France to consider complete ban on wearing of the Burka in public

Morlar

France to consider complete ban on wearing of the Burka in public


French President Nicolas Sarkozy in an unprecedented (in recent times) 'state of the union' style address to both houses of french parliament at Chateau of Versailles has made a controversial speech. As in the article below he has raised the possibility of an outright ban on the wearing of the Burka in public. France has already outlawed it in places like schools and seems intent on having a debate on widening it's ban.

Personally I think it will be a healthy dialogue. Considering the riots and car burnings in Paris and the 'edgy' relationship many of Frances' 5,000,000 muslims (especially the young french islamic males) have to authority I think this is a very brave step for any french politician.

At this point it is unclear how the discussions will go, what the verdict will be and, if a ban is decided on, if it will pass into law.

I would probably be in favour of this ban. I think it would be a positive step to an integrated europe with a redress of the balance in favour of respect for western values and a clear line in the sand being drawn to indicate that not all customs can be respected in Europe. It also raises the important question of whether or not it is a voluntary practice and also whether or not it is central to islam or a political imposition to begin with.

I believe it does clash with french secular values, also womens rights.

Here is the bbc article on this :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8112821.stm

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has spoken out strongly against the wearing of the burka by Muslim women in France.

In a major policy speech, he said the burka - a garment covering women from head to toe - reduced them to servitude and undermined their dignity.

Mr Sarkozy also gave his backing to the establishment of a parliamentary commission to look at whether to ban the wearing of burkas in public.

In 2004, France banned the Islamic headscarves in its state schools.

'Not welcome'

"We cannot accept to have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity," Mr Sarkozy told a special session of parliament in Versailles.

That is not the idea that the French republic has of women's dignity.

"The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic," the French president said.

But he stressed that France "must not fight the wrong battle", saying that "the Muslim religion must be respected as much as other religions" in the country.

A group of a cross-party lawmakers is already calling for a special inquiry into whether Muslim women who wear the burka is undermining French secularism, the BBC's Emma Jane Kirby in Paris says.

The lawmakers also want to examine whether women who wear the veil are doing so voluntarily or are being forced to cover themselves, our correspondent says.

Mr Sarkozy's speech was the first a French president has made to parliament since the 19th century - made possible by a constitutional amendment he introduced last year.

Later on Monday, Mr Sarkozy was expected to meet the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifah al-Thani.

In 2004, France banned the Islamic headscarf and other conspicuous religious symbols from public schools, triggering heated debate in the country and abroad.

Members of the French government have been divided over the issue.

The immigration minister, Eric Besson, has said a full ban will only "create tensions" while the junior minister for human rights, Rama Yade, said she would accept a ban if it was aimed at protecting women forced to wear the burka.

France's official Muslim council has criticised the debate.

"To raise the subject like this, via a parliamentary committee, is a way of stigmatising Islam and the Muslims of France," said Mohammed Moussaoui, head of the French Council for the Muslim Religion.

France is home to about five million Muslims.

_____________

Here is the article on the background to the speech :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/22/nicolas-sarkozy-parliament-address-versailles

Nicolas Sarkozy will today make history when he becomes the first modern French president to deliver a US-style state of the union address to a special sitting of both houses of parliament at the Chateau of Versailles.

The controversial speech breaks with more than 100 years of French tradition.

For more than a century, parliament has sought to preserve its independence by not allowing France's powerful leaders to address MPs and senators directly, but Sarkozy will set out his national and international agendas.

The French constitution was changed last year to allow the president this new privilege, which Sarkozy argued would strengthen the country's parliament.

LookingFor

I think it's wise for a society to be cautious and wary that some people are not using certain freedoms as a defense against the 'liberation' of others.

Unfortunately sometimes certain freedoms need to be curbed in the expectation of greater freedom elsewhere.

In other words, in the event that Burqas are banned, I feel sorry for the women who truly voluntarily wish to wear a Burqa. But if there is a significant number of women being forced to wear it against their own will, who deep down would prefer to have the choice not to wear it, then banning the wearing of it may be the only way to extend a greater freedom to those women.

A negative symbolism has attached itself to the Burqa with regards to the status of the woman. As I understand it, its wearing had in fact been falling out of favour in a lot of middle eastern countries, but saw a resurgence in Afghanistan with the rise of the Taliban..which might suggest something about its cultural value. Religiously minded women could still without the Burqa satisfy the Quran's prescription that both men and women dress modestly in public, meanwhile many other women not so religiously minded but who are intimidated by their cultural environment or by other people aorund them into wearing it would have the freedom then to choose what to wear other than the Burqa.

Rev Hellfire

Lets face it society already restricts what can and cannot be worn, for example going to the other end of the spectrum women aren't allowed walk around topless.

As Sarkozy says it run contrary to French ideal of dignity for women.

Personally I think its a good thing and wouldn't object to seeing a similar ban introduced here.

ilkhanid

I'm completely in favour of the ban. The garment is a repulsive thing that reduces women to anonymous objects.

allabouteve

ilkhanid wrote: »

I'm completely in favour of the ban. The garment is a repulsive thing that reduces women to anonymous objects.

Agree.

But I think theres a real danger that women who walk the streets of France living a (relatively) normal life, albeit in the Burqa, will now be forced to stay indoors as an alternative to covering up.

I read somewhere (if I can recall where, I'll post the link) that on the banning in France of the hijab in schools, many ultra conservative Muslim families simply chose to keep their girls away from school althogether.

Its not progress if the once educated hijab-wearing girl is now a non-hijab wearing girl who's semi-literate at best.

CiaranC

Great news, those burquas make me nauseous.

I was about to recommend we follow suit here, then I remembered the gob****es in government are going the opposite direction in bringing in anti-blasphemy laws.

WindSock

How do you ban someone putting a sheet over their head? What would they do at Hallowe'en?

WindSock

I don't like the Burqha either, but I think it is ludicrous to tell people they are not allowed to wear something due to their religious beliefs. The fact that girls aren't allowed wear a hijab is disgraceful.
It's the same as if I were told I must wear a skirt above the knee so everyone can cop an eyeful of my flesh. If I am not comfortable with people looking at me, I should have the right to cover up.

Agent Smith

my god i'd vote for him. I'm not sure about being able to ban it in public, but i'd extend the ban to all state buildings.

komodosp

I would normally be firmly opposed to the fashion police type thing going around telling people what they can and can't wear. Ranging from hoodies to burkas.

And Sarkozy might say that it is not Muslim to wear it, but he's not the pope of Islam!

But the problem is this: Does she really have a choice either way? It would be all well and good if we knew they wanted to wear them, but we don't. In other words, if the law allows them to wear it, then who's to say they aren't being forced to wear it, whether by their husbands/families or social conventions (they may be outcast or disrespected from their social circles for not wearing) or religious leaders?

A ban would take all the power away from people forcing them to wear them. Sarkozy is simply saying that France should not tolerate the treatment of women as second class citizens.

CiaranC

WindSock wrote: »

It's the same as if I were told I must wear a skirt above the knee so everyone can cop an eyeful of my flesh.

How is it the same exactly?

That would be as unacceptable to western values as women going around covering every inch of their bodies due to some archaic sexist religion is.

nyarlothothep

Its not anyone's right to dictate what someone can or cannot wear. This is yet another case of the ends justifying the means. If the state decided tomorrow that long hair had to be banned I'd be pretty p1ssed.

Morlar

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Its not anyone's right to dictate what someone can or cannot wear. This is yet another case of the ends justifying the means. If the state decided tomorrow that long hair had to be banned I'd be pretty p1ssed.

Except we are not talking about long hair being banned. It is facile to compare those 2 completely unrelated scenarios of a) people choosing to wear long hair and b) women being coerced into wearing a burka.

