives/sisters/daughters to wear a burqa, with a particular focus on protecting French minors. If you're wearing it of your own volition, it's a small slap on the wrist. And I won't deny it is sort of crappy for the handful of women who would choose to do so voluntarily, but Mucus made a good analogy to the whole polygamy issue. There's always going to be those exceptions, and the law has to strike a balance between ideals and doing what's best for the most people. I.e, if I belong to a religious that states I need to run around naked to make God happy, the state preventing me from doing so in public isn't an unreasonable impingement of my religious freedom.
I think this is the first time in this thread you've actually addressed my point, and you nailed it. I agree that there has to be a line with whether religious requirements should be allowed to be practiced if it affects the public. I think that line is whether, or how much, it affects other people's freedoms, safety, or in the case of your naked running, mental health.
quote: Is it so much your original post was mis-characterized (or misconstrued? characterization already implies some level of distortion...), or that you tried to argue using a scenario largely divorced from reality, and people are trying to show you how your views actually play out when injected into real world situations? I.e, with the voting thread, I know perfectly well (or at least strongly hope) you have no animosity towards or desire to marginalize poor, disadvantaged persons; but your original stance in that thread, along with your mistaken belief that getting a photo ID is easy (class privilege), would do just that when applied to the actual scenario. This is why ideals (gee, it would be great if everyone had a photo ID/gee, it would be great if everyone could freely express their religious beliefs in every possible way) have to be subjected to reality before an informed opinion can be synthesized.
My issue in that thread was that I had realized I was wrong about ID being a valid requirement and I acknowledged that we should make sure the ability to get an ID was a non-issue before it became a law. I asked a question regarding how a piece of data that was being used could be accurate, not denying that it was, just questioning it out of curiosity and maybe a little bit of skepticism, yet you were harping on it as if I was defending the Republican legislature. It wasn't until Orincoro broke down the methodology behind the study that my question was answered after I had already stopped posting, but you were acting as if my question was answered over and over and I was willfully ignoring it before that, which wasn't the case.
quote: Or to put it another way: being misunderstood, or feeling that people misunderstand you, sucks and I feel your pain man. But it's a great opportunity to learn about the flaws in how you present your beliefs, as well as learn a lot about how other people think and process the same information, and I'd honestly rather post here than somewhere where everybody just agreed with me all the time, or even used the same line of reasoning. I think you're one of the best posters here and I have a lot of respect for you, and I really hope you don't get discouraged and leave. [Smile]
I appreciate that and think likewise. That's the main reason I post here; to have my opinions beat up so I can either improve them or change them. But when I feel like the rebuttals of my arguments are going right past what I'm trying to say instead of addressing them, it gets frustrating.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Would we ban male circumcision as well?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: That scenario is absurd because no schoolboy would have a legitimate reason for wanting to wear a plastic bag over his head
What if his parents believed it was God's will? That's pretty much the exact scenario here - some crazy men who think it's God's will that their daughters wear giant bags over their bodies. If some of those daughters, after a lifetime of brainwashing and abuse, grow up to be independent women who decide that they want to continue wearing bags over their heads, and aren't being coerced into doing by their family (however rare or unrealistic this situation is), then that kind of sucks for them. I knew what you were talking about and wasn't misunderstanding you, I was trying to illustrate to you how absurd and unlikely the scenario you proposed actually is, because it's so far removed from the reality of the situation.
quote:I think this is the first time in this thread you've actually addressed my point, and you nailed it. I agree that there has to be a line with whether religious requirements should be allowed to be practiced if it affects the public. I think that line is whether, or how much, it affects other people's freedoms, safety, or in the case of your naked running, mental health.
Yeah, wouldn't want to make people feel insecure.
quote:My issue in that thread was that I had realized I was wrong about ID being a valid requirement and I acknowledged that we should make sure the ability to get an ID was a non-issue before it became a law. I asked a question regarding how a piece of data that was being used could be accurate, not denying that it was, just questioning it out of curiosity and maybe a little bit of skepticism, yet you were harping on it as if I was defending the [Republican legislature.
Really now? First, I never claimed you were defending the Republican legislature. Second, did you ever consider my "harping" was me trying, in every way possible, to answer your question? The fact that you dismissed sources I shared and completely ignored my explanations and just kept saying "I don't know how you can know that" when you *told* how I could know it doesn't change that.
quote:[It wasn't until Orincoro broke down the methodology behind the study that my question was answered
Other posters and I already explained it in detail before Orincoro did. I also shared several links that explained how the study worked pretty comprehensibly. Typically, if I don't understand a simple concept vital to understanding what's being discussed (like statistics), I don't blame the people arguing with me for not doing a good enough job of explaining it to me.
quote:I appreciate that and think likewise. That's the main reason I post here; to have my opinions beat up so I can either improve them or change them. But when I feel like the rebuttals of my arguments are going right past what I'm trying to say instead of addressing them, it gets frustrating.
It it seems to go right past what you're trying to say, what's likely happening is someone has taken a few intuitive steps in their head and is responding to a part of your post - or a preconception you hold that informs your opinion, but that you may not be aware of - that you may not have realized was relevant but is actually critical. For example, the reason Rakeesh and I responded to your post here by addressing the context surrounding your example rather than the example itself, is that the example itself is (near) nonsensical in light of the real world context. You can't take everything used to describe this context as a personal attack on you. For example, if I explain that the Republican legislature is taking advantage of the intersection of the ignorance of very real difficulties poor people face with voting and public ignorance of why voter fraud is a non-issue, it doesn't mean I necessarily think *you* are defending them.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Really now? First, I never claimed you were defending the Republican legislature. Second, did you ever consider my "harping" was me trying, in every way possible, to answer your question? The fact that you dismissed sources I shared and completely ignored my explanations and just kept saying "I don't know how you can know that" when you *told* how I could know it doesn't change that.
quote: [It wasn't until Orincoro broke down the methodology behind the study that my question was answered Other posters and I already explained it in detail before Orincoro did. I also shared several links that explained how the study worked pretty comprehensibly. Typically, if I don't understand a simple concept vital to understanding what's being discussed (like statistics), I don't blame the people arguing with me for not doing a good enough job of explaining it to me.
-_-
When I get the energy, I'll sort through all the links you posted in that thread prior to Orincoro's post. I didn't dismiss the sources you shared, I agreed with their conclusions, but as far as I recall, none of them gave the answer to my specific question. They gave the answer to a different question that I had already agreed on.
quote: For example, the reason Rakeesh and I responded to your post here by addressing the context surrounding your example rather than the example itself, is that the example itself is (near) nonsensical in light of the real world context.
How was Rakeesh's post pointing out a sexist prayer in Judaism addressing the the context surrounding my example when my example was just to illustrate that there are women who willingly follow certain laws in religions, even if they are unfair to their gender.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
No, you'll probably redefine your question in terms that nothing I offered was quite good enough to answer it. Which is fine, it's a hopelessly broad question anyway, "how can we know this for sure?" pretty much covers all of epistemology and leads to near infinite regression. That's not the point, though. The point is that I tried my best to explain it to you graciously, so it seems a little unfair that I get blamed for you not being able to understand it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Some interesting new interviews with the terrorists so we can have concrete insight into their motivations.
For Coulibaly (the one that shot a policewoman and attacked a supermarket)
quote:"My brothers, our team, divided things in two," says the man, speaking in front of an Islamic State flag. “If we did things a bit together and a bit separately it was to have more impact.”
Survivors of the shooting at Charlie Hebdo’s offices have said the attackers told them they were from Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula, the Yemen-based terror group that has claimed responsibility for the attack.
But in the video, the man identified as Coulibaly says the militants’ motive was retribution for French attacks on Islamic State, seen by many analysts as a rival to Al Qaeda.
“If you attack the caliphate and Islamic State, you will be attacked,” he says. “France is a legitimate target.”
