Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Burka ban
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'm non-religious and do not support the banCurtailed? You word play is a nice way of avoiding saying you wish for the liberty of a person in their choice of what to wear ought to be stripped. Or, to abbreviate, to ban it.
The irony in accusing me of wanting to remove someone's liberty by removing the thing that actually removes their liberty.I oppose it because there should be a separation of church and state and no one religion ought to be elevated above another. No laws should be made to appease religion. It seems you have different motivations behind your position.
I really think you are really misreading my point here. People in this country tend to be very resistant of removing religious control or iconography from places it shouldn't be, even people who don't believe anything the religion describes. These people are brainwashed to think that the church should be in the position of power it is (or to not recognise that the church gets power from the position it is). I am using this to question Nodins disbelieve at the possibility that the women who want the burka are brainwashed.
You seem to have a "I see a woman wearing a burqa. Because I dislike it, I say we ban it." You don't come across as noble in your intentions as you'd like to think.
Neither do you. This empty accusation has been thrown at me before, care to back it up with anything? Its not that I dislike it, its why I dislike it. I vehemently dislike ads on the tv and radio, but I dont call for them to be banned. I dislike oppression and things that damage society (such as racism or sexism) so I think they should be banned.Do I think a woman should wear a buqa? No, not really. How do I see a woman wearing a burqa? I wonder if it is her choice or not. I wonder how she might raise her child, and her child raise that child. Might they wish to lose the burqa of their own will.
But can any of them wish to lose the burka of their own will, if they each have been raised to believe they have to wear it? Where does their will come into it?There is an element of brainwashing in any religion, not just Islam. I'd say there are a lot of factors. Trying to appease family, out of a sense of tradition, out of liking the garment. Perhaps it was a gift from a family member. There could be a number of reasons inserted here.
None of which are justifications for wearing it, if it is deemed to be bad for society.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
I'm religious and support the ban
That is absolutist. I'm not convinced of the veracity of such sentiments on a large scale. We don't really have anything to say how many people wear the burqa out of choice or who don't. The discussion isn't really going to get anywhere ifIn this case, it's clear that the religious beliefs of men are encroaching upon the free rights of women, by forcing women to wear one thing. That's the point at which the state should act.
1) One side thinks choice comes in to it while the other doesnt.
2) One side wants the government to step in and mandate "the right way" while the other (or at least I) want the government to be able to offer help to those who need it. And need it in the sense they want it.
You might try and bring in abusive relationships in to this, but I don't think it will really fly as an analogy to the extent of bringing legal restrictions as an overarching preventative measure.
People who are in coercive situations and want an out need to be protected to the fullest extent of the law. It isn't on us to encroach on lives and mandating laws and restrictions so haphazardly.
I don't think the people who wish to wear a burqa find you doing them any service. The people who don't wish to wear it live in a society where they don't have to. If they are being coerced by family then they can report such things.Mark Hamill wrote: »The irony in accusing me of wanting to remove someone's liberty by removing the thing that actually removes their liberty.
People are resistant, yes, but what of it? Progress is being made. I really think you are really misreading my point here. People in this country tend to be very resistant of removing religious control or iconography from places it shouldn't be
Lets go with they are. Do you fix the brainwashing by removing the burqa? No. Of course not. So, it isn't fixing anything. Religion is a brainwashing tool, so things done on account of religion are by extension brainwashing to some extent. In the case of the burqa it isn't even advocated for in their holy text, so the brainwashing comes culturally rather than by their book. Just something to be aware of in the discussion.I am using this to question Nodins disbelieve at the possibility that the women who want the burka are brainwashed.
You have some serious cognitive dissonance here. You say that the burqa should be curtailed. What does that mean? Permissibility of the burqa a couple of times a week? A month? Holy days? What are the limits on this curtailment? If I am misrepresenting you, then I'd encourage you to represent yourself better.Neither do you. This empty accusation has been thrown at me before, care to back it up with anything? Its not that I dislike it, its why I dislike it. I vehemently dislike ads on the tv and radio, but I dont call for them to be banned. I dislike oppression and things that damage society (such as racism or sexism) so I think they should be banned.
Living in a free society and interacting with people of their faith who have decided against wearing the burqa so that it would be their choice and not an imposition on them.But can any of them wish to lose the burka of their own will, if they each have been raised to believe they have to wear it? Where does their will come into it?
Big if.None of which are justifications for wearing it, if it is deemed to be bad for society.0 -
-
I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
Uh, it's not very "absolutist" to point out that there's a balance to be struck when one person's rights encroach on another person's rights. I'd have said it was quite the opposite.That is absolutist.