There is no comparison whatsoever.

Unless your point is that it is women's choice to wear a burka and there is no political, social, cultural or community pressure brought to bear to force women into wearing it ?

The thread above (if you read it) and the article quoted clearly outlines that the proposal is (among other things) to establish whether or not in the main it is a voluntary act. Personally I doubt it.

The fact that it cannot be proven to a legal standard in a court of law that in EVERY single instance of women wearing a burka is an involuntary would be a cowards reason for the french to do nothing. I am glad that at least they are attempting to do something about it even if there are subtle improvements to be made in their approach - at least they are approaching the issue. Unlike every single other western government facing non-integration of muslim communities and dis-empowerment of women.

nyarlothothep

Morlar wrote: »

Except we are not talking about long hair being banned. It is facile to compare those 2 completely unrelated scenarios of a) people choosing to wear long hair and b) women being coerced into wearing a burka.

There is no comparison whatsoever.

Unless your point is that it is women's choice to wear a burka and there is no political, social, cultural or community pressure brought to bear to force women into wearing it ?

The thread above (if you read it) and the article quoted clearly outlines that the proposal is (among other things) to establish whether or not in the main it is a voluntary act. Personally I doubt it.

The fact that it cannot be proven to a legal standard in a court of law that in EVERY single instance of women wearing a burka is an involuntary would be a cowards reason for the french to do nothing. I am glad that at least they are attempting to do something about it even if there are subtle improvements to be made in their approach - at least they are approaching the issue. Unlike every single other western government facing non-integration of muslim communities and dis-empowerment of women.

At a fundamental level it is the same issue. Its a reaction to a different value system. While I don't agree with the idea that women should be forced to wear the burka, if they choose to do so, and you can be guaranteed there are such cases, then its simply wrong to force them not wear them through some piece of legislation. In that respect I don't see how Sarkozy is any different from the philistines who do forcibly make women wear burkas.

LookingFor

The root of his opposition seems to be in the symbolism that the Burqa carries and so how it reflects on the wearer.

Does the Burqa carry the symbolism and meaning he suggests?

If it does, if it's commonly accepted to, then there may be grounds for banning it.

That's the question you have to answer first though, and it's not an easy one to answer..less easy again to find a consensus on it.

carolmon

I'd welcome a ban on the burqa for many reasons.

I totally agree with Sarkozy's interpretation re the status of the women wearing the burqa and how it contradicts with Western expectations, but on another more personal level I find them really sinister garments.

There's something really unnerving about meeting a fully burqa clad wearer, somebody already said that they reduce the woman to an impersonal object, but I think it goes further than this.

As humans we "read" people's faces for information and this is denied to us by the wearing of the burqa.

I don't know who is underneath the garment, could even be a male..........who knows???

We should be able to identify people by their facial features for many reasons, not least of all safety and protection issues.

I'm always amazed how shopping centres/ banks etc ban people wearing helmets and hoodies that fully cover the face, yet allow the burqa??

I have no problem with people wearing anything else, full headress or veil, but I believe we should be able to see people's faces. It's the very basic starting point of human interaction.

I would welcome a similar debate in Ireland.

TBH it doesn't really bother me all that much, although I do believe that people should follow the culture/traditions of the country they chose to move to. The tradition of the Burka sets them apart from mainstream society, and that doesn't encourage stability. I have the same stance about those people that refuse to learn the language of the country they're living in, and seek to create little islands of other cultures..

Just as I would consider it fair that western men & women conform to the dressing traditions & language when in Asian, M.Eastern countries, etc for long periods of time.

Dades

allabouteve wrote: »

But I think theres a real danger that women who walk the streets of France living a (relatively) normal life, albeit in the Burqa, will now be forced to stay indoors as an alternative to covering up.

Whilst I cannot express the ridiculousness of people having to cover their entire bodies in public to please a deity, I fear the above is a likely result.

Many of the very people the French are trying to defend - those who are forced into burkas - will be the same people whose liberty will suffer if they can no longer cover themselves in manner satisfactory to their 'oppressors'.

Morlar

Dades wrote: »

Whilst I cannot express the ridiculousness of people having to cover their entire bodies in public to please a deity, I fear the above is a likely result.

Many of the very people the French are trying to defend - those who are forced into burkas - will be the same people whose liberty will suffer if they can no longer cover themselves in manner satisfactory to their 'oppressors'.

I also think this is a real possibility in extreme cases and not that outlandish. This would reinforce the need to protect them. Society should not permit extremism on this basis. Female islamic children who are kept out of schools ? Social services should intervene, likewise in the event of a full ban on the burka outdoors being introduced then society should intervene for women who are potentially going to be 'prevented' from being outdoors.

There is also a possibility of a partial ban which the french comission could endose. Exceptions being made (for example on the way to and from the mosque or on islamic holy days, events or weddings etc) Any islamic male who keeps his daughter locked up due to being unable to wear a full body wrap/burka outdoors has no intention of integrating and has no respect for womens rights which is what this effort is intended to address.

The fear of a backlash (whether it is from stonethrowing youths or a more cynical removal of the simplest, most basic human rights) is not an acceptable reason to do nothing.

Dades

Enacting legislation that is impossible to enforce is futile. Spot checks by social services on people's homes are unlikely to uncover the real situations. How do you prove a man is holding a woman in their home against her will without testimony from her?

Goduznt Xzst

allabouteve wrote: »

But I think theres a real danger that women who walk the streets of France living a (relatively) normal life, albeit in the Burqa, will now be forced to stay indoors as an alternative to covering up.

You could assume the same danger of nudists. Should society allow them to walk around our cities because if we don't they will be forced to stay indoors or not go to school due to their refusal to wear clothes?

For the same reason I believe Countries should not deal with terrorists, I don't think these same Countries should bend to the demands of the fanatically religious. If they choose to hold women in doors in a land where their religious traditions run counter to that of the society they reside in then the crime is on their hands, not the Countries.

Societies have the right to not condone actions they view as discriminatory or counter to an individuals rights and dignity.

tallaght01

This is a real difficult issue.

I'd fall down on the side of banning it. People argue about wearing it being a human right, but not wearing one should also be a human right.

I think forcing a women to wear huge gown because she's a woman is utterly reprehensible. We may have to accept it in Muslim countries. But in France, if the population want to defend their citizens from this type of oppression, then that's the law of the land. I think overall it would be a brave move, and a victory for human rights.

On the flip side, allabouteve has, as always, hit the nail on the head. There will be women under the radar who are never going to see the light of day if this legislation is brought in. But will it be a lot? Girls still go to school in France, despite not being allowed to wear the hiijab. Those who insist on their women wearing burkhas may be more radical, though.
It will also have the effect of driving another wedge between the west and the muslim world, at a time when relations are already difficult enough.

Then there's the argument about their being much bigger gender inequalities in their country for the French to tackle (arranged marriages etc).

But I don't think we should not impose legislation because people won't obey it. My hope is that this law, if it materialised, will help normalise the sight of muslim women not being covered up. Because it's only really a cultural change that will offset the (very sensible) concerns raised by some other posters.

Dades

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

You could assume the same danger of nudists. Should society allow them to walk around our cities because if we don't they will be forced to stay indoors or not go to school due to their refusal to wear clothes?.

Sorry if it appears I'm stalking you in Humanities, GX, but that's cobblers.

I have no issues with arguments by analogy as long as they grounded in reality, but the 'danger' presented in your analogy is simply non-existent.

WindSock

If only the French had a phrase for Vive La Difference!

WindSock

CiaranC wrote: »

How is it the same exactly?

That would be as unacceptable to western values as women going around covering every inch of their bodies due to some archaic sexist religion is.