“You bombard there regularly, you invested in forces, you kill civilians, you kill combatants, you kill. Why?” he says, adding: “We are not going to let this happen. We will fight, God willing, until the word of God the great and almighty is supreme.”
quote:Coulibaly called his actions revenge for the French military incursion against Islamist militants in the West African nation of Mali, Western intervention in Syria, airstrikes against Islamic State and a French law banning women from publicly wearing head scarves.
“Each time, they try to make you believe that the Muslims are terrorists. But I was born in France. If they hadn't attacked elsewhere, I would not be here,” Coulibaly reportedly could be heard telling hostages at the kosher market on Friday.
quote:Chérif Kouachi: I just want to tell you that we are defenders of the Prophet. I, Chérif Kouachi, was sent by al-Qaeda in Yemen. I was over there. I was financed by Imam Anwar al-Awlaki.
Journalist: OK. How long ago, roughly?
Kouachi: A long time ago. Before he was killed.
...
Chérif: We are not killers. We are defenders of the Prophet.
We are not like you. We defend the Prophet. There, there is no problem. We can kill. But we don’t kill women. It is you that kill the children of Muslims in Iraq, in Afganistan, in Syria.
That’s not us. We have a code of honour, us, in Islam.
Journalist: But you took vengeance...
Kouachi: That’s right. We took vengeance. That’s it. You said it all. We took vengeance.
Meanwhile, a German paper that reprinted the Charlie Hebdo cartoons was firebombed and a Belgian paper was evacuated after a bomb threat.
Like I said, this isn't just a French problem. Anyone that opposes ISIS or Al Qaeda, anyone who participated in the coalition, anyone who reprints the cartoons is a possible target. Hell, even countries who have aspiring jihadis but don't let them out of the country can be a target.
The only good news is that you, specifically you are still statistically much more likely to die of a car accident or obesity than of a terrorist attack. The chilling effects on the media are harder to calculate.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Given the state of American media, at any rate, I doubt they could manage much in the way of deleterious effects.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: No, you'll probably redefine your question in terms that nothing I offered was quite good enough to answer it.
Man, that's an insulting assumption to make. Is that what you think I did in that thread or this one?
quote: The point is that I tried my best to explain it to you graciously, so it seems a little unfair that I get blamed for you not being able to understand it.
I guess this is where our realities differ. I remember you being condescending, not gracious.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Given the state of American media, at any rate, I doubt they could manage much in the way of deleterious effects.
*nods* I had the misfortune of watching Fox News a little bit after the attacks happened, the anchor somehow managed to turn it into how Obama is leaving America open to attacks. It was incredibly depressing.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Man, that's an insulting assumption to make. Is that what you think I did in that thread or this one?
Yes.
quote: The point is that I tried my best to explain it to you graciously, so it seems a little unfair that I get blamed for you not being able to understand it.
I guess this is where our realities differ. I remember you being condescending, not gracious. [/QUOTE]
I think we already covered that. But this is the sort of thing I'm talking about, you profess ignorance when I'm straight up with you, but claim I'm being condescending when I proceed to break things down and explain them in simple terms. You can't have it both ways.
I'm not an especially dickish person. I think as of late I've had s lot less patience for dishonesty due to dealing with a crazy in-law. But I swear I'm a pretty nice guy. So if you see something I wrote that looks kind of like I'm being a dick, just ask yourself "is he being a dick or is this just the way he writes?" It's hard to convey tone in writing, and it's also hard to be direct and forthright when calling someone out on saying something wrong or illogical without sounding kind of like a jerk. But as I already explained to you, I think forcing someone to aquiesce (I just butchered that, didn't I) to tone policing is a pretty dirty way of trying to wrest control of the terms of a debate, which is why I'm always deeply suspicious of people whose initial response to confrontation is to complain about hostility or tone.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Maybe we're finding out that religion just sucks and if there's any differences that make it so that Islam sucks more today than Christianity at this very moment is that a lot of backwards Islamic theocracies managed to hang on and keep whole parts of the globe as backwards crapholes that keep people dumb and violent like other religions can't anymore because their locations modernized on them and cut the balls off of religious power. Christianity is kept on a better leash these days. Maybe there's no other real difference.
That's why the Catholic League released that swillshow saying that the artists brought it on themselves for blaspheming, because they're sitting there stewing and sweating in their own envy of that Islam still has the opportunities to murder people for blasphemy. And they're jealous that the christian world can't do that anymore because all this stupid democracy and secularism keeps them down. They want to and they pine for the days where they could and would torture and kill people just for being the wrong kind of Christian or something.
The solution is obviously to just neuter Islam the same way. Then once all religions are equally neutered, keep neutering.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Also, +1 to your post. I always find it odd that any time I say something negative about Islam someone always asks "well what about Christianity!" (as Lyrhawn and Noble Hunter did), as if being opposed to the extremes of one will make me inclined to defend the other, and I have to pick one. I find this rather baffling. Especially since I usually get in trouble on this forum for denouncing crap Mormons and fundamentalist Christians do.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I wouldn't go so far as to say they're jealous that they can't kill and murder. I *would* go so far as to say that there are many, of all sorts-though religion with its enormous claims for itself has a special place here-are jealous of those who can stop speech they don't like, or at least try by taking action. It's not a trivial minority of people here in the U.S., after all, who support compulsory pledging of allegiance by students or prohibitions on flag burning. It's a pretty common human impulse to hear something you don't like and either leave or try somehow to get the person to stop speaking. I don't think it's surprising that it's taken millennia of human history to arrive at a point where some societies have begun to seriously protect freedom of speech.
What I do think religious institutions are jealous of is the unchallenged dominance they once had in the Western world. Again this is natural and not uniquely religious-it's just more dangerous due to the power and importance religion claims for itself, which is generally different from other institutions which don't claim to be as important to reality.
One of the things that frustrates me most is when religious institutions attempt to claim credit themselves for their modern, more liberal behaviors and attitudes. As though the growth of secular society had not been at the direct expense of so much of the worst, most superstitious religious nastiness, fought against bitterly and still resented in many cases.
---------
Gaal,
My post to you was in response to this line from yours:
quote:They are not under threat of violence (I know this for a fact, some are close family members) and it's not because they're taught to believe they're "dirty and impure", it's just considered modesty in Orthodox Judaism.
I feel that given that you did say that, did state reasons for this particular behavior-increased 'modesty' requirements for women versus men in a particular religion-I feel my reply was both fair and relevant.
-----
Of course, and it's frustrating to have to qualify things like this but when discussing the claims religion makes for itself it's so often necessary, this kind of shaming from youth isn't unique. Every cultural-every family and individual for that matter has colors and attire they feel embarrassing or unsuited to.
But there is a hell of a difference between 'I don't like it' and 'God doesn't like it (or maybe hates it!'. 'I don't like it' is unlikely to move anyone else. 'God doesn't like it' is frankly a big problem. To paraphrase Hitchens, too, I'll cheerfully be defiant and 'rude' when I say that while I'm happy to have people who agree with me about the freedom of speech, and fortunate to have been born in a society that does make efforts to protect it, it's not necessary that anyone agree. I claim the right, under my own name or an assumed one, to say that it is a waste of time-Islam-and that it's claims are absurd and, when left unchecked, dangerous-like all religions and many institutions. And if anyone takes issue with that, I'm glad to argue it until we're blue in the face. And anyone who doesn't like that can form a line and kiss my ass.
(Said loosely by Hitchens I believe when he spoke in defense of a Holocaust denier, being threatened with hate speech laws).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The Catholic League sure did their best to look like simpering troglodytes who want Islam's power to control and punish people. In a sorry sort of "yes yes well that's what happens when you blaspheme, we wouldn't like that either" way
Of course at the same time it is the Catholic League so troglodyte status had been long ago confirmed.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I wouldn't go so far as to say they're jealous that they can't kill and murder. I *would* go so far as to say that there are many, of all sorts-though religion with its enormous claims for itself has a special place here-are jealous of those who can stop speech they don't like, or at least try by taking action.
