I think the primary difference is that the burqa (and to lesser extents, the hajib, as well as similarly-intended practices in Jewish orthodoxy or Christian Pentecostal denominations)
Yeah I think it's important to note that we don't like any of that. I strongly oppose the "modest christian girl" type of clothing too. It comes from the same fucking place where women need to be covered up lest they show they have actual girl-parts.
Do you believe that the State should prohibit the wearing of ankle length skirts and crosses by force of law?
I think the primary difference is that the burqa (and to lesser extents, the hajib, as well as similarly-intended practices in Jewish orthodoxy or Christian Pentecostal denominations)
Yeah I think it's important to note that we don't like any of that. I strongly oppose the "modest christian girl" type of clothing too. It comes from the same fucking place where women need to be covered up lest they show they have actual girl-parts.
Pretty sure you think people should be covered up a bit in public too.
You couldn't look at an economic model, check the math, and go, "Yep, it checks out?"
I'm sure so many people are capable of that or would be able to tell if the economic model was making incorrect assumptions, is based on sane theories, etc. /sarcasm.
If you think that most people believe shit because it is verifiable and not because it usually fits with their preconceived notions, I have a bridge to sell you.
Couscous on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited April 2011
If societal and religious pressure can be made unlawful, name speech that would be protected. There isn't a whole lot of difference between most political rhetoric and religious rhetoric.
Must we persist in the delusion that hypothetical restrictions on personal expression are some kind of all-or-nothing scenario?
"Oh we can't ban burqas! We'll have to ban pantyhose next! It's the logical progression!"
If societal and religious pressure can be made unlawful, name speech that would be protected. There isn't a whole lot of difference between most political rhetoric and religious rhetoric.
Must we persist in the delusion that hypothetical restrictions on personal expression are some kind of all-or-nothing scenario?
"Oh we can't ban burqas! We'll have to ban pantyhose next! It's the logical progression!"
Whats the fundamental difference?
Styrofoam Sammich on
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
I think the primary difference is that the burqa (and to lesser extents, the hajib, as well as similarly-intended practices in Jewish orthodoxy or Christian Pentecostal denominations)
Yeah I think it's important to note that we don't like any of that. I strongly oppose the "modest christian girl" type of clothing too. It comes from the same fucking place where women need to be covered up lest they show they have actual girl-parts.
and if the girl wants to dress that way? What if she just doesn't want to show off her body?
I don't wear short skirts because I have thighs, fat legs, and a huge celllulite ass. I mean, I could wear them, but I promise you the pressure to get me to cover up is far and above a religious pressure.
I could wear a bikini if I want to, but I'm pretty sure the vomiting sounds from pretty much everybody nearby, religious and atheist alike, would be enough pressure to get me to cover up and hide my body.
If societal and religious pressure can be made unlawful, name speech that would be protected. There isn't a whole lot of difference between most political rhetoric and religious rhetoric.
Must we persist in the delusion that hypothetical restrictions on personal expression are some kind of all-or-nothing scenario?
"Oh we can't ban burqas! We'll have to ban pantyhose next! It's the logical progression!"
Except you have yet to define why wearing one due to societal pressure is worthy of governmental sanction while wearing the other due to societal pressure should be legally condoned.
Lawndart on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
If you think that most people believe shit because it is verifiable and not because it usually fits with their preconceived notions, I have a bridge to sell you.
I can't be held responsible for whatever nervous breakdown may occur from the removal of a projected unverifiable belief system.
We shouldn't be held to tolerance of ridiculous acts and social pressures because fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong.
If societal and religious pressure can be made unlawful, name speech that would be protected. There isn't a whole lot of difference between most political rhetoric and religious rhetoric.
Must we persist in the delusion that hypothetical restrictions on personal expression are some kind of all-or-nothing scenario?
"Oh we can't ban burqas! We'll have to ban pantyhose next! It's the logical progression!"
So many ways to respond to this silly goosery, but I'mma go with this one: Why should we have a State mandated dress code? What is your compelling reason that freedom of expression and religion should be curtailed in this instance?
moniker on
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
edited April 2011
If there's one thing French Muslim women need, it's a white Catholic man enforcing their freedoms whether they like it or not.
