Pat condells new video

[No Limit]

If done in an elegant way...such as not directly prohibiting, but just on public places or certain hours or sections. You need to slowly and gradually get them used to. If we ban it outright then there might be too much opposition.

Come on man, you know better and this is an insult to your intelligence. There is no way in hell that if you tell a muslim that he/she can't wear certain things that will only make things worse when it comes to fundimentalism, not better. No matter how slick you try to be.

Now what exactly would banning the burka accomplish? You said it was an example of oppression. That's an opinon you hold, not really a fact. But be that as it may if you are right is that oppression going to stop once the burka is banned? No? Then again, what does it accomplish?

 

[Sparta]

And who said fundamentalist Christians/Jews are any better? I just focused on Islam because the statistic show a rising trend and because i think their ideology is far too political in nature.

This is bollocks. You're focused on Islam because of the media and right-wing panic surrounding it. Their ideology is far less political than that of Christianity and Judaism in western culture and will always be. Simply because British courts make concessions to include sharia law in their legislature doesn't mean that Islam will divide and conquer the world and suddenly become the dominant religion in countries where various forms of Christianity has been the dominant religion for anywhere between a few hundred to over a thousand years.

You're certainly right to take exception to the government creating legislature based on religious beliefs, as it should have no place in government what-so-ever. But you cannot honestly say that Islam is more political in nature when AIPAC is the largest lobbying body in the U.S. and have done such a successful campaign of smearing critics of the Israeli government that anyone who opposes their policies is immediately seen as anti-semitic.

You can't say it's more political when the U.S. government enlists and allows PMC's like Blackwater to serve in Iraq with immunity, when its founder and CEO, Erik Prince, believes it is his mission to wipe Islam from the face of the Earth in the name of God.

You can't say it's more political when the President of The United States of America claims that Gog and Magog are aligning in the middle east and are fulfilling biblical prophecy for the end of times, so we better go to war in Iraq.

in order to have a proper integration the numbers involved must be really small and especially the idiot extremist should be kept at bay. But guess what, Saudi Arabia has got money to burn and they make alot of investments.

So do the Christian and Jewish right-wing, not to mention those Buddhists in China.

Your issue appears to be that you're quite scared of Islamic fundamentalists and for some reason they are the only fundamentalists you appear to be worked up about. You shouldn't be worked up specifically about Islam, you should be worked up about any religion trying to integrate itself with politics.

 

[xdrive]

There is no such thing as a "moderate muslims" That's like saying there were moderate nazis.

 

[unozero]

There is no such thing as a "moderate muslims" That's like saying there were moderate nazis.

Thats a little thick some people just wanna lead their lives but since many Muslims live in poverty they are easily persuaded by the "Dark Side"
Upper Middle Class Muslim Males are the true evil doers.

 

[Sparta]

Oh lord, just stop posting in the politics threads about other cultures xdrive. It was bad enough when you called one third of humanity uncivilized and tried to backpeddle out of it a few days ago, now you're saying another third of humanity is as bad as the Nazi's.

Complain about being called a racist on another forum already, for **** sake.

 

[xdrive]

now you're saying another third of humanity is as bad as the Nazi's.

Never said that, please go re read what i said, or don't quote me at all.

 

[Sparta]

There is no such thing as a "moderate muslims" That's like saying there were moderate nazis.

There is no such thing as a "moderate muslims" That's like saying there were moderate nazis.

There is no such thing as a "moderate muslims" That's like saying there were moderate nazis.

When you type things like this, you are comparing a third of humanity to Nazi's, you dumbass.

For **** sake, xdrive, every post of yours is filled with incomparable stupidity. Looking through your post history for stupid comments is like bobbing for water. You are almost mythologically dumb. Years from now, posters will talk of your idiocy is hushed tones as they pass on epic tales of your moronic posts for generations to come. Tablets will carved in granite to preserve these posts as warnings against being ****ing dumb, for future scholars. Age will not wither them. The shape of the land will change over eons and people will still wonder of the one they call "xdrive" and how it's amazing that his useless brain was able to generate enough electrical impulses to conjure a sentence of cognitive thought, let alone be literate and operate a computer well enough to express his opinion on the internet.

Just stop posting in the politics for god's sake.

 

[xdrive]

When you type things like this, you are comparing a third of humanity to Nazi's, you dumbass.

For **** sake, xdrive, every post of yours is filled with incomparable stupidity. Looking through your post history for stupid comments is like bobbing for water. You are almost mythologically dumb. Years from now, posters will talk of your idiocy is hushed tones as they pass on epic tales of your moronic posts for generations to come. Tablets will carved in granite to preserve these posts as warnings against being ****ing dumb, for future scholars. Age will not wither them. The shape of the land will change over eons and people will still wonder of the one they call "xdrive" and how it's amazing that his useless brain was able to generate enough electrical impulses to conjure a sentence of cognitive thought, let alone be literate and operate a computer well enough to express his opinion on the internet.

Just stop posting in the politics for god's sake.

Wrong. I am not comparing them to nazis. You have misinterpreted the point i am trying to make, most likely because you are an idiot.