Some of one some of the other.
quote: Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, a U.S. organization that "defends the rights of Catholics," issued a statement titled "Muslims are right to be angry." In it, Donohue criticized the publication's history of offending the world's religiously devout, including non-Muslims. The murdered Charlie Hebdo editor Stephane Charbonnier "didn’t understand the role he played in his [own] tragic death," the statement reads.
"Had [Charbonnier] not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive," Donohue says, in what must be one of the more offensive and insensitive comments made on this tragic day.
"Killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned. That is why what happened in Paris cannot be tolerated," says Donohue. "But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction."
The world they want is a world in which the Charlie Hebdo writers "got what was coming to them".
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
More religions wanted to point out why they are stupid in relation to this event.
A big shout out to my bros in the ultra orthodox movement for reminding us that they suck too.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Anyone see the Charlie Hedbo cover for their upcoming magazine?
Lots of mixed feelings. I can't tell if it's supposed to be at least partially sincere or if the whole thing is just one giant middle finger to Muslims everywhere.
I think it's the sort of thing that will get a huge thumbs up from Fox News, and I see the desire to go there. I feel it a little bit myself.
If printing the Prophet ONLY offended terrorists, then I'd say it was brave and spot on. But since it affects more than a billion people, the vast majority of whom are not terrorists, I say it's indicative of more of what's wrong than right in Western society, and I don't support it at all.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lyrhawn,
First off, they're a private magazine that just had quite a few of themselves massacred by small-minded, eager-to-be-offended bigots. They're not representative of 'Western society' as a whole-that particular group is far too large for such a thing anyway.
Second, a glance at their other covers shows this is not particularly, unusually offensive for their covers anyway, so the notion that Muslims anywhere should feel especially offended is nonsense. If the jerk down the street flips me off when I wave hello to him, I might be bitterly offended. If I find out he does that to everyone as a matter of course? Then I'm just a dope for being so upset. Not that CH are jerks, in spite of all the horrible hurt feelings of poor, fragile people everywhere.
As for how it affects the vast majority of Muslims everywhere who aren't terrorists: who cares? Goddamnit, when as a matter of course somewhere on the planet some of those millions of Muslims who aren't terrorists nonetheless do things awful and offensive to ideas of freedom of expression, religion, to women, to homosexuals, so on and so forth, it is somehow unfair for any member of the given group to take offense towards Muslims everywhere.
But if one magazine in one country prints a routinely offensive magazine cover after a slew of their own are murdered, why then it's a sign of something wrong with Western society as a whole and ought not be supported.
I reject with emphasis the notion that just because Fox News will endorse it, I ought to be critical. You're capable of much better reasoning than that. If Fox News were endorsing every subsequent cover of CH for the next five years (insofar as they took any interest at all), that would be some pretty concerning comraderie to say the least. One cover don't cut it.
This isn't just about terrorism. It's not just terrorists who try to stifle freedom of speech. Specifically it's not just Muslim terrorists who try to stifle freedom of speech when someone, even if they're on the other side of the planet, supposedly offends Muslims. We're not just interacting with the tiny fraction who take arms, and that tiny fraction didn't just spring whole and furious from the head of Allah after He got a really wicked headache one day either.
We are also dealing with the much larger number of Muslims* across the world who think that their religion** is sacrosanct, and those who don't pay the proper respect*** for their religion need to be silenced. The degree of nastiness can be measured in the amount of force they support for this silencing.
Well, **** that. You know what? If someone somewhere doesn't like something that someone else says or writes, they are perfectly free to be as upset as they would like about it. But their upset doesn't mean anything special above and beyond anyone else's.
*This is not just Muslims, obviously, and damnit don't I just love having to qualify that in most discussions with liberals, especially since I am one.
**Whatever their particular brand of their particular religion might be.
***And whatever the appropriate respect is for their particular religion, always assuming as well that there is even one agreed amount for one particular sect.
****A fourth asterisk that wasn't there to really emphasize the quagmire this sort of mincing concern with the hurt feelings of people who are really really eager to have hurt feelings can get you.
-----
Angry? Sure. And in fact a little surprised and frustrated at our stance on this, sure, Lyrhawn. But I thought it worth pointing out that the lion's share of the antagonism in this post isn't directed at you, but rather at the sort of people who really do think that hey, freedom of speech, too much of a good thing.;
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
A person walks down the street in revealing clothing. They're raped. People question whether they really should have dressed that way.
Not ok.
An artist creates a cartoon of someone. They're killed. People question whether they really should have drew that.
Ok? Not ok.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I reject with emphasis the notion that just because Fox News will endorse it, I ought to be critical. You're capable of much better reasoning than that.
You bet.
This kind of reasoning would twist you in knots anyways, because you know who else is in favor of limits on what the French should have satirized? The media wing of the Communist party of China http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/900870.shtml Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: A person walks down the street in revealing clothing. They're raped. People question whether they really should have dressed that way.
Not ok.
An artist creates a cartoon of someone. They're killed. People question whether they really should have drew that.
Ok? Not ok.
My comment had nothing to do with blaming the victim.
No one here disputes what you're saying.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
That wasn't clear to me.
It sounded to me like you were advocating whether or not the upcoming Charlie Hedbo should have been created based on how many people it would offend.
Would you advocate whether a person should wear revealing clothing based on how many people it might provoke?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Provoke? No.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Whereas I would say-and I feel confident you would as well, were the context different-that from a strictly pragmatic stance, one might advise against something such as wearing revealing clothing. But from a moral stance, from one of ethics and civilization, I feel confident you would justly sneer at someone who said, after a rape, 'Granted we can't abide this sort of thing. But clothes like that are one of the things wrong with Western society today, and I can't support wearing them.'
The trouble is, it is so commonplace for political questions in the Arabic and Muslim world to get facile treatment. Some comfortable talking head might sneer at citizens of some autocracy we've spent decades and billions propping and wonder, with condescending earnestness, why don't they rise up like we did? Etc etc. It's stupid and frustrating.
But that's not what this is. This is a question of religion and freedom of speech and just how much concern we should have over the outrage others feel over our freedom of speech.
Nobody's belief is exempt from people who don't even share it not respecting it enough.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Okay, I finally have the time to sit down at a computer for a little bit and work through some of these things. I'll try to answer some of the things I left hanging over the last two pages.
I'll admit, for Dogbreath's sake, that I didn't have a fully formed idea of how I felt about the burqah thing when I started that discussion. I was working it out as we talked and as I read this thread.
I would like to respond to one or two specific things you (Dogbreath) have said during the thread to see if we can reach, if not an agreement, then at least an understanding.
quote:If by religious expression you mean expression of violence, abuse and oppression, then sure. If you seriously think that the vast majority of women are wearing burkhas because they choose to do so, rather than out of fear of severe verbal, physical and spiritual abuse by male family members and religious brainwashing, then you're delusional.
Here's why I had a problem with what you said earlier up this page about Christianity versus Islam. You linked religious brainwashing in with all the other sorts of damage Sharia type law can cause. So as far as I'm concerned, it's fair game. Christianity is religious brainwashing. Yes, most of it is much milder, but it's brainwashing all the same. They get you when you're young. You either attend mass/service every week or multiple times or in many cases you attend bible schools all to learn the catechisms and whatever else is involved with the religion and your particular aspect of it. That's all religion, but it's certainly Christianity. And in the process of doing so, many, MANY people come away with psychological damage from the stuff they internalize.
It's just odd to me how righteous you seemed about psychological abuse at the start of this thread but you backed right off as soon as Christianity entered the picture. Now it's not dangerous, it's "background noise."