Thats what I mean. It's not acceptable to force people to/not to wear something.

If those women are forced to wear the Burqhas/Hijabs then that sucks, but if there are women who are forced not to wear them then that is just as bad.

Peppapig

Morlar wrote: »

"The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience.

If you want to practise religion, do it at home. Just dont dont in public. How do people have te audacity to do it!

Go Mr Sarkozy!

I dont think it will work though. Its impossible

ChocolateSauce

I don't believe women who wear Burkas are actually exercising their right to choose; they are being coerced. I believe they are in total submission to their male relatives, and would not wear it were it not for them. A ban would "force them to be free", and would reduce the control of their male family...

I believe a ban would be good for a certain section of society some of the time, but overall it would just reduce freedom. However, I also believe that if Islam is not combated (with the aim of its abandonment as a faith), it will become an insidious sickness in our society, ebbing away our freedoms until we are not free.

Either way, it is not the job of the government to fight Islam, just as much as it is not their right to capitulate to it. A ban is illiberal, paternalistic, and probably illegal. After all, the governments only have a right to tell you you're not wearing enough.

ChocolateSauce

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I don't believe women who wear Burkas are actually exercising their right to choose; they are being coerced. I believe they are in total submission to their male relatives, and would not wear it were it not for them. A ban would "force them to be free", and would reduce the control of their male family...

There are plenty of women out there who would disagree with you and would fight "tooth and nail" to prevent you from taking away their traditions/customs.. While some women are indeed heavily restricted by their families & husbands, others welcome the "protection" they receive. I know a number of Muslim women from when I was in Indonesia who considered western women loose and were abhorrent about showing their hair to anyone outside the family. They felt protected by their traditions/customs, and couldn't understand why they needed to behave any different if they were happy with them.

Its one thing to help those who want help. But you're not really talking about that. Its a bit like the white missionaries who went into Africa to spread white man civilisation and shove God's love down their throats, regardless of the desires of the people themselves. :rolleyes:

I believe a ban would be good for a certain section of society some of the time, but overall it would just reduce freedom. However, I also believe that if Islam is not combated (with the aim of its abandonment as a faith), it will become an insidious sickness in our society, ebbing away our freedoms until we are not free.

There is nothing wrong with Islam as a faith. In itself, it actually promotes many beliefs similar to Christianity like forgiveness and love. Unfortunately just like Christianity it can be taken too far, and it is the fundamentalists that are the real problem.

Too often people look at the surface of a religion or the traditions of a country, without looking deeper at the reasons behind them, and secondly the reasons why they have continued to this day, and thirdly understand that not everyone wants to be freed from what you consider "wrong".

Either way, it is not the job of the government to fight Islam, just as much as it is not their right to capitulate to it. A ban is illiberal, paternalistic, and probably illegal. After all, the governments only have a right to tell you you're not wearing enough.

Actually many countries have laws against clothing which is deemed inappropriate or insulting/racist. Other countries have laws requiring certain body parts being needed to be covered. The government is there to enforce the will of the people.

And this isn't about fighting Islam. Its about fighting the multi-cultural problems that France is facing, and has been facing for the last five or six decades. They have immigrants from many countries, especially those from former French colonies, who by french law are considered french. However they bring customs which set themselves apart from French society, and make them a target for violence. Which in turns causes more violence, and discord. And on and on. Which the country can ill-afford to withstand or pay for the repairs.

The French are looking for any way to reduce the problems that plague their country. This isn't about Islam. Its about bringing change, and trying anything that might help.

ChocolateSauce

Deleted User wrote: »

There are plenty of women out there who would disagree with you and would fight "tooth and nail" to prevent you from taking away their traditions/customs..

I think the people who this law is aimed at are exactly the people who wouldn't be able to think for themselves enough to fight it. The regular headscarfs are not under fire here.

There is nothing wrong with Islam as a faith.

We'll just have to agree to disagree here. I think there is more wrong with Islam than there is right.

In itself, it actually promotes many beliefs similar to Christianity like forgiveness and love. Unfortunately just like Christianity it can be taken too far, and it is the fundamentalists that are the real problem.

And hate and murder. Just like Christianity. The problem isn't just fundamentalists, the problem is the religion as a whole.

Actually many countries have laws against clothing which is deemed inappropriate or insulting/racist. Other countries have laws requiring certain body parts being needed to be covered. The government is there to enforce the will of the people.

What I was saying is the a government shouldn't have a right to tell someone they can't wear, say, a burka, but jibing at their apparent right to tell you you can't wear, say, a swimsuit in public. As for the will of the people, their will is immoral and wrong and should be subverted if it infringes on an individual's rights without good reason. Not liking their skin showing is no reason, the same not liking their burka is no reason.

And this isn't about fighting Islam. Its about fighting the multi-cultural problems that France is facing, and has been facing for the last five or six decades. They have immigrants from many countries, especially those from former French colonies, who by french law are considered french. However they bring customs which set themselves apart from French society, and make them a target for violence. Which in turns causes more violence, and discord. And on and on. Which the country can ill-afford to withstand or pay for the repairs.

The French are looking for any way to reduce the problems that plague their country. This isn't about Islam. Its about bringing change, and trying anything that might help.

All very true, the French are fighting the challenges of multi-culturalism, not Islam specifically. I just happen to think Islam is the main enemy. However, it is the people who should fight that, not the government.

ChocolateSauce

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I think the people who this law is aimed at are exactly the people who wouldn't be able to think for themselves enough to fight it. The regular headscarfs are not under fire here.

Wouldn't be able to think for themselves? You can't be serious, surely? You've made a stance which cries out for freedom for these women, and yet in the same breath you're taking away their right to choose. Simply because you feel that their culture is wrong. Most Muslim women I know don't want the choice. They're perfectly happy with the way their lives are. Some others want some loosening of the restrictions, but they don't want them to stop completely.

We'll just have to agree to disagree here. I think there is more wrong with Islam than there is right.

No the issue is with the religion and the politics that goes with it. The Faith that is Christianity is fine in itself, but the practices of its followers can be awful. Some examples would be self-mortification. The same works for Islam. It comes down to how far people are willing to place strictures on themselves in the name of their faith. It also comes down to the crap that is thrown out by their priesthoods in the name of God.

And hate and murder. Just like Christianity. The problem isn't just fundamentalists, the problem is the religion as a whole.

Rubbish. I know plenty of Muslims who are lovely and gentle people. Men and women of all ages. They're good fathers, good mothers, good brothers, good friends etc. They're also very fervent about their faith. Do you personally know any Muslims?

I didn't really until I spent time in Indonesia. You hear things while growing up, and while I met them from time to time through work, I never saw how they lived their lives. Asia opened that up for me, and taught me not to be so swift to judge other peoples cultures without seeing it myself.

What I was saying is the a government shouldn't have a right to tell someone they can't wear, say, a burka, but jibing at their apparent right to tell you you can't wear, say, a swimsuit in public. As for the will of the people, their will is immoral and wrong and should be subverted if it infringes on an individual's rights without good reason. Not liking their skin showing is no reason, the same not liking their burka is no reason.

You flip around a lot. First you talk about freedoms, and then you take them away throwing in aspects like immorality. Their faith demands that they cover themselves, and they're not alone in this. I have a good friend from the US, who comes from an Indian family, and she wasn't allowed to wear clothes which revealed too much skin. Plenty of religions have similar restrictions.

As for the will of the people, it doesn't matter. The government is there to enforce the will of the people, and as such uses the law to reflect those desires. The French are seeking to provide a national identity that goes beyond culture or religion. Clothing which isolates people by showing how different they are to mainstream society only weakens that desire.