You may not be convinced, but you may have missed a post of mine from yesterday in which I pointed out that in free societies like Ireland's, no woman chooses to cover her face in a black bag. Also, if you trace back through this thread further, you'll also see that people who have actual first-hand experience of places where wearing this black bag is commonplace (ie, improbable and to a far lesser degree, myself and no doubt, others), freedom is one thing that's noticeable by its absence.I'm not convinced of the veracity of such sentiments on a large scale. We don't really have anything to say how many people wear the burqa out of choice or who don't.
But I'm genuinely fascinated -- do any of the pro-burka side see anything ironic in this bit of The Life of Brian? And if so, then why don't you find it equally ironic when women apparently express "choice" by seemingly deciding to do exactly the same thing, en masse?
0 -
I'm religious and support the ban
It's absolutist because you have your grounding on what the burqa is at all times. You have a grounding on what the government must do, seemingly without any exemptions unless you are saying some people can wear a burqa by choice. If you are saying there are exemptions it isn't absolutist.Uh, it's not very "absolutist" to point out that there's a balance to be struck when one person's rights encroach on another person's rights. I'd have said it was quite the opposite.
Well, before I go back and see precisely what you said, I'll say that forgive me if I don't believe it on the grounds of someone saying it. Anyway, are you referring to when you said...You may not be convinced, but you may have missed a post of mine from yesterday in which I pointed out that in free societies like Ireland's, no woman chooses to cover her face in a black bag.
Hm, I'm going to need some clarification on something from this bit here:Not me anyway - I couldn't care less what people wear, or don't wear. The issue for me is that women are being coerced (subtly, or not subtly) into wearing this thing (and we know from observation, that few if any women want to wear it if they have a genuinely free choice, as they do here in Ireland and other democracies).
Is the point of this discussion what we think Ireland should do, or a global thing? I'm talking about this from the perspective of Ireland, and the above has no real value to that discussion. We could look at places that are far more devoutly Catholic and try to make sweeping statements about here, and be just as fallacious for doing so.How many non-islamic women choose to dress themselves in a burka, walk two steps behind their husband, refuse to leave home without a male "guardian", refuse to learn how to drive a car etc, etc.
In countries which don't enforce this behaviour, the number is zero, so I think it's safe to conclude that given a genuinely free choice, no woman would. Hence the choice is not freely made.
Ok, lets see...Also, if you trace back through this thread further, you'll also see that people who have actual first-hand experience of places where wearing this black bag is commonplace (ie, improbable and to a far lesser degree, myself and no doubt, others), freedom is one thing that's noticeable by its absence.
Do I need to add anything? Ok. It isn't the "done thing" here to the same extent as it is in Bahrain or other places you care to mention, so the strength of this argument isn't really compelling.Improbable wrote: »I lived in Bahrain for 8 years. I've asked my parents who have had this debate before with local people there. Apparently, in most cases, the reason they wore it was because that's the way they were brought up. They grew up with their mothers wearing them and their aunts wearing them and their sisters wearing them and all the women they would see out and about wearing them. It was just the done thing.
So, perhaps people in Ireland are in good conditions whereby you don't need to ban the burqa? But, oh yes, that. Ireland is the purpose of the conversation? Or not?I've also talked to my own friends from Bahrain and some of them have mothers who wear/wore them and some have mothers who didn't. In most cases, the response was that because of the large influx of foreigners into Bahrain compared to their parents time at the same age, the pressure to wear them in order to conform or fit in is greatly reduced. In every case, they said that given the choice, they would not wear them.
People do things en masse all the time. Religion doesn't have the monopoly on that, nor this particular religion, et cetera...But I'm genuinely fascinated -- do any of the pro-burka side see anything ironic in this bit of The Life of Brian? And if so, then why don't you find it equally ironic when women apparently express "choice" by seemingly deciding to do exactly the same thing, en masse?0 -
-
-
I'm non-religious and do not support the banI could make the point that if a woman isn't allowed wear a burqa the same coercive element you described would prevent her leaving her home.
Already been made, several times. Exactly how long do you think such a situation would last in a household were its typically the woman who has to mind the kids and get shopping? Eventually, she would have to be allowed out.Though, this type of individual just like the one who is coerced by family to wear a burqa should get protection from child protection. Not a expansive law like it seems is presumed the correct course.
