Education and standards is not working now, the Burqa and Hijab are catching on in France. France does not want an under-class of women just in the overly strict households. Islam is to submit, but the women end up submitting to more than the men.
Are you serious?
- Thread starter David
- Start date
- Status
I suspect that the Hijab catching on in France has more to do as a response to government pressure than any cultural invasion (although, there is that).
Kind of like religion in China. I have a professor who has been traveling to China for over 20 years now as a scholar on Chinese Philosophy, and she reports that unfortunately (her opinion) the government-mandated atheism of China has caused lots of young people to embrace various religions in recent years, simply as a reaction to the government's forbidding of it.
I think you're misusing words again. Unless you have a strong opinion on fruits.
[/QUOTE]
You know when you're carrying something that you have a precarious hold on, and it keeps sort of wobbling and threatening to fall? Kind of like ... I was carrying in my McDonald's supper last night from the car, and I had to grip the drink from the bottom with only two fingers and a thumb, as I was trying to manage other things. The drink sloshed around, and threatened to crash to my driveway at any moment.
That has been my relationship with the word "Niqab" all day. Every time I've used it (except for this time, which you just quoted) I've re-checked it on Wikipedia to make sure I spelled it right. Shit.
There is no law in Canada requiring visual identification to vote. The bill you are thinking of died on the table when an election was called.
There is no law in Canada requiring visual identification to vote. The bill you are thinking of died on the table when an election was called.[/QUOTE]
My mistake. I hadn't paid much attention to it when I had first heard of it, and the brief Googling I did today lead me to believe that it had gone through.
Yeah, we do have to make a difference.
Hijab = scarf around the head; fine for pretty much most people; those who oppose it haven't really thought about our own fashion 50 years ago. Acceptable for all, except where it might clash either with uniforms and/or the impartiality and neutrality of the state (because, yes, in Belgium and France, you're not allowed to wear a cross, either, as a public teacher. No racism or whatever there.).
Niqab = full face covering. Can be a security concern, depending on how rigourous the person is. Full body is covered except for hands and eyes; still possible to move around freely
Burkah = full covering of the entire body with a framework to avoid showing any hint of body. No eyes visible, often no sleeves, no hands. By the way, Necronic? A women with a burkah practically -couldn't- work in a shop. No arms to hold anything or take or give money. She was most probably wearing a Niqab.
Niqab:
Burkah:
Hijab = scarf around the head; fine for pretty much most people; those who oppose it haven't really thought about our own fashion 50 years ago. Acceptable for all, except where it might clash either with uniforms and/or the impartiality and neutrality of the state (because, yes, in Belgium and France, you're not allowed to wear a cross, either, as a public teacher. No racism or whatever there.).
Niqab = full face covering. Can be a security concern, depending on how rigourous the person is. Full body is covered except for hands and eyes; still possible to move around freely
Burkah = full covering of the entire body with a framework to avoid showing any hint of body. No eyes visible, often no sleeves, no hands. By the way, Necronic? A women with a burkah practically -couldn't- work in a shop. No arms to hold anything or take or give money. She was most probably wearing a Niqab.
Niqab:
Burkah:
GasBandit
Staff member
There's lots of stuff that looks sexy that you shouldn't be wearing on the subway/at the airport.
E
Element 117
shit, I had no idea I thought of Netherlands at all, much less like that. I kinda just though that's where all the Smurfs live.
shit, I had no idea I thought of Netherlands at all, much less like that. I kinda just though that's where all the Smurfs live.[/QUOTE]
For whatever reason, Bubble calls me Amy. Not sure why.[/QUOTE]
Now that you mention it ... I'm sure I've called you Amy once before, like a few months ago, probably following Bubble's lead. Only now does it occur to me that it makes no sense.
I was in Egypt last month on a tour (it was awesome), but what is stated above there is EXACTLY what was described to us by a local: a woman working in a hotel in Alexandria. And this was ALEXANDRIA. Possibly the LEAST-egypt-like city in the country. We went everywhere from Cairo to Aswan to the western desert (stayed in Dahkla, Baharyya (sp?), and Siwa). Cairo's in the middle, western desert is holy crap conservative (FEW un-veiled women (Niqab) if there were any at ALL visible on the street), and Alexandria was the "closest" to Europe... but still damned far away. More like an attempt at a veneer.
And what was described to us was a place where if you're a woman, pray day and night that you can get out of the country in ANY way possible. And if you don't dress what's considered "modest" (hijab at the LEAST), you're a whore. Straight out. There's no wiggle room on that. Now it's strange what qualifies (some odd contradictions), but don't mistake that these things, hijab, niqab, and burkah, are all symbols of oppression, NOT modesty. If your skin is even brown-ish, if you're not in a Hijab, you're harassed. And there were two girls in our tour from California that were definitely "very" white, but if they went off alone, THEY were harassed quite bad on at least two occasions. My wife and I were always together, but we knew to NEVER have her go off alone. It's not exaggerating that it's dangerous.
In a "western" country there may be no harm to some of these things initially, but if it grows to ANY significant extent (even in a ghetto of some kind), those garments then become oppressive. And a defense. And that's why it's even more oppressive: wear this and you'll have no "problems" (no freedoms ever, a faceless woman). But don't wear it, and you'll be harassed. Vicious. And I've seen the results in person.
Necronic
Staff member
In some ways we're only 50 to 100 years ahead of them. Girdles and 'proper' female dress were only really taken out ~50 years ago or so. Before that you had plenty of other oppressive womens garments/mentalities.