All very true, the French are fighting the challenges of multi-culturalism, not Islam specifically. I just happen to think Islam is the main enemy. However, it is the people who should fight that, not the government.

You obviously have issues with Islam, and the culture that comes with the faith. I don't know why you have this hatred for it, but I have a feeling its based on books, and news stories, rather than actually knowing it firsthand. This isn't about France and its problems. This is about you disliking Islam and everything that is associated with it. And if you think I'm reaching by saying that, the way you have written this post, and the previous one, say it all.

And its worth noting that every attempt to fight an idea or concept has failed. Communism ran its course despite all the opposition to it, as did Nazism. Just have most of the major religions. In this modern society, there is no way to fight a belief like Islam, and making Islam the enemy, only forces their followers to separate from society. That solves nothing, and only exasperates the existing problems, likely forcing the younger people to more extreme groupings....

Húrin

I think that there should be a ban, but that it should not be made on the grounds that "Islam oppresses women". It should simply be explained that in western culture we like to be able to immediately identify another person by face. It is very important not to stigmatise or vilify Muslims or their religion.

Húrin

Húrin wrote: »

I think that there should be a ban, but that it should not be made on the grounds that "Islam oppresses women". It should simply be explained that in western culture we like to be able to immediately identify another person by face. It is very important not to stigmatise or vilify Muslims or their religion.

Totally agree. It should be applied to all people regardless of their religion.

ChocolateSauce

Deleted User wrote: »

Wouldn't be able to think for themselves? You can't be serious, surely? You've made a stance which cries out for freedom for these women, and yet in the same breath you're taking away their right to choose. Simply because you feel that their culture is wrong. Most Muslim women I know don't want the choice. They're perfectly happy with the way their lives are. Some others want some loosening of the restrictions, but they don't want them to stop completely.

Your assertion that I would "take away their right to choose" is nonsense, and I'm not really sure where exactly you're getting that from. My entire post was about defending their personal freedom. You strengthen my point with this one when you say the women you know don't want the choice; a person who doesn't want choice seems to me in submission to someone or something which can make that choice for them. I would also point out that by definition, someone who follows a dogmatic set of rules is not thinking for themselves.

No the issue is with the religion and the politics that goes with it. The Faith that is Christianity is fine in itself, but the practices of its followers can be awful. Some examples would be self-mortification. The same works for Islam. It comes down to how far people are willing to place strictures on themselves in the name of their faith. It also comes down to the crap that is thrown out by their priesthoods in the name of God.

The practices of the followers can be awful, yes, but the religion itself is awful. It breeds, in practice, hate, ignorance, submission to authority, self-loathing and fear (Christianity), and teaches all but the first one. It seems that a lot of people are willing to be immoral in the name of their faith.

Rubbish. I know plenty of Muslims who are lovely and gentle people. Men and women of all ages. They're good fathers, good mothers, good brothers, good friends etc. They're also very fervent about their faith. Do you personally know any Muslims?

If you can find where in my last post I called Muslims anything (good, bad, etc), I'll recant everything I've said here. I'll say this as simply as possible: An attack on a religion is not an attack on an ethnic group or culture, or even on practitioners of that religion. Since you asked, I know one Muslim by name. More interesting are my two atheist friends who both have Muslim parents. One's Libyan, the other's Turkish; they both hate Islam.

I didn't really until I spent time in Indonesia. You hear things while growing up, and while I met them from time to time through work, I never saw how they lived their lives. Asia opened that up for me, and taught me not to be so swift to judge other peoples cultures without seeing it myself.

I'm not judging cultures, I'm judging religion. I dislike Christianity, but it doesn't mean I "judge" so-called Christian countries.

You flip around a lot. First you talk about freedoms, and then you take them away throwing in aspects like immorality. Their faith demands that they cover themselves, and they're not alone in this. I have a good friend from the US, who comes from an Indian family, and she wasn't allowed to wear clothes which revealed too much skin. Plenty of religions have similar restrictions.

How is throwing in aspects like immorality subverting my previous defense of freedom? The problem arises when another person's faith demands they cover themselves. In many Muslim countries, women don't have a choice except to cover themselves, whether or not they actually believe in the Koran.

You obviously have issues with Islam, and the culture that comes with the faith.

As someone who apparently knows so much about these cultures, you throw around "Islamic culture" a lot. Firstly, those cultures were around before Islam (and flourished before it arrived), and while Islam is today the biggest influence on the cultures, they are all different. For example, south-east Asian Muslim countries are much more liberal in their interpretation of the Koran than are middle-eastern ones. An opinion from someone who is widely read on Islam is worth more (IMO) than the narrow anecdotal reports from someone "who knows Muslims", because Muslims are usually not representative of Islam, just like most people who claim to be Christians don't actually do their book justice. If every person claiming to be x religion conformed to what their religion says they should, the world would be a much darker place. Fortunately secular thought dominates the world today.

And its worth noting that every attempt to fight an idea or concept has failed. Communism ran its course despite all the opposition to it, as did Nazism.

ie, those ideas failed. Just as Islam will, eventually, because it is a bad idea, it was 1400 years ago and is more so with every passing day.

Just have most of the major religions. In this modern society, there is no way to fight a belief like Islam, and making Islam the enemy, only forces their followers to separate from society. That solves nothing, and only exasperates the existing problems, likely forcing the younger people to more extreme groupings....

There is a way to fight a belief like Islam and indeed any belief, true or not: words. If you see someone talking dangerous nonsense, talk sense. People listening will (in theory at least) be convinced by the most sensible option.

ChocolateSauce

Húrin wrote: »

I think that there should be a ban, but that it should not be made on the grounds that "Islam oppresses women". It should simply be explained that in western culture we like to be able to immediately identify another person by face. It is very important not to stigmatise or vilify Muslims or their religion.

Islam doesn't oppress women. Muslim males, in the name of Islam, oppress women. It isn't what I would call oppression if a woman does it by choice. Stupidity, maybe, but not oppression. It isn't illegal to wear another form of head covering in public, just impolite, and I wouldn't support the banning of anything like that. It's forcing one's own opinion on others.

ChocolateSauce

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Your assertion that I would "take away their right to choose" is nonsense, and I'm not really sure where exactly you're getting that from.

Really? How about these..

"A ban would force them to be free"

"I think the people who this law is aimed at are exactly the people who wouldn't be able to think for themselves enough to fight it."

Pretty obvious. This is not about freedom or giving them choice. This is about your morality or opinions being more important than theirs.

My entire post was about defending their personal freedom. You strengthen my point with this one when you say the women you know don't want the choice; a person who doesn't want choice seems to me in submission to someone or something which can make that choice for them.

You're judging their lives, and the manner they wish to lead them. For them, they believe that the way that they lead their lives is right, and brings them comfort. in your effort to free them you're seeking to remove the comfort and happiness they receive from their faith/customs.

I would also point out that by definition, someone who follows a dogmatic set of rules is not thinking for themselves.

Hardly. They're using the rules as a guide for their lives.

The practices of the followers can be awful, yes, but the religion itself is awful. It breeds, in practice, hate, ignorance, submission to authority, self-loathing and fear (Christianity), and teaches all but the first one. It seems that a lot of people are willing to be immoral in the name of their faith.

Again, immoral in your eyes. You're judging someone else's faith, from the outside.

If you can find where in my last post I called Muslims anything (good, bad, etc), I'll recant everything I've said here. I'll say this as simply as possible: An attack on a religion is not an attack on an ethnic group or culture, or even on practitioners of that religion. Since you asked, I know one Muslim by name. More interesting are my two atheist friends who both have Muslim parents. One's Libyan, the other's Turkish; they both hate Islam.