Am I doing all this to say the two are the same? No, I'm not. But I'm trying to point out two things (one of them because I think you and Rakeesh both expressed annoyance with one of them):
1. If damage caused by religious brainwashing is a negative side effect worthy of federal intervention, then Christianity is going to require some editing by Congress. Because while it does a lot of good, and it does a lot of benign, it also does a lot of harm. But the idea of it happening is pretty laughable in America. You bent over backwards to explain away why it might even be a legitimate complaint, let alone a worthy prescription.
2. The reason it's fair to bring up Christianity in these conversations is not because of what happened during the Dark Ages and the Crusades or whatever. It's because, at least here in America, and Western Society in general, Christianity is normative. Islam is Other. It really, REALLY requires special care and attention to break out of that mindset and really hold something under a microscope to get perspective on it, otherwise it's all too easy to not only wave away concerns, but to not even think of them in the first place. It's why white privilege is so hard to explain to people, because being white is normative. It's just How Things Are.
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Also, I didn't ignore your point on coercion.
I just don't know if it's particularly relevant.
Are we banning everything that someone is coerced into doing?
Yes!
Also, I don't know if you really meant this way. You think the thing people are coerced into doing, rather than coercion itself, should be banned?
Okay, so, organized religion...banned? Alcohol, banned? A million other things, banned? I'm sure it makes it easier to ban the thing itself, but that's, to me, not a good enough reason to ban it. One person's coercion is another person's free choice.
But at the end of the day, with regards to the veil specifically...I suppose I'm on the fence about the burqah, because while I don't support forcing women to wear it, I'm leery of the logic you're using to justify banning it entirely. I think if applied universally, it opens up a dangerous slippery slope.
As for the hijab, I think you're just being ridiculous. And I think maybe you realized that when I asked you for specifics but were too amped up to admit it. Hundreds of millions of Muslim women wear the hijab because they want to. It's a scarf. It's the same thing Hollywood starlets wear, they just wear it for a different reason. If someone is forcing them to wear it, that's wrong. But the numbers and the harm there don't add up to banning, in my opinion. And yet in France, it's under the same ban as the burkah.
Apology accepted for the jackass comment. I took no offense in the first place.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Rakeesh -
quote:They're not representative of 'Western society' as a whole-that particular group is far too large for such a thing anyway.
I never said Western Society as a whole. I said they were indicative of problematic aspects of western society. They're a symbol for something wrong. They certainly don't speak for everyone.
quote:Second, a glance at their other covers shows this is not particularly, unusually offensive for their covers anyway, so the notion that Muslims anywhere should feel especially offended is nonsense.
I also never said they should be especially offended. I don't know why they would need to be offended any more than the regular amount, nor do I understand why regular bad behavior is its own excuse for continued bad behavior.
"Oh him? He's a jerk. But it's okay, because he's always a jerk"
I certainly wouldn't buy that excuse, and I doubt you would either.
quote:I reject with emphasis the notion that just because Fox News will endorse it, I ought to be critical. You're capable of much better reasoning than that. If Fox News were endorsing every subsequent cover of CH for the next five years (insofar as they took any interest at all), that would be some pretty concerning comraderie to say the least. One cover don't cut it.
Really? Look, not even because of this, but I take everything that comes out of just about every media outlet's mouth with a grain of salt, but it's many more grains for Fox News. They have zero credibility as far as I'm concerned, and I think they'd much rather be wrong and push an agenda than be right by sacrificing it. In this case, being anti-Muslim is part of their agenda. If that wasn't clear before, it sure as hell was made clear by their awful response to this whole mess. So yeah, this sounds exactly like the sort of "America, F yeah!" crap they'd support that I'd roll my eyes at.
This last part is to address my comments to Mucus and you about clarifying what my real problem is.
I don't think Charlie Hedbo shouldn't print this stuff because it provokes a response. I think Charlie Hedbo shouldn't print this stuff because the only point in printing it is to offend Muslims. It's tantamount to targeted hate speech. That's why Mucus' analogy to a scantily clad woman walking down the street doesn't really add up. She's not walking down the street (probably) wearing skimpy clothes JUST to offend anyone. What they are doing is legal and should stay legal, because I don't want government censors deciding what is and isn't legal free speech. But that doesn't mean I'm going to support targeted offense to a minority within a country.
That sure as hell isn't how we feel in America when someone goes on a misogynistic or homophobic or racist rant. The country goes haywire for a couple days and then we reset the machine and wait for the next offensive thing.
What's the most recent political scandal in American politics? That a recently promoted Republican gave a speech to a white power group. Who cares if he offends some minorities or liberal types? It's free speech!
Is your response for the rest of time to every offensive statement someone ever says going to be: "Quit your bitching?"
Somehow I doubt it.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Here's why I had a problem with what you said earlier up this page about Christianity versus Islam.
See, this is where you're mistaken. I actually never made things about Christianity versus Islam. (That was NobleHunter) I said something about Christian "pray the gay away" camps versus Christian church services.
quote:You linked religious brainwashing in with all the other sorts of damage Sharia type law can cause. So as far as I'm concerned, it's fair game. Christianity is religious brainwashing. Yes, most of it is much milder, but it's brainwashing all the same. They get you when you're young. You either attend mass/service every week or multiple times or in many cases you attend bible schools all to learn the catechisms and whatever else is involved with the religion and your particular aspect of it. That's all religion, but it's certainly Christianity. And in the process of doing so, many, MANY people come away with psychological damage from the stuff they internalize.
Absolutely. I don't deny that, either. But once again, you completely miss the point. I'm not in favor of outlawing Islam, nor am I in favor of outlawing Islamic mosques, or Imams, or anything of that nature. If I had, say, proposed making attending services at a mosque illegal, you might have a point here.
I *am* in favor of outlawing the wearing of the burqa, which is dangerous, and which is *caused* by Islamic brainwashing. Just like I'm in favor of outlawing "pray the gay away" Christian camps. Which are dangerous, and *caused* by Christian brainwashing.
This is something I have very clearly delineated several times in this thread. I feel like you're either skipping some of my posts, or cherry picking quotes out of context from them at this point. So please, please read this: what you have to realize is situations posed by NobleHunter - Christian Church services vs. Islamic burqas - are not analogous. An analogous comparison is between Christian church services and Muslim mosque services. (neither of which I want to outlaw) Or as much as possible, between "pray the gay away" camps and burqas, which isn't an exact analogy, but is as close as I can get. (and both of which I support illegalizing)
quote:It's just odd to me how righteous you seemed about psychological abuse at the start of this thread but you backed right off as soon as Christianity entered the picture. Now it's not dangerous, it's "background noise."
A) I never called Christianity "background noise", and I already called you out once for claiming that. You know better, so this is just incredibly disingenuous at this point. Please stop.
B) In what way did I back off? My very first response to Noble Hunter was about stupid shit Christians do I would like to see illegalized too. I merely called him out on a false comparison. And before you ask me how it's false, I already explained in depth earlier in this very post. Please read it.
quote:Am I doing all this to say the two are the same? No, I'm not. But I'm trying to point out two things (one of them because I think you and Rakeesh both expressed annoyance with one of them):
1. If damage caused by religious brainwashing is a negative side effect worthy of federal intervention, then Christianity is going to require some editing by Congress. Because while it does a lot of good, and it does a lot of benign, it also does a lot of harm. But the idea of it happening is pretty laughable in America. You bent over backwards to explain away why it might even be a legitimate complaint, let alone a worthy prescription.
What? Seriously, I legitimately don't understand what exactly you're getting at here. I definitely think harmful and dangerous things caused by Christian brainwashing should be banned, as I have stated numerous, numerous times in this thread. It's not my fault we live in a country where a lot of this shady stuff (by Christians) is still legal, especially considering just how much flak I take on this forum for publicly opposing it.