Saying i am a moderate muslim is like saying i am a moderate christian or i am a moderate nazi, or i am a moderate right winger. You either believe in something or you don't believe in it, there is no in between. That's what i am trying to say, I never once said "Muslims are like nazis" And in my eyes the way i said it was pretty clear. You just have misinterpreted it, so it's your own fault.

There is no "moderate" That's like saying "yeh i'm a moderate nazi, i don't hate jews because i am a moderate nazi"

 

[Sparta]

Wrong. I am not comparing them to nazis. You have misinterpreted the point i am trying to make, most likely because you are an idiot.

Saying i am a moderate muslim is like saying i am a moderate christian or i am a moderate nazi, or i am a moderate right winger. You either believe in something or you don't believe in it, there is no in between. That's what i am trying to say, I never once said "Muslims are like nazis" And in my eyes the way i said it was pretty clear. You just have misinterpreted it, so it's your own fault.

There is no "moderate" That's like saying "yeh i'm a moderate nazi, i don't hate jews because i am a moderate nazi"

Yes, like how everyone else in numerous other threads have misintrepreted your opinions for being racist, when in reality you're as benelovent and tolerant as Jesus on a cloud made of love during an LSD induced orgy.

Why the analogy to Nazism if you weren't comparing them to Nazi's, but you were actually comparing them to being a moderate anything? In doing so, you implied that a third of humanity is complicit in ethnic cleansing and genocide if they're not actively participating in it. If you're not racist, you are still a ****ing idiot for making that comparison in the first place, which still validates everything I said about your divine stupidity.

The more you post, the more stupider you look. It's like you think you can dig yourself out of this hole by digging up.

 

[xdrive]

Yes, like how everyone else in numerous other threads have misintrepreted your opinions for being racist, when in reality you're as benelovent and tolerant as Jesus on a cloud made of love during an LSD induced orgy.

Why the analogy to Nazism if you weren't comparing them to Nazi's, but you were actually comparing them to being a moderate anything? In doing so, you implied that a third of humanity is complicit in ethnic cleansing and genocide if they're not actively participating in it. If you're not racist, you are still a ****ing idiot for making that comparison in the first place, which still validates everything I said about your divine stupidity.

The more you post, the more stupider you look. It's like you think you can dig yourself out of this hole by digging up.

You misinterpreted what i was said and totally took it out of context. Also you totally misunderstood the point i was trying to make. It's your fault, not mine. End of story.

The point i am trying to make has nothing to do with comparing muslims to nazis, no matter how much you insist it does. The point i am trying to make is that you either believe in something or you do not believe in it. There is no moderate. There is no moderate muslims.

And the funniest thing is that if i changed "nazis" to christians, you wouldn't have said anything, you wouldn't have misinterepated what i said. You are just trying to create trouble by saying i am trying to compare muslims to nazis which is not my intention nor the point i am trying to make.

 

[Sparta]

You misinterpreted what i was said and totally misunderstood the point i was trying to make. It's your fault, not mine. End of story.

The point i am trying to make has nothing to do with comparing muslims to nazis, no matter how you insist it does.

This is odd. It's like this has happened before...

They are obviously not that civilized.

I am not being an idiot. I am proving a point. As soon as i stated a fact about the country that wasn't a good fact i was called a racist and xenophobic. Yet when Krynn72 basically says the same thing but in the form a story, he's not racist or xenophobic.

The difference there being that he was quoting an anecdote related to him by someone else. You were generalising the behaviour of the inhabitants of an entire country.

i can't be bothered

No i can't be bothered replying to you, because it will go no where. It will just lead to you replying with some poor attempt at saying i am a racist.

I just call it as I see it. Funny that other people share a similar opinion.

Yeh, and your way of seeing things is wrong. There is many people like you. The instant they see someone critiziing another culture that isn't a western one or one that doesn't have white people in it, you scream racist.

Anyway i am withdrawing myself from the conversation, i just expect a "no i am not" or a "No you're racist" in reply.

Oh, whaddya know, it has.

The point i am trying to make is that you either believe in something or you do not believe in it. There is no moderate. There is no moderate muslims.

And the funniest thing is that if i changed "nazis" to christians, you wouldn't have said anything, you wouldn't have misinterepated what i said. You are just trying to create trouble by saying i am trying to compare muslims to nazis which is not my intention nor the point i am trying to make.

Because if you changed Nazis to Christians it would be a completely different comparison to the one you "unintentionally" made when you compared them to Nazis. Nazis and Christians are not the same at all. You could say "Hey, Christians had the crusades, that's ethnic cleansing" but that is literally the only thing they have in common. Nazis actively participated in racial and religious discrimination and ethnic cleansing, and that was their major doctrine while in power. Christians do not practice these things and haven't practiced them in hundreds of years, so saying that if you had said "Christians instead of Nazis there would be no argument here" and "I'm just looking for trouble" is intellectually dishonest and once again, ****ing stupid. The two are nigh incomparable by today's standards (unless mentioned otherwise, which you didn't mention) and you would've suggested a completely different argument if you said Christians instead, so of course there would be no need for me to call you idiot then.