Since when is feminism about governmental restrictions on religious activity? I hate the objectification of women as much as anyone, but when did government oppression of religious expression become an effective method of changing social norms?
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
edited April 2011
Why is what I believe of less value than what you know, Ross?
Why does my belief that living a moral life can easily follow along with the dictates of a religion hold less value than your knowing that leading a moral life can be just as easily summed up as 'don't be a dick'?
If societal and religious pressure can be made unlawful, name speech that would be protected. There isn't a whole lot of difference between most political rhetoric and religious rhetoric.
Must we persist in the delusion that hypothetical restrictions on personal expression are some kind of all-or-nothing scenario?
"Oh we can't ban burqas! We'll have to ban pantyhose next! It's the logical progression!"
Except you have yet to define why wearing one due to societal pressure is worthy of governmental sanction while wearing the other due to societal pressure should be legally condoned.
Is there a lot of "You better wear pantyhose or Jesus will hate you and I will punch you in the face!" going around? Because I'm opposed to that, too.
And secular social pressures are fluid, man. They change all the time.
If you think that most people believe shit because it is verifiable and not because it usually fits with their preconceived notions, I have a bridge to sell you.
I can't be held responsible for whatever nervous breakdown may occur from the removal of a projected unverifiable belief system.
We shouldn't be held to tolerance of ridiculous acts and social pressures because fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong.
Ridiculous acts that in no way harm other people. You don't have the right to not be offended.
If you think that most people believe shit because it is verifiable and not because it usually fits with their preconceived notions, I have a bridge to sell you.
I can't be held responsible for whatever nervous breakdown may occur from the removal of a projected unverifiable belief system.
We shouldn't be held to tolerance of ridiculous acts and social pressures because fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong.
If societal and religious pressure can be made unlawful, name speech that would be protected. There isn't a whole lot of difference between most political rhetoric and religious rhetoric.
Must we persist in the delusion that hypothetical restrictions on personal expression are some kind of all-or-nothing scenario?
"Oh we can't ban burqas! We'll have to ban pantyhose next! It's the logical progression!"
The only difference I see is that you have a hateboner for one and not the other.
Political pressure in families is often just as strong as any religion. History is littered with examples.
We shouldn't be held to tolerance of ridiculous acts and social pressures because fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong.
We should be held to respect their basic human rights. "Toleration is not the opposite of Intolerance, but is the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms. The one assumes to itself the right of withholding Liberty of Conscience, and the other of granting it."
Couscous on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Why is what I believe of less value than what you know, Ross?
Why does my belief that living a moral life can easily follow along with the dictates of a religion hold less value than your knowing that leading a moral life can be just as easily summed up as 'don't be a dick'?
I don't actually care what you choose to believe, friend. Faith is personal thing, and I'm not here to tell anyone how to do it.
I'm only speaking about religious mores influencing secular liberal progressive societies, and how tolerance isn't a two-way street.
The difference is between how you choose to practice your faith and how you (hypothetically) could coerce your children to practice similar beliefs under threat of guilt, shame, or abuse. Not that you would, I know, I'm just sayin'.
If societal and religious pressure can be made unlawful, name speech that would be protected. There isn't a whole lot of difference between most political rhetoric and religious rhetoric.
Must we persist in the delusion that hypothetical restrictions on personal expression are some kind of all-or-nothing scenario?
"Oh we can't ban burqas! We'll have to ban pantyhose next! It's the logical progression!"
Except you have yet to define why wearing one due to societal pressure is worthy of governmental sanction while wearing the other due to societal pressure should be legally condoned.
Is there a lot of "You better wear pantyhose or Jesus will hate you and I will punch you in the face!" going around? Because I'm opposed to that, too.
And secular social pressures are fluid, man. They change all the time.
So it really comes down to "overwhelming secular pressures that compel women to dress a certain way are okay because they're secular and they might change at some point, man"?
Well, at least you're being completely arbitrary and assuming that women who go along with religious pressure when it comes to fashion are little children who need the guiding hand of Big Daddy Government while women who go along with secular pressure when it comes to fashion are empowered and fierce and there's no possible downside to that at all.
