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
-
-
I'm non-religious and do not support the bansponsoredwalk wrote: »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...
I am just trying to keep things short. If your own summations of your own points aren't sufficient to make them understood, then maybe you shouldn't have summarized them.sponsoredwalk wrote: »Completely irrelevant ...
No, its not. Its an example of what happens when the same thinking that supports the burka gets into power. The burka is not isolated from the thinking that leads to the other oppressions that states who enforce the burka do.
The Stalin thing is a poor non-sequitor. There is nothing in atheism that inherently leads to rape, murder, etc. its just a position on the existence of god/gods. The burka, and its associated opinions do however inherently lead to misogyny and oppression.sponsoredwalk wrote: »Also there's a serious element of dishonesty here, ....
What the hell are you talking about? I'm dishonest because in one place I said I use these states as an example of the disadvantages of the burka, and in another place I used these states as an example of the disadvantages of the burka?
sponsoredwalk wrote: »Also, if you seriously claim
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...
The burka is not just a piece of clothing, its a statement on the position of women in society. How is that not political?sponsoredwalk wrote: »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.
If the two types of authoritarianism are not analogous, then what difference does it make to me that they are both forms of authoritarianism. I've never argued that the state shouldn't tell people what to do.sponsoredwalk wrote: »That 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. Are you honestly saying that you can go to one of these states and reject their laws because they dont agree with your interpretation of the quran? Are you out of your mind? You can't even disagree about Mohommed in Indonesia without getting jailed. You are talking out your arse.
sponsoredwalk wrote: »You are arguing none other than for the banning of the Qu'ran because people interpret it in a way that displeases you ...
I'm sick of these baseless ad hominems. Every poster I've debated against in this thread has thrown this crap at me. Unless you have something to actually back this up, take this bull**** somewhere else. I have explained dozens of times exactly why I am against the burka, the problems I see with the justifications and why I think its bad for society. read the damn thread before you accuse people of not doing somethingsponsoredwalk wrote: »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...
You claimed "there is freedom within the ideology to choose whether or not to wear the burqa". In any interpretation of Hijab that starts off thinking the burka is appropriate, it very quickly leads to thinking the burka is necessary. And, if it has any legislative or political power, it leads to states where the covering is forced on people, even if they don't agree it to be necessary.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.
Eh no, please try again. I admitted there is choice in Islam, I didn't admit there is choice in the burka. Those who wear the burka, do so because the environment they were raised in requires them to do so. The wearing of teh burka is not a daily choice, the women who wear it don't get to decide on certain days that they aren't going to wear it.sponsoredwalk wrote: »these women made the damaging 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...
Not quite. These women are making the damaging "choice" (not that its really a choice) and I believe the law should stop them from making that "choice" (not that its really a choice). This is the same logic that leads us to banning pyramid schemes or dangerous cults etc.sponsoredwalk wrote: »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.
Their "choice" is so inane and illogical that brainwashed is the nicest way I can put it. Besides that, how exactly can they be said to chosen their interpretation of the scripture, if they have been raised since birth with no other interpretation of scripture? Where exactly is the choice?0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I'm religious and support the ban
Irrelevant.Mark Hamill wrote: »And what a massive co-incidence it must be that everyone who makes this particular misguided conclusion happens to be part of a particular misogynistic sect of Islam.
If.No, the problem is that you are unable to accept that sometimes we need to ban people acting on those conclusions if we deem them bad for society.
Did you see about Bahrain that was mentioned in the previous? Lots of people are no longer wearing the burqa. Wouldn't your premise assume that the misogyny would find it preferable for people to continue the brainwashing in any way they could? To find some means of stamping this out? No, just ignore anything that doesn't mesh with your foregone conclusion.This was in response to you accusing me of sexism. Both men and women who support the burka are brainwashed, its just that the women get the shorter end of the stick.
You can't accept people who wish to wear the burqa, so lets just keep going round and around.Why not? Why did you ignore my question, which I asked to clear up this misunderstanding - Is there a context where the justifications for the burka aren't wrong?.