 

[Shyam]

When did Jverne take up the baton from Unozero and xdrive ?

 

[xdrive]

No matter how much you post insisting that i am comparing muslims to nazis it still won't change the fact that i am not, and it still won't change the fact that you misinterpreted what i said and took it totally out of context. I even explained 2 times what i meant by what i said and the point i was trying to make.

Yet you continue to insist i am comparing muslims to nazis when i am not. I think i would know better then you, what point i am trying to make. From what i said, it's pretty easy to understand my point, but you always get these people like you who totally don't get the point and just take it out of context.

Not my fault, it's your problem if you don't get the point that i am trying to make. I have written it, there it is, take it out of context all you like. You will only look like an idiot.

Everyone can go read what i wrote and then look at my explanation of the point i was trying to make, and let me just say it's way different to the "comparing muslims to nazis" point that you claim i am trying to make.

Now that's all from me, i will now just sit back and watch your shitty attempts at recovering yourself by quoting other posts from other threads, totally irrelevant to what we are currently discussing (which is "what the point of my other post was.")

 

[Sparta]

No matter how much you post insisting that i am comparing muslims to nazis it still won't change the fact that you misinterpreted what i said and took it totally out of context. I even explained 2 times what i meant by what i said and the point i was trying to make.

Haha, yes that's it, keep denying everything after I've proven with your own quotes that you're an idiot.

Yet you continue to insist i am comparing muslims to nazis when i am not. I think i would know better then you, what point i am trying to make. From what i said, it's pretty easy to understand my point, but you always get these people like you who totally don't get the point and just take it out of context.

Yes, because all racists shout their prejudices from the rooftop and are aware of it. It's not like passive racism even exists.

You are being racist, you just don't think you are. I'm sure there is a lot of people like that.

 

[Shyam]

There is no such thing as a "moderate muslims" That's like saying there were moderate nazis.

You know I've read recently that Indians have been attacked in Australia. Maybe I should make a generalizing statement like all Australians are racists, because a few idiots decided to commit a criminal act maybe I should attribute that to all Aussies ?. Because that's how the logic of your argument works.

 

[Shyam]

The point i am trying to make has nothing to do with comparing muslims to nazis, no matter how much you insist it does. The point i am trying to make is that you either believe in something or you do not believe in it. There is no moderate. There is no moderate muslims.

That is the most f***ing reatrded argument I have seen in this forum. So you are saying that there is absolutely no difference between Sufi Islam (a non violent form of Islam) and Wahabbi extremists ? And yes there are moderate muslims. They are the ones who want to keep Islam a private affair and not interfere with the government.

 

[mastag]

The danger isn't in the religion itself, it's in the practice. If most Christians took the bible as nations such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan etc take the Qu'ran, there would be Fascist "Christian" nations filled with similar human rights violations.

As an Atheist, I have a weird respect for Buddhism. Yeah, it's pretty retarded, but it's not nearly as dangerous as the Abrahamic religions can potentially be.

 

[Raziaar]

I should ask my burka wearing muslim secretary why she hates whitey but she'd probably loook at me as if I'm stark raving insane or just an ignorant westerner who shoots his mouth about things he has absolutely no clue about

btw she sat next to me during our company CHRISTMAS party. as far as I know no fatwah has been declared on my head. also unzero have you ever met someone who wasnt the same shade of lilly white as your are? are there brown people in your little corner of butt-**** whitey mcwhite idaho?

Do you not openly criticize Islam as much as you do Christianity when given the opportunity?

 

[jverne]

Come on man, you know better and this is an insult to your intelligence. There is no way in hell that if you tell a muslim that he/she can't wear certain things that will only make things worse when it comes to fundimentalism, not better. No matter how slick you try to be.

Now what exactly would banning the burka accomplish? You said it was an example of oppression. That's an opinon you hold, not really a fact. But be that as it may if you are right is that oppression going to stop once the burka is banned? No? Then again, what does it accomplish?

I admit i don't have the perfect answer for the most delicate issues. But neither have you or anyone here who claims to have the moral high ground.

Yes i see the burka as a symbol of oppression over women, submission. You see, in the west a women can decide if she wants to wear a hat or not. In Islam you have no such option.

The banning of minarets went quite peacefully. We could also force mosques to stay in line with the current architecture, thus diminishing the Saudi influence.

The burka poses serious security threats in banks and other facilities.
Maybe we should reduce it to open scarfs in public places.

(btw...chich is pretty hot)
Halal food should not be served in public institutions, because it's against the farming practice of the west.
Same goes for separation of public pools.
In school each pupil must obey the established secular policy.

I believe there are elegant ways to integrate them.

Imagine what would happen in the US if they banned guns outright? Hell would rise. But instead they do it slowly by prohibiting combat weapons, demanding user registrations,....

And those fundies should be under observation in the first place, just like the KKK, the Neo-nazis, IRA,...

But sure man, if you have a better idea throw it out. Right now i think you're proposing we'd just close our eyes and pretend we don't hear nothing.
If the blasphemy law in the UN was ratified it would be a really nice bone to chew on.