There's also a large variation in how Muslim women, especially those living in Western nations, interpret the Islamic concept of "modest dress", which shows that, absent governmental force imposing them, that religious social pressures are fluid as well. Man.
If societal and religious pressure can be made unlawful, name speech that would be protected. There isn't a whole lot of difference between most political rhetoric and religious rhetoric.
Must we persist in the delusion that hypothetical restrictions on personal expression are some kind of all-or-nothing scenario?
"Oh we can't ban burqas! We'll have to ban pantyhose next! It's the logical progression!"
Except you have yet to define why wearing one due to societal pressure is worthy of governmental sanction while wearing the other due to societal pressure should be legally condoned.
Is there a lot of "You better wear pantyhose or Jesus will hate you and I will punch you in the face!" going around? Because I'm opposed to that, too.
But you're not opposed to "You better wear pantyhose or your father will hate you and I will slap you in the face!" :?:
And secular social pressures are fluid, man. They change all the time.
So does the law. Look at the Federal Register sometime. Regulations are always being introduced, changed, or removed. No reason that a National Dress Code can't be just as fluid. Especially in one of the fashion capitals of the world.
moniker on
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
"Toleration is not the opposite of Intolerance, but is the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms. The one assumes to itself the right of withholding Liberty of Conscience, and the other of granting it."
If you think that most people believe shit because it is verifiable and not because it usually fits with their preconceived notions, I have a bridge to sell you.
I can't be held responsible for whatever nervous breakdown may occur from the removal of a projected unverifiable belief system.
We shouldn't be held to tolerance of ridiculous acts and social pressures because fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong.
Ridiculous acts that in no way harm other people. You don't have the right to not be offended.
Wow, I really thought the old "personal faith doesn't harm anyone" fallacy had been put to bed ages ago. That's just poorly informed rhetoric, and possibly grounds for disqualification.
If you think that most people believe shit because it is verifiable and not because it usually fits with their preconceived notions, I have a bridge to sell you.
I can't be held responsible for whatever nervous breakdown may occur from the removal of a projected unverifiable belief system.
We shouldn't be held to tolerance of ridiculous acts and social pressures because fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong.
Ridiculous acts that in no way harm other people. You don't have the right to not be offended.
Wow, I really thought the old "personal faith doesn't harm anyone" fallacy had been put to bed ages ago. That's just poorly informed rhetoric, and possibly grounds for disqualification.
Certainly at least a 5-yard penalty.
Please, enlighten me as to how your personal faith has harmed other people, then.
Why is what I believe of less value than what you know, Ross?
Why does my belief that living a moral life can easily follow along with the dictates of a religion hold less value than your knowing that leading a moral life can be just as easily summed up as 'don't be a dick'?
I don't actually care what you choose to believe, friend. Faith is personal thing, and I'm not here to tell anyone how to do it.
I'm only speaking about religious mores influencing secular liberal progressive societies, and how tolerance isn't a two-way street.
The difference is between how you choose to practice your faith and how you (hypothetically) could coerce your children to practice similar beliefs under threat of guilt, shame, or abuse. Not that you would, I know, I'm just sayin'.
You're afraid that Western Liberalism cannot win the battle of ideas with fundamentalist Islam and so are going to abandon those precepts of Western Liberalism (personal, religious, and expressive freedom) in order to try and use the power of the State to rig the marketplace of ideas against the unbearably enticing draw of Wahhabi-ism.
moniker on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
So it really comes down to "overwhelming secular pressures that compel women to dress a certain way are okay because they're secular and they might change at some point, man"?
More like, "secular pressures are myriad and intangible and rapidly changing, and exert themselves at so many different points in a person's experience that there's not even a good way to quantify the plethora of external forces, let alone regulate them in any meaningful fashion."
Plus, you know, the whole "voluntary practice/no risk of religious persecution" aspect.
If you think that most people believe shit because it is verifiable and not because it usually fits with their preconceived notions, I have a bridge to sell you.
I can't be held responsible for whatever nervous breakdown may occur from the removal of a projected unverifiable belief system.
We shouldn't be held to tolerance of ridiculous acts and social pressures because fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong.