:rolleyes:Mark Hamill wrote: »And people who want pyramid schemes but cant use them because they are illegal probably dont like the laws that ban them. Why should we care if people want to do something if that thing is sufficiently bad for society?
Seriously? You are still not coming out and saying you want for it to be banned? You used curtailed earlier to express what you'd like to see done. You admit this. You say its a synonym for banning. Oh, and this was you:I used curtailed earlier as a synonym for banned, I thought that was obvious. Want to answer my question, btw? Any evidence that I want to ban the burka simply because I don't like?
Why are you so afraid of just saying you want the burqa banned? Do you find it hard to think of yourself and that position being combined? If you don't want it to be banned, as you already said curtailed was a synonym for, you will need to better explain your position. Yes/No. Do you want it banned?Alternatively, you are arguing that this specific ban is unjust simply because unjust bans can exist, which is ridiculous.
I'm not entirely sure. The atmosphere of the country is certainly more open to women who would choose not to wear it...You mean what has already been happening for years? How well is that going?
http://www.thejournal.ie/islam-ireland-welcomes-debate-on-burqa-but-government-has-no-plans-for-ban-205302-Aug2011/
There is more, but read it over there, this post will be long enough without the full article.THE ISLAMIC CULTURAL Centre of Ireland has welcomed the opportunity to debate the issue of banning the burqa in this country but the Department of Justice has said there are no proposals to do so.
Responding to calls from the former Lord Mayor of Cork, Joe O’Callaghan, to ban the burqa in Ireland, Seummayah Enna from Islamic Cultural Centre told TheJournal.ie with regards to Islam in this country:
The covering of the face is not a religious requirement. It’s not an obligation and that has been verified by the Imam of the Islamic Cultural Centre in Ireland, Hussein Halawa, who is the most senior Islamic figure in Ireland.
Enna, who has been working with Muslim women’s issues in Ireland for over a decade, said that she had not come across any instances of women being forced to wear the Islamic veil but acknowledged there is oppression within the religion in some parts of the world.
She said the Centre “welcomed the debate as an opportunity for us to get the meaning and understanding of the dress code in Islam out to the wider public.
“We appreciate the opportunity to have a debate,” she added.
Yes, of course.So you agree that we justifiably ban something if its bad enough for society?
I no more found it a strong point in my favour than I found your one in yours. I mentioned it in that both points deserve to be discarded.Mark Hamill wrote: »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.
You ask a couple of times "Where did I say I want it banned?" when, if I were in your shoes, I'd accept "every post" I decided to be a bit more precise in my example.I'm probably missing the context for this, but I am lost
Do you suppose restricting any other religious freedoms? After all, the problem is religion which does succeed quite well at brainwashing. What would your next target be?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.
The law isn't an extension of ones bigotries, sorry to say. Your distaste ought not dictate law.
What?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:.
This is long enough now. If there is other stuff in the thread to reply to I'll do in another post.0 -
I'm religious and support the ban
I think that's a simplistic analysis of what would happen. Care to back up the assertion? Perhaps by showing in France or Belgium teh thinking that leads to other oppressions dwindling?Mark Hamill wrote: »No, its not. Its an example of what happens when the same thinking that supports the burka gets into power. The burka is not isolated from the thinking that leads to the other oppressions that states who enforce the burka do.
It is a statement of belief of the wearer. A choice the wearer has in a free society. Guess we can't have that :rolleyes:The burka is not just a piece of clothing, its a statement on the position of women in society. How is that not political?
You have a difference concocted in your mind, and that is all it is.If the two types of authoritarianism are not analogous, then what difference does it make to me that they are both forms of authoritarianism. I've never argued that the state shouldn't tell people what to do.
My turn to be confused. Surely we shouldn't look to Indonesia for our politics. Are you honestly saying that you can go to one of these states and reject their laws because they dont agree with your interpretation of the quran? Are you out of your mind? You can't even disagree about Mohommed in Indonesia without getting jailed. You are talking out your arse.
