Surprised there's no Languish ruling on this.
My take: this is nothing but a racist, anti-Muslim decree masquerading as Pro-Female, Pro Secularism.
Honestly, on the beaches of France, for decades, anything goes. You want to wear a piece of cloth that barely covers your clit, fine. No problem. But wait.....you want to cover your whole body....Outrageous.
We've been discussing this for days. ;)
Quote from: garbon on August 26, 2016, 08:40:29 AM
We've been discussing this for days. ;)
fuck...I did search you know.
Quote from: garbon on August 26, 2016, 08:40:29 AM
We've been discussing this for days. ;)
years actually.
Quote from: Josephus on August 26, 2016, 08:38:25 AM
Surprised there's no Languish ruling on this.
My take: this is nothing but a racist, anti-Muslim decree masquerading as Pro-Female, Pro Secularism.
Honestly, on the beaches of France, for decades, anything goes. You want to wear a piece of cloth that barely covers your clit, fine. No problem. But wait.....you want to cover your whole body....Outrageous.
We have been discussing it in the Prison Food thread...because of course we have.
Prison food thread renamed because fuck you, that's why.
Quote from: Martinus on August 26, 2016, 09:03:16 AM
Prison food thread renamed because fuck you, that's why.
thanks
Quote from: Josephus on August 26, 2016, 09:04:48 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 26, 2016, 09:03:16 AM
Prison food thread renamed because fuck you, that's why.
thanks
:hug:
Do me a favour and read the article by Maajid Nawaz I posted, and comment on it. :)
Out of it I heard an interesting summary.
In America freedom of religion exists out of the believe that religion needs protecting from the state.
In France freedom of religion exists out of the belief that the state needs protecting from religion.
Quote from: Josephus on August 26, 2016, 08:38:25 AM
Surprised there's no Languish ruling on this.
My take: this is nothing but a racist, anti-Muslim decree masquerading as Pro-Female, Pro Secularism.
Honestly, on the beaches of France, for decades, anything goes. You want to wear a piece of cloth that barely covers your clit, fine. No problem. But wait.....you want to cover your whole body....Outrageous.
you shouldn't use the beach to make a political statement, just like you'll get fined for having sex on a public beach.
Why should we allow the ennemy to spread its propaganda here? Secularism is the dam that protects democracy and it's under attack from within as well as without.
Quote from: viper37 on August 26, 2016, 09:23:07 AM
Quote from: Josephus on August 26, 2016, 08:38:25 AM
Surprised there's no Languish ruling on this.
My take: this is nothing but a racist, anti-Muslim decree masquerading as Pro-Female, Pro Secularism.
Honestly, on the beaches of France, for decades, anything goes. You want to wear a piece of cloth that barely covers your clit, fine. No problem. But wait.....you want to cover your whole body....Outrageous.
you shouldn't use the beach to make a political statement, just like you'll get fined for having sex on a public beach.
Why should we allow the ennemy to spread its propaganda here? Secularism is the dam that protects democracy and it's under attack from within as well as without.
Where do you draw the line then. If a guy wears a Speedo with a Star of David on it, should that be banned. if a woman with a disfigurement wants to cover her body, should she be told not to. It's not about making a point at a beach. I'm sure that wasn't the intention.
I take my 5 year old niece to a water park north of Toronto and I do see some women in Burkins. I feel a bit sorry for them, cause that's got to be uncomfortable, but I doubt they're wearing it here and now to make a point.
Quote from: Tyr on August 26, 2016, 09:18:23 AM
Out of it I heard an interesting summary.
In America freedom of religion exists out of the believe that religion needs protecting from the state.
In France freedom of religion exists out of the belief that the state needs protecting from religion.
and we've seen wich one works the best, imho. American politics tainted by religion leads to Trump like candidate gaining huge support. The closest you got in France is a Front National overing at 20% at the general election once per generation.
Quote from: viper37 on August 26, 2016, 09:29:05 AM
American politics tainted by religion leads to Trump like candidate gaining huge support.
Trump isn't particularly religious :P
Quote from: Josephus on August 26, 2016, 09:28:23 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 26, 2016, 09:23:07 AM
Quote from: Josephus on August 26, 2016, 08:38:25 AM
Surprised there's no Languish ruling on this.
My take: this is nothing but a racist, anti-Muslim decree masquerading as Pro-Female, Pro Secularism.
Honestly, on the beaches of France, for decades, anything goes. You want to wear a piece of cloth that barely covers your clit, fine. No problem. But wait.....you want to cover your whole body....Outrageous.
you shouldn't use the beach to make a political statement, just like you'll get fined for having sex on a public beach.
Why should we allow the ennemy to spread its propaganda here? Secularism is the dam that protects democracy and it's under attack from within as well as without.
Where do you draw the line then. If a guy wears a Speedo with a Star of David on it, should that be banned. if a woman with a disfigurement wants to cover her body, should she be told not to. It's not about making a point at a beach. I'm sure that wasn't the intention.
I take my 5 year old niece to a water park north of Toronto and I do see some women in Burkins. I feel a bit sorry for them, cause that's got to be uncomfortable, but I doubt they're wearing it here and now to make a point.