This is bollocks. You're focused on Islam because of the media and right-wing panic surrounding it. Their ideology is far less political than that of Christianity and Judaism in western culture and will always be. Simply because British courts make concessions to include sharia law in their legislature doesn't mean that Islam will divide and conquer the world and suddenly become the dominant religion in countries where various forms of Christianity has been the dominant religion for anywhere between a few hundred to over a thousand years.

No i really think islam is a more totalitarian religion than what Jesus proposed (this does not mean that the later is that much better).
I've also said why i do rather pick on Islam. In the last years it grew what? 250% and everything else was half or less than that.
It looks like it's growing (again).

Where did i say it will dominate the world?

And Islam has been in the middle east, north africa, central asia for hundreds of years, what's your point? Clearly Christianity is fading even in the US.

The 2001 ARIS report found that while 29.5 million U.S. Americans (14.1%) describe themselves as "without religion", only 902,000 (0.4%) positively claim to be atheist, with another 991,000 (0.5%) professing agnosticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

Hey not by much, but compared to hundreds of years ago.

You're certainly right to take exception to the government creating legislature based on religious beliefs, as it should have no place in government what-so-ever. But you cannot honestly say that Islam is more political in nature when AIPAC is the largest lobbying body in the U.S. and have done such a successful campaign of smearing critics of the Israeli government that anyone who opposes their policies is immediately seen as anti-semitic.

You can't say it's more political when the U.S. government enlists and allows PMC's like Blackwater to serve in Iraq with immunity, when its founder and CEO, Erik Prince, believes it is his mission to wipe Islam from the face of the Earth in the name of God.

You can't say it's more political when the President of The United States of America claims that Gog and Magog are aligning in the middle east and are fulfilling biblical prophecy for the end of times, so we better go to war in Iraq.



So do the Christian and Jewish right-wing, not to mention those Buddhists in China.

Replace Islam and Muslim in this thread with Jewish or Christian or Buddhist and you got pretty much the same issue. All are quite shitty. I just happen to take on Islam because of the factors i mentioned.

Your issue appears to be that you're quite scared of Islamic fundamentalists and for some reason they are the only fundamentalists you appear to be worked up about. You shouldn't be worked up specifically about Islam, you should be worked up about any religion trying to integrate itself with politics.

Fundamentalists and moderated who quietly agree with them.
And i am worked up about Islam trying to get into "our" politics. The whole thread was almost about this.

As i see it...we already have alot of dirt left from the Christian era, we're slowly cleaning it. No need to add Islam.
Those Muslims that complain why we can't have mosques when there a so many churches i'd reply...sorry pal, we're waiting for the churches to close down, no place for any more religious buildings. Pray at home or rent a hall.

edit:
for anyone not noticing the mosque as a photo shop, here's a real one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mosques_in_Europe

I think they are really made in a much more traditional way than the surrounding buildings.

A modern church

modern mosque...better than the previous one

But still, it's beside the point. Religious buildings are a symbol of power which is in it's own right a problem.
I've even heard the minaret represents a hard phallus, as symbolism of power.

 

[PvtRyan]

I'm not sure how banning minarets solves a problem. Are they scalar wave transmitters that turn righteous Christian Aryans into brown Islamic suicide terrorists? Banning them is just suppressing a symptom, not the problem of Muslim fundamentalism. I also don't approve of banning the burka to somehow help women in Islam. An oppressive husband will still be oppressive, regardless of whether or not his wife is wearing a garbage bag. Government personnel in a public position shouldn't be allowed to wear them though, nor would I be quick as an employer to hire someone who wears one, unless they were goddamn brilliant, but wearing a burka and being brilliant seem to be mutually exclusive.

 

[Solaris]

I don't have a problem with most Muslims as people, but I do not like Islam at all. I blame Islam for 9/11, for that trouble over the Mohammed cartoons, for female genital mutilation and for the suicide bombings in Iraq.

I think religious schools should be banned as well as religious symbols in schools (the burka, crosses etc.). We should definitely take strong action to move towards a more secular society, whilst respecting individuals right to religion, we must also respect the right of children to make up their own minds.

 

[Sulkdodds]

If you ban bhurkas you have to ban all masks and face coverings. In cases like this legislators shouldn't make a distinction between religious and secular items - especially not to specifically victimise a certain community (which, if I can still wear a mask just because I want to, such a law would do). I strongly disagree with the practice itself, but it is impractical to outlaw it.

While I haven't been through the whole thread, I did see Sharia courts mentioned. You correct me if I'm wrong, but: Sharia courts in the UK are not criminal courts. They do not have the power to impose binding sentences unless both parties agree. They are actually arbitration courts - just organised manifestations of the principle that people can choose for their issues to be settled as they wish.

 

[jverne]

If you ban bhurkas you have to ban all masks and face coverings. In cases like this legislators shouldn't make a distinction between religious and secular items - especially not to specifically victimise a certain community (which, if I can still wear a mask just because I want to, such a law would do). I strongly disagree with the practice itself, but it is impractical to outlaw it.

Gradual restriction. And i think it wouldn't be that impossible to distinguish secular from religious items (especially the obvious ones).