Ridiculous acts that in no way harm other people. You don't have the right to not be offended.
Wow, I really thought the old "personal faith doesn't harm anyone" fallacy had been put to bed ages ago. That's just poorly informed rhetoric, and possibly grounds for disqualification.
Certainly at least a 5-yard penalty.
Please, enlighten me as to how your personal faith has harmed other people, then.
If you think that most people believe shit because it is verifiable and not because it usually fits with their preconceived notions, I have a bridge to sell you.
I can't be held responsible for whatever nervous breakdown may occur from the removal of a projected unverifiable belief system.
We shouldn't be held to tolerance of ridiculous acts and social pressures because fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong.
Ridiculous acts that in no way harm other people. You don't have the right to not be offended.
Wow, I really thought the old "personal faith doesn't harm anyone" fallacy had been put to bed ages ago. That's just poorly informed rhetoric, and possibly grounds for disqualification.
Certainly at least a 5-yard penalty.
Again, the French are not proposing some crazy new law against this "domestic" form of "abuse" of which you speak. They're outlawing a garment. How does my wearing chinos harm other people such that the power of the State should be brought to bear in order to end this abomination unto the West?
moniker on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
You're afraid that Western Liberalism cannot win the battle of ideas with fundamentalist Islam and so are going to abandon those precepts of Western Liberalism (personal, religious, and expressive freedom) in order to try and use the power of the State to rig the marketplace of ideas against the unbearably enticing draw of Wahhabi-ism.
I must say, the relative progressive Western ideologies that have been developing and expanding since the Renaissance are really catching on like wildfire in the Middle East.
In another couple hundred years, women may even get to go outside without asking permission.
If you think that most people believe shit because it is verifiable and not because it usually fits with their preconceived notions, I have a bridge to sell you.
I can't be held responsible for whatever nervous breakdown may occur from the removal of a projected unverifiable belief system.
We shouldn't be held to tolerance of ridiculous acts and social pressures because fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong.
Ridiculous acts that in no way harm other people. You don't have the right to not be offended.
Wow, I really thought the old "personal faith doesn't harm anyone" fallacy had been put to bed ages ago. That's just poorly informed rhetoric, and possibly grounds for disqualification.
Certainly at least a 5-yard penalty.
13 DEAD IN HORRIFIC BURQAH ATTACK
Styrofoam Sammich on
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Why is what I believe of less value than what you know, Ross?
Why does my belief that living a moral life can easily follow along with the dictates of a religion hold less value than your knowing that leading a moral life can be just as easily summed up as 'don't be a dick'?
I don't actually care what you choose to believe, friend. Faith is personal thing, and I'm not here to tell anyone how to do it.
I'm only speaking about religious mores influencing secular liberal progressive societies, and how tolerance isn't a two-way street.
The difference is between how you choose to practice your faith and how you (hypothetically) could coerce your children to practice similar beliefs under threat of guilt, shame, or abuse. Not that you would, I know, I'm just sayin'.
I know dude. I should be more careful about my 'you' usage. most of the time i use it meaning the overarching generic 'you' and not the specific. and I do it all the time and I never really preface it. I was being hyperbolic and like I said before, I know you don't mind the faith parts of it.
as for potential children, I'll try to give them the same education i had. which was the history of the jews, the religious traditions and holidays, and the faith that there is quite possibly a God. should they want to learn and know more, then more power to them, no book or other vehicle of learning will ever be banned in my household.
but that's off track and probably better left to it's own devices, and i had a point in myhead but the server ate it....
Again, the French are not proposing some crazy new law against this "domestic" form of "abuse" of which you speak. They're outlawing a garment. How does my wearing chinos harm other people such that the power of the State should be brought to bear in order to end this abomination unto the West?
Why do people in this thread persist in making me ask if they're for real?
So it really comes down to "overwhelming secular pressures that compel women to dress a certain way are okay because they're secular and they might change at some point, man"?
More like, "secular pressures are myriad and intangible and rapidly changing, and exert themselves at so many different points in a person's experience that there's not even a good way to quantify the plethora of external forces, let alone regulate them in any meaningful fashion."
Plus, you know, the whole "voluntary practice/no risk of religious persecution" aspect.