Again, I feel you're really, really just assigning opinions and/or motives to me that are completely divorced from the reality of who I am and what I actually believe.
quote:2. The reason it's fair to bring up Christianity in these conversations is not because of what happened during the Dark Ages and the Crusades or whatever. It's because, at least here in America, and Western Society in general, Christianity is normative. Islam is Other. It really, REALLY requires special care and attention to break out of that mindset and really hold something under a microscope to get perspective on it, otherwise it's all too easy to not only wave away concerns, but to not even think of them in the first place. It's why white privilege is so hard to explain to people, because being white is normative. It's just How Things Are.
lol. Which of the two of us do you think has lived in a country where Islam is normative and Christianity is other? I'm sorry Lyrhawn, but I highly doubt you have near the personal experience with living in a Muslim culture, or working alongside of Muslims and observing first hand what a Muslim a Islamic worldview looks as I do. Even if you do (which I doubt, due to misconceptions and ignorance you've revealed in this thread), it doesn't matter, because this isn't an argument I would ever use against you.
Or, in other words; get off your high horse. Thanks!
quote:Also, I don't know if you really meant this way. You think the thing people are coerced into doing, rather than coercion itself, should be banned?
What? No. The entire point of the law you're so opposed to is to prevent Muslim men from forcing women (especially girls under 18) from wearing burqas. Obviously I'm opposed to the coercion.
quote:Okay, so, organized religion...banned?
Yes, it's illegal to force someone to convert to your religion.
quote:Alcohol, banned?
It's very illegal to force someone to drink.
quote:One person's coercion is another person's free choice.
Please, please tell me you don't actually believe this statement.
quote:But at the end of the day, with regards to the veil specifically...I suppose I'm on the fence about the burqah, because while I don't support forcing women to wear it, I'm leery of the logic you're using to justify banning it entirely. I think if applied universally, it opens up a dangerous slippery slope.
I don't. It's been enforced pretty effectively against other similar practices (i.e, snake handling) just fine. Especially with the way the law is written.
quote:As for the hijab, I think you're just being ridiculous.
Come again? What exactly did I say about the hijab that you think is rediculous?
quote:And I think maybe you realized that when I asked you for specifics but were too amped up to admit it.
No seriously, what are you talking about?
quote:Hundreds of millions of Muslim women wear the hijab because they want to. It's a scarf. It's the same thing Hollywood starlets wear, they just wear it for a different reason. If someone is forcing them to wear it, that's wrong. But the numbers and the harm there don't add up to banning, in my opinion.
where did I say I support banning the hijab
quote: And yet in France, it's under the same ban as the burkah.
No it's not. It's an entirely different law, applied to entirely different situations (government service jobs), and is enforced differently. It's also applicable to Jewish and Christian women. Seriously, what the heck are you talking about?
quote:Apology accepted for the jackass comment. I took no offense in the first place.
ok. Good to know. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... Western Society in general, Christianity is normative. Islam is Other.
This is a matter of perspective.
Religion is normative, the non-religious are Other. This attack on Charlie Hebdo is an attempt to intimidate any non-religious artist who fails to treat religious figures with kid-gloves.
As for the rest of this section, if it is the case that Christianity plays by special rules that Islam does not have access to, them advocate for them to be fixed!
Again, two wrongs don't make a right.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... I think Charlie Hedbo shouldn't print this stuff because the only point in printing it is to offend Muslims. It's tantamount to targeted hate speech. That's why Mucus' analogy to a scantily clad woman walking down the street doesn't really add up. She's not walking down the street (probably) wearing skimpy clothes JUST to offend anyone ...
This is actually irrelevant to the analogy.
For example, imagine that a French woman knows that there is a group of conservative Jewish men who would be offended by her walking down the Champs-Élysées in a perfectly legal, but low cut dress. She does it JUST to offend them, she would not wear that dress otherwise. They assault her.
It would still seem really incongruous for you (to me anyways) to say as Rakeesh put it, "Granted we can't abide this sort of thing. But clothes like that are one of the things wrong with Western society today, and I can't support wearing them."
[ January 14, 2015, 02:55 AM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: That sure as hell isn't how we feel in America when someone goes on a misogynistic or homophobic or racist rant. The country goes haywire for a couple days and then we reset the machine and wait for the next offensive thing.
What's the most recent political scandal in American politics? That a recently promoted Republican gave a speech to a white power group. Who cares if he offends some minorities or liberal types? It's free speech!
I wanted to also elaborate on this. The problem with misogynistic rants is misogyny. The problem with homophobic rants is homophobia. The problem with racist rants is racism.
When we advocate for politicians that make speeches with these characteristics to be defeated in elections, we're not advocating for them to stop speaking! How else are we going to identify the racists and company? Instead, we want them to continue speaking. We also don't want them in power because we don't want them to act on that racism, homophobia, etc.
The thing is, with these cartoons, the problem isn't cartoonism or satirism. I'm not even sure there's even a word for this. The cartoonists are also not in power! The problem is that a bunch of Muslims are iconoclasts. They also have power (power comes out of the barrel of a gun) and are threatening journalists and cartoonists, people whose very jobs should encourage them speaking truth to power.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
For anyone interested, this is the magazine cover that may or may not be a giant middle finger to Muslims everywhere. (I think it's rather touching)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Mucus -
quote:This is a matter of perspective.
Religion is normative, the non-religious are Other. This attack on Charlie Hebdo is an attempt to intimidate any non-religious artist who fails to treat religious figures with kid-gloves.
As for the rest of this section, if it is the case that Christianity plays by special rules that Islam does not have access to, them advocate for them to be fixed!
A Western perspective, yes. And yes, religion itself is normative here, and everywhere on Earth for that matter, which is why going down one level is a fair topic of discussion.
As for as advocating, I thought that's what I was doing.
quote:This is actually irrelevant to the analogy.
For example, imagine that a French woman knows that there is a group of conservative Jewish men who would be offended by her walking down the Champs-Élysées in a perfectly legal, but low cut dress. She does it JUST to offend them, she would not wear that dress otherwise. They assault her.
It would still seem really incongruous for you (to me anyways) to say as Rakeesh put it, "Granted we can't abide this sort of thing. But clothes like that are one of the things wrong with Western society today, and I can't support wearing them."
I think you guys are missing my point then. If she's doing it just to offend them, then I wouldn't be in favor of it. Her clothes aren't the problem. Wanting to be insulting and hurtful just for the sake of being insulting and hurtful is the problem.
When did it become controversial to tell people to stop being douchebags?
quote:I wanted to also elaborate on this. The problem with misogynistic rants is misogyny. The problem with homophobic rants is homophobia. The problem with racist rants is racism.
And in your mind, the problem with Islamophobic rants ISN'T Islamophobia?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: For anyone interested, this is the magazine cover that may or may not be a giant middle finger to Muslims everywhere. (I think it's rather touching)
Again, if depicting the Prophet is considered highly offensive, then it doesn't really matter how nice you think it is. They could have him holding a peace sign with a sign under it that says "coolest guy ever!" and to many it would still be offensive.
Personally, I also think, if you swap out the Prophet with Jesus, and if a village we'd just predator drone bombed and killed a bunch of people published it, I'd breathe a sigh of relief and feel a little better that they managed to find the compassion for forgiveness and with such a flattering religious icon.
The problem being, of course, that Islam doesn't view Muhammad the same way Christians view Jesus, or ANY religious icon, specifically because idolatry is taken pretty seriously (something Moses was pretty amped about too from what I recall) and depicting him, in their minds, symbolizes idolatry.
So if that hypothetical village we'd just bombed depicted Jesus in a compromising position, with an "all is forgiven" sign under it, I'd probably wonder at their mixed messages.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lyrhawn,
quote:I think you guys are missing my point then. If she's doing it just to offend them, then I wouldn't be in favor of it. Her clothes aren't the problem. Wanting to be insulting and hurtful just for the sake of being insulting and hurtful is the problem.
