GasBandit
Staff member
[DOUBLEPOST=1345735004][/DOUBLEPOST]
Someone forgot what literally means! And is also a Charlie.
[News] No thread yet on Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin?
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
- Status
[DOUBLEPOST=1345735004][/DOUBLEPOST]
Necronic
Staff member
Understand that I'm speaking EU wide. In the EU as a whole the foreign born population is 9.4%. In the US it's 12.5%. That's roughly a 30% difference. On top of that the US has been so open to immigrants for so long that, in many major cities, non-hispanic whites are now in a minority.
I was just saying that Europes physical proximity to foreign cultures may have a significant impact on cultural diversity that you don't really see in America, since we only share a border with one truly "foreign" culture (mexico)
Maybe I misunderstood the law, but it's not about the schools not showing off religious items, but about the students. There is nothing that rings "acceptance, plurality, and tolerance" in a culture that doesn't allow a child to wear a cross, hijab, or a skullcap.
You say they should not have the power to affect how you act. Yet you feel totally fine in restricting how they act (obviously this does not apply to murder.)
I have a border with two foreign cultures, Mexico and Louisiana.
GasBandit
Staff member
And it's hard to get more foreign'nin dem luzianans, ah geh ron tee.
It's both in France, only teachers/administrators/staff in Belgium. Both are, of course, partially based in the "I dun wan' no woman in a scarf teachin' mah children" mentality of the retarded part of the population, but also about, yes, openness. It's a different view on how to adapt and live together. Understand that, for a very large percentage of pthe population in more and more European countries, it's clear that the "multicultural society" as a model has failed. Both left and right are looking more and more into "assimilation" instead of "living together" again. The right would like nothing better than all immigrants assimilating completely and without a ripple into local culture. The left is shifting mostly towards "allow everybody their freedom to do what they want, and avoid all offense given/taken by all keeping it separated from work and state".
Religious symbolism, hatred, oppression,... have caused more deaths than anything else in the world (yes, "humans" probably comes first, but don't be anal
). The freedom of religion is pretty serious around here. Not being forced into a confrontation with others' views on religion is quicjkly becoming an essential right as well.For the rest, it's a matter of "being intolerant to the intolerant" and whatever.
And apparently that second right supercedes the first.
Well YOU try to get them to speak English! Damn Frenchies and their crazy food. Their crazy, delicious food...
Necronic
Staff member
This is simply because theocracies were the political norm in the past. We're more or less beyond religious governments in most "1st world" countries, and guess what. We're STILL killing each other. Was WWI or WWII about religion? Was the Vietnam war about religion? What about the French Revolution? Or the Khmer Rouge? Stalin was an ATHEIST and he murdered MILLIONS.Religious symbolism, hatred, oppression,... have caused more deaths than anything else in the world (yes, "humans" probably comes first, but don't be anal
Where's your church to blame for this? Religion isn't the reason we've had wars. Greed, hatred, and stupidity are why we've had wars. Religion is just one of many motivating scapegoats that's slapped on top of a war by a subhuman piece of crap that is instigating the war for his own inhuman desires.
Thinking that religion is the cause of war and death is like saying that being black causes crime.
Why because bubble thinks that anyone with a religious belief is a crazy bigoted whackjob and feels that if they're displaying religious affiliation that he just has to confront them?
Necronic
Staff member
Probably the best example against the whole "Religion is the root cause of wars" is to simply look at Asia. By our western concepts of religion most of these cultures have been historically quite secular. Yet the country of China has been in a state of near constant war for all of recorded history. Japan as well, while paying lip service to a divinity in the Emperor, waged a constant internal civil war during the highly secular Shogunate, and is thoroughly hated by their neighbours for their history of war-mongering.
well the quote came upon talking about France's laws outlawing Burka's in public or religious symbols in public schools, so no I don't think he's talking about Mormons going door to door.
I live in the Bible Belt (in the same state as Akin, in fact), and I'm exposed all the time to uneducated people with backwards beliefs. I haven't ever heard anyone make his exact argument about "legitimate rape," but since I've moved down here I've heard some shockingly dumb things come out of people's mouths about religion/education/abortion/homosexuality/poverty/etc. Christians are VERY different down here than even Chicago, where I grew up and attended parochial school for 13 years -- and I imagine Shanghai Christians are even more different. I'm not trying to insult Christians as a whole, but if you experienced firsthand the craziness that is extreme southern American evangelicalism, you'd get it. There are a lot of evangelical preachers that hang out on my campus. I am exposed to their brand of crazy on a pretty regular basis.
Also, as of a poll that was released today, 38% of my neighbors still plan on voting for this man. As far as I'm concerned, that means they're endorsing him and his beliefs about women's bodies.
I always took door to door evangelicals as a nice nuisance. They are paying you the complement that your soul is worth saving. Then I poke holes in their dogma...
then let my dog out...
simple really.
then let my dog out...
simple really.
This has kinda been around for a while. Actually, it goes back to ancient times, but for a more recent sampling:
Necronic
Staff member
The irony of this post is simply too much for me. I believe we have crossed the streams here people.
Necronic
Staff member
Your post indicated you weren't really even following the conversation. It made huge assumptions about what was being said and was generally a really angry non-sequitor.
Which was hilarious because you said we need to re-read what we were responding to and not make angry non-sequitors.
Which was hilarious because you said we need to re-read what we were responding to and not make angry non-sequitors.
Exactly because he didn't say that and you assumed far too much. That part you are quoting is a description of where these bannings of burkhas or even hiyabs and other veils that don't cover the face are coming from (one of the places they're coming from).
Really, the part that you maybe could hold against him is the "Religion main reason of war throughout history" point and that: 1- can be discussed to hold some truth 2- in any case is more a common misconception than being "practicing member of the Church of Atheism.[DOUBLEPOST=1345754741][/DOUBLEPOST]
Well, in the mindset of a two party system that can't be true can it? But I guess you could say that, if they don't approve of this bullshit, they at least don't think it's too bad.
(Does endorse mean share beliefs and positions, or am I misunderstanding?)[DOUBLEPOST=1345755031][/DOUBLEPOST]As a comment on the veil/cross/whatever ban in public schools in france (it really was all at the same time I believe): I think it's a matter of coming from a trend where they were forbidding religious symbols in schools on the school's part such as crucifixes on the walls and whatnot (which I think is totally right), and took it way too far. On the other hand you have places where schools, courthouses or whatever have christian symbols and that's totally fine and legal, such as Spain or Italy or I guess the US, which isn't right either. I guess it's very hard to get to the right point as a society, because there are always opposite forces tugging in either direction, and usually one of them will win by a little bit or by a lot.
To pu
To put it in d and d terms wars are the result of leaders that rolled high charisma and nothing else.
"Endorse" doesn't necessarily mean "share," but it does mean "support or approve of." Yeah, some of those people are going to be voting for him because a) he's Republican and b) they think that he's better than the alternative (our current senator, Claire McCaskill, who is actually quite moderate and regularly votes against her party) -- you are correct that the two-party system is largely to blame. But, frankly, if a Democrat senator had said something that outrageous and stupid about one of the highly-targeted groups I identify as (female and atheist being the big two), I'd probably either not vote or go out and vote for the alternative because that person has made it clear they don't represent me. I tend to vote Democrat, but I've voted Republican and Libertarian before (mostly when I was living in Chicago), and I'll do it again.
Well, it seems I missed a bit of drama here. Perhaps all for the best
Anyway, without wanting to provoke, let me say a few things. Do bear in mind that I haven't seen any of the posts that were removed (except excerpts still in quotes).
Firstly, I wasn't necessarily stating my own personal point of view. While I do think burkas are a serious problem, I don't think a law forcing the issue is the solution. I was trying to point out where the sentiment is coming from and what lies at the basis of it. It's too easy to say "France hates muslims and is forcing everyone to abandon their faiths because burkas are illegal, there's no freedom of religion". A lot of muslims consider it an insult to have to be brought to court in a building that prominently displays signs of Christian faith. I personally think it's a shame to remove 200+-year-old crucifixes from courthouses, just like I think it's a shame to destroy Buddha statues in Afghanistan or any other antique/ancient art works. I agree with the sentiment at the basis of said removal (religion needs to butt out of our law system), but I don't think taking down the symbols is necessary - as long those crucifixes/bibles/whatever are considered works of antique art, and not in any way an endorsement or whatever of the faith they represent. Similarly, I'm technically a republican (in the older form of the word - I think our royal house should be abolished), but that doesn't mean I think we should tear down the royal palace. Just turn it into a museum.
Secondly, I'll concede that, yes, there are plenty of reasons to go to war, and perhaps religion isn't the biggest one. If I state "abuse of religion is an important factor in casing hate and hate crimes, and religion has been (ab)used as a reason to go to war and/or villify the enemy far too many times over the course of history", can you accept that?
Thirdly, I'm definitely not of the Church of Atheism, considering I'm not an atheist. I'm agnostic. If stating that I insist upon a complete separation of church and state (be it Sharia, be it Leviticus, be it I-don't-care-what) makes me suddenly a hard-line atheist zealot in your eyes, I'm not the one with a problem in modern democratic society.
Fourth, I'll try to rephrase my "confrontation" point. It's not something I, personally, usually feel very strongly about. I don't care if the woman behind the counter is wearing a small cross on her neck, or has a bindi, or is wearing a headscarf. On the other hand, some people are. Yes, many of them for xenophobic reasons. My grandmother wore a scarf on her head to churh every sunday, and nobody complained back then. Forcing all civil servants to hide their personal beliefs (and it goes beyond strictly religious items - you're not allowed to wear a badge proclaiming a political view either, for example) was the "easy" way out.
Since most people get most of their information on other countries from prejudiced media sources, let's state clearly what is and isn't legal.
In France and Belgium, the niqab and burka are illegal to be worn in public, because they disguise identity and hide the face. Yes, all face-covering apparel is illegal. There are a few exceptions, but they're surprisingly limited. Carnaval in a few cities, but, in case you're wondering, yes, it is illegal to wear a face-covering mask to a children's party or whatever outside of carnaval season. this was done because, both in Paris and in Brussels, there have been serious riots over problems with people with covered faces. Just a few weeks ago, there were riots against the police in a neighbourhood a 10minutes walk from me. Police officers wanted to check the identity of a woman in niqab (they weren't even giving her a ticket for wearing it, mind!), they asked her to come to their car and, privately, show her face to a female, muslim officer (yes, we do bend over backwards to accomodate everyone, why?). The officer got a head-butt and several striks to the face for her trouble, and riots broke out because the police shouldn't have been allowed to force her to show her face and had been "too aggressive". Camera footage shows they weren't, though. Anyway, this is with this restriction in place. Yes, we have detained men in burkas hiding explosives, and yes, we have had people abusing these clothing items to smuggle/hide identity of burglars/etc.
For civil servants on duty, it's illegal to display any sign of personal religious or philosophical beliefs. No cross on your neck, no swastika-tattoo on your forehead, no badge proclaiming "I'm socialist and proud of it". This to ensure neutrality. As has been said - some people object to being treated by someone of another way of life - that damn conservative ass won't give me the aid I need and should get, that damn bleeding heart leftie won't consider my complaint about noise from the neighbours, that muslim won't note down my complaint about the stench of slaughtering sheep in the backyard,... Prejudice and bigotry, on all sides. Easier to force a semblance of neutrality than trying to change everyone. In schools, as far as belgium goes, it's made legal to specify whether or not face-covering apparel is illegal. Most schools already had rules against caps/hats/head coverings indoor, but there was the problem that such rules were sometimes being treated as banning headscarves, sometimes just burkas, sometimes none of them because of religious freedom. Law was made to clarify that a school can explicitly ban them. Since burka and niqab are illegal anyway (public space), this only concerns regular hair coverings...Schools are free to make their rules, but generally speaking, they're allowed.
Anyway. My point wasn't "I'm a bigot", nor "all religious people are bigots". I wasn't saying "Americans are backwards for their stance on religion", either. I was syaing "some people think this way ,and it led to these laws". I was trying to explain where these laws are coming from - whether or not I agree with them is completely irrelevant to that matter. There's a very big difference in interpretation of freedoms of religion/speech/etc between cultures. Especially between the US and continental Europe, but even on a smaller basis. To give a silly and non-related example, in Flanders, the public opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of allowing street cameras to be used against crime (both using ATM cameras and security cameras to track, and placing specific cameras to register what happens on "hot spots" such as tourist attractions with a lot of pickpockets). In Wallonia, the public opinion is strongly against, as they see it as a horrible breach of privacy. I'm not saying one or the other is right - jsut that the balance of freedom/security is different for every person, and these views are influenced more by surroundings and local culture than people seem to think.
Anyway, without wanting to provoke, let me say a few things. Do bear in mind that I haven't seen any of the posts that were removed (except excerpts still in quotes).
Firstly, I wasn't necessarily stating my own personal point of view. While I do think burkas are a serious problem, I don't think a law forcing the issue is the solution. I was trying to point out where the sentiment is coming from and what lies at the basis of it. It's too easy to say "France hates muslims and is forcing everyone to abandon their faiths because burkas are illegal, there's no freedom of religion". A lot of muslims consider it an insult to have to be brought to court in a building that prominently displays signs of Christian faith. I personally think it's a shame to remove 200+-year-old crucifixes from courthouses, just like I think it's a shame to destroy Buddha statues in Afghanistan or any other antique/ancient art works. I agree with the sentiment at the basis of said removal (religion needs to butt out of our law system), but I don't think taking down the symbols is necessary - as long those crucifixes/bibles/whatever are considered works of antique art, and not in any way an endorsement or whatever of the faith they represent. Similarly, I'm technically a republican (in the older form of the word - I think our royal house should be abolished), but that doesn't mean I think we should tear down the royal palace. Just turn it into a museum.
Secondly, I'll concede that, yes, there are plenty of reasons to go to war, and perhaps religion isn't the biggest one. If I state "abuse of religion is an important factor in casing hate and hate crimes, and religion has been (ab)used as a reason to go to war and/or villify the enemy far too many times over the course of history", can you accept that?