I'm sure glad that there are smart men around like you to tell women that the societal pressures they feel to act, appear, dress, and behave in a specific way don't actually exist.
And yes, secular pressures don't carry a risk of religious persecution. That's why they're secular.
So again, you're saying that religious practices cannot be voluntary simply because they're religious, and secular practices cannot be coerced because they're secular?
If you think that most people believe shit because it is verifiable and not because it usually fits with their preconceived notions, I have a bridge to sell you.
I can't be held responsible for whatever nervous breakdown may occur from the removal of a projected unverifiable belief system.
We shouldn't be held to tolerance of ridiculous acts and social pressures because fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong.
Ridiculous acts that in no way harm other people. You don't have the right to not be offended.
Wow, I really thought the old "personal faith doesn't harm anyone" fallacy had been put to bed ages ago. That's just poorly informed rhetoric, and possibly grounds for disqualification.
Certainly at least a 5-yard penalty.
Please, enlighten me as to how your personal faith has harmed other people, then.
I have no personal faith, for just such a reason.
I'm not sure who you're trying to convince here. Us or yourself.
Again, the French are not proposing some crazy new law against this "domestic" form of "abuse" of which you speak. They're outlawing a garment. How does my wearing chinos harm other people such that the power of the State should be brought to bear in order to end this abomination unto the West?
Why do people in this thread persist in making me ask if they're for real?
You're afraid that Western Liberalism cannot win the battle of ideas with fundamentalist Islam and so are going to abandon those precepts of Western Liberalism (personal, religious, and expressive freedom) in order to try and use the power of the State to rig the marketplace of ideas against the unbearably enticing draw of Wahhabi-ism.
I must say, the relative progressive Western ideologies that have been developing and expanding since the Renaissance are really catching on like wildfire in the Middle East.
In another couple hundred years, women may even get to go outside without asking permission.
*crosses fingers*
The Islamic world is not just the Middle East.
The Middle East is not just Saudi Arabia.
Again, judging an entire community collectively by the actions of the most extreme members of that community is illogical to the point of incoherence.
Lawndart on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
If you think that most people believe shit because it is verifiable and not because it usually fits with their preconceived notions, I have a bridge to sell you.
I can't be held responsible for whatever nervous breakdown may occur from the removal of a projected unverifiable belief system.
We shouldn't be held to tolerance of ridiculous acts and social pressures because fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong.
Ridiculous acts that in no way harm other people. You don't have the right to not be offended.
Wow, I really thought the old "personal faith doesn't harm anyone" fallacy had been put to bed ages ago. That's just poorly informed rhetoric, and possibly grounds for disqualification.
You're afraid that Western Liberalism cannot win the battle of ideas with fundamentalist Islam and so are going to abandon those precepts of Western Liberalism (personal, religious, and expressive freedom) in order to try and use the power of the State to rig the marketplace of ideas against the unbearably enticing draw of Wahhabi-ism.
I must say, the relative progressive Western ideologies that have been developing and expanding since the Renaissance are really catching on like wildfire in the Middle East.
In another couple hundred years, women may even get to go outside without asking permission.
*crosses fingers*
I truly am amazed at just how little belief you have in liberal democracy and individual freedom.
Again, the French are not proposing some crazy new law against this "domestic" form of "abuse" of which you speak. They're outlawing a garment. How does my wearing chinos harm other people such that the power of the State should be brought to bear in order to end this abomination unto the West?
Why do people in this thread persist in making me ask if they're for real?
I could ask the same of yourself, but have so far been assuming good faith arguments that are just severely wrongheaded and apparently based on fear.
moniker on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
If you think that most people believe shit because it is verifiable and not because it usually fits with their preconceived notions, I have a bridge to sell you.
I can't be held responsible for whatever nervous breakdown may occur from the removal of a projected unverifiable belief system.
We shouldn't be held to tolerance of ridiculous acts and social pressures because fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong.
Ridiculous acts that in no way harm other people. You don't have the right to not be offended.
Wow, I really thought the old "personal faith doesn't harm anyone" fallacy had been put to bed ages ago. That's just poorly informed rhetoric, and possibly grounds for disqualification.