When did it become controversial to tell people to stop being douchebags?
In Mucus's example, the 'douchebag' behavior he was supporting was offending some men who believe the female body is particularly sinful. Certainly more sinful than a man's with equal skin showing.
The controversy here is in the question 'at what point does someone's offense not matter as much?' If someone is going to be offended and ask you to stop, certainly, we can have dialogue. Dialogue as opposed to demands. If they're so bitterly offended they cannot bear to hear more, also fine-go your way in peace and we're still sibling hairless apes. When that offense, however, takes the form of being so angry that the offender must be silenced, whether through violence (Charlie Hebdo), threats (Rushdie), economic intimidation (Denmark, which got its share of the first two as well)...
That's the point I stop caring if you're offended. It's not enough that the one offended supposedly has the Creator of the Universe on their side, with all of the certainty of post mortem judgment that carries? It's not enough that in the normal courses of things they don't have to see the magazine at all, and in fact need to go out of their way to see it? No, the very fact that someone somewhere is openly blaspheming against their Prophet is offensive?
No. Hell with that. They don't get to control my speech with force-goodness knows they would like to, perversely thanks in part to us-and I'm not just going to roll over and allow it with cheap emotional blackmail either.
If Unitarians or something had an image that offended them to see portrayed, and a magazine out of nowhere decided to print that and their stated reason was 'we just wanted to make them angry' you might have a case. It's not and you don't, particularly for the impending cover.
Fanatics just murdered some of their colleagues, and it's not easy to find a statement where someone didn't say that of course they deplore it etc etc but gosh it was really offensive too, a sign of what's wrong with Western society today. Ordinarily one might say 'they're hurting, if they lash out it's understandable.' Here, though? Heavens! What about all of those Muslims who might be offended?!
We mustn't hurt their feelings. We must treat them as though they were as fragile and self-righteous and dangerous as the most awful spokespeople among them insist they are, unable to hear unwelcome thoughts without anger and hard to restrain from violence when they do. We ought not offend them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Also: drone strikes and 'collateral damage' aren't related to this discussion, and of course your hypothetical was more awful. Of course they certainly feed a lot of anger (justifiably!) into the situation, but it seems to me that responring to that anger by getting wobbly on one of our most important, fundamental civic values is a strange course of action for redress.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I'm kind of disturbed that you chose a woman and a low cut outfit walking down the Champs Élysées where people can pretty much wear whatever the heck they want and people from all countries are coming to look at the shops. How would she know that she was provoking these people deliberately, when standards for modesty vary so vastly over cultures. Like in India it's okay to show your navel but you should have your shoulders covered. And in some cultures everything short of a Burka is going to be immodest. Where does it end? And also how do you know that someone was wearing a low-cut top to provoke a random stranger in a crowd? Maybe she was wearing it because she likes that shirt.
I think I'm more apt analogy is someone walking down the street was wearing an "all lives matter" shirt in Ferguson, Missouri.
[ January 14, 2015, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: theamazeeaz ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dogbreath -
quote:See, this is where you're mistaken. I actually never made things about Christianity versus Islam. (That was NobleHunter) I said something about Christian "pray the gay away" camps versus Christian church services.
I know you didn't make it about that. But you responded to it. That's all I was referring to.
quote:Absolutely. I don't deny that, either. But once again, you completely miss the point. I'm not in favor of outlawing Islam, nor am I in favor of outlawing Islamic mosques, or Imams, or anything of that nature. If I had, say, proposed making attending services at a mosque illegal, you might have a point here.
I *am* in favor of outlawing the wearing of the burqa, which is dangerous, and which is *caused* by Islamic brainwashing. Just like I'm in favor of outlawing "pray the gay away" Christian camps. Which are dangerous, and *caused* by Christian brainwashing.
Then I guess I just don't understand you. You want to outlaw the things people are coerced into doing (a dangerous precedent), but not the coercive brainwashing that leads to it? Or both? Please elaborate.
quote:lol. Which of the two of us do you think has lived in a country where Islam is normative and Christianity is other? I'm sorry Lyrhawn, but I highly doubt you have near the personal experience with living in a Muslim culture, or working alongside of Muslims and observing first hand what a Muslim a Islamic worldview looks as I do. Even if you do (which I doubt, due to misconceptions and ignorance you've revealed in this thread), it doesn't matter, because this isn't an argument I would ever use against you.
I was speaking generally. But okay!
[quote}Yes, it's illegal to force someone to convert to your religion....
It's very illegal to force someone to drink.[/quote]
Well, the first part isn't totally true. We can force children to convert to our religions. It's only illegal to make people convert after you've turned 18.
But again, I'm confused on what it is you want to make illegal. Here you seem to not want to make the thing illegal, and you don't want to make the brainwashing that might occur that leads a person to want to do something he otherwise might not want to.
Please clarify.
quote:Please, please tell me you don't actually believe this statement.
I guess I'm not sure what's controversial about that. You don't believe that one person might do something of their own free will but another person might have to be coerced into it if they did it at all? Or do you think that everything someone is coerced into doing is an act that someone would HAVE to be coerced into doing for it to happen?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: The problem is that a bunch of Muslims are iconoclasts.
Actually, it is the cartoonists who are iconoclasts.
[ January 14, 2015, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dogbreath -
One last note to catch up with your comments.
Regarding the hijab, alright, I got confused on that. I saw a quick line in an article that referred to all three as being covered under the same ban and then during our conversation I figured we all were on the same page when no one corrected me (not that it's anyone's job to, just explaining my thought process). Also, when I asked you if you felt the three were the same, you initially said yes. You saw no substantive difference between them. You later changed your stance on that somewhat to indicate you DO see a substantive difference.
Anyway, I misunderstood. Apologies.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Also: drone strikes and 'collateral damage' aren't related to this discussion, and of course your hypothetical was more awful. Of course they certainly feed a lot of anger (justifiably!) into the situation, but it seems to me that responring to that anger by getting wobbly on one of our most important, fundamental civic values is a strange course of action for redress.
The drone strike part was relatively irrelevent. I wasn't trying to draw drone strikes into the larger discussion, it was just for the purposes of the analogy.
The point of which was to emphasize the mixed message inherent with saying something that sounds nice while displaying something that's pretty rude. Which makes me think the whole thing is a sarcastic slap in the face. And for the sake of the terrorists, good. It was actually a fairly measured, subtle response in that case.
For everyone else, not so good.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Rakeesh -
quote:In Mucus's example, the 'douchebag' behavior he was supporting was offending some men who believe the female body is particularly sinful. Certainly more sinful than a man's with equal skin showing.
Which is, perhaps, why it's a bad analogy. Being offended by a drawing of a bearded guy in a turban isn't itself offensive. I mean, if I told you I'm offended by depictions of six-legged octopi (which let's face it, should be called hexopi at that point), is that particularly offensive to you? And would it make you feel good to publish a picture that I might or might not see, in the hopes it would in some way hurt me? That, to me, is a more accurate analogy. Because the guy being offended by the woman in the leggy skirt holds a belief that we find offensive. I don't see what's offensive about not wanting to see drawings of a guy.
quote:The controversy here is in the question 'at what point does someone's offense not matter as much?' If someone is going to be offended and ask you to stop, certainly, we can have dialogue. Dialogue as opposed to demands. If they're so bitterly offended they cannot bear to hear more, also fine-go your way in peace and we're still sibling hairless apes. When that offense, however, takes the form of being so angry that the offender must be silenced, whether through violence (Charlie Hebdo), threats (Rushdie), economic intimidation (Denmark, which got its share of the first two as well)...