There are religious Jewish sects in Quebec. They were forced to flee in Ontaria, and later in South American due to persecution from authorities. Kids were beaten, starved, educated in strict religious morals, seperated from their parents, all in the name of God.
Lots of people called the province racist for that. Unfair persecution of religious people.
Why is it we are there? Protecting children from fuck ups is considered an attack agains relgious freedom now? If we rescue kids from a neo-nazi boot camp, are we attacking freedom of thoughts too?
We've left way too much leeway to religious extremism, and now they are converting more&more people to their cause everyday.
You tell women they are unpure, they are whores if not dressed in a certain way. You attack them on the street when they are not dressed in a certain way. And suddenly, they make a "free choice" of dressing a certain way. And then you have entire communities thinking women are inferior to men and don't deserve equal rights. And then they push back violently against their host society as they feel ostracized for living in a society that is not to their image.
This is how you create terrorism, and it's what we have to deal now in Western countries.
Religion is private, that's it. It has no place in a courtroom, it has no place in the army, it has no place in the city counsel, it has no place on the beach. Worship who you want. Believe what you want. Attend the religious service you want when you want. Fast or feast as you want. But respect the rights of others to not share your beliefs.
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2016, 09:30:09 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 26, 2016, 09:29:05 AM
American politics tainted by religion leads to Trump like candidate gaining huge support.
Trump isn't particularly religious :P
his followers are. I'm not concerned about Trump, I am about the people following and immitating him.
Quote from: viper37 on August 26, 2016, 09:37:57 AM
his followers are. I'm not concerned about Trump, I am about the people following and immitating him.
Not necessarily. His two yugest fans on this board are not religious at all.
Quote from: Josephus on August 26, 2016, 09:28:23 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 26, 2016, 09:23:07 AM
Quote from: Josephus on August 26, 2016, 08:38:25 AM
Surprised there's no Languish ruling on this.
My take: this is nothing but a racist, anti-Muslim decree masquerading as Pro-Female, Pro Secularism.
Honestly, on the beaches of France, for decades, anything goes. You want to wear a piece of cloth that barely covers your clit, fine. No problem. But wait.....you want to cover your whole body....Outrageous.
you shouldn't use the beach to make a political statement, just like you'll get fined for having sex on a public beach.
Why should we allow the ennemy to spread its propaganda here? Secularism is the dam that protects democracy and it's under attack from within as well as without.
Where do you draw the line then. If a guy wears a Speedo with a Star of David on it, should that be banned. if a woman with a disfigurement wants to cover her body, should she be told not to.
Again, just like Barrister, you bring physical disabilities in the mix with religion. It has no links whatsoever. You can abandon a religion, you can change religion, you can't remove your physical disability.
Quote
It's not about making a point at a beach. I'm sure that wasn't the intention.
You should read a little more about extremism and how it's spread.
Quote from: viper37 on August 26, 2016, 09:37:21 AM
Religion is private, that's it. It has no place in a courtroom, it has no place in the army, it has no place in the city counsel, it has no place on the beach. Worship who you want. Believe what you want. Attend the religious service you want when you want. Fast or feast as you want. But respect the rights of others to not share your beliefs.
It must really chap your ass that the guy currently in charge of the army wears a Turban. :lol:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harjit_Sajjan
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2016, 09:40:40 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 26, 2016, 09:37:57 AM
his followers are. I'm not concerned about Trump, I am about the people following and immitating him.
Not necessarily. His two yugest fans on this board are not religious at all.
In a country where there's 10% atheists/agnostics, they're all on board with Trump? ;)
In a party dominated by religion, the supporters of Trump would be the less religious ones?
In various vox pop, when you hear people justifying their position on various issues by what God's wants or what the Bible says, that would be a simple coincidence that they happen to support Trump?
I have doubts.
Quote from: viper37 on August 26, 2016, 09:41:07 AM
Quote from: Josephus on August 26, 2016, 09:28:23 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 26, 2016, 09:23:07 AM
Quote from: Josephus on August 26, 2016, 08:38:25 AM
Surprised there's no Languish ruling on this.
My take: this is nothing but a racist, anti-Muslim decree masquerading as Pro-Female, Pro Secularism.
Honestly, on the beaches of France, for decades, anything goes. You want to wear a piece of cloth that barely covers your clit, fine. No problem. But wait.....you want to cover your whole body....Outrageous.
you shouldn't use the beach to make a political statement, just like you'll get fined for having sex on a public beach.
Why should we allow the ennemy to spread its propaganda here? Secularism is the dam that protects democracy and it's under attack from within as well as without.
Where do you draw the line then. If a guy wears a Speedo with a Star of David on it, should that be banned. if a woman with a disfigurement wants to cover her body, should she be told not to.
Again, just like Barrister, you bring physical disabilities in the mix with religion. It has no links whatsoever. You can abandon a religion, you can change religion, you can't remove your physical disability.
Quote
It's not about making a point at a beach. I'm sure that wasn't the intention.
You should read a little more about extremism and how it's spread.