If you think that most people believe shit because it is verifiable and not because it usually fits with their preconceived notions, I have a bridge to sell you.
I can't be held responsible for whatever nervous breakdown may occur from the removal of a projected unverifiable belief system.
We shouldn't be held to tolerance of ridiculous acts and social pressures because fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong.
Ridiculous acts that in no way harm other people. You don't have the right to not be offended.
Wow, I really thought the old "personal faith doesn't harm anyone" fallacy had been put to bed ages ago. That's just poorly informed rhetoric, and possibly grounds for disqualification.
So it really comes down to "overwhelming secular pressures that compel women to dress a certain way are okay because they're secular and they might change at some point, man"?
More like, "secular pressures are myriad and intangible and rapidly changing, and exert themselves at so many different points in a person's experience that there's not even a good way to quantify the plethora of external forces, let alone regulate them in any meaningful fashion."
Plus, you know, the whole "voluntary practice/no risk of religious persecution" aspect.
You do realize that there's nothing in the Koran specifically calling for a burqa, right? The closest the text comes is telling women to cover their breasts and dress decent. All the other coverings in Islam are due to varying differences in what "decent" is defined as, a "myriad and intangible and rapidly changing" determination.
Posts
Do you believe that the State should prohibit the wearing of ankle length skirts and crosses by force of law?
Pretty sure you think people should be covered up a bit in public too.
If you think that most people believe shit because it is verifiable and not because it usually fits with their preconceived notions, I have a bridge to sell you.
Must we persist in the delusion that hypothetical restrictions on personal expression are some kind of all-or-nothing scenario?
"Oh we can't ban burqas! We'll have to ban pantyhose next! It's the logical progression!"
Whats the fundamental difference?
and if the girl wants to dress that way? What if she just doesn't want to show off her body?
I don't wear short skirts because I have thighs, fat legs, and a huge celllulite ass. I mean, I could wear them, but I promise you the pressure to get me to cover up is far and above a religious pressure.
I could wear a bikini if I want to, but I'm pretty sure the vomiting sounds from pretty much everybody nearby, religious and atheist alike, would be enough pressure to get me to cover up and hide my body.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Except you have yet to define why wearing one due to societal pressure is worthy of governmental sanction while wearing the other due to societal pressure should be legally condoned.
I can't be held responsible for whatever nervous breakdown may occur from the removal of a projected unverifiable belief system.
We shouldn't be held to tolerance of ridiculous acts and social pressures because fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong.
So many ways to respond to this silly goosery, but I'mma go with this one: Why should we have a State mandated dress code? What is your compelling reason that freedom of expression and religion should be curtailed in this instance?
Since when is feminism about governmental restrictions on religious activity? I hate the objectification of women as much as anyone, but when did government oppression of religious expression become an effective method of changing social norms?
Why does my belief that living a moral life can easily follow along with the dictates of a religion hold less value than your knowing that leading a moral life can be just as easily summed up as 'don't be a dick'?
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Is there a lot of "You better wear pantyhose or Jesus will hate you and I will punch you in the face!" going around? Because I'm opposed to that, too.
And secular social pressures are fluid, man. They change all the time.
Ridiculous acts that in no way harm other people. You don't have the right to not be offended.
You realize how fucked up this is right?
The only difference I see is that you have a hateboner for one and not the other.
Political pressure in families is often just as strong as any religion. History is littered with examples.
We should be held to respect their basic human rights. "Toleration is not the opposite of Intolerance, but is the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms. The one assumes to itself the right of withholding Liberty of Conscience, and the other of granting it."
I don't actually care what you choose to believe, friend. Faith is personal thing, and I'm not here to tell anyone how to do it.
I'm only speaking about religious mores influencing secular liberal progressive societies, and how tolerance isn't a two-way street.
The difference is between how you choose to practice your faith and how you (hypothetically) could coerce your children to practice similar beliefs under threat of guilt, shame, or abuse. Not that you would, I know, I'm just sayin'.
So it really comes down to "overwhelming secular pressures that compel women to dress a certain way are okay because they're secular and they might change at some point, man"?