That's the point I stop caring if you're offended. It's not enough that the one offended supposedly has the Creator of the Universe on their side, with all of the certainty of post mortem judgment that carries? It's not enough that in the normal courses of things they don't have to see the magazine at all, and in fact need to go out of their way to see it? No, the very fact that someone somewhere is openly blaspheming against their Prophet is offensive?
I'm confused as to why it seems like some of the responses I'm getting feel the need to explain to me that terrorists are bad people. I'm not trying to protect the feelings of terrorists. Do I then need to explain, in response, that not all Muslims are terrorists?
And also, is hate speech directed at you that you don't personally read then NOT hate speech because the person being attacked never received it?
quote:No. Hell with that. They don't get to control my speech with force-goodness knows they would like to, perversely thanks in part to us-and I'm not just going to roll over and allow it with cheap emotional blackmail either.
Don't know who "they" is in this instance. Terrorists? Of course, more power to you, I don't think they get to control your speech either.
quote:If Unitarians or something had an image that offended them to see portrayed, and a magazine out of nowhere decided to print that and their stated reason was 'we just wanted to make them angry' you might have a case. It's not and you don't, particularly for the impending cover.
So again, everyday Muslims are deserving of hate?
quote:We mustn't hurt their feelings. We must treat them as though they were as fragile and self-righteous and dangerous as the most awful spokespeople among them insist they are, unable to hear unwelcome thoughts without anger and hard to restrain from violence when they do. We ought not offend them.
Got it: Everyday Muslims are deserving of hate.
quote:Fanatics just murdered some of their colleagues, and it's not easy to find a statement where someone didn't say that of course they deplore it etc etc but gosh it was really offensive too, a sign of what's wrong with Western society today. Ordinarily one might say 'they're hurting, if they lash out it's understandable.' Here, though? Heavens! What about all of those Muslims who might be offended?!
It's understandable. I certainly never said it wasn't. I just don't think it's helpful. But then, "helpful" has never really been a word to describe them, unless the person describing them is an Islamophobe. Though I forgot we established earlier in the thread that spewing offensive material isn't objectionable so long as you've always done it.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Dogbreath -
One last note to catch up with your comments.
Regarding the hijab, alright, I got confused on that. I saw a quick line in an article that referred to all three as being covered under the same ban and then during our conversation I figured we all were on the same page when no one corrected me (not that it's anyone's job to, just explaining my thought process). Also, when I asked you if you felt the three were the same, you initially said yes.
No I didn't.
quote:You saw no substantive difference between them.
Also untrue.
quote:You later changed your stance on that somewhat to indicate you DO see a substantive difference.
This is also untrue. I never stated a stance on it in the first place. Seriously, and I ask again, where the heck are you getting this?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lyrhawn,
quote:Which is, perhaps, why it's a bad analogy. Being offended by a drawing of a bearded guy in a turban isn't itself offensive. I mean, if I told you I'm offended by depictions of six-legged octopi (which let's face it, should be called hexopi at that point), is that particularly offensive to you? And would it make you feel good to publish a picture that I might or might not see, in the hopes it would in some way hurt me? That, to me, is a more accurate analogy. Because the guy being offended by the woman in the leggy skirt holds a belief that we find offensive. I don't see what's offensive about not wanting to see drawings of a guy.
My problem is not with the person who feels offended at the sight of a six-limbed cephalopod. I think it's silly, but then plenty of stuff I do and think are considered silly or even stupid by other people as well. Part of the human condition, I expect. My problem is with the person who is offended at the sight of a six-limbed cephalopod, and then believes that those portraying them ought to be stopped from doing so. Not dissuaded-that's fair game. Stopped.
And that, for all of your rhetoric trying to pivot this towards hatred for all Muslims, is in fact more than just a tiny fraction of Muslims who are violent terrorists. It's more than a fraction of people out of just about every institution and belief system on the planet, in fact, and it's silly to pretend otherwise. To speak as though there isn't a significant fraction of Muslims across the world who simply don't value free speech the way it is valued in the West. Strangely, this often seems to change when they are no longer under the heel of the societies which preach that-societies which are as I have said historically not uncommonly propped up by us.
You can point to the part where I said that my problem was simply with people who disapprove of a given message. It's possible I may have been unclear. But I think that overall on Hatrack and elsewhere, and in this discussion, my stance that disagreement is not only acceptable but even desirable is clear. My beef is when someone wants to arbitrarily stop it.
quote:I'm confused as to why it seems like some of the responses I'm getting feel the need to explain to me that terrorists are bad people. I'm not trying to protect the feelings of terrorists. Do I then need to explain, in response, that not all Muslims are terrorists?
And also, is hate speech directed at you that you don't personally read then NOT hate speech because the person being attacked never received it?
It's peculiar you would feel this way, since I am the one-and others-who have had to qualify our remarks multiple times, else we will face (and later in this very post, I do in fact) charges that we hate all Muslims.
As for hate speech, sure it is. But I consider hate speech that is done within a society on the other side of the world from me, that doesn't share my values and social norms, to be less problematic than that which knocks on my door and insists I listen to it. The latter I will eventually grow angry about. The former? I am much more likely to remember, you know, that perhaps other people are allowed to have opinions odious to me, think they're jerks, and go about my day rather than insist these strangers-whom by the way I malign regularly myself, in this example-pander to my offense.
quote:Don't know who "they" is in this instance. Terrorists? Of course, more power to you, I don't think they get to control your speech either.
In this case, the 'they' is generally anyone who wishes to curb my freedom of expression because it offends of the holy. You see it here in the States as well, by the way-either openly or creeping in, such as the Catholic League statements linked earlier in this thread. Specifically, since this discussion was prompted by the mass murder of citizens over a question of freedom of speech and sacrilege, yes, I'm talking specifically about Muslims worldwide insofar as such a broad group can be lumped together. But-and Lyrhawn, I know you know this just as well as I do, which is why your stance on this is baffling and frustrating-respect for freedom of expression is not, in fact a highly regarded value in places where Muslims are the political power, anywhere on Earth really. In spite of my anger on this subject, however, that's not an especially harsh condemnation coming from me. Even here, in a nation and culture where freedom of expression is supposed to be revered, it's a struggle to keep it and we only arrived at this place through a lot of complicated history often not shared by societies that don't revere it themselves.
quote:Got it: Everyday Muslims are deserving of hate
You've been attacked more than once in this thread, so I'm not going to be as angry about that as I initially wanted to. No. Everyday Muslims are not deserving of hatred. Any Muslim who does not wish to see speech offensive to them stopped by means other than persuasion, I have no quarrel with at all. As for my remark about Unitarians, you're treating this as though the 'problem with Western society' was that some people are just assholes for its own sake. This would carry more weight if they picked a group or belief system that held no interactions with them, and slammed them just for funsies. That's not what happened.
You're letting the most violent and easily-offended Muslims, the terrorists and those who would see government crackdowns on sacrilege, be those who speak for the entire community. You're not treating them with respect, as strange as it may seem, when you insist that they be treated with kid gloves you would consider absurd if you had to use them for someone else. When for example you talk politics here in the States, and you dispute something Obama or Romney did or said, did you have to spend two paragraphs at the start of every discussion expressing your respect for the group as a whole, and assurances that you meant no special offense?
Why is lampooning the idea that there are sacred images that ought not to be disrespected something that is 'hate speech', exactly? Yes, many Muslims will interpret it that way, but frankly many Muslims also will express a belief that Sharia law would be a good thing for societies the world over to strive for. (In practice, of course, this gets quite a lot murkier.)
quote:It's understandable. I certainly never said it wasn't. I just don't think it's helpful. But then, "helpful" has never really been a word to describe them, unless the person describing them is an Islamophobe. Though I forgot we established earlier in the thread that spewing offensive material isn't objectionable so long as you've always done it.
I wonder if you realize just how closely you're parroting the line of religious fanatics, in their take on Charlie Hebdo. Since, you know (given that we're talking about what was introduced earlier and all that), you've introduced the idea that if Fox News endorses something, right-thinking people ought to shy away from it.