Do you think this is likely in Ireland? Or are you just going off on a tangent? If you do, could you back up that assertion?You claimed "there is freedom within the ideology to choose whether or not to wear the burqa". In any interpretation of Hijab that starts off thinking the burka is appropriate, it very quickly leads to thinking the burka is necessary. And, if it has any legislative or political power, it leads to states where the covering is forced on people, even if they don't agree it to be necessary.
Well, I think perhaps the link in my previous post will be informative for you.Eh no, please try again. I admitted there is choice in Islam, I didn't admit there is choice in the burka. Those who wear the burka, do so because the environment they were raised in requires them to do so. The wearing of teh burka is not a daily choice, the women who wear it don't get to decide on certain days that they aren't going to wear it.
You don't understand/can't accept choice in the equation. So, on and on we go.Not quite. These women are making the damaging "choice" (not that its really a choice) and I believe the law should stop them from making that "choice" (not that its really a choice). This is the same logic that leads us to banning pyramid schemes or dangerous cults etc.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
I'm non-religious and do not support the banIrrelevant.
Its not. Its a bit much to claim that these women are all somehow innocently and personally misguided in their interpretation of the quran, when they all originate in environments that control their interpretations of the quran.If.
Is the burka (and its associated misogyny and oppression) not bad for society?Did you see about Bahrain that was mentioned in the previous? Lots of people are no longer wearing the burqa. Wouldn't your premise assume that the misogyny would find it preferable for people to continue the brainwashing in any way they could? To find some means of stamping this out? No, just ignore anything that doesn't mesh with your foregone conclusion.
Did you not see the very last sentence from the person talking about Bahrain? "In every case, they said that given the choice, they would not wear them." Yes, I'm the one ignoring anything that doesn't mesh with my foregone conclusions :rolleyes:.You can't accept people who wish to wear the burqa, so lets just keep going round and around.
We might be able to stop going round and round if you could just answer my questions: Is there a context where the justifications for the burka aren't wrong?.:rolleyes:
Again, answering my questions might help to stop us going round and round. This is a key point in my argument, so answer it: Why should we care if people want to do something if that thing is sufficiently bad for society?Why are you so afraid of just saying you want the burqa banned? Do you find it hard to think of yourself and that position being combined? If you don't want it to be banned, as you already said curtailed was a synonym for, you will need to better explain your position. Yes/No. Do you want it banned? Of course I want it banned. Where the hell are you getting the notion That I am afraid of banning it? I used curtailed as a synonym, just to use a different word, but not to change the meaning. I've explained that twice now.
I'm not entirely sure. The atmosphere of the country is certainly more open to women who would choose not to wear it...
http://www.thejournal.ie/islam-ireland-welcomes-debate-on-burqa-but-government-has-no-plans-for-ban-205302-Aug2011/
The article just says that Islam Ireland does not see the burka as a religious requirement and are open to debating it. Great. Nothing in there about how efficient they are at getting women out of the burka.Yes, of course.
Good. Would you agree that the burka is bad for the women who wear it?I no more found it a strong point in my favour than I found your one in yours. I mentioned it in that both points deserve to be discarded.
Thats not what I asked. How long would such a situation last before the woman would have to be allowed out?You ask a couple of times "Where did I say I want it banned?" when, if I were in your shoes, I'd accept "every post" I decided to be a bit more precise in my example.
Maybe i am being thick headed or something, but I have no idea what you are talking about?Do you suppose restricting any other religious freedoms? After all, the problem is religion which does succeed quite well at brainwashing. What would your next target be?
Any others that damage society and that banning would be a suitable action to combat. For instance, we should certainly remove the "religious freedom" of schools to discriminate against people in terms of attendance or employment.The law isn't an extension of ones bigotries, sorry to say. Your distaste ought not dictate law.
I already asked for "Any evidence that I want to ban the burka simply because I don't like? ". This is not a case of I dislike "X" therefore it should go, its a case of "X" is oppressive and biased and so therefore is damaging to society, and therefore it should go.What?
You were trying the old high horse route of "I dont tell people if I think something is stupid". Which I pointed out is pretty detrimental to debates in general. If you get a knee jerk "thats stupid" in response to some point, then maybe you should discuss it to see if you were right in your knee jerk reaction?0 -
I'm non-religious and do not support the banI think that's a simplistic analysis of what would happen. Care to back up the assertion? Perhaps by showing in France or Belgium teh thinking that leads to other oppressions dwindling?