They already get protection from the law, it hasn't changed the situation for most wearers.Oh, also from the post you linked, consider it acquiescing to your request for where you posted something like this before:
I'm probably missing the context for this, but I am lostYou don't/can't recognise personal choice in the matter, so not seeing any answer will satisfy you.
Personal choice is based on the supposed religious/justifications for the burka. The validity of the choice is dependant on those justifications being sound. If the justifications are so unsound so as to point to a severe suspense of critical faculties needed to choose to accept them, then the choice is invalid.I would say it could better be defined as not understanding it. There are other things that might get an instinctual "that's stupid" out of me and I tend to find such thoughts are grossly over simplistic and not worth anything in a discussion.
And I'm sure discussions were you don't discuss the fact that you disagree with the rational of your opponents go so well :rolleyes:.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »I'm going to respond to your list, to try and keep this short:
I'll be honest, I don't really have the time to be posting here & am offending a lot of my better judgement in doing so but when I do I try to do it right so it'd be nice if you had referred to the explanatory text above the summary before posting questions I'd expanded upon above...Mark Hamill wrote: »
No its not.sponsoredwalk wrote: »banning the burqa based on state authoritarianism is nothing but the state authoritarianism you're trying to refute in banning the burqa;
Okay, you're right - it isn't, I'm convinced... If you're really going to deny that a state banning items of clothing is state authoritarianism then that's fantastic, there's hope for this conversation...Mark Hamill wrote: »I mention states that oppress with the burka as a example of people who support the burka oppressing people with it when they get the power to do so.
Completely irrelevant, nothing but fearmongering & functions as nothing but a way of using scary images to support your argument. The whole notion of thinking this even applies to the argument is just an incoherent means of inserting scary images from a conversation on the dictatorial nature of states into the discussion, you're just crossing wires. If you think it applies to this conversation then Joseph Stalin applies to every discussion Christians have about how atheism leads to rape, murder, etc...
Also there's a serious element of dishonesty here, you've just said you mention states as examples but earlier you said:Mark Hamill wrote: »By its very justifications it is political, hence in countries ruled by those who themselves want it, the wearing of it is enforced on all women.
In other words, unchallenged you'd continue this confused argument of using the dictatorial nature of states & the fact that "By its very justifications it is political" as ammunition. Lest we think this was an off-hand comment:Mark Hamill wrote: »That interpretation is oppressive, damaging and, most importantly, political.
You just make no sense, if you even try to make argument using the word political then we've entered the domain of the repressive nature of states, completely ignoring the reasons why the burqa is worn in the first place & completely inapplicable to a conversation on banning the burqa. Also, if you seriously claimMark Hamill wrote: »By its very justifications it is political
You are either talking about the politics of states (irrelevant to us unless you are arguing from confusion) or are seriously claiming that the justification for the burqa has nothing to do with personal interpretation of scripture but is political - every avenue leads to nonsense...Mark Hamill wrote: »There is a world of difference between telling people they cant wear this one thing (because of the oppressive ideologies that accompany it) and telling people they have to wear it or else they will first be punished on earth and then in hell.
Note what I said - I said that in trying to ban the burqa through states you are engaging in the kind of state authoritarianism you are arguing against with all your talk of political justifications, I didn't say your authoritarianism was analogous to the religious authoritarianism (no different to any other religious authoritarianism, so following this line of argument up displays nothing but extreme bias) inherent in the ideology they follow.Mark Hamill wrote: »The state authoritarianism stems from the fundamental justifications for the burka. Banning it rejects those justifications. Thats not all we should do 9to reject those justifications) buts its something we must do.
It's scary how you can say the above while simultaneously claiming:Mark Hamill wrote: »The burka ban is not an effort to stop people practising Islam, its an effort to stop people being oppressed by all the additional ideologies that (always) accompany the belief that the burka must be worn. That interpretation is oppressive, damaging and, most importantly, political.
What are the justifications the state uses? The Qu'ran... It all reverts there & it's up to the reader to interpret it as they see fit. You are arguing none other than for the banning of the Qu'ran because people interpret it in a way that displeases you - though you don't have the balls nor honesty to just out & say it, whether that's because you haven't thought it through properly is a different question (especially in light of the admission that this is not all we should do)... Furthermore we see the all-knowing omnipresent judge aspect of your argument clearest here - dictating to others that their interpretation of scripture, one followed throughout history, is wrong based on not a tap nor scribble of textual justification but rather brazen opinions justified by the refutation of all evidence, you'd only find this on the internet...Mark Hamill wrote: »This is not a argument, its a declaration. Care to back any of this up?
With due deference to your definitive Word of God declaration on what constitutes an argument, if you bothered to refer to the text above you'd see I already backed myself up:sponsoredwalk wrote: »Also, your argument:Mark Hamill wrote: »but it does not show that there is any freedom in the interpretations of Hijab which do promote the burka.
Is like calling yourself a painter despite never having touched a paintbrush in your life... If you say you believe X & then refute the practices that come along with X then you don't really believe X at all, do you? If you say you believe "interpretation Y based on your reading of scriptures & your conclusion about what modesty constitutes" & then refute the practices that come along with "interpretation Y based on your reading of scriptures & your conclusion about what modesty constitutes" then you don't really believe "interpretation Y based on your reading of scriptures & your conclusion about what modesty constitutes" at all, do you? Notice how everything on this fundamental level is entirely up to the person & solely depends on their freedom of interpretation of scripture - something that varies within the ideology as you've admitted. Further notice how all of this refutes your brainwashing nonsense by offering offers a completely rational explanation of how someone could come to conclude that the burqa should be worn - the rationale being it's up to them to choose what they think is the right way to live according to their interpretation of scripture (scripture which necessitates they live according to it's dictates [because they believe the ideology of Islam] - you may as well ban most religions because people can't believe in, & be a member of, religion Z while living 100% differently from everything it claims, that's how unbelievably childish your argument is. You may as well say creationists are scientists based on the logic of your argument - after all we should allow for freedom of interpretation of what constitutes a scientist lest we ban ourselves for not allowing freedom of interpretation
)...
Notice how the implications of your nonsense are exploited - by this logic you'd happily have us believe otters are christians, atheism is a religion, creationists are scientists, non-hijab-wearing muslims follow the hijab-wearing interpretation of scripture & quite frankly that up is down... But no, ignore all that & just claim I've made declarative statements that I haven't backed up - oh the irony of being chastised to back myself up from the person bragging about how irrelevant evidence is to this argument...Mark Hamill wrote: »How is it misogynistic?
Again just completely ignore the explanatory text....
sponsoredwalk wrote: »But to address the element of truth you're trying to hint at (based off my interpretation, which I know I shouldn't be employing because [in an anti-authoritarian fashion, naturally] you've told me not to) your argument about misogynism is probably the most misogynistic thing I've read in this thread. You've freely admitted that women can choose whether or not to wear the burqa based on their interpretation of what scripture says. Therefore if they choose the wrong (
) interpretation, the one you say is misogynistic, you want to prevent them, by law, from following up on the path they've freely chosen to follow. In other words these women made the stupid choice so you want to, by law, ensure they make the smart decision they weren't smart enough to make in the first place This reeks of the logic of radical Christians in the US & their passion for controlling women's uteri...
What's the point in responding with questions about what I meant when I've already explained it...Mark Hamill wrote: »I think you have completely misread my posts if you think that I agreed that there is choice in the burka. There are forms of islam which do not have the burka, but the ones that do enforce it on their women.
So you deny saying this:Mark Hamill wrote: »It shows that there are interpretations, of Hijab, in Islam which leave people free to not wear the burka, yes,
Alright... If I exploit the nonsensical logic of what you're trying to do here I know it'll be totally lost on you so there's no point, it's already been illustrated but since it was ignored then I hardly see how it'll somehow make sense with a few words changed to show you it also applies here...
...I'll just do it anyway, for kicks...
I'll do it by quoting myself:sponsoredwalk wrote: »You've freely admitted that women can choose whether or not to wear the burqa based on their interpretation of what scripture says. Therefore if they choose the wrong () interpretation, the one you say is misogynistic, you want to prevent them, by law, from following up on the path they've freely chosen to follow.
Notice the source of the freedom here - I put it in bolded blue... You've already admitted this is the case, are you really going to deny this? It seems, however, that you're trying to claim that once they've chosen to interpret scripture in a way that leaves them wearing the burqa that then they have no choice & it is enforced upon the women. That's like saying that, no - I'll quote myself:sponsoredwalk wrote: »Sadly however I think your argument would easily extend to saying that scientists are 'forced' to read science books & so I await the similarly adamant calls to ban science...
We should have banned societal norms because they forced me to reply to this post, I mean this makes sense just by referring to all the associated negative consequences that follow from societal norms - in fact weren't misogyny & sexism societal norms at varying degree's historically (they don't exist in the West now, apart from those awful burqa's) so I've actually found the root of the problem, it's been societal norms all this time, git 'em... 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qANMjwLmo6Y
Advertisement