I guess I forgot that there might be some social and political value in having a protection for serial rebels and naysayers, and those whom the establishment dislikes. I didn't realize they were 'part of what was wrong with Western society'. Strangely-and this is hurtful of me to the poor, wounded feelings of people everywhere with their own particular breeds of sacred cows-I thought that was one of its greatest strengths.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Dogbreath -
One last note to catch up with your comments.
Regarding the hijab, alright, I got confused on that. I saw a quick line in an article that referred to all three as being covered under the same ban and then during our conversation I figured we all were on the same page when no one corrected me (not that it's anyone's job to, just explaining my thought process). Also, when I asked you if you felt the three were the same, you initially said yes.
No I didn't.
quote:You saw no substantive difference between them.
Also untrue.
quote:You later changed your stance on that somewhat to indicate you DO see a substantive difference.
This is also untrue. I never stated a stance on it in the first place. Seriously, and I ask again, where the heck are you getting this?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Out of curiosity, Dogbreath, do you think there is no substantive difference between the hijab, niqab and burka?
For the purposes of this discussion.
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: No, not at all.
Edit: I see the niqab as a less restrictive but still harmful burqa. I think the hijab is fairly harmless (physically, I mean) and comparable to other head coverings in other religions. Also, plenty of Muslim women wear the hijab willingly and aren't really subjected to the same conditions that women who wear burqas almost universally are.
I read that as "no, I do not see substantive differences."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Rakeesh -
I'm going to respond to your most recent post.
But as an exercise in seeing how well we're communicating do me a favor (if you feel so inclined).
Can you, in however many words you want, explain my argument? Or at least, describe my argument as you currently understand it?
I get the feeling like half of this is just us talking past each other, so maybe this will help.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Are you serious? How could you possibly read it that way? Especially since you earlier said this:
quote:Also, when I asked you if you felt the three were the same, you initially said yes.
"No" is about as far away from "yes" as you can get.
You said "do you think there is no substantive difference difference between the hijab, niqab and burka?" and *emphatically* replied I did not, and then gave you a *detailed* explanation of why I thought they were different.
At this point, you've been called out several times for your dishonesty in this discussion. And I'm not sure if I should continue giving you the benefit of the doubt, or just call it quits. It's extremely annoying.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I guess I was reading into your answer, in part, what I was already expecting you to say. That's my fault and I'm sorry. I thought the edit was you re-thinking your answer after the fact. I was genuinely confused.
We still disagree on a lot of this.
But a good chunk of that was my fault for misreading you and I apologize for the confusion and frustration that caused.
I'd quibble, though, at the word "dishonesty." I never intentionally misrepresented you. I didn't understand you. Might seem like a minor point, but let's be clear that I'm stupid, not an intentional asshole.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I guess I was reading into your answer, in part, what I was already expecting you to say. That's my fault and I'm sorry. I thought the edit was you re-thinking your answer after the fact. I was genuinely confused.
We still disagree on a lot of this.
But a good chunk of that was my fault for misreading you and I apologize for the confusion and frustration that caused.
I'd quibble, though, at the word "dishonesty." I never intentionally misrepresented you. I didn't understand you. Might seem like a minor point, but let's be clear that I'm stupid, not an intentional asshole.
It's fine, then.
You have to understand there are people out there who will gladly and deliberately misrepresent you or infer things you don't actually believe just to try and win an argument. And I think you might want to be careful with your "all Muslims deserve hate?" comments to Rakeesh, as you're definitely straying into that teritory. If you want to be understood (and I think he does understand you), it's best to avoid extropolating his arguments into obviously rediculous extremes. (I think extremes is what's causing the problem here, and I'll get into that later)
But yeah, the reason I didn't dismiss what you said out of hand is because I suspected you had misread what I said, or even imagined I said things I didn't. I was sort of hoping that would inspire you to reread everything I had written so far to try and figure out your mistake without me having to be so blunt. Oh well.
If you want a summary of what I think you believe:
You think things like France's ban on wearing burqas in public spaces set a dangerous precedent. You obviously don't support the ideals that force women into burqas, but you think the state declaring which religious practices you can and can't follow is a bad idea.
You also think the editor of Charlie Hebdo published the current cover simply to piss off Muslims everywhere. You don't think it's meant in a positive way, and I don't think you've even considered that it might be a message of solidarity and forgiveness to moderate and liberal Muslims. (consider the number of Islamic newspapers that reprinted it, or the overwhelming amount of support CH got from all the Muslims who *don't* think a cartoon of the prophet could possibly be considered idolatry)
I think your big problem here is one of extremes - you're unwilling to consider the nuances and complexities of real life scenarios.
I.e, you believe that freedom of religious/personal expression is paramount, and should always be respected. This is an ideal, and a good one too.
You fail when it comes to realizing that laws aren't passed in a vacuum, but instead are there to protect society and individuals as adequetely as possible while staying true to ideals.
You also choose to ignore the circumstances that surround the burqa, and why someone would wear it: the fact that they're almost universally worn by women who are coerced into wearing it via violence, intimidation, abuse of authority, and religious brainwashing.
You are also, I think, ignorant of the actual law that bans burqas in France. It's a waivable 150 euro fine for the woman wearing it, and a 30,000 euro fine + one year in jail for a man who coerces a woman into wearing it. (double if it's a minor) And the reason these laws exist is that they help actualize change in the abusive situations that exist in extremist Muslim homes in the least intrusive way possible. To ignore it is wrong, to start doing targetted home invasions on Muslim families and to separate these families is also very wrong, but laws like these create positive results while also infringing on the rights of citizens as little as possible.
But the idealistic vacuum your arguments are formed in scorns this sort of nuance. You're very black and white, very extreme. Thus your rediculous question of whether I would support banning alcohol because some people are forced to drink it. The answer is that if 99.9% of people who drank dangerous amounts of alcohol were either coerced into doing so, or were brainwashed into believing it was God's will, then of course I would want to ban it.
But that's a logical fallacy. You can't take every real world scenario and play it out to it's logical extreme, because *everything* becomes absurd at that point. The free society we live in is entirely dependent upon the balance of ideals and reality, and to blithely, even distainfully ignore reality while relying on your own ideological superiority to win the argument is both annoying and extremely naive.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think one potential gray area is how a government is supposed to distinguish between "religious brainwashing" and any other religious teaching in how it forms policy. Part of your argument, Dogbreath, is that women who might say they willingly wear the burqa were brainwashed into it. I'd probably be against a law that was justified on the grounds that it combats religious brainwashing. I think that's why the law in France was justified mostly on public safety grounds (although there's an interesting and valuable statement in the size of the penalty for forcing someone else to wear a face covering).
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I think brainwashing isn't enough justification, obviously, just another part of the culture of abuse, physical, mental and verbal violence, and oppression. But the key element is that it's dangerous and severely limits one's ability to live a normal life. I think there are other precedents for that justification - banning handling of snakes in churches, banning camps that "fix" gay people, forcing children of religious people who don't believe in medicine to take it anyway, that sort of thing.
The main reason we have laws that make exceptions for children is because of the lack of agency they posess, and I would like to repeat my argument that for women in oppressive situations given the "choice" to wear a burqa, they don't really posess agency in any meaningful sense.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You're right that I didn't understand the law as thoroughly as I should have before I got into this discussion. I read a relatively brief article and went from that, which in hindsight was pretty stupid, and not even close to the normal information gathering I employ before I begin a discussion like this.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Meh. I was in Paris for a week last year (I travel a lot) and stayed at a hotel about a 15 minute walk from the Charlie Hebdo office, so I've had at least basic experience with the culture and political atmosphere in the area. Which is why I was so confused by your hijab question, since I saw them everywhere. Don't worry about it, though.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)