Well, at least you're being completely arbitrary and assuming that women who go along with religious pressure when it comes to fashion are little children who need the guiding hand of Big Daddy Government while women who go along with secular pressure when it comes to fashion are empowered and fierce and there's no possible downside to that at all.
There's also a large variation in how Muslim women, especially those living in Western nations, interpret the Islamic concept of "modest dress", which shows that, absent governmental force imposing them, that religious social pressures are fluid as well. Man.
But you're not opposed to "You better wear pantyhose or your father will hate you and I will slap you in the face!" :?:
So does the law. Look at the Federal Register sometime. Regulations are always being introduced, changed, or removed. No reason that a National Dress Code can't be just as fluid. Especially in one of the fashion capitals of the world.
hear hear
Wow, I really thought the old "personal faith doesn't harm anyone" fallacy had been put to bed ages ago. That's just poorly informed rhetoric, and possibly grounds for disqualification.
Certainly at least a 5-yard penalty.
Please, enlighten me as to how your personal faith has harmed other people, then.
You're afraid that Western Liberalism cannot win the battle of ideas with fundamentalist Islam and so are going to abandon those precepts of Western Liberalism (personal, religious, and expressive freedom) in order to try and use the power of the State to rig the marketplace of ideas against the unbearably enticing draw of Wahhabi-ism.
More like, "secular pressures are myriad and intangible and rapidly changing, and exert themselves at so many different points in a person's experience that there's not even a good way to quantify the plethora of external forces, let alone regulate them in any meaningful fashion."
Plus, you know, the whole "voluntary practice/no risk of religious persecution" aspect.
But please, let's keep splitting hairs. We're really getting somewhere now.
I have no personal faith, for just such a reason.
Again, the French are not proposing some crazy new law against this "domestic" form of "abuse" of which you speak. They're outlawing a garment. How does my wearing chinos harm other people such that the power of the State should be brought to bear in order to end this abomination unto the West?
I must say, the relative progressive Western ideologies that have been developing and expanding since the Renaissance are really catching on like wildfire in the Middle East.
In another couple hundred years, women may even get to go outside without asking permission.
*crosses fingers*
13 DEAD IN HORRIFIC BURQAH ATTACK
I know dude. I should be more careful about my 'you' usage. most of the time i use it meaning the overarching generic 'you' and not the specific. and I do it all the time and I never really preface it. I was being hyperbolic and like I said before, I know you don't mind the faith parts of it.
as for potential children, I'll try to give them the same education i had. which was the history of the jews, the religious traditions and holidays, and the faith that there is quite possibly a God. should they want to learn and know more, then more power to them, no book or other vehicle of learning will ever be banned in my household.
but that's off track and probably better left to it's own devices, and i had a point in myhead but the server ate it....
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Why do people in this thread persist in making me ask if they're for real?
I'm sure glad that there are smart men around like you to tell women that the societal pressures they feel to act, appear, dress, and behave in a specific way don't actually exist.
And yes, secular pressures don't carry a risk of religious persecution. That's why they're secular.
So again, you're saying that religious practices cannot be voluntary simply because they're religious, and secular practices cannot be coerced because they're secular?
Ah, so personal secular beliefs can never harm others. Good to know.
I'm not sure who you're trying to convince here. Us or yourself.
Its going both ways buddy.
The Islamic world is not just the Middle East.
The Middle East is not just Saudi Arabia.
Again, judging an entire community collectively by the actions of the most extreme members of that community is illogical to the point of incoherence.
4 Kashmiri women murdered for not wearing burqas.
I truly am amazed at just how little belief you have in liberal democracy and individual freedom.
I could ask the same of yourself, but have so far been assuming good faith arguments that are just severely wrongheaded and apparently based on fear.
Yes, beware my fearsome encouragement to think for yourself and question unverifiable claims.
Your children may be taken in by my seductive philosophies and become something horrible, like a secular humanist or something.
You seem to think that really had much to do with burqas. It didn't.
If only a hundred euro fine had been there to save them.
You do realize that there's nothing in the Koran specifically calling for a burqa, right? The closest the text comes is telling women to cover their breasts and dress decent. All the other coverings in Islam are due to varying differences in what "decent" is defined as, a "myriad and intangible and rapidly changing" determination.