I wonder if you know how irrational you sound with all of these
non sequiturs. I suppose that, if you had an actual argument to make and some logic or evidence to support that argument, you would make it and support it. As it is, your arguments sound like bumper-sticker slogans and logic and evidence are completely absent.
Quote from: Malthus on August 26, 2016, 09:44:15 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 26, 2016, 09:37:21 AM
Religion is private, that's it. It has no place in a courtroom, it has no place in the army, it has no place in the city counsel, it has no place on the beach. Worship who you want. Believe what you want. Attend the religious service you want when you want. Fast or feast as you want. But respect the rights of others to not share your beliefs.
It must really chap your ass that the guy currently in charge of the army wears a Turban. :lol:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harjit_Sajjan
I find it silly. Religion and politics should never mix. But I understand it's not Canada's way.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fygreck.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a00d8341c5dd653ef01b7c88b5af4970b-800wi&hash=290fe8579a1c5af556f46405bdb52c3889a337a4)
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2016, 09:49:14 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 26, 2016, 09:41:07 AM
Quote from: Josephus on August 26, 2016, 09:28:23 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 26, 2016, 09:23:07 AM
Quote from: Josephus on August 26, 2016, 08:38:25 AM
Surprised there's no Languish ruling on this.
My take: this is nothing but a racist, anti-Muslim decree masquerading as Pro-Female, Pro Secularism.
Honestly, on the beaches of France, for decades, anything goes. You want to wear a piece of cloth that barely covers your clit, fine. No problem. But wait.....you want to cover your whole body....Outrageous.
you shouldn't use the beach to make a political statement, just like you'll get fined for having sex on a public beach.
Why should we allow the ennemy to spread its propaganda here? Secularism is the dam that protects democracy and it's under attack from within as well as without.
Where do you draw the line then. If a guy wears a Speedo with a Star of David on it, should that be banned. if a woman with a disfigurement wants to cover her body, should she be told not to.
Again, just like Barrister, you bring physical disabilities in the mix with religion. It has no links whatsoever. You can abandon a religion, you can change religion, you can't remove your physical disability.
Quote
It's not about making a point at a beach. I'm sure that wasn't the intention.
You should read a little more about extremism and how it's spread.
I wonder if you know how irrational you sound with all of these non sequiturs. I suppose that, if you had an actual argument to make and some logic or evidence to support that argument, you would make it and support it. As it is, your arguments sound like bumper-sticker slogans and logic and evidence are completely absent.
Ma! Look! It's a troll! :)
You know you're not forced to answer a thread when you have nothing to say. There's no reward for increasing a post count here :)
Quote from: viper37 on August 26, 2016, 09:45:37 AM
In a country where there's 10% atheists/agnostics, they're all on board with Trump? ;)
In a party dominated by religion, the supporters of Trump would be the less religious ones?
In various vox pop, when you hear people justifying their position on various issues by what God's wants or what the Bible says, that would be a simple coincidence that they happen to support Trump?
I have doubts.
You hadn't written this when I was writing my post, but thanks for following my post with an excellent example of exactly what i was talking about. :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2016, 09:40:40 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 26, 2016, 09:37:57 AM
his followers are. I'm not concerned about Trump, I am about the people following and immitating him.
Not necessarily. His two yugest fans on this board are not religious at all.
Hey, I'm religious! :P
And sorry viper, while I sympathise with the side you are representing (although Nawaz's more nuanced view is closer to my heart) your argument does sound like a non-sequitur.
Quote from: Martinus on August 26, 2016, 09:57:41 AM
Hey, I'm religious! :P
You're so vain you probably think every post is about you!
But now that I think about it Legbiter probably sacrifices a beta male to Odin every once in a while.
Quote from: viper37 on August 26, 2016, 09:23:07 AM
Quote from: Josephus on August 26, 2016, 08:38:25 AM
Surprised there's no Languish ruling on this.
My take: this is nothing but a racist, anti-Muslim decree masquerading as Pro-Female, Pro Secularism.
Honestly, on the beaches of France, for decades, anything goes. You want to wear a piece of cloth that barely covers your clit, fine. No problem. But wait.....you want to cover your whole body....Outrageous.
you shouldn't use the beach to make a political statement, just like you'll get fined for having sex on a public beach.
Why should we allow the ennemy to spread its propaganda here? Secularism is the dam that protects democracy and it's under attack from within as well as without.
The personal is political.
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2016, 08:57:05 AM
Quote from: Josephus on August 26, 2016, 08:38:25 AM
Surprised there's no Languish ruling on this.
My take: this is nothing but a racist, anti-Muslim decree masquerading as Pro-Female, Pro Secularism.
Honestly, on the beaches of France, for decades, anything goes. You want to wear a piece of cloth that barely covers your clit, fine. No problem. But wait.....you want to cover your whole body....Outrageous.
We have been discussing it in the Prison Food thread...because of course we have.
Because I'm great at changing the topic of conversation.
Quote from: viper37 on August 26, 2016, 09:41:07 AM
Quote from: Josephus on August 26, 2016, 09:28:23 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 26, 2016, 09:23:07 AM
Quote from: Josephus on August 26, 2016, 08:38:25 AM
Surprised there's no Languish ruling on this.
My take: this is nothing but a racist, anti-Muslim decree masquerading as Pro-Female, Pro Secularism.
Honestly, on the beaches of France, for decades, anything goes. You want to wear a piece of cloth that barely covers your clit, fine. No problem. But wait.....you want to cover your whole body....Outrageous.
you shouldn't use the beach to make a political statement, just like you'll get fined for having sex on a public beach.
Why should we allow the ennemy to spread its propaganda here? Secularism is the dam that protects democracy and it's under attack from within as well as without.
Where do you draw the line then. If a guy wears a Speedo with a Star of David on it, should that be banned. if a woman with a disfigurement wants to cover her body, should she be told not to.
Again, just like Barrister, you bring physical disabilities in the mix with religion. It has no links whatsoever. You can abandon a religion, you can change religion, you can't remove your physical disability.
WTF - I haven't even posted in this thread.
I just find it funny that somehow baring your skin is a cultural imperative in the west, when it really wasn't that long ago when this wsa how you dressed for a day at the beach:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.shopify.com%2Fs%2Ffiles%2F1%2F0948%2F4576%2Ffiles%2FSARAH_BOND_1900_swimwear.png%3F9775296751664930159&hash=b649cc9fa7f62366f76a0983a5fadcede59ee3cc)
Quote from: Barrister on August 26, 2016, 10:02:19 AM
I just find it funny that somehow baring your skin is a cultural imperative in the west, when it really wasn't that long ago when this wsa how you dressed for a day at the beach:
Hey! We had to keep our pasty skin safe in the ante-sunscreen period.
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2016, 10:04:40 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 26, 2016, 10:02:19 AM
I just find it funny that somehow baring your skin is a cultural imperative in the west, when it really wasn't that long ago when this wsa how you dressed for a day at the beach:
Hey! We had to keep our pasty skin safe in the ante-sunscreen period.
I still do that. :Embarrass: I have discovered the wonders of swim shirts. No more peeling shoulders, where the sunscreen inevitably wears off.
Fortunately, not even the cops could possibly be expected to believe I'm wearing it to avoid lustful gazes. :lol:
Hey! You are somebody's fetish out there Malthus. Best to help keep their thoughts pure.
I also wear a swim shirt though. Gay men and heterosexual women can now keep their lustful thoughts under control.
It is a very problematic issue, showing well how even a genuine desire to protect secular ways can turn into som fascist shit.
That said, I tend to agree with it.
It is very common to establish and enforce laws and rules that protect a society's perceived values. For example, we have laws punishing domestic violence. We allow divorces. Rape is illegal. So is stealing. Etc.
Now I grant you, wearing a cloth sack on you on the beach is not as damaging as those things. But saying "oh its individual freedom to wear these things they cannot be banned!" is -imho- akin to moral cowardice, because it advocates inaction in face of a symptom of a well known ignorance (at best) of one our fundamental values: gender equality.
The cultural indoctrination and physical oppression of muslim women is the true gender issue of our time, NOT public toilets.
Yes this is not the perfect battleground to fight that battle but it had to start somewhere.
Quote from: Tamas on August 26, 2016, 10:32:42 AM
It is a very problematic issue, showing well how even a genuine desire to protect secular ways can turn into som fascist shit.
That said, I tend to agree with it.
It is very common to establish and enforce laws and rules that protect a society's perceived values. For example, we have laws punishing domestic violence. We allow divorces. Rape is illegal. So is stealing. Etc.
Now I grant you, wearing a cloth sack on you on the beach is not as damaging as those things. But saying "oh its individual freedom to wear these things they cannot be banned!" is -imho- akin to moral cowardice, because it advocates inaction in face of a symptom of a well known ignorance (at best) of one our fundamental values: gender equality.
The cultural indoctrination and physical oppression of muslim women is the true gender issue of our time, NOT public toilets.
Yes this is not the perfect battleground to fight that battle but it had to start somewhere.
One would think that if one wished to fight the battle against gender inequality via clothing paternalism, one would start with something like banning high-heeled shoes ... :hmm:
[BTW, a "burkini" looks more like a wetsuit than a "cloth sack": https://www.google.ca/search?q=burkini&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&biw=1920&bih=883&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwiEnKzctN_OAhWDGx4KHR9vAG8Q_AUIBigB ]
Quote from: Malthus on August 26, 2016, 10:39:55 AM
One would think that if one wished to fight the battle against gender inequality via clothing paternalism, one would start with something like banning high-heeled shoes ... :hmm:
I don't think such a bigoted attack on our cowboy boot culture should be allowed :angry:
Oh wait. Just for women. Nevermind we're good.
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2016, 09:30:09 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 26, 2016, 09:29:05 AM
American politics tainted by religion leads to Trump like candidate gaining huge support.
Trump isn't particularly religious :P
Sam Harris said that if Trump were elected he would be the first Atheist to be President. And If Sam Harris said it, you can take it to the bank!
