I'm just kind of at a loss to figure out how this actually addresses the problem. And as it violates religious freedoms for women who actually wear these things of their own choice it should be a pretty clear and effect solution.
But there is no real analog between the head coverings and the swastika. Its just a silly comparison.
I guess it's closer to the gold stars and pink triangles Jews and gay people were forced to wear in Nazi Germany.
One of my younger sister's best friends, growing up, came from a Muslim family. They owned several businesses in town, were quite progressive, etc. The women in the family didn't wear, and certainly weren't forced to wear, Burqas.
Except that sometime in '96 or '97, my sister's friend's mother got a fairly serious variety of cancer. She spent a lot of time in the hospital and turned to her religion for comfort. She started wearing a burqa around town, partially, she said, because it made her feel closer to her god in an extremely trying time for her, and partially, I suspect, because it was a dignified way of dealing with the physical effects of radiation and chemotherapy.
I don't believe she needed the state to step in and save her from the evil nazi-men and the jewish pieces of flair in your imagination.
I mean, I'm assuming forcing a woman to wear a veil already violates french law. Maybe we could create outreach and help centers to make it easier for women being oppressed to get aid?
Sounds like further isolating and suppressing the muslim population is just going to make things worse, not better. The stronger the our culture vs. their culture thing gets the more radicals thrive.
As someone who sees religion as doing more harm than good, I'm against the Burqa ban since it is unlikely to achieve anything positive for any of the parties involved.
Given the rising international tension between governments and their citizens, this seems not only a poorly thought out action, but a very poorly timed one as well.
Caveman Paws on
0
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I don't see what the ban accomplishes. Making it illegal to wear a Burqa will not somehow magically turn all of the fundamental misogynists into secular rationalists who believe in equality; it just sweeps the problem under the rug.
What the French government could have / should have done is given vocal support to the muslim women being pressured into or otherwise forced to wear clothing that they do not wish to wear and made a case against the kind of supernatural nonsense underlying the issue. But governments in general are reluctant to do that for fear of offending their constituency.
I honestly see this on the same level as a ban on the swastika, or a ban on burning crosses; it's a symbol of hate
Again, I don't see what a ban accomplishes. Neo-Nazis & Klansmen aren't going to disappear just because you made it illegal for them to distribute their pamphlets - you're only hurting public knowledge. Personally, I want to know who the racists lunatics are, so I say let them spill out their hatred to their heart's content (especially in today's age, where the ability to reproduce and playback hateful or insane rhetoric to the horror of the viewer or listener has become so easy).
Personally I'm totally in favour of polite society telling racist, misogynistic fucktards to go away. If anything allowing to do whatever they want legitimises their bullshit.
This law is overinclusive for those who wear the burqa of their own free choice and underinclusive for those who are compelled to wear it. Therefore the law is inconsistent with any American legal reasoning, although I daresay French law is a far more hideous beast.
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Arguing that it was supposed to be for social change might make sense if anything more than a miniscule portion of French Muslims wore the burqa. Banning it just makes it the rebellious thing to do and according to the studies, a good part of the reason for many of the women who do wear the burqa in France wear it to provoke society or their family.
Couscous on
0
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
edited April 2011
For the ban, but I'm a militant atheist and I'll pretty much go along with anything that attacks religion, a particular one or more broadly. I dont know how useful this particular action will be. It may even produce the opposite results. However, I appreciate the gesture.
Combating radicals by going after their religion is like the best way to just make the whole thing worse.
If you want to address the problem of oppression among the immigrant population in France do everything you can to address issues of poverty and social isolation. Once they start making a decent living and aren't treated like a bunch of leeches on society radical movements lose their steam pretty quickly.
For the ban, but I'm a militant atheist and I'll pretty much go along with anything that attacks religion, a particular one or more broadly. I dont know how useful this particular action will be. It may even produce the opposite results. However, I appreciate the gesture.
So you support it, even though you don't know if it will work and suspect it may even harm your cause?
For the ban, but I'm a militant atheist and I'll pretty much go along with anything that attacks religion, a particular one or more broadly. I dont know how useful this particular action will be. It may even produce the opposite results. However, I appreciate the gesture.
Part of me feels exactly the same way. However, if the act causes more harm than good, I'd rather see the French government spend some money and effort to provide options and ease the transition for these women if/when they wish to leave their current life style behind.
Caveman Paws on
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited April 2011
Yeah, I wish religion would go away forever but oppressing religious minorities seems to have the opposite effect.
Also, I am honestly curious as to how extensively this is going to be enforced come winter. Headscarves are extremely common in Chicago come January and I don't think we have all that large of a Muslim population.
For the ban, but I'm a militant atheist and I'll pretty much go along with anything that attacks religion, a particular one or more broadly. I don't know how useful this particular action will be. It may even produce the opposite results. However, I appreciate the gesture.
For the ban, but I'm a militant atheist and I'll pretty much go along with anything that attacks religion, a particular one or more broadly. I don't know how useful this particular action will be. It may even produce the opposite results. However, I appreciate the gesture.
So you want people to govern out of spite?
Well it is funny in a thread comparing burquas to swastikas we've got someone pushing a nazi belief. Wait I mean terrifying.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
For the ban, but I'm a militant atheist and I'll pretty much go along with anything that attacks religion, a particular one or more broadly. I dont know how useful this particular action will be. It may even produce the opposite results. However, I appreciate the gesture.
So you recognize that it's probably going to actually hurt your position, but your supportive of it because it infringes on the rights of a group that holds different religious views than yours. Militant is right; religious extremism doesn't require a belief in God at all.
JihadJesus on
0
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
Combating radicals by going after their religion is like the best way to just make the whole thing worse.
Going after the religion is THE ONLY WAY to combat radicals. Moderates and the base texts give them cover and radicals will always, always return.
Oh nonsense. Why do you think radical religion isn't such a problem in wealthy nations?
Fuck the biggest pool of informants the FBI has here in their counter terrorism efforts are muslims
Going after a religion just gives credence to the radical line of "exterior group X is attacking your faith/culture/people/family!" You can see it in the way terrorist groups abroad use our bullshit anti-muslim stuff here in their recruiting efforts.
A lot of you are treating the burqa as if it were an item of singular meaning rather than a site of dialogue. You are imposing your own reading of the burqa rather than engaging with the Muslim community's reading.
There are many relatively progressive Muslim women who wear such coverings willingly and not due to community pressure and/or brainwashing. For instance, some professional women (doctors, lawyers, etc) in Turkey choose to veil in public to protect themselves from the secular male gaze. It provides them a small bubble of privacy and protection and eases their lives.
The state has no place in mediating or dictating the meaning of such items, particularly when it is the majority telling the minority what their symbols "really" mean. This is problematic on its face.
sanstodo on
0
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
edited April 2011
I think you have too narrow a definition of what an attack on religion constitutes. When you increase the standard of living and education, that directly attacks religion by making it less relevant and also reducing some of the demographics that are most susceptible to it.
I think you have too narrow a definition of what an attack on religion constitutes. When you increase the standard of living and education, that directly attacks religion by making it less relevant and also reducing some of the demographics that are most susceptible to it.
I think you have too narrow a definition of what an attack on religion constitutes. When you increase the standard of living and education, that directly attacks religion by making it less relevant and also reducing some of the demographics that are most susceptible to it.
That's a definition of attack so broad as to be meaningless.
I think you have too narrow a definition of what an attack on religion constitutes. When you increase the standard of living and education, that directly attacks religion by making it less relevant and also reducing some of the demographics that are most susceptible to it.
This may be true but it certainly does not intentionally marginalize or stigmatize one religious group out of many. Treating one particular religious group unfairly has vastly different implications than creating general conditions that may reduce overall religious adherence.
I think you have too narrow a definition of what an attack on religion constitutes. When you increase the standard of living and education, that directly attacks religion by making it less relevant and also reducing some of the demographics that are most susceptible to it.
...wow.
Is there a study that backs this up? Anywhere? Or is this just crazytown belief systems?
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
So it's the same in one way? Is it the same in any other ways?
Because I sure as hell don't believe that outlawing a piece of clothing that is basically misogynistic, religious oppression and forcing it on people are the same thing in any meaningful way.
I mean sure it's a restriction on clothing but what the hell does that matter? We put restrictions on that shit all the time.
I think it's basically misogynistic when we take it upon ourselves to decide for women what they may and may not do with themselves.
But the problem is that not doing anything is probably also misogynistic if we're applying that term so broadly.
I'm not sure what it is you think you're arguing, here. It is disagreeable when we decide that women must do something, and it is equally disagreeable to decide they must not. If women are being forced to do something they do not wish to do, fining those women for doing it does not address the actual problem (women being coerced into doing something), it merely victimizes the victimized while infringing on the right of women who are not being coerced to make decisions about themselves and what they will and will not do.
The thing is that I don't believe it's "equally disagreeable". Technically taking a woman away from an abusive husband infringes on her right to do whatever she wants, but how on earth can that ever be as disagreeable as forcing her to stay with her abusive husband?
Simply because the act is somewhat similar does not mean they're equivalent.
Combating radicals by going after their religion is like the best way to just make the whole thing worse.
If you want to address the problem of oppression among the immigrant population in France do everything you can to address issues of poverty and social isolation. Once they start making a decent living and aren't treated like a bunch of leeches on society radical movements lose their steam pretty quickly.
Pretty much this right here. Any religion that survives for any length of time is going to have some sort of persecution narrative. People who are seriously committed to a religious belief are going to double-down on it in the face of assaults on that faith. I would go so far as to say that this is why you find hardcore Christians in secular Western countries so desperate to paint themselves as somehow being persecuted.
Integration and polite indifference (reasonable accommodation where possible; polite, yet firm, non-compliance where accommodation isn't possible) are really the way forward. Every religion is going to have hardcore adherents and probably always will. The unfortunate reality is that sometimes there are going to be people who either feel victimized within that subculture or are perceived to be victims (willing or unwilling) by the mainstream culture. Going into the subculture and trying to steamroll them into compliance is going to lead to disaster. Having the resources in place to help those who want out to get out is about all we can do.
I don't think anyone has adequately explained how this will have the intended consequence. Whether its right or wrong is sort of irrelevant if it won't even do anything.
I don't think anyone has adequately explained how this will have the intended consequence. Whether its right or wrong is sort of irrelevant if it won't even do anything.
Quite the opposite actually even, it'll force the women into more isolation. I have not seen a convincing argument otherwise.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I don't think anyone has adequately explained how this will have the intended consequence. Whether its right or wrong is sort of irrelevant if it won't even do anything.
Right I feel like we're going into the same territory as some of the gun control discussions (in that many propositions would be great if they stopped guns from physically existing). Ought is not is, banning the burqa doesn't get rid of its reasons for being imposed on women in France or anywhere and doesn't do shit, you end up putting the people it's supposed to help in the worst spot.
[
The thing is that I don't believe it's "equally disagreeable". Technically taking a woman away from an abusive husband infringes on her right to do whatever she wants, but how on earth can that ever be as disagreeable as forcing her to stay with her abusive husband?
Simply because the act is somewhat similar does not mean they're equivalent.
This is not the equivalent of forcing a woman to leave her abusive husband.
The closest thing in this strained analogy of yours is forcing all women to leave their husbands, because we believe that some husbands are abusive.
Personally I'm totally in favour of polite society telling racist, misogynistic fucktards to go away. If anything allowing to do whatever they want legitimises their bullshit.
You're only handicapping your own education by doing so. David Irving is a textbook example: he's as fascist, loony and racist as they come, but he's also proven to be an invaluable asset in illustrating the entire ugly picture of the world during the late 30s to mid 40s. We would know almost next to nothing about Winston Churchill or FDR if it wasn't for the tireless digging of Irving.
The only cost that we had to pay for the greater illumination of our past is the sharp but fleeting pain in our collective chests when we read about Irving's thoughts on the matter of the Jewish population.
For the ban, but I'm a militant atheist and I'll pretty much go along with anything that attacks religion, a particular one or more broadly. I dont know how useful this particular action will be. It may even produce the opposite results. However, I appreciate the gesture.
...How is the Burqa ban mounting an effective attack against the religion, though? Forcing women to wear them is a symptom of the problem, and trying to police away the symptom will in no way damage the superstitious nonsense. If anything, I could see it as empowering the radicals, as they can now claim to be victims of repression.
I'm all for rigorously pulverizing superstition, but this law doesn't do that job.
I don't think anyone has adequately explained how this will have the intended consequence. Whether its right or wrong is sort of irrelevant if it won't even do anything.
The "intended consequence" is to shore up political support on the right wing for Sarkozy's UMP party, following significant gains by the farther-right Front National (think France's version of the Tea Party) in March's local elections.
[
The thing is that I don't believe it's "equally disagreeable". Technically taking a woman away from an abusive husband infringes on her right to do whatever she wants, but how on earth can that ever be as disagreeable as forcing her to stay with her abusive husband?
Simply because the act is somewhat similar does not mean they're equivalent.
This is not the equivalent of forcing a woman to leave her abusive husband.
The closest thing in this strained analogy of yours is forcing all women to leave their husbands, because we believe that some husbands are abusive.
Even if it was, it would be incredibly condecending and misogynistic; there's a reason we have 'Child Protecetive Services' that can take kids away from abusive parents but not 'Women Protectice Services' to haul adult women out of abusive relationships. We have (hopefully) robust social supports, legal advocacy, shelters or housing systems and so forth for women who want to leave abusive relationships and outreach efforts to help empower them to do choose to do so instead.
[
The thing is that I don't believe it's "equally disagreeable". Technically taking a woman away from an abusive husband infringes on her right to do whatever she wants, but how on earth can that ever be as disagreeable as forcing her to stay with her abusive husband?
Simply because the act is somewhat similar does not mean they're equivalent.
This is not the equivalent of forcing a woman to leave her abusive husband.
The closest thing in this strained analogy of yours is forcing all women to leave their husbands, because we believe that some husbands are abusive.
Even if it was, it would be incredibly condecending and misogynistic; there's a reason we have 'Child Protecetive Services' that can take kids away from abusive parents but not 'Women Protectice Services' to haul adult women out of abusive relationships. We have (hopefully) robust social supports, legal advocacy, shelters or housing systems and so forth for women who want to leave abusive relationships and outreach efforts to help empower them to do choose to do so instead.
Posts
...you are the person here arguing in favour of state sanctioned dress codes.
I know! It's like adding air to a balloon!
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
One of my younger sister's best friends, growing up, came from a Muslim family. They owned several businesses in town, were quite progressive, etc. The women in the family didn't wear, and certainly weren't forced to wear, Burqas.
Except that sometime in '96 or '97, my sister's friend's mother got a fairly serious variety of cancer. She spent a lot of time in the hospital and turned to her religion for comfort. She started wearing a burqa around town, partially, she said, because it made her feel closer to her god in an extremely trying time for her, and partially, I suspect, because it was a dignified way of dealing with the physical effects of radiation and chemotherapy.
I don't believe she needed the state to step in and save her from the evil nazi-men and the jewish pieces of flair in your imagination.
Sounds like further isolating and suppressing the muslim population is just going to make things worse, not better. The stronger the our culture vs. their culture thing gets the more radicals thrive.
Given the rising international tension between governments and their citizens, this seems not only a poorly thought out action, but a very poorly timed one as well.
Personally I'm totally in favour of polite society telling racist, misogynistic fucktards to go away. If anything allowing to do whatever they want legitimises their bullshit.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
If you want to address the problem of oppression among the immigrant population in France do everything you can to address issues of poverty and social isolation. Once they start making a decent living and aren't treated like a bunch of leeches on society radical movements lose their steam pretty quickly.
So you support it, even though you don't know if it will work and suspect it may even harm your cause?
Part of me feels exactly the same way. However, if the act causes more harm than good, I'd rather see the French government spend some money and effort to provide options and ease the transition for these women if/when they wish to leave their current life style behind.
(unless you're murdering them all I guess)
So you want people to govern out of spite?
I'm sure I left that mustard gas around here somewhere...
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Well it is funny in a thread comparing burquas to swastikas we've got someone pushing a nazi belief. Wait I mean terrifying.
pleasepaypreacher.net
So you recognize that it's probably going to actually hurt your position, but your supportive of it because it infringes on the rights of a group that holds different religious views than yours. Militant is right; religious extremism doesn't require a belief in God at all.
Oh nonsense. Why do you think radical religion isn't such a problem in wealthy nations?
Fuck the biggest pool