Anyways, my impression is that in Europe these people (or their children) don't integrate with the local culture the way they do in America. I'm wondering why that is. Maybe its because to immigrate to America takes a much larger investment of capital, so the muslim immigrants we are recieving are generally better educated which leads to better educated kids.
I dunno, just a guess.
Anyways, my impression is that in Europe these people (or their children) don't integrate with the local culture the way they do in America. I'm wondering why that is. Maybe its because to immigrate to America takes a much larger investment of capital, so the muslim immigrants we are recieving are generally better educated which leads to better educated kids.
I dunno, just a guess.
Necronic
Staff member
No, my concept of integrate is understanding that they can do anything they want in this country, but they don't have to do it. I don't disagree with previous statements that many muslim women are effectively forced to wear the hajib etc, and I have a problem with that. For the same reason I have a problem with someone being forced to not wear it.
By integrate I mean that they understand that there are other options to the way they live, and that their choices in life are their own, and no one elses. If, in Brussels, they never leave their all muslim communities and see that there are other ways, then they may never be able to make that choice. And that is all that matters to me, choice. That is something a government should never be able to remove (well, except like, I choose to murder you. That's not cool.)
By integrate I mean that they understand that there are other options to the way they live, and that their choices in life are their own, and no one elses. If, in Brussels, they never leave their all muslim communities and see that there are other ways, then they may never be able to make that choice. And that is all that matters to me, choice. That is something a government should never be able to remove (well, except like, I choose to murder you. That's not cool.)
Dave
Staff member
Oi vey.
Church plans Quran-burning event - CNN.com
Florida church who says Islam is the Devil (or maybe the GREAT SATAN) will be burning Qurans on September 11. Because they are apparently turning the other cheek and loving their neighbors. And I assume the Muslim response will be equally level-headed and well thought out.
Church plans Quran-burning event - CNN.com
Florida church who says Islam is the Devil (or maybe the GREAT SATAN) will be burning Qurans on September 11. Because they are apparently turning the other cheek and loving their neighbors. And I assume the Muslim response will be equally level-headed and well thought out.
C
Chazwozel
The fuck does book burning ever accomplish (other than telling people one is a book burning ignoramus).
In the days of handcopied manuscripts, I'd have called it a crime against humanity.
In the days of the printing press, I'd have called it a tragic attack on knowledge.
In the days of the internet I just call it a telling and useless declaration of one's love of ignorance.
In the days of handcopied manuscripts, I'd have called it a crime against humanity.
In the days of the printing press, I'd have called it a tragic attack on knowledge.
In the days of the internet I just call it a telling and useless declaration of one's love of ignorance.[/QUOTE]
Well said, Dr. King.
I misread that as "mosque-burning" and got really freaked out.
Pretty much any book-burning pisses me off, but I at first mis-thought it as some terrorist network of Christian fundamentalists.
Pretty much any book-burning pisses me off, but I at first mis-thought it as some terrorist network of Christian fundamentalists.
How do you mean this? Do you mean this in a "society must be secular" sort of way, or do you mean this in a "all organized religion must end" way?
---------- Post added at 12:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:17 AM ----------
And as with so many other ideologies and beliefs, I would argue that while in-group/out-group might be an unfortunate result of religion, it is rarely the purpose.
I see you're misspelling some things on purpose, so I'll do the same favor for reason I know.
F4lun G0ngs not a religion, and I think you know the real reason it's not allowed in a certain nation.
F4lun G0ngs not a religion, and I think you know the real reason it's not allowed in a certain nation.
Really? I don't agree with mr_thehun's assertion that religion holds no place in modern society, but I would think creating an in-group/out-group is pretty much the exact purpose of most religions.
Dave
Staff member
Apple users would.
This is closest to what I was going for. I know China has a limit to how many non-family may gather because previously the gathering of their members grew into a political movement against the government.
However, I get some cases at my job of people seeking asylum here in the U.S. because they're beaten and put in jail for physical exercise. Of course, more than half of them never practiced or even met someone who was a member of the group and are exposed in court for being liars, but it happens.
Really? I don't agree with mr_thehun's assertion that religion holds no place in modern society, but I would think creating an in-group/out-group is pretty much the exact purpose of most religions.[/QUOTE]
Judaism: yeah. They are the people of God to the exclusion of all others. I'll give you that.
Christianity: no. The entire thrust of the New Testament is that there is no Jew or Gentile or Greek. The entire human race is invited to be the 'in crowd.'
Islam: I can't speak to, but I get the impression that it was more about bringing people into true belief than creating an in-crowd. Much like Christianity, the fact that not everybody is a Muslim means that there is a de facto in and out crowd, but that doesn't seem like the purpose.
Buddhism is about personal enlightenment, as far as I understand it, so again, it's not about creating an in crowd or out crowd.
I know next to nothing about both Hinduism and Sikhism, so I won't speak to either of those.
The point is, if you look at the core philosophy of most religions, none of them started to purposefully divide a population. Except for Judaism, but I forgive that based on the age of the religion. Besides, even they have allowances for 'outsiders' who wish to convert into Judaism. Most divisive elements come after the founding of the religion, and at best constitute sub-sects of the greater philosophy of Christianity, or Islam, or whatever else.
1500 years of warfare between cultures, leads to some hurt feelings.
Buddhism isn't really an organized religion outside Tibet as far as I know. The Buddhists I've known never had any congregation or official gathering unless you count wi-fi cafes and yoga class.
Okay, then nothing to disagree with there. They aren't trying to divide themselves into inside/outside.
- Status