So apparently the burkini ban was overturned in court?
Quote from: Tamas on August 26, 2016, 10:32:42 AM
It is a very problematic issue, showing well how even a genuine desire to protect secular ways can turn into som fascist shit.
That said, I tend to agree with it.
It is very common to establish and enforce laws and rules that protect a society's perceived values. For example, we have laws punishing domestic violence. We allow divorces. Rape is illegal. So is stealing. Etc.
Now I grant you, wearing a cloth sack on you on the beach is not as damaging as those things. But saying "oh its individual freedom to wear these things they cannot be banned!" is -imho- akin to moral cowardice, because it advocates inaction in face of a symptom of a well known ignorance (at best) of one our fundamental values: gender equality.
The cultural indoctrination and physical oppression of muslim women is the true gender issue of our time, NOT public toilets.
Yes this is not the perfect battleground to fight that battle but it had to start somewhere.
Starting the battle against tolerance with something as silly as the burkini pretty well demonstrates the bankruptcy of the anti-tolerance movement. Many women wear something very much like the burkini every day, but, suddenly, it is intolerable that some women do so at the beach because of suspicions that the woman's modesty is influenced by her religion? Bullshit. If a person is going to argue that forcibly denying women the right to dress except in accordance with one's religious views is bad, one must also concede that forcibly denying women the right to dress except in accordance with one's anti-religious views is also bad.
Muslim immigrants: We insist on continuing to live according to our culture and values.
French: We insist you conform to our culture and adopt our values
Muslim immigrants: Nope.
French: Fine, we'll ban your culture until you conform.
Diagnosis: terminal failure of integration.
Recommended course of action: Well, it's a bit too late, sorry. There's what, 6 million of them?
Quote from: Jacob on August 26, 2016, 10:58:53 AM
So apparently the burkini ban was overturned in court?
Yes. Though it must be remembered that these bans were local ordinances, not national laws.
Quote from: Jacob on August 26, 2016, 10:58:53 AM
So apparently the burkini ban was overturned in court?
Yes.
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 26, 2016, 11:00:50 AM
Muslim immigrants: We insist on continuing to live according to our culture and values.
French: We insist you conform to our culture and adopt our values
Muslim immigrants: Nope.
French: Fine, we'll ban your culture until you conform.
Diagnosis: terminal failure of integration.
Recommended course of action: Well, it's a bit too late, sorry. There's what, 6 million of them?
Diagnosis: terminal failure of presenting meaningful generalization
Recommended course of action; don't hit "post" until you have thought about what you are about to post.
the essence of French "culture and values" is not incompatible with the essence of Muslim culture and values; Muslims have successfully lived in France for centuries.
Without question, part of the problem in France is an unwillingness of some muslim immigrant, especially those who consider themselves exiles from their "real" countries, to accept that they have to change many of their ways to conform to the minimum requirements of successfully living in France. Without question, part of the problem is the intolerance of many French employers, politicians, and bureaucrats for anything that smacks of "Muslim." Sixty percent of France's prison population is Muslim. That's failure on both sides.
Fighting the tolerance battles over silly things like the burkini just distracts from fighting the real issues of intolerance on both sides. It is easier, I suppose, to fight the silly fights than the real ones.
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2016, 11:14:45 AM
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 26, 2016, 11:00:50 AM
Muslim immigrants: We insist on continuing to live according to our culture and values.
French: We insist you conform to our culture and adopt our values
Muslim immigrants: Nope.
French: Fine, we'll ban your culture until you conform.
Diagnosis: terminal failure of integration.
Recommended course of action: Well, it's a bit too late, sorry. There's what, 6 million of them?
Diagnosis: terminal failure of presenting meaningful generalization
Recommended course of action; don't hit "post" until you have thought about what you are about to post.
In your case, the doctor should have recommended an intellectual abortion.
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2016, 11:01:12 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 26, 2016, 10:58:53 AM
So apparently the burkini ban was overturned in court?
Yes. Though it must be remembered that these bans were local ordinances, not national laws.
It was just in Cote d'Azur I thought.
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2016, 11:21:22 AM
It was just in Cote d'Azur I thought.
Meh, I heard French Riviera.
Well that's what I heard. :mad:
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 26, 2016, 11:00:50 AM
Recommended course of action: Well, it's a bit too late, sorry. There's what, 6 million of them?
You really want to go there?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 26, 2016, 12:23:51 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 26, 2016, 11:00:50 AM
Recommended course of action: Well, it's a bit too late, sorry. There's what, 6 million of them?
You really want to go there?
I don't know what you are talking about. :huh:
Given that people just seem to refuse to use the old prison food AND burkini thread (despite renaming), I will repost this here:
QuoteBoth Sides Are Wrong in the Burkini Wars
Women should be able to wear what they want, without armed cops telling them to change. But let's be clear: The 'modesty' of the burkini is dictated by men, too.