While I haven't been through the whole thread, I did see Sharia courts mentioned. You correct me if I'm wrong, but: Sharia courts in the UK are not criminal courts. They do not have the power to impose binding sentences unless both parties agree. They are actually arbitration courts - just organised manifestations of the principle that people can choose for their issues to be settled as they wish.

The article mentions that they are legally binding. And that they sometimes even cover domestic violence.

Despite all that...i'm against any law that institutionalizes discrimination against women.
The fact that the arbiter court judged in the favor of the sons because of Sharia law is abominable. It's an unfair court in it's very nature.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Gradual restriction.

Sorry, you need to explain this phrase.

And i think it wouldn't be that impossible to distinguish secular from religious items (especially the obvious ones).

It's not practically impossible - it's ethically impossible. How can you justify a law that only targets people with a certain religion ticked on their census information? One law for Christians and another for Muslims, just because a face covering is only religious for one of them? Again, why should I be allowed to wear a mask if I so desire (and I should be) but a Muslim woman not? You might say she does not choose to wear it, that she is forced to, or indoctrinated to. But then you cross a certain line, don't you? It'd be great if it could be ensured that Islamic communities do not generate oppressive mini-cultures that brutalise the people in them, but forbidding the hijab or bhurka is not going to have that effect.

As I see it these are items of political affiliation. They make a certain statement about women and women's position in society. I strongly disagree with it, but I strongly disagree with slogans on certain T-shirts, and those are legal.

The article mentions that they are legally binding. And that they sometimes even cover domestic violence.

Despite all that...i'm against any law that institutionalizes discrimination against women.
The fact that the arbiter court judged in the favor of the sons because of Sharia law is abominable. It's an unfair court in it's very nature.

They are legally binding when both parties agree to use it. That's what an arbitration court is. It's the same problem again: how do you justify allowing other kind of arbitration courts, but specifically banning this one?

You might propose that a battered woman is not making any kind of free choice . Her husband might be forcing her to consent to that court. But if he can force her to do that he can presumably force her not to attend any court at all, if a secular court was the only option for such things.

What specific incident are you talking about when you say "favor of the sons"? Was it earlier in the thread? Is there a link?

 

[unozero]

If you ban bhurkas you have to ban all masks and face coverings. In cases like this legislators shouldn't make a distinction between religious and secular items - especially not to specifically victimise a certain community (which, if I can still wear a mask just because I want to, such a law would do). I strongly disagree with the practice itself, but it is impractical to outlaw it.

While I haven't been through the whole thread, I did see Sharia courts mentioned. You correct me if I'm wrong, but: Sharia courts in the UK are not criminal courts. They do not have the power to impose binding sentences unless both parties agree. They are actually arbitration courts - just organised manifestations of the principle that people can choose for their issues to be settled as they wish.

I doubt Women in Muslim (some) Families have much say in the matter Sulk.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Read my last post. If they don't have any say then they don't have any say in anything. If they would ever have had the independence and pluck to prosecute in the first place, they could still use that same spirit to demand prosecution in a secular court. If they don't have it, closing the sharia courts won't change anything.

 

[jverne]

Sorry, you need to explain this phrase.

I've already did. Instead of banning it outright, we could prohibit them in certain places or demand lesser forms of it.

It's not practically impossible - it's ethically impossible. How can you justify a law that only targets people with a certain religion ticked on their census information? One law for Christians and another for Muslims, just because a face covering is only religious for one of them? Again, why should I be allowed to wear a mask if I so desire (and I should be) but a Muslim woman not? You might say she does not choose to wear it, that she is forced to, or indoctrinated to. But then you cross a certain line, don't you? It'd be great if it could be ensured that Islamic communities do not generate oppressive mini-cultures that brutalise the people in them, but forbidding the hijab or bhurka is not going to have that effect.

As I see it these are items of political affiliation. They make a certain statement about women and women's position in society. I strongly disagree with it, but I strongly disagree with slogans on certain T-shirts, and those are legal.

I do agree that is not easy meddling with this particular issue.
The burka is a powerful object, easily seen. Crosses can be hidden under clothing. Point is that the more one object is visible the greater the effect on the surroundings and self.

As for the shirt...muslim women don't really have any choice what to wear.

It's the same problem again: how do you justify allowing other kind of arbitration courts, but specifically banning this one?

You might propose that a battered woman is not making any kind of free choice . Her husband might be forcing her to consent to that court. But if he can force her to do that he can presumably force her not to attend any court at all, if a secular court was the only option for such things.

What specific incident are you talking about when you say "favor of the sons"? Was it earlier in the thread? Is there a link?

ALL religious and discriminating courts by nature should be disbanded!

The woman might choose these courts due to ignorance, peer pressure or they don't have a say whatsoever.
You see, even a bastard husband might think going to a court of his religion might be a good idea, maybe because of pride or status or peer pressure. The woman might complain to the local imam who would persuade the husband.
The inquisition also staged fake trials, but they could easily have just killed the poor women.

It's not that simple as you made it out to be.

Yes check the articles i posted or just google it.