Thirdly, I'm definitely not of the Church of Atheism, considering I'm not an atheist. I'm agnostic. If stating that I insist upon a complete separation of church and state (be it Sharia, be it Leviticus, be it I-don't-care-what) makes me suddenly a hard-line atheist zealot in your eyes, I'm not the one with a problem in modern democratic society.
Fourth, I'll try to rephrase my "confrontation" point. It's not something I, personally, usually feel very strongly about. I don't care if the woman behind the counter is wearing a small cross on her neck, or has a bindi, or is wearing a headscarf. On the other hand, some people are. Yes, many of them for xenophobic reasons. My grandmother wore a scarf on her head to churh every sunday, and nobody complained back then. Forcing all civil servants to hide their personal beliefs (and it goes beyond strictly religious items - you're not allowed to wear a badge proclaiming a political view either, for example) was the "easy" way out.
Since most people get most of their information on other countries from prejudiced media sources, let's state clearly what is and isn't legal.
In France and Belgium, the niqab and burka are illegal to be worn in public, because they disguise identity and hide the face. Yes, all face-covering apparel is illegal. There are a few exceptions, but they're surprisingly limited. Carnaval in a few cities, but, in case you're wondering, yes, it is illegal to wear a face-covering mask to a children's party or whatever outside of carnaval season. this was done because, both in Paris and in Brussels, there have been serious riots over problems with people with covered faces. Just a few weeks ago, there were riots against the police in a neighbourhood a 10minutes walk from me. Police officers wanted to check the identity of a woman in niqab (they weren't even giving her a ticket for wearing it, mind!), they asked her to come to their car and, privately, show her face to a female, muslim officer (yes, we do bend over backwards to accomodate everyone, why?). The officer got a head-butt and several striks to the face for her trouble, and riots broke out because the police shouldn't have been allowed to force her to show her face and had been "too aggressive". Camera footage shows they weren't, though. Anyway, this is with this restriction in place. Yes, we have detained men in burkas hiding explosives, and yes, we have had people abusing these clothing items to smuggle/hide identity of burglars/etc.
For civil servants on duty, it's illegal to display any sign of personal religious or philosophical beliefs. No cross on your neck, no swastika-tattoo on your forehead, no badge proclaiming "I'm socialist and proud of it". This to ensure neutrality. As has been said - some people object to being treated by someone of another way of life - that damn conservative ass won't give me the aid I need and should get, that damn bleeding heart leftie won't consider my complaint about noise from the neighbours, that muslim won't note down my complaint about the stench of slaughtering sheep in the backyard,... Prejudice and bigotry, on all sides. Easier to force a semblance of neutrality than trying to change everyone. In schools, as far as belgium goes, it's made legal to specify whether or not face-covering apparel is illegal. Most schools already had rules against caps/hats/head coverings indoor, but there was the problem that such rules were sometimes being treated as banning headscarves, sometimes just burkas, sometimes none of them because of religious freedom. Law was made to clarify that a school can explicitly ban them. Since burka and niqab are illegal anyway (public space), this only concerns regular hair coverings...Schools are free to make their rules, but generally speaking, they're allowed.
Anyway. My point wasn't "I'm a bigot", nor "all religious people are bigots". I wasn't saying "Americans are backwards for their stance on religion", either. I was syaing "some people think this way ,and it led to these laws". I was trying to explain where these laws are coming from - whether or not I agree with them is completely irrelevant to that matter. There's a very big difference in interpretation of freedoms of religion/speech/etc between cultures. Especially between the US and continental Europe, but even on a smaller basis. To give a silly and non-related example, in Flanders, the public opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of allowing street cameras to be used against crime (both using ATM cameras and security cameras to track, and placing specific cameras to register what happens on "hot spots" such as tourist attractions with a lot of pickpockets). In Wallonia, the public opinion is strongly against, as they see it as a horrible breach of privacy. I'm not saying one or the other is right - jsut that the balance of freedom/security is different for every person, and these views are influenced more by surroundings and local culture than people seem to think.
Which isn't to say that they haven't had religiously-inspired wars, it's more that they've had just as many, if not more, wars inspired by much more mundane reasons.
Economic issues, and nationalist sentiment certainly contributed to the conflict. Hard to attribute any war on any one factor.
I guess we'll just contain all rape stuff here for now, though this really deserves its own thread:
Detroit prosecutor combing through thousands of untested rape kits left dormant since 2009
I'm glad someone's doing something about this, and even better, is already getting results.
Detroit prosecutor combing through thousands of untested rape kits left dormant since 2009
I'm glad someone's doing something about this, and even better, is already getting results.
That woman is awesome. I had no idea that untested rape kits were even a problem. I mean... What the shit, that's what they're for!
It's like I'm back in the Army when we had "Sexual Harassment Training."
- Status