Maajid Nawaz
MAAJID NAWAZ
08.26.16 2:10 AM ET
LONDON — That great French Republic has banned another piece of cloth. The origins of this burkini (or burqini) ban furor are alarming. A Muslim group in Marseille wanted to have an all-burkini day, and the mere notion provoked a storm of controversy. Then the all-over bathing suit was banned in the Riviera resort of Cannes, where a French official rather absurdly described it as displaying "an allegiance to terrorist movements that are at war with us."
One Corsican village called Sisco banned the full-body swimsuit following a darkly comical mass brawl involving French-Muslim men of North African origin who took offense at photographers taking snaps of burkini-clad women on a local beach. Some of the brawlers reportedly were armed with hatchets. Five people, including a pregnant woman, were injured. One man's wounds were caused by a harpoon.
And then we had, this week, the stunning spectacle of a woman being compelled by armed French cops on the beach at Nice to strip off her burkini.
It seems that we are in the midst of mutual mass-identity hysteria.
The burkini is, in fact, a sad symbol of Islam today going backward on gender issues. France's ban on it is a sad symbol of liberalism today going backward in reply.
Classical liberals of any religion or none would do well to remember that this does not have to be a zero-sum game. It is possible to oppose the French ban on burkinis while also challenging the mindset of those who support burkas and burkinis.
As a reforming secular liberal Muslim, I do not endorse the gender-discriminatory body-shaming and moralizing of burkas. I recoil, too, at the silly idea of a burkini. But I also believe that France's ban on them is ridiculous, illiberal, and incredibly petty. It is also cynical.
As for liberalism going backward, when Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel drove a truck through the crowd in Nice on July 14, he sought to deepen division, and to further the ISIS aim of a global civil war. Strategically, he chose the right location.
The French Riviera is a traditional stronghold of French reactionaries. The area sees consistently high poll results for the far right. Last year, National Front leader Marine Le Pen's niece, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, ran a high-profile campaign there and succeeded in making huge gains. The region is now rapidly turning into a polarized hotbed of tension, pitching far-right sympathizers against Islamist extremists.
In this respect, the burkini ban is nothing but a product of political opportunism. With the proximity of elections looming, shortsighted politicking is the only consideration that matters. Local petty political chieftains would rather provoke national turbulence merely to win a local council seat than do what is in their country's national interest.
As the 2017 French presidential and legislative elections approach, the country's politicians are desperate to prove who can do the most—or anything at all—against the pernicious effect of jihadist terrorism. They have only a few months left. Sadly, grand gestures such as bans on symbolic pieces of cloth carry political currency in this game of mass-hysteria identity politics.
This is how our most valued asset, source of strength and global envy—liberalism—is capitulating to identity-based communalism, short-term electoral gain, populist appeasement, and a clamor to just do something.
This capitulation is exactly what jihadist terrorists were hoping to achieve with their sustained random attacks.
Perpetual identity-based civil war, rather than war between countries, suits those who wish to build a new world order—a caliphate—carved out of existing states. Equal treatment on a citizenship basis means nothing to jihadists.
There is no better way to kickstart dividing people along exclusively religious lines than by committing atrocities in the name of Islam. Their hope is that everyone else also begins to identify Sunni Muslims primarily by their religious identities, in reaction to the atrocities. In this way, religious identity has won and citizenship becomes redundant.
But the backward trajectory of contemporary liberalism is matched by a backward trajectory within Islam today.
In modern Muslim-majority contexts and up until the 1970s, the female body was not shamed out of public view. As one Egyptian feminist asserts, this was mainly due to the social dominance of the relatively liberal, middle-class elite in urban centers.
But throughout the '80s, theocratic Islamism began replacing Arab socialism as the ideology of resistance against "the West." As is always the case with misogynist dogma, the war against the "other" necessitated defining what is "ours" and what is "theirs"—and our women, of course, were deemed "ours."
Suddenly, women's bodies became the red line in a cultural war against the West started by theocratic Islamism. A Not Muslim Enough charade was used to identity "true" Muslims against "Western" stooges. Religious dress codes became a crucial marker in these cultural purity stakes. Only the fanatic can ever win in this Not Muslim Enough game. Any uncovered woman was now deemed loose, decadent, and attention seeking.
In short, too Western.
Many Islamists advocate total segregation between the sexes, and in fact they would reject the burkini. The full-body swimwear would certainly not be allowed in today's Saudi Arabia: still too revelaing!
In that sense, it is actually a step forward from Islamism's peak in the '90s. But it is still a step backward from before theocratic Islamism took hold among Muslims. The more women succumb to this Not Muslim Enough charade, the more theocrats demand of them. Is it any wonder, then, that some of the most abusive, oppressive societies for women happen also to be the most religiously conservative?
When writing recently in defense of her burkini invention, Aheda Zanetti equated concealing the female form with "modesty" no less than three times.
She confessed to not participating in sports when young "because we chose to be modest."
But the assumption that "modesty" equates to covering up is a subtle form of bigotry against the female form. It goes without saying that harassment on Western beaches, where the female form is more normalized, occurs less than in conservative societies, even though it is still present. But in too many instances across Muslim-majority contexts this "modesty theology" has led to slut-shaming of women who do not cover.
In the worst of cases, misogyny disguised as modesty has led to mass sexual harassment on the streets, most recently by gangs of Muslim migrants in Cologne. In Egypt, it has even given rise to a mass public rape phenomenon. As Muslim feminists note, violating Muslim cultural "honor codes" ('irdh) and modesty theology (hayaa') can lead to heinous legal and societal reprimand and the gross fetishization of a woman's body.
Just like any other practice rooted in religiously inspired misogyny, the burkini cannot be detached from the body-shaming tied to its origins. Aheda Zanetti continued to insist that her product is "about not being judged" as a Muslim woman, yet she is wedded to a practice that inextricably judges the female form as being "immodest," as she, too, did in her own piece.
"I don't think any man should worry about how women are dressing," she argued.
OK. But it has only ever been conservative-religious Muslim men telling Muslim women how to dress.
Over the course of my years immersed in Islamic theology and Arabic, I remain unaware of any medieval female Muslim exegete used as authority by Muslim women for the "duty" of wearing a hijab. It is only ever male exegetes of the Quran who are cited preaching for the duty of female "modesty."
And it is simply an undeniable fact that most Muslim women judged and attacked around the world for how they dress are attacked by other Islamist and fundamentalist Muslims, not by non-Muslims. These are religious fanatics playing the Not Muslim Enough game.
I am a liberal. The headscarf is a choice. Let Muslim women wear bikinis or burkinis. Liberal societies have no business in legally interfering with the dress choices women make. I have consistently opposed the ban on face veils in France, just as I oppose their enforced use in Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Outside of this legal debate, though, and as a reforming secular liberal Muslim, I reserve the right to question my own communities' cultural traditions and taboos.
As a liberal, I reserve the right to question religious-conservative dogma generally, just as most Western progressives already do with Christianity. Yet with Muslims, Western liberals seem perennially confused between possessing a right to do something, and being right when doing it.
Of course American Christian fundamentalists of the Bible Belt have a right to speak, but liberals routinely—and rightly—challenge their views on abortion, sexuality, and marriage. To do so is not to question their right to speak, but to challenge their belief that they are right when they speak. I ask only that secular liberal Muslims are also supported in challenging our very own "Quran Belt" emerging in Europe.
This is the real struggle. It is intellectual and it is cultural, more than it is legal.
Meanwhile, the French authorities are busily providing the ideal iconography that can, and will, be used by Islamist recruiters the world over. If we seek to debunk the jihadist myth that the West is at war with Islam, it would help not to oblige the jihadist propaganda machinery with ready-made imagery of armed police forcing conservative Muslim women to strip, under the shadow of a gun on a beach.
Or maybe that next election is just that worth it.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/25/both-sides-are-wrong-in-the-burkini-wars.html?via=desktop&source=twitter
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 26, 2016, 12:31:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 26, 2016, 12:23:51 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 26, 2016, 11:00:50 AM
Recommended course of action: Well, it's a bit too late, sorry. There's what, 6 million of them?
You really want to go there?
I don't know what you are talking about. :huh:
With Raz, most of us don't.
He is referencing 6 million members of an unwanted minority religion and what was done with a similar number of such people when our grandparents were young adults.
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2016, 12:38:48 PM
He is referencing 6 million members of an unwanted minority religion and what was done with a similar number of such people when our grandparents were young adults.
Will you stop ruining my fun and let Raz continue in ignorance? Sheesh.
There's a Quran Belt emerging in Europe? That sounds kind of racist.
Quote from: The Brain on August 26, 2016, 12:41:53 PM
There's a Quran Belt emerging in Europe? That sounds kind of racist.
They tend to be on the heavy side and need good belts for support.
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 26, 2016, 12:40:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2016, 12:38:48 PM
He is referencing 6 million members of an unwanted minority religion and what was done with a similar number of such people when our grandparents were young adults.
Will you stop ruining my fun and let Raz continue in ignorance? Sheesh.
? That doesn't make sense, unless you lied about not knowing what I was talking about.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 26, 2016, 12:43:04 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 26, 2016, 12:40:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2016, 12:38:48 PM
He is referencing 6 million members of an unwanted minority religion and what was done with a similar number of such people when our grandparents were young adults.
Will you stop ruining my fun and let Raz continue in ignorance? Sheesh.
? That doesn't make sense, unless you lied about not knowing what I was talking about.
Is he actually this thick?
Yes, yes I am. I can not read your mind.
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 26, 2016, 12:40:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2016, 12:38:48 PM
He is referencing 6 million members of an unwanted minority religion and what was done with a similar number of such people when our grandparents were young adults.
Will you stop ruining my fun and let Raz continue in ignorance? Sheesh.
:huh: You profess ignorance and then claim it is
Raz who is ignorant?
Symptoms: Professed ignorance followed by weaseling
Diagnosis: intellectual abortion
Recommendation: go away. Again.
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 26, 2016, 12:45:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 26, 2016, 12:43:04 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 26, 2016, 12:40:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2016, 12:38:48 PM
He is referencing 6 million members of an unwanted minority religion and what was done with a similar number of such people when our grandparents were young adults.
Will you stop ruining my fun and let Raz continue in ignorance? Sheesh.
? That doesn't make sense, unless you lied about not knowing what I was talking about.
Is he actually this thick?
You are going to ride that weasel all the way down, aren't you? :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2016, 02:04:30 PM
You are going to ride that weasel all the way down, aren't you? :lol:
Maybe? :sleep:
I'm no longer clear who Grumbler is insulting.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 26, 2016, 02:12:41 PM
I'm no longer clear who Grumbler is insulting.
Seems like grumbler temporarily took your side! :w00t:
The grumbler Raz Alliance frightens me.
:lol:
:D
Quote from: viper37 on August 26, 2016, 09:37:21 AM
There are religious Jewish sects in Quebec. They were forced to flee in Ontaria, and later in South American due to persecution from authorities. Kids were beaten, starved, educated in strict religious morals, seperated from their parents, all in the name of God.
Lots of people called the province racist for that. Unfair persecution of religious people.
SNIP
Religion is private, that's it. It has no place in a courtroom, it has no place in the army, it has no place in the city counsel, it has no place on the beach. Worship who you want. Believe what you want. Attend the religious service you want when you want. Fast or feast as you want. But respect the rights of others to not share your beliefs.
Not sure there's a comparison between Lev Tahor which fled Canada because they were being investigated for, among other things, child abuse; and a woman wanting to wear a modest bathing suit
WEASELS!!! Cool!
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2016, 09:40:40 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 26, 2016, 09:37:57 AM
his followers are. I'm not concerned about Trump, I am about the people following and immitating him.
Not necessarily. His two yugest fans on this board are not religious at all.
I'm possibly the most religious regular or semi-regular poster here, and I detest the man.
Quote from: Jacob on August 26, 2016, 02:17:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 26, 2016, 02:12:41 PM
I'm no longer clear who Grumbler is insulting.
Seems like grumbler temporarily took your side! :w00t:
I take on the post, not the poster. If someone says something silly about a Raz post, I won't hesitate to call it silly.
Quote from: dps on August 26, 2016, 05:35:00 PM
I'm possibly the most religious regular or semi-regular poster here, and I detest the man.
None of my religious friends or family are fans of his. I am sure that some of his fans are religious, but they aren't fans
because they are religious.
Religious people supporting the non-religious candidates reminds me of Rep. Charlie Wilson. He was always getting into trouble over his sexual escapades, and always got the religious vote in his district because he freely confessed his sins and promised to do better. He used to crush genuinely religious opponents in the religious vote because his opponents didn't have anything to forgive, and those voters loved to forgive.
That was one crafty dude.
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. Here's a great cartoonist commentary to this controversy:
(https://images.washingtonpost.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimg.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews%2Fopinions%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F10%2F2016%2F08%2F08242016Burkini.gif&op=noop)
Quote from: Martinus on August 27, 2016, 02:24:51 AM
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. Here's a great cartoonist commentary to this controversy:
The idea that men are the ones imposing clothing choices like this on women is really a feminist lie. In most studies, women are far more pro-modesty than men (think intrasexual competition). In Iran for example, slightly more women support the veil than men. In the West, far more men are pro "free the nipple" than men.
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 27, 2016, 03:26:53 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 27, 2016, 02:24:51 AM
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. Here's a great cartoonist commentary to this controversy:
The idea that men are the ones imposing clothing choices like this on women is really a feminist lie. In most studies, women are far more pro-modesty than men (think intrasexual competition). In Iran for example, slightly more women support the veil than men. In the West, far more men are pro "free the nipple" than men.
If this is the case, then the burkini ban makes even less sense.
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 27, 2016, 03:26:53 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 27, 2016, 02:24:51 AM
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. Here's a great cartoonist commentary to this controversy:
The idea that men are the ones imposing clothing choices like this on women is really a feminist lie. In most studies, women are far more pro-modesty than men (think intrasexual competition). In Iran for example, slightly more women support the veil than men. In the West, far more men are pro "free the nipple" than men.
You don't think this has something to do with how girls are brought up in our culture? "Be modest, be a good wife/mother, don't be a slut". In other words, behave in ways that will please men.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 27, 2016, 06:33:01 AM
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 27, 2016, 03:26:53 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 27, 2016, 02:24:51 AM
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. Here's a great cartoonist commentary to this controversy:
The idea that men are the ones imposing clothing choices like this on women is really a feminist lie. In most studies, women are far more pro-modesty than men (think intrasexual competition). In Iran for example, slightly more women support the veil than men. In the West, far more men are pro "free the nipple" than men.
You don't think this has something to do with how girls are brought up in our culture? "Be modest, be a good wife/mother, don't be a slut". In other words, behave in ways that will please men.
Not just in our culture. At least I'd hope our culture is better on this than many others.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 27, 2016, 06:33:01 AM
You don't think this has something to do with how girls are brought up in our culture? "Be modest, be a good wife/mother, don't be a slut". In other words, behave in ways that will please men.
Most of these behaviors and rules come from *other women* who compete for attention and resources from the top men.
I really think these threads, oops, clothes should be banned.