So you don't know anyone that has been happy in their religion, nor have you observed muslims going about their daily lives? In essence, you're basing this whole opinion on Islam, simply because you've only seen two negatives. Have you ever spoken to a woman who's comfortable or happy with her lifestyle?

And an attack on Islam is an attack on Muslims, because their faith is stronger than that of most western religions. They live their faith.

I'm not judging cultures, I'm judging religion. I dislike Christianity, but it doesn't mean I "judge" so-called Christian countries.

For Muslims, their culture and religion are linked.

How is throwing in aspects like immorality subverting my previous defense of freedom? The problem arises when another person's faith demands they cover themselves. In many Muslim countries, women don't have a choice except to cover themselves, whether or not they actually believe in the Koran.

Because it is simply your morality that is denying them theirs. And where did you learn your morality? What makes it the right way?

As someone who apparently knows so much about these cultures, you throw around "Islamic culture" a lot. Firstly, those cultures were around before Islam (and flourished before it arrived), and while Islam is today the biggest influence on the cultures, they are all different. For example, south-east Asian Muslim countries are much more liberal in their interpretation of the Koran than are middle-eastern ones. An opinion from someone who is widely read on Islam is worth more (IMO) than the narrow anecdotal reports from someone "who knows Muslims", because Muslims are usually not representative of Islam, just like most people who claim to be Christians don't actually do their book justice. If every person claiming to be x religion conformed to what their religion says they should, the world would be a much darker place. Fortunately secular thought dominates the world today.

I throw it around a lot? hardly. Two responses to you. The difference I'm showing you is that you seem to know nothing about how Muslims live their lives, except from an abstract point of view. I actually know very little about Islam as a faith, however what I have learned, I learned from Muslims themselves.

Which is why I'm not so enthusiastic about forcing western practices/morality on people who have no need for them, or any desire to receive them.

ie, those ideas failed. Just as Islam will, eventually, because it is a bad idea, it was 1400 years ago and is more so with every passing day.

I rather doubt it. It will change over time, just as every other religion that still exists with a decent following has.

There is a way to fight a belief like Islam and indeed any belief, true or not: words. If you see someone talking dangerous nonsense, talk sense. People listening will (in theory at least) be convinced by the most sensible option.

I don't agree. people believe what they want to believe. But in any case, I would like to see a practical answer from you as to how to combat Islam & muslim practices in France.

Húrin

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Islam doesn't oppress women. Muslim males, in the name of Islam, oppress women. It isn't what I would call oppression if a woman does it by choice. Stupidity, maybe, but not oppression. It isn't illegal to wear another form of head covering in public, just impolite, and I wouldn't support the banning of anything like that. It's forcing one's own opinion on others.

Did you make any attempt to understand my post? I didn't say that Islam oppresses women. The purpose of the quotation marks was to highlight the fact that a lot of people in this thread said it. You're the one using this as a springboard for an anti-Islam agenda it seems.

It is not customary to wear face covering in public in the west because it prevents facial identification. We like to see that each person is an individual. Covering hair is fine, but not face. The law already enforces someone's opinion about what clothes can be worn. Women can't go around topless for instance.

the_syco

Agent Smith wrote: »

but i'd extend the ban to all state buildings.

YEAH! Prevent those f**kers from entering a police station :rolleyes:

=-=

I support the ban: "when in rome...". Otherwise, what's there to stop me (or anyone from the PIRA) from wearing one, going though Dublin airport?

Dublin_Gunner

Ya know I am so sick and tired of political correctness, I cannot describe it in words.

You can be damn sure if we went to a strict Muslim country we would be forced to abide by their rules, or face imprisonment.

I see no reason whatsoever for others to not have to follow our (western) rules.

You cannot have it both ways.

Dont do Y it may offend X, dont do Z it may offend W. Give me a break. I'm sick of westerner's having to bend over to be overly liberal towards others, who play on the whole 'discrimination' thing.

Sick of it.

Its not that I don't respect others belief's - it that they do not respect ours, and expect us to change our rules to suit them because they're minority's.

The fact their in the minority should only enforce the fct that they should follow our rules.

ChocolateSauce

Deleted User wrote: »

Really? How about these..

"A ban would force them to be free"

"I think the people who this law is aimed at are exactly the people who wouldn't be able to think for themselves enough to fight it."

You seem to have omitted the fact that I spoke against "forcing them to be free".

You're judging their lives, and the manner they wish to lead them.
For them, they believe that the way that they lead their lives is right, and brings them comfort. in your effort to free them you're seeking to remove the comfort and happiness they receive from their faith/customs.

Have you even read my post? I defended their right to wear the Burka and spoke against a law "forcing them to be free" (which, I'll point out, is the logic used by some people, not me, which is why I put it in quotation marks to being with). And yes, I am judging their lives and the manner they wish to live them, but in the same breath I'm defending their right to lead it. You attack my stance on them, but then turn around and say the Burka (and all coverings) should be banned, but not because it's wrong, just because it's different? That is seriously lacking in ethics, and shows a glaring disregard for the rights of others, as well as an authoritarian streak.

Hardly. They're using the rules as a guide for their lives.[/quite] Rules are rules, not guidelines. Either they follow them or they don't, and if they do they're not thinking for themselves.

Again, immoral in your eyes. You're judging someone else's faith, from the outside.

Yes, because it is frankly retarded to believe that you are not capable of making a moral judgement against someone else. Using my somewhat capable brain, I can examine the beliefs and morals and actions of a person or a religion, and I can decide if I think they are not ethical. I'm certainly able to look at sharia law and say "oh my god this is disgusting", are you not? Do you not find the subjugation of women abhorrent? Does it not sicken you on a fundamental intellectual level to see millions of people around the world marching holding signs "behead those who mock Islam and "Islam is a religion of love and peace" just because of a cartoon which actually had a point? Or can you (like so many mindless multi-culturalists) ignore all that under the guise of it simple being "another culture". I'm not say our culture is the perfect model to aspire to, it is okay and justifiable to look at ours and look at "theirs" and say my god am I glad I live in a free and secular country.

So you don't know anyone that has been happy in their religion, nor have you observed muslims going about their daily lives? In essence, you're basing this whole opinion on Islam, simply because you've only seen two negatives. Have you ever spoken to a woman who's comfortable or happy with her lifestyle?

You can't seriously think I base my whole opinion on Islam on the testimonies of just three people? You might, considering your consternation at my attack on it, but I don't. I base my opinion of Islam on the hundreds and hundreds of news reports I hear, which range from extremist attacks to the testimonies of the daily lives of Muslims, and from the Koran itself, truly one of the vilest pieces of fiction ever written. I've never spoken to a woman wearing a Burka, but I have spoken at great length with women who wear a hijab, and their reactions to burkas (which is the core of this topic, don't forget) range from unease to hate.

And an attack on Islam is an attack on Muslims, because their faith is stronger than that of most western religions. They live their faith.

No, it isn't, no more than a blistering verbal attack on HIV is an attack on people with AIDS. I really hate HIV, but I have compassion for the victims, provided they don't go around stabbing people with their infected needles or sleeping with them without protection.

For Muslims, their culture and religion are linked.

Not as much as you might think. Certainly no more than Christianity has been in the past, and as that faith dies off it hasn't brought about a collapse of cultures. Indeed, as that faith dies off, the arts and culture have flourished, now that our lives are no longer strangled by the whim of a megalomaniacal god and the bidding of disgusting church preaching a lunatic religion.

Because it is simply your morality that is denying them theirs. And where did you learn your morality? What makes it the right way?

No, denying them theirs would mean me going into their homes and forcing them to follow my will. Arguing a point is not denying them anything, except the danger of living in a world where their morality is the only morality they've ever heard of. Can I objectively say mine is correct? No. But I've heard many other moral codes. Some are ok, some a very good. Some are weird, and some, like the morals laid out in all Abrahamic religions, are sick at worst and lacking at best; the remnants of the morals of bronze age barbarians who hated outsiders, held slaves and treated women as chattle. The morals laid out in the fictitious tripe that is the Bible and Koran are repugnant, and there is no reason in all the world why a thinking person who feels compassion and uses logic cannot look at them and know that his morals are better than those of dark age nomads.

Thankfully, most Muslims are not like the people I've just described. With a few notable exceptions like Arabia, Yemen and Afghanistan, Muslim countries and their populations are more ethical than the founders of their religion. But the religion itself lives on, unchanged, and social progress cannot be made within the religion, only out of it, as has happened in the west with our "great Satan", Christianity. It is no coincidence that the Muslim countries with the highest human development index and the best human rights records are also the most liberal countries, the cultures which are most distant from the literal teachings of Islam, while the countries which are systematic rights abusers with endemic sexism are the ones which are most devout, the most "Islamic".

I throw it around a lot? hardly. Two responses to you. The difference I'm showing you is that you seem to know nothing about how Muslims live their lives, except from an abstract point of view. I actually know very little about Islam as a faith, however what I have learned, I learned from Muslims themselves.

This actually makes for a very interesting discourse....by your own admission, you know little about Islam, only about Muslims. I know a lot more about Islam than about Muslims. I think this is powerful evidence for my belief that most people do not practice what they preach. Regardless, do keep in mind I'm not attack Muslims as a whole. A person would have to be insane or stupid to think the their religion is actually representative of them. Muslims will always talk about how good their faith is, because they probably are happy enough people just getting on with their lives, the same as myself. If their societies were free, people of various levels of belief in Islam could worship how they choose, if at all. Sadly, they're not generally free. In some places you'd be put to death for apostasy. If you ask someone why they should be put to death, you'll probably hear "because it says so in the Koran". This is not free thought. There is no rational reason to put someone to death for the crime of thinking different, and that's the problem. Religion encourages people not to think.

Which is why I'm not so enthusiastic about forcing western practices/morality on people who have no need for them, or any desire to receive them.

Again, I'm not forcing anything on anyone. Forcing would entail actually making them do something they don't want. Insisting I'm right isn't forcing anything. You're free to close the window and not listen to me. You're doubly hypocritical in this paragraph alone, as you first flip-flop and say you don't want to force western practices on people after previously stating they should be forced to not wear the burka, and then you think they should be forced to take of the Burka because it's our custom to see the faces after lecturing me on respecting another culture.

I only want to convince them to take it off. If I fail, I'll be disappointed, but I'll leave it at that.

I rather doubt it. It will change over time, just as every other religion that still exists with a decent following has.

Well it may be wishful thinking, and I don't believe it will ever totally die out, but I think a figure of 1-5% of the population being religious is realistic. Not in my lifetime of course. The are several European countries where disbelief in Christianity runs over two-thirds, and there is no reason this figure can't be attained in other countries too. It cannot change btw. The Koran declares unequivocally that it is the final and unalterable word of god in literal form; this precludes chance of change. What can change is how much people are willing to believe in the book, and as this number declines, change will be enabled. The great social changes of the last 70 years in our society has happened not because of a change in religion, but because of an absence of it.

I don't agree. people believe what they want to believe. But in any case, I would like to see a practical answer from you as to how to combat Islam & muslim practices in France.

People believe what they're brought up to believe. Practically, there are only two things that need to be done or should be done by a government to combat any kind of extremism anywhere in the world.

1. Education. Ensure that everyone has access to it.
2. Freedom of expression. If this human right is not abridged, extremists will never gain hold. If an extremist can be engaged in a public forum and have his beliefs challenged, they (assuming they are bad) will not stand up to scrutiny and his ideas will not gain favour. Unfree society is the holy grail for extremists. The freest countries are the most peaceful, while places without freedom are generally the most restive. Extremism in Britain has risen in tandem with a decline in freedom of expression, while Turkey for example has become more stable since the governing party has made the country freer.

dublin gunner wrote:

You can be damn sure if we went to a strict Muslim country we would be forced to abide by their rules, or face imprisonment.

I see no reason whatsoever for others to not have to follow our (western) rules.

Because we don't practice religious fascism in our countries? Lead by example; tit for tat is immature and counter-productive.

ChocolateSauce

Húrin wrote: »

Did you make any attempt to understand my post? I didn't say that Islam oppresses women. The purpose of the quotation marks was to highlight the fact that a lot of people in this thread said it.

Right, you didn't say that. I misread your post because I was tired (note the 0503 time) and had used my energy on the preceding post.

The law already enforces someone's opinion about what clothes can be worn. Women can't go around topless for instance.

I took a jibe at that one too. I think public nudity laws should go as well. It isn't my place to tell someone they can't wear nothing, and I get the sneaking suspicion that some kind of invisible hand would limit the places people stripped off.

asdasd

Hmm.

Tolerance, a generally misused word, is allowing something you dislike. I dislike the Burka, but I think we should allow it.

I take the point on nakedness - but it is an argument to extremism - and goes in the opposite direction of the over-clothed burka. In general we dont ban clothings. Not on the street, anyway.

I take the point on face coverings, and I think that Muslim women should show their faces ( to a woman if need be) when entering banks, when questioned by police etc.

Beyond that I am dubious. Did France not have Christian nuns,who were clothed fully, and wore veils?

ilkhanid

I've seen pictures of french nuns and while they were comprehensively covered from head to toe, there was no order that covered the face.

ilkhanid

Deleted User wrote: »

And an attack on Islam is an attack on Muslims, because their faith is stronger than that of most western religions. They live their faith.

If there are negative and repulsive aspects to the the Islamic religion,I don't see why we should refrain from criticizing it because some see it as an attack on all Moslems. They should be able to take their lumps, like all other religions. No special cases, no matter "how strong their faith is."

Deleted User wrote: »

Because it is simply your morality that is denying them theirs. And where did you learn your morality? What makes it the right way?

I can't speak for other interlocutors, but, personally, I have confidence in my views and morality. I believe that in these matters, common sense and reason point to the fact that a culture/tradition that refuses personhood, equality and civic integration to women; that keeps them under wraps, both at home or under a tent and refuses to allow them to participate in the affairs of the world; and that makes them subject to their males is fundamentally repulsive,debased, backward and impoverished. The evidence is clear. Which parts of the Moslem world adhere most strongly to this 'tradition'? The corrupt,depraved theocracy of Saudi Arabia and the backward, barbarically patriarchal tribal lands of Pakistan and Afghanistan,home of the lunatic Taliban.

Deleted User wrote: »

Which is why I'm not so enthusiastic about forcing western practices/morality on people who have no need for them, or any desire to receive them.

hardly 'Western' practices/morality. Cultures that sequester their females are minority cultures in the world. Most of the others (old Hindu India,old China) have abandoned the practice or are defunct.
As to the larger question as to whether there is something fundamental in Islam that encourages these problems, that is a complicated question. Christianity has been undergoing a slow liberalizing process for over a thousand years, a process that has included episodes such as the rise of scholastic philosophy,the Renaissance and Reformation, the rise of Methodism and the coming of the new Twentieth century theologies. These processes have gradually burnt out a lot of the most malignant elements of the Christian faiths or have given more emancipatory strains room to grow and contend with the old ways. This process has been retarded in Islam to a much greater degree and needs time and space to flourish and come up with new theologies and philosophies.

ChocolateSauce

Long Reply, Sorry everyone else.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

You seem to have omitted the fact that I spoke against "forcing them to be free".

Oh, sorry, the full sentence was:
"A ban would "force them to be free", and would reduce the control of their male family...". Now you're really going to say that this is against forcing your viewpoint of "freedom" on them.

Have you even read my post? I defended their right to wear the Burka and spoke against a law "forcing them to be free" (which, I'll point out, is the logic used by some people, not me, which is why I put it in quotation marks to being with). And yes, I am judging their lives and the manner they wish to live them, but in the same breath I'm defending their right to lead it. You attack my stance on them, but then turn around and say the Burka (and all coverings) should be banned, but not because it's wrong, just because it's different? That is seriously lacking in ethics, and shows a glaring disregard for the rights of others, as well as an authoritarian streak.

The difference in the reasons behind it as much as anything. I view the banning to be necessary for the stability of the country, and to lessen the force of these types of religious/ethnic separations cause. Every country in the western world, has had to develop their own ways of dealing with the conflict, or envy that different cultures bring with them.

However, with you, its talking about bursting into their culture and forcing them to change. And I seriously doubt that you would settle for one thing, and want more than this one thing to change. You talk about giving choice to people most of which don't want to have that choice. You're intention is to destroy their whole way of life, since their religion is a major part, and you have serious issues about Islam.

I don't have a problem reading your posts. However I do have an issue with you declaring something different than you wrote yourself 1 page ago.

Hardly. They're using the rules as a guide for their lives.[/quite] Rules are rules, not guidelines. Either they follow them or they don't, and if they do they're not thinking for themselves.

Interesting. So you always follow the rules then?

Yes, because it is frankly retarded to believe that you are not capable of making a moral judgement against someone else. Using my somewhat capable brain, I can examine the beliefs and morals and actions of a person or a religion, and I can decide if I think they are not ethical.
I'm certainly able to look at sharia law and say "oh my god this is disgusting", are you not? Do you not find the subjugation of women abhorrent?

Against someone else? Sure. I'm doing that right now with you.
The difference is that I'm not expecting them to change their lives and the lives of their descendants simply because I disagree with some their beliefs/laws/culture. You, on the other hand, are declaring war on the Islamic way of life. How can you really view this as a quest for peoples freedom? Its as bad as the wars brought about by the US simply to stop communism and spread "freedom". I can tell you plenty of other examples, which show the manner in which you view freedom should be spread.

Does it not sicken you on a fundamental intellectual level to see millions of people around the world marching holding signs "behead those who mock Islam and "Islam is a religion of love and peace" just because of a cartoon which actually had a point?

I laughed myself silly when I heard. Couldn't believe that they couldn't take a simple joke. After all, Catholics get as pissed when the Pope is joked in newspapers. But sickened? nope.

Or can you (like so many mindless multi-culturalists) ignore all that under the guise of it simple being "another culture". I'm not say our culture is the perfect model to aspire to, it is okay and justifiable to look at ours and look at "theirs" and say my god am I glad I live in a free and secular country.

You're funny. I'm a multi-culturalist? as in
"Of or relating to a social or educational theory that encourages interest in many cultures within a society rather than in only a mainstream culture."

So you're not saying that Muslims are the only religion that does this? That France shouldn't apply this rule against everyone regardless of religious or cultural beliefs?

You can't seriously think I base my whole opinion on Islam on the testimonies of just three people? You might, considering your consternation at my attack on it, but I don't.

yup, which is why I raised it. And you responded telling me how many Muslims you have known personally.

I base my opinion of Islam on the hundreds and hundreds of news reports I hear, which range from extremist attacks to the testimonies of the daily lives of Muslims, and from the Koran itself, truly one of the vilest pieces of fiction ever written. I've never spoken to a woman wearing a Burka, but I have spoken at great length with women who wear a hijab, and their reactions to burkas (which is the core of this topic, don't forget) range from unease to hate.

Why this intense surveillance of the Islamic community worldwide?

No, it isn't, no more than a blistering verbal attack on HIV is an attack on people with AIDS. I really hate HIV, but I have compassion for the victims, provided they don't go around stabbing people with their infected needles or sleeping with them without protection.

Seriously WTF? You're drawing this kind of example against the second largest religion in the world?

Not as much as you might think. Certainly no more than Christianity has been in the past, and as that faith dies off it hasn't brought about a collapse of cultures. Indeed, as that faith dies off, the arts and culture have flourished, now that our lives are no longer strangled by the whim of a megalomaniacal god and the bidding of disgusting church preaching a lunatic religion.

So, give Islamic followers the freedom to decide for themselves when they want to change.

No, denying them theirs would mean me going into their homes and forcing them to follow my will. Arguing a point is not denying them anything, except the danger of living in a world where their morality is the only morality they've ever heard of. Can I objectively say mine is correct? No. But I've heard many other moral codes. Some are ok, some a very good. Some are weird, and some, like the morals laid out in all Abrahamic religions, are sick at worst and lacking at best; the remnants of the morals of bronze age barbarians who hated outsiders, held slaves and treated women as chattle. The morals laid out in the fictitious tripe that is the Bible and Koran are repugnant, and there is no reason in all the world why a thinking person who feels compassion and uses logic cannot look at them and know that his morals are better than those of dark age nomads.

Jesus! (no pun intended) you really hate Islam and the culture that Muslims have created through their religion (regardless of their country).

Thankfully, most Muslims are not like the people I've just described.

Do you seriously realise what you have written here? I fully admit to being stoned and not quick on picking up sarcasm in this state, but...

Just described? Like all your posts previous to this.

With a few notable exceptions like Arabia, Yemen and Afghanistan, Muslim countries and their populations are more ethical than the founders of their religion. But the religion itself lives on, unchanged, and social progress cannot be made within the religion, only out of it, as has happened in the west with our "great Satan", Christianity. It is no coincidence that the Muslim countries with the highest human development index and the best human rights records are also the most liberal countries, the cultures which are most distant from the literal teachings of Islam, while the countries which are systematic rights abusers with endemic sexism are the ones which are most devout, the most "Islamic".

And the Islamic countries further out are still followers of their religion, and that the problem is not with the religion, but with the smaller numbers of people who take it too far? And yet, you seek to force your freedom/morality on all Muslims.

I certainly am happy with my own morality. If another person wanted it for themselves, sure, their choice. But I'll wait to choose until they ask for it. True freedom is earned not given.

This actually makes for a very interesting discourse....by your own admission, you know little about Islam, only about Muslims. I know a lot more about Islam than about Muslims. I think this is powerful evidence for my belief that most people do not practice what they preach.

So your desire to force Muslim women to choose your morality and gain the freedom to choose, and then... what? I wonder how many women would choose to remain as they are. How would you consider them? Still without the freedom to choose?

You've never seen a muslim family close up. You know the religion. Are you really saying that roughly 1.5 billion people worldwide should be judged simply because they follow the same religion? :rolleyes:

Regardless, do keep in mind I'm not attack Muslims as a whole. A person would have to be insane or stupid to think the their religion is actually representative of them.

:eek: flip flop. One minute one side, the next moment the other side.

Muslims will always talk about how good their faith is, because they probably are happy enough people just getting on with their lives, the same as myself.

Aye, living their lives as they choose... oh, no.. wait a second.. Look down to the next quote..

If their societies were free, people of various levels of belief in Islam could worship how they choose, if at all. Sadly, they're not generally free. In some places you'd be put to death for apostasy. If you ask someone why they should be put to death, you'll probably hear "because it says so in the Koran". This is not free thought. There is no rational reason to put someone to death for the crime of thinking different, and that's the problem. Religion encourages people not to think.

^^^^^ Flip. flop.

Again, I'm not forcing anything on anyone. Forcing would entail actually making them do something they don't want. Insisting I'm right isn't forcing anything. You're free to close the window and not listen to me.