Try reading up on the cultural/ religous justifications for the burka.It is a statement of belief of the wearer. A choice the wearer has in a free society. Guess we can't have that :rolleyes:
Fine, its a statement of belief of the wearer on the position of women in society. How is that not political?You have a difference concocted in your mind, and that is all it is.
Wait, first they aren't analogous (meaning they are different), but not the difference is in my head (meaning they aren't really). make up your mind, will you?
My turn to be confused. Surely we shouldn't look to Indonesia for our politics.
:mad:
Stop reading posts out of context, its incredibly irritating. sponsoredwalk said that states use the quran for justification of their rules, but "It all reverts there & it's up to the reader to interpret it as they see fit". This is quite clearly nonsense, as these states don't allow people to have their own interpretation of the quran and ignore the states interpretation, as evident by the situation in Indonesia.Do you think this is likely in Ireland? Or are you just going off on a tangent? If you do, could you back up that assertion?
I doubt that any muslim would get that much power in Ireland, never mind someone as extreme as one who supports the burka, so its pretty unlikely.Well, I think perhaps the link in my previous post will be informative for you.
You'll have to quote the sentence you are talking about, because it doesn't seem to change anything I just saidYou don't understand/can't accept choice in the equation. So, on and on we go.
I can, I'm just waiting for someone to show a choice made free from brainwashing or immense stupidity.0 -
I'm non-religious and do not support the banIt'd be fairly hard for an atheist to find something religion does "good" or "right" unless it is actually something beneficial to humanity, like charity for example. Do you find transubstantiation "right"? Do you find Ash Wednesday "right"?
:mad:
Read the context before you respond. First, Nodin said there is no right and wrong in terms of the burka. Then he said, as you have just said, that its always wrong as its a result of fallacious religious thinking, which contradicts his previous assertion that there is no right or wrong.Join the dots for me as you have gone way off the map, as I see it.
Read Nodins post and then read my post. That really should be all the dots you need.0 -
-
-
-
I'm religious and support the ban
Is Ireland such an environment? I'd rather more important things be discussed, like those muslims who might want Sharia law like here. If we were to have Sharia courts here then it'd be a very different ball game. The atmosphere of the country would not be conducive to free choice in the same way it is currently.Mark Hamill wrote: »Its not. Its a bit much to claim that these women are all somehow innocently and personally misguided in their interpretation of the quran, when they all originate in environments that control their interpretations of the quran.
You aren't going to be satisfied with freedom of choice. Other people on the fence will be though. There are environments globally that are really backwards, and that is because the freedom of choice doesn't exist. Not that the freedom of choice is leaning one way or the other. When organisations like I've linked point out the burqa isn't part of Islam, I think that is enough. Maybe we need to see more such organisations releasing such a message, but that is another discussion, and hardly something to bring the law in to.
What do you mean? You'll have to elaborate on "bad for society".Is the burka (and its associated misogyny and oppression) not bad for society?
I'm not seeing the "lets make this a legal matter" as a necessity from reading that.Did you not see the very last sentence from the person talking about Bahrain? "In every case, they said that given the choice, they would not wear them." Yes, I'm the one ignoring anything that doesn't mesh with my foregone conclusions :rolleyes:.
When it is something that is forced on the wearer by other people.We might be able to stop going round and round if you could just answer my questions: Is there a context where the justifications for the burka aren't wrong?.
It isn't established to anywhere near my satisfaction that the burqa is "bad for society" I'm just seeing assertions. It's circular. We both have our assumptions coming in to this, and it isn't getting anywhere really.Again, answering my questions might help to stop us going round and round. This is a key point in my argument, so answer it: Why should we care if people want to do something if that thing is sufficiently bad for society?