Shit...i misunderstood your point there Sulk. Ok the one i made still is valid for any future would be questions.
to answer you properly. It would be dealt as domestic abuse like we have now. Educate women, give them help lines, call the police, like it's done in a secular society.
Choosing an arbiter court just because the alternative is worse, it's like having your left arm cut instead of your right (for right handed people). Terrible choices.
Based on your view, women of our society then have just two choices...secular court or the husband. Maybe if we make an arbiter court called "All male court" then it would balance things out, don't you think?

 

[Solaris]

Jverne, you post as if you were rambling to yourself on a walk through an airport. Much like that guy from 'On the Road'.

 

[No Limit]

I admit i don't have the perfect answer for the most delicate issues. But neither have you or anyone here who claims to have the moral high ground.

Let me simplify it for you. My position is as follows. Leave them alone and eventually the hate will die down. Your position goes like this. Go piss in a hornets nest and see what happens.

Yes i see the burka as a symbol of oppression over women, submission. You see, in the west a women can decide if she wants to wear a hat or not. In Islam you have no such option.

The funny thing is here is how you lack any sense of irony. To you the burka is a symbol of oppression because it doesn't give a women the choice to wear it or not (not sure where you get this crap from, many muslim women have this choice). Yet you want to take the right away from these same women who decide that they do want to wear it. By your very own definition you now want to oppress muslim women.

The banning of minarets went quite peacefully. We could also force mosques to stay in line with the current architecture, thus diminishing the Saudi influence.

Really? It went quite peacefully? How exactly do you know this? You think every time you do something you are instantly going to get a reaction? It takes a long time for the pot to boil over, but it will happen.

Replace Islam and Muslim in this thread with Jewish or Christian or Buddhist and you got pretty much the same issue. All are quite shitty. I just happen to take on Islam because of the factors i mentioned.

You are so full of shit it's not even funny. Sparta (who is this sparta guy btw and where the hell did he come from?) pointed out to you how christian and jewish groups have way more influcance in our governments than anything islam could ever hope for. And these are not innocent government influances, thousands of muslims die as a result of AIPAC influance each year. yet you aren't here preaching the banning of christian symbols, or jewish ones, just Islamic ones. Really, before you rumble on some more really take some time to think about this, it's not that complicated to understand.

 

[No Limit]

I don't have a problem with most Muslims as people, but I do not like Islam at all. I blame Islam for 9/11, for that trouble over the Mohammed cartoons, for female genital mutilation and for the suicide bombings in Iraq.

Who do you blame for all the people that died as a result of western foreign policy? Such as the half a million dead Iraqi children as a direct result of our sanctions?

 

[Solaris]

Who do you blame for all the people that died as a result of western foreign policy? Such as the half a million dead Iraqi children as a direct result of our sanctions?

For those deaths, I blame Sadamm as well as ourselves for not intervening early enough.

 

[No Limit]

For those deaths, I blame Sadamm as well as ourselves for not intervening early enough.

Care to go just a tad bit deeper than that? It was Saddam's fault that we destroyed his water treatment facilities? I guess in your world if we don't like a dictator the best course of action is to kill a bunch of innocent people that have no choice but to live under his regime?

 

[jverne]

Let me simplify it for you. My position is as follows. Leave them alone and eventually the hate will die down. Your position goes like this. Go piss in a hornets nest and see what happens.

You're suggesting we just stop cut all ties to the Islamic world...Saudi oil, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Israel, Central Asia...
Great idea, but it won't happen.

The fundamentalists hate us no matter what we do and will want their way no matter what. The difference is how much money they can get, since that allows them to actually put forward their plans.

The funny thing is here is how you lack any sense of irony. To you the burka is a symbol of oppression because it doesn't give a women the choice to wear it or not (not sure where you get this crap from, many muslim women have this choice). Yet you want to take the right away from these same women who decide that they do want to wear it. By your very own definition you now want to oppress muslim women.

Many women have this choice? They sure don't in Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi arabia,... Anywhere Islam is the main driving force. Turkey is secular that's why they can choose, but even this is at stake since Erdogan or what is he called took office.

Even in immigrant communities the presence of Islamic law is noticeable. You won't see there too many unveiled women. The secular they are the more choice they got.

But sure if you have actual empirical data, do show us. I will believe you.


And i do understand the irony in all this, i even mentioned it in my first post. The difference is that you're an extremist liberal in an age that is not yet ready for it. There must be some limits whether you like it or not.

Let me explain that to you...Time ago people used to throw thrash in illegal dumping grounds. That's how the problem was mostly solved: The government was pressured by the green movement and put forward laws banning such practices that were previously unregulated. Some time later people started educating themselves which further helped dealing with this problem. Today alot has been done in this area, much better than what it was.
Education alone is not enough, alot of people need a hard hand for them to actually get it.

Really? It went quite peacefully? How exactly do you know this? You think every time you do something you are instantly going to get a reaction? It takes a long time for the pot to boil over, but it will happen.

So in order not to provoke we should let them do all they want despite what our norms are?

For instance, in history church bells rang unrestricted. As the society grew secular some people that were bothered by their noise could legally prosecute this practice. Thus the frequency of church ringing fell dramatically, now you only hear them for midday or some special occasion.
Having an idiot scream praying time from a 30m tall tower is equally annoying. So you're suggesting we should just allow them to do it indiscriminately in fear of repercussions, because i'm pretty sure if they were allowed they wouldn't stop. Since nobody would be allowed to say anything in fear of retaliation. How do i know that? Years ago when a political party with strong ties to the Catholic church lifted some restrictions on bell ringing. And yes they did rang more often that time, until a bunch of people gathered and complained strongly.


I don't know what is the status in Europe for this practice, i'd be really happy if you find out and prove me wrong. Seriously i would.
My guess is that is in line with churches and such.

You are so full of shit it's not even funny. Sparta (who is this sparta guy btw and where the hell did he come from?) pointed out to you how christian and jewish groups have way more influcance in our governments than anything islam could ever hope for. And these are not innocent government influances, thousands of muslims die as a result of AIPAC influance each year. yet you aren't here preaching the banning of christian symbols, or jewish ones, just Islamic ones. Really, before you rumble on some more really take some time to think about this, it's not that complicated to understand.

Yes they do have influence, but my feeling is that it is decreasing. The fact that there are more secular countries today than ever before in history is one good example.

I'm all for devaluation of religious symbols/practices.
I won't demand demolition of old churches and synagogues. But new ones are not something i condone. And guess what, there are more mosques in the plan or already being built than new synagogues or churches in Europe for instance. Heck, a lot of churches are closing down. Just one was recently shut down due to lack of membership and funding in our country.

 

[Eejit]

Maybe not direct political influence but certainly an influence to politics (if i even phrased it correctly?).

That's a very important distinction. Being thrown a bone now and then by those in power is different from being in power oneself.

 

[No Limit]

You're suggesting we just stop cut all ties to the Islamic world...Saudi oil, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Israel, Central Asia...
Great idea, but it won't happen.

The fundamentalists hate us no matter what we do and will want their way no matter what. The difference is how much money they can get, since that allows them to actually put forward their plans.

No I'm suggesting we stop unconditionally supporting Israel and constantly bombing muslims. In the meantime before we stop doing that lets not piss them off more by telling them they can't practice their religion (which is exactly what you are trying to do even if you deny it).

The fundamentalists hate us no matter what we do and will want their way no matter what. The difference is how much money they can get, since that allows them to actually put forward their plans.

What are you talking about? Have you been hanging out with unozero? You believe they hate us just for the sake of hating us?

Many women have this choice? They sure don't in Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi arabia,... Anywhere Islam is the main driving force. Turkey is secular that's why they can choose, but even this is at stake since Erdogan or what is he called took office.

Even in immigrant communities the presence of Islamic law is noticeable. You won't see there too many unveiled women. The secular they are the more choice they got.

But sure if you have actual empirical data, do show us. I will believe you.

So what happens in Afghansitan is a reflection of the entire Islam culture? And since when did this turn in to a discussion about individual countries, I though we were talking about the religion as a whole.

And when talking about the religion as a whole yes, many women DO have this choice. A choice you are wanting to take away from them. by your own definition you want to oppress them.

So in order not to provoke we should let them do all they want despite what our norms are?

Our norms? Just who the **** do you think you are? What is normal for you isn't normal for other people. That's called freedom. You have no right to tell someone else what kind of head gear is normal and which isn't. Nor do you have a right to tell people what kind of church is normal and which isn't; something you are trying to do.

Yes they do have influence, but my feeling is that it is decreasing. The fact that there are more secular countries today than ever before in history is one good example.

I'm all for devaluation of religious symbols/practices.
I won't demand demolition of old churches and synagogues. But new ones are not something i condone. And guess what, there are more mosques in the plan or already being built than new synagogues or churches in Europe for instance. Heck, a lot of churches are closing down. Just one was recently shut down due to lack of membership and funding in our country.

Again you are so full of shit it's not even funny. You just went back to mosques again completely ignoring the point. AIPAC has more influance in western politics than virtually any other group when it comes to foreign policy. Thousands of muslims die each year as a result of that influance. So why are you so obsessed with Islam and noone else? Do not say that you are concerned about it equally because that would be a lie on your part. I haven't yet heard you say that those funny hats jews wear should be banned.

Now you could comeback and say gee, guys, that's a good point, I haven't thought of that before. Or you could go the xdrive/unozero route and spew more bullshit you will be called on.

 

[No Limit]

Since you edited your post after I posted I'll go back and address a point you added:

For instance, in history church bells rang unrestricted. As the society grew secular some people that were bothered by their noise could legally prosecute this practice. Thus the frequency of church ringing fell dramatically, now you only hear them for midday or some special occasion.
Having an idiot scream praying time from a 30m tall tower is equally annoying. So you're suggesting we should just allow them to do it indiscriminately in fear of repercussions, because i'm pretty sure if they were allowed they wouldn't stop. Since nobody would be allowed to say anything in fear of retaliation. How do i know that? Years ago when a political party with strong ties to the Catholic church lifted some restrictions on bell ringing. And yes they did rang more often that time, until a bunch of people gathered and complained strongly.
Same goes for the Muslim cartoons.

The problem is that there are laws against public noise. For a long time churches were exempt from those laws, not so much anymore (according to you, I honestly haven't paid attention to church bells since I live in a fairly large city). So yes, if a church breaks a law it shouldn't be allowed to be exempt from it. That is not what you are advocating. You are advoctaing setting up new laws that discriminate against a group of people. Tall christan crosses on chruches are okay, minarets aren't. Wearing a cross is ok. Wearing a burka isn't. You are oppressing a group of people because you don't think they are normal.

What the hell do the mohammed cartoons have to do with this point? Is drawing mohammed cartoons illegal? No? Then what are you talking about?

 

[Solaris]

I for one, can strangely, and un-easily say that I think Churches have more of a right to exist on the landscape than mosques. England is a culturally christian nation, and I'd like to see some of that identity preserved.

 

[No Limit]

I for one, can strangely, and un-easily say that I think Churches have more of a right to exist on the landscape than mosques. England is a culturally christian nation, and I'd like to see some of that identity preserved.

How about going back to why we should kill innocent children when they are forced to live under a brutal dictator? Wanna address that Solaris? You were quick to blame Islam for all they have done wrong, blaming the west for what they did isn't as big a priority for you?

 

[Solaris]

How about going back to why we should kill innocent children when they are forced to live under a brutal dictator? Wanna address that Solaris? You were quick to blame Islam for all they have done wrong, blaming the west for what they did isn't as big a priority for you?

Yes I'll get on it, just getting ready for the night shift so will respond later.

 

[jverne]

No I'm suggesting we stop unconditionally supporting Israel and constantly bombing muslims. In the meantime before we stop doing that lets not piss them off more by telling them they can't practice their religion (which is exactly what you are trying to do even if you deny it).

I'm all for ending wars. Israeli politics are also not something i look up to.
I'm not denying anyone to practice their faith unless it interferes with modern, secular norms and values.

The burka issue is not actually my main argument since it's not directly influencing politics. However i dislike it because i see it as a way to demean women. More of a personal issue than actually a legal one.

What are you talking about? Have you been hanging out with unozero? You believe they hate us just for the sake of hating us?

Ok i take some of my words back. They don't hate us directly, they just want to practice their ways which are in direct conflict with ours. I guess most people would go ok since i'm here i might adjust a bit, but a minority is very vocal about it and even aggressive. Sadly it's they who more often than not have the last say. Moderates usually are not very concerned about it.
And as i've said from the very start...i'm primarily against fundamentalists.

So what happens in Afghansitan is a reflection of the entire Islam culture? And since when did this turn in to a discussion about individual countries, I though we were talking about the religion as a whole.

And when talking about the religion as a whole yes, many women DO have this choice. A choice you are wanting to take away from them. by your own definition you want to oppress them.

I might be mistaken, but doesn't islam demand covered women?

Our norms? Just who the **** do you think you are? What is normal for you isn't normal for other people. That's called freedom. You have no right to tell someone else what kind of head gear is normal and which isn't. Nor do you have a right to tell people what kind of church is normal and which isn't; something you are trying to do.

True, i partially agree with you, but at the same time it'a shining example of your extremist liberal views.
In reality there is no such thing as unlimited freedom.
And it's true, they are my norms and the last time i checked they are in majority represented in our constitution and most European ones.
I'm all for the things you like, but i recognize they must be based on actual circumstances.

I don't have the right to judge what church is normal and which is not, but when public issues are involved i have! And i for one rather choose my version than submit to one i think is worse.

Again you are so full of shit it's not even funny. You just went back to mosques again completely ignoring the point. AIPAC has more influance in western politics than virtually any other group when it comes to foreign policy. Thousands of muslims die each year as a result of that influance. So why are you so obsessed with Islam and noone else? Do not say that you are concerned about it equally because that would be a lie on your part. I haven't yet heard you say that those funny hats jews wear should be banned.

Now you could comeback and say gee, guys, that's a good point, I haven't thought of that before. Or you could go the xdrive/unozero route and spew more bullshit you will be called on.

I was clear on this part, why do you still drag it on?
If you wish we can criticize other religions, be my guest.

Since you edited your post after I posted I'll go back and address a point you added:


The problem is that there are laws against public noise. For a long time churches were exempt from those laws, not so much anymore (according to you, I honestly haven't paid attention to church bells since I live in a fairly large city). So yes, if a church breaks a law it shouldn't be allowed to be exempt from it. That is not what you are advocating. You are advoctaing setting up new laws that discriminate against a group of people. Tall christan crosses on chruches are okay, minarets aren't. Wearing a cross is ok. Wearing a burka isn't. You are oppressing a group of people because you don't think they are normal.

What the hell do the mohammed cartoons have to do with this point? Is drawing mohammed cartoons illegal? No? Then what are you talking about?

What has been put up, let is stay up...it will most likely fade over time.
No new ones should be put up however. So i'm against any new churches as with any other new religious object.

I've edited the cartoon part out before you even posted. It didn't fit in this discussion so i apologize for it.


Edit: I'm curious No Limit...what is your definition of a moderate person? Let's say a religious moderate? You can take a christian is you like.