Okie dokie. Are they (Muslims) free to ignore you too?

You're doubly hypocritical in this paragraph alone, as you first flip-flop and say you don't want to force western practices on people after previously stating they should be forced to not wear the burka, and then you think they should be forced to take of the Burka because it's our custom to see the faces after lecturing me on respecting another culture.

Its quite different than that considering this is about a country where the majority is not Muslim. This is a country with millions more people who do not live their lives covered up. This is about decreasing the hostility that many french people have against the spread of Islam in France. Never mind about those French that have issues with those from former colonies. Many french have not forgotten Algeria.

Most people do not cover their faces, and as said by other people here this is the western way. We learn to place much trust in what we see in peoples faces, and then act upon them. Its a major part of the western lifestyle. If they're living in a country with such a culture, it should be respected, and followed.

I only want to convince them to take it off. If I fail, I'll be disappointed, but I'll leave it at that.

If it was only about supporting them when they themselves decide to change, I might agree with you. But you want it now.

Well it may be wishful thinking, and I don't believe it will ever totally die out, but I think a figure of 1-5% of the population being religious is realistic. Not in my lifetime of course. The are several European countries where disbelief in Christianity runs over two-thirds, and there is no reason this figure can't be attained in other countries too.

Sure. Whatever. It doesn't really matter, because many of the people who stopped believing in Christianity turned to other religions... I can't quite say what they could have been.

Are these ex-Christians, or just non-practicing? There is a difference, you know>?

It cannot change btw. The Koran declares unequivocally that it is the final and unalterable word of god in literal form; this precludes chance of change. What can change is how much people are willing to believe in the book, and as this number declines, change will be enabled. The great social changes of the last 70 years in our society has happened not because of a change in religion, but because of an absence of it.

How much has the Bible been changed since the Koran was written? Has it really changed all that much for the better with the writing & re-writing of the New Testament. The west is still messing things up on a regular basis, and the countries which you mention as being worse, have been on the receiving end of western influence, giving them more reason to retreat into their religion, and away from considering western ideals.

People believe what they're brought up to believe.

I grew up in a strict Christian family. Went to the religious schools. Got loads of money for my first communion all those years ago. I don't believe a word of it now, and haven't had mass or any other service in 20 years (except for other peoples weddings). So, I'm suprised to find I'm the only one that didn't.

You're already pointed out the decreasing numbers of Christians in Europe... Were they brought up with family that encouraged them not to follow in their footsteps?

Practically, there are only two things that need to be done or should be done by a government to combat any kind of extremism anywhere in the world.

This should be good.

1. Education. Ensure that everyone has access to it.

So you're talking about a country that doesn't exist in reality, and probably won't happen as long as money exists.

2. Freedom of expression. If this human right is not abridged, extremists will never gain hold. If an extremist can be engaged in a public forum and have his beliefs challenged, they (assuming they are bad) will not stand up to scrutiny and his ideas will not gain favour.

Erm, Hitler didn't have any problems there.. Nor have the extremist groups which exist in every country in the world... The US has probably had the richest country in the world, and "apparently" the most free, and they have always had people turning to extremist groups.

Unfree society is the holy grail for extremists. The freest countries are the most peaceful, while places without freedom are generally the most restive.

You sound like a US army recruitment poster.

Extremism in Britain has risen in tandem with a decline in freedom of expression, while Turkey for example has become more stable since the governing party has made the country freer.

Hmmm... Turkey... A muslim majority choosing to make their country more freer... But remaining muslim and true to their faith. And Britain with a major split in religions, and having issued with its religious minorities for decades...

Because we don't practice religious fascism in our countries? Lead by example; tit for tat is immature and counter-productive.

Religious facism in Ireland? Sure, we were a country with a crappy economy until the late 1980's and people kept to the church, and the church's influence. I guess I don't see our progress away from the influence of the Catholic church in Ireland as being too bad. Considering the numbers of Catholics in Ireland per head of population, and the increase of non-practicing catholics.

So, I don't agree with you. Ireland has been moving away from Catholicism but slowly. Don't see why the Muslims have to catch up so quickly, considering our societies had more time to get tired of our religion, and its constraints.

ilkhanid

ilkhanid wrote: »

If there are negative and repulsive aspects to the the Islamic religion,I don't see why we should refrain from criticizing it because some see it as an attack on all Moslems. They should be able to take their lumps, like all other religions. No special cases, no matter "how strong their faith is."

I have actually no problem with people criticising something because they don't like it. I just disagree with her reasoning. And I firmly believe in application of rules across the board. Exceptions don't help build national identity.

I can't speak for other interlocutors, but, personally, I have confidence in my views and morality. I believe that in these matters, common sense and reason point to the fact that a culture/tradition that refuses personhood, equality and civic integration to women; that keeps them under wraps, both at home or under a tent and refuses to allow them to participate in the affairs of the world; and that makes them subject to their males is fundamentally repulsive,debased, backward and impoverished. The evidence is clear. Which parts of the Moslem world adhere most strongly to this 'tradition'? The corrupt,depraved theocracy of Saudi Arabia and the backward, barbarically patriarchal tribal lands of Pakistan and Afghanistan,home of the lunatic Taliban.

How long since Black people gained equality in the US? Err, have they actually gotten it yet? How long since sexism became a no no in western society? Hell, its only 70 years since the last world war, which western nations started.

I guess I'm more patient.

hardly 'Western' practices/morality. Cultures that sequester their females are minority cultures in the world. Most of the others (old Hindu India,old China) have abandoned the practice or are defunct.

If there are 1.5 Billion muslims in the world, how many of them confine their women? Are there actually any accurate statistics that would know the difference in Muslim practices?

As to the larger question as to whether there is something fundamental in Islam that encourages these problems, that is a complicated question. Christianity has been undergoing a slow liberalizing process for over a thousand years, a process that has included episodes such as the rise of scholastic philosophy,the Renaissance and Reformation, the rise of Methodism and the coming of the new Twentieth century theologies. These processes have gradually burnt out a lot of the most malignant elements of the Christian faiths or have given more emancipatory strains room to grow and contend with the old ways. This process has been retarded in Islam to a much greater degree and needs time and space to flourish and come up with new theologies and philosophies.

Totally agree.

Dublin_Gunner

Ban religion.

Problems of the world solved.

asdasd

Ban religion.

Problems of the world solved.

There's always one.

Acacia

Morlar wrote: »

Unless your point is that it is women's choice to wear a burka and there is no political, social, cultural or community pressure brought to bear to force women into wearing it ?

But here's the problem- there is political, social, cultural and community pressure bearing on how Western women dress too. For example, it's generally thought to be more attractive/acceptable for women to shave their legs in Western countries, so what of a law was brought in saying no women could go out in public with un-shaved legs?

I don't really agree with wearing the burqa but if it's a case that a woman really wants to wear it, she should be allowed. I don't think full-on ban will really help those forced to do it in the long run, as some other measure will be taken to 'hide their modesty'.

It's a tough call really.

Dublin_Gunner

asdasd wrote: »

There's always one.

Well it is already beginning to turn into a religios debate, so I thought I'd throw the towel in.

Acacia

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Well it is already beginning to turn into a religios debate, so I thought I'd throw the towel in.

I find the notion of banning religion as abhorrent as religious fanatics forcing their beliefs on other people.

Morlar

Acacia wrote: »

For example, ..........so what of a law was brought in saying no women could go out in public with un-shaved legs?

Except that is also not what we are talking about. I don't see the value in creating comparisons for the sake of trying to sound clever which hold no relevance and only serve to cloud the issue. We are tallking about the burka - not shaved legs, or haircuts etc