Again, Ireland has organisations saying that it isn't part of Islam to wear the burqa. We have a society where they don't need to wear it. Presumably, muslims will interact with one another. And with non-muslims. I would say that any muslim from another country will have a far better time of it here than they would at home. And people from this country who take up the religion would rather wear the burqa here than go somewhere with Sharia. Of course I want it banned. Where the hell are you getting the notion That I am afraid of banning it? I used curtailed as a synonym, just to use a different word, but not to change the meaning. I've explained that twice now.
Not necessarily. It can be, and then at times it isn't. And even if I were to think yes in all cases, the legal apparatus ought not to be tailored to my whims. You'll find that is a bit close to a dictatorship.Good. Would you agree that the burka is bad for the women who wear it?
I have no clue. How long is a piece of string? Again, the point of me bringing up both points was to show I found both points unsatisfactory.Thats not what I asked. How long would such a situation last before the woman would have to be allowed out?
A right to a good education is guaranteed in the constitution. Any progress in what you suggest would be steps to ensuring this. I could say there is nothing in the constitution to allow the restriction of religious freedoms, and I'd be right.Any others that damage society and that banning would be a suitable action to combat. For instance, we should certainly remove the "religious freedom" of schools to discriminate against people in terms of attendance or employment.
I already pointed out in a previous that we need a society where the free expression of religion is allowed, but no law should be made at its behest. Secular to me is no religious favouritism. To you, it seems no religious favouritism except where you say so.
You don't like it. Your reasoning is that it is a misogynistic symbol of oppression. You can't imagine that people might want to wear it. You can't be satisfied that people have the freedom here to choose to wear it or not.I already asked for "Any evidence that I want to ban the burka simply because I don't like? ". This is not a case of I dislike "X" therefore it should go, its a case of "X" is oppressive and biased and so therefore is damaging to society, and therefore it should go.
That isn't good enough for you. I see it as people have the freedom to choose to wear it or not, it isn't always a misogynistic garment as it is whatever the wearer finds it to be, not what we project on to the burqa/the wearer.
You were trying the old high horse route of "I dont tell people if I think something is stupid". Which I pointed out is pretty detrimental to debates in general. If you get a knee jerk "thats stupid" in response to some point, then maybe you should discuss it to see if you were right in your knee jerk reaction?[/QUOTE]
How do you think laws should be considered? Is it in an almost daily mail way of "do I like something?" It really seems you are trying to go for appeals to emotion, and not really providing good argumentation.0 -
I'm religious and support the ban
There are defences and criticisms of wearing the burqa from even within Islam. If you want to make points, it is better to actually make them.Mark Hamill wrote: »Try reading up on the cultural/ religous justifications for the burka.
It is personal. You go up and tell women in burqas the choice they make isn't a choice, but is political. If we wish for progress to be made, it will be done within Islam with moderates, non-burqa wearing muslims interacting with those who do wear the burqa, combined with time.Fine, its a statement of belief of the wearer on the position of women in society. How is that not political?Wait, first they aren't analogous (meaning they are different), but not the difference is in my head (meaning they aren't really). make up your mind, will you?
You have concocted a difference in state arbitration on religious matters and religious arbitration. The state intervening on the burqa thing doesn't rest any better than theocracies having its own say. It is state suppression of a religion.If the two types of authoritarianism are not analogous, then what difference does it make to me that they are both forms of authoritarianism. I've never argued that the state shouldn't tell people what to do.
What bearing does Indonesia understanding of the koran have on Ireland? These irrelevancies add nothing to the discussion. You think they are strongly convincing, but to me they are not. As in my previous, we can worry about any attempts to bring Sharia here.
:mad:
Stop reading posts out of context, its incredibly irritating. sponsoredwalk said that states use the quran for justification of their rules, but "It all reverts there & it's up to the reader to interpret it as they see fit". This is quite clearly nonsense, as these states don't allow people to have their own interpretation of the quran and ignore the states interpretation, as evident by the situation in Indonesia.
You'll probably jump on my Sharia comment from last time and might think, "See we need to ban the burqa" or if not you, then someone will. I'll nip that in the bud now.
If we prove to be so inept as to end up allowing Sharia courts decide things (even if only for muslims) then the burqa will be the least of our worries. I'm not a religious apologist. Far from it. I just prefer if we concern ourselves with societal issues, we do it for unambiguous wrongs. And not to step in and say "Goodbye to your choice" regardless of how free we can wax philosophic we feel the choice is/was.
Indeed. So, you have people living in an atmosphere where the burqa isn't something that has to be worn. People who are first generation here will be used to living under draconian laws. I don't think we need to welcome them from crazy draconian laws, to lesser draconian laws if possible.I doubt that any muslim would get that much power in Ireland, never mind someone as extreme as one who supports the burka, so its pretty unlikely.
For a refresher, you posted this:You'll have to quote the sentence you are talking about, because it doesn't seem to change anything I just said
I posted the link about the Islamic organisation which you have responded to me about... http://www.thejournal.ie/islam-ireland-welcomes-debate-on-burqa-but-government-has-no-plans-for-ban-205302-Aug2011/Eh no, please try again. I admitted there is choice in Islam, I didn't admit there is choice in the burka. Those who wear the burka, do so because the environment they were raised in requires them to do so. The wearing of teh burka is not a daily choice, the women who wear it don't get to decide on certain days that they aren't going to wear it.
See, with this train of thought, we might as well be saying lets ban all religion.I can, I'm just waiting for someone to show a choice made free from brainwashing or immense stupidity.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
I'm non-religious and do not support the banIs Ireland such an environment?
It can be, if family life is as oppressive for these people as if they were in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.There are environments globally that are really backwards, and that is because the freedom of choice doesn't exist. Not that the freedom of choice is leaning one way or the other. When organisations like I've linked point out the burqa isn't part of Islam, I think that is enough.
But those organisations clearly aren't enough, given how few people stop wearing the burka. They dont change the environment for people whose home lives are oppressive (home lives here in Ireland or the West, I mean).What do you mean? You'll have to elaborate on "bad for society".
I mean does it retard the advancement of society to its most equal and free possibility. Sexism, and racism, are bad for society as they unjustifiably relegate segments of society to second or third class simply by virtue of their gender or colour.I'm not seeing the "lets make this a legal matter" as a necessity from reading that.
Thats not why I pointed it out.When it is something that is forced on the wearer by other people.
Is there a case where it is not somehow forced on someone? Given that the burka is wrong, never mind because of its facetious religious/cultural reasoning, but just in terms of its position on women in society (unless you do think women are less than men and are so much more to blame for men becoming aroused at looking at them), is it not always the case that the burka is driven into someones psyche in such a way that it causes them to be unable to recognise the damage it does to them?It isn't established to anywhere near my satisfaction that the burqa is "bad for society" I'm just seeing assertions. It's circular. We both have our assumptions coming in to this, and it isn't getting anywhere really.
I was asking the question in general, not with the burka specifically in mind, actually, so can you answer that?
But this raises an interesting point. Do you think that the burka is not derogatory to society? Do you think its ok to indoctrinate women into believing that they are less than men?Again, Ireland has organisations saying that it isn't part of Islam to wear the burqa. We have a society where they don't need to wear it. Presumably, muslims will interact with one another. And with non-muslims. I would say that any muslim from another country will have a far better time of it here than they would at home. And people from this country who take up the religion would rather wear the burqa here than go somewhere with Sharia.
If this were the case, there would be no burka wearers in Ireland, would there? The thing is, muslims who support the burka don't see those who dont as true muslims (or, at least, as sufficiently pious muslims) so they aren't going to take on board what they say as much as you think.Not necessarily. It can be, and then at times it isn't.
Can you give an example were it isn't bad for women to wear it?And even if I were to think yes in all cases, the legal apparatus ought not to be tailored to my whims. You'll find that is a bit close to a dictatorship.
No, its closer to every law in existence. Every law is devised by someone who sees something they have a problem with, the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that the problem has to be social as well as personal in order for it to come into power in a democracy.A right to a good education is guaranteed in the constitution. Any progress in what you suggest would be steps to ensuring this. I could say there is nothing in the constitution to allow the restriction of religious freedoms, and I'd be right.
Unless you want religious freedom as a school teacher, and then you are restricted in working in, well, nearly every school in Ireland.I already pointed out in a previous that we need a society where the free expression of religion is allowed, but no law should be made at its behest. Secular to me is no religious favouritism. To you, it seems no religious favouritism except where you say so.
Except where I say so? Where have I said there should be any religious favouritism?You don't like it. Your reasoning is that it is a misogynistic symbol of oppression. You can't imagine that people might want to wear it. You can't be satisfied that people have the freedom here to choose to wear it or not. If I said I like the burka but still want it banned, would that make a difference? Why is that you tried to reduce everything after the first sentence to just the first sentence? Why should I like something I see as oppressive and sexist and bad for society?
That isn't good enough for you. I see it as people have the freedom to choose to wear it or not, it isn't always a misogynistic garment as it is whatever the wearer finds it to be, not what we project on to the burqa/the wearer.
Maybe you should actually read up on the burka before making up stuff about what it means or could mean. If the burka was anything to anyone, then it would be worn by more than just a small subset of people in Islam, who wear it like their predecessors wore it and like their kids will wear it, don't you think?How do you think laws should be considered? Is it in an almost daily mail way of "do I like something?" It really seems you are trying to go for appeals to emotion, and not really providing good argumentation.
I'm sorry, who is thats trying to reduce my argument to "you want to ban it just because you don't like it"? You are the only one with calls to emotion, despite me repeatedly explaining that me wanting to ban it is because I see it as bad for society.0 -
I'm non-religious and do not support the banThere are defences and criticisms of wearing the burqa from even within Islam. If you want to make points, it is better to actually make them.
I said to read up on the justifications of the burka, so you only have half the job. Off you go.It is personal. You go up and tell women in burqas the choice they make isn't a choice, but is political. If we wish for progress to be made, it will be done within Islam with moderates, non-burqa wearing muslims interacting with those who do wear the burqa, combined with time.
And screw the generations of kids lost in the mean time, eh? Why should we wait for change if we can bring it about and help more people? What do we gain by waiting?You have concocted a difference in state arbitration on religious matters and religious arbitration. The state intervening on the burqa thing doesn't rest any better than theocracies having its own say. It is state suppression of a religion.
Our state already arbitrates on religious matters:e.g. female circumcision is a crime in this country. This notion that the state can't tell people" no, you can't do that, despite it being your religion" is ludicrous, especially coming from people in the A&A forum.What bearing does Indonesia understanding of the koran have on Ireland? These irrelevancies add nothing to the discussion. You think they are strongly convincing, but to me they are not. As in my previous, we can worry about any attempts to bring Sharia here.
What? Not only did you read my response to sponsoredwalk out of context and come up with a silly strawman, but now you have taken my explanation of your doing that out of context and made up another strawman. Try again, because this has nothing to do with what I had written. Might be an idea to start with sponsoredwalks original post, so you understand what I was responding to.
I'm not a religious apologist. Far from it. I just prefer if we concern ourselves with societal issues, we do it for unambiguous wrongs. And not to step in and say "Goodbye to your choice" regardless of how free we can wax philosophic we feel the choice is/was.
This is exactly what I am arguing. To me the burka is a societal issue and is unambiguously wrong. We are therefore justified in banning it. You might disagree, but guess what? Every single religious person who supports sharia law will call you out for saying sharia law is unambiguously wrong. They'll say you disagree with it simply because you don't like it and that you are trying to take away their choice to do it.Indeed. So, you have people living in an atmosphere where the burqa isn't something that has to be worn. People who are first generation here will be used to living under draconian laws. I don't think we need to welcome them from crazy draconian laws, to lesser draconian laws if possible.
You call it draconian, I call it anti FGM, they call it religious cultural obligation. Just like the burka.For a refresher, you posted this:
I posted the link about the Islamic organisation which you have responded to me about... http://www.thejournal.ie/islam-ireland-welcomes-debate-on-burqa-but-government-has-no-plans-for-ban-205302-Aug2011/
Oh, I know what I said and I know what the link said. They dont disagree, as far as I can see.See, with this train of thought, we might as well be saying lets ban all religion.
Only all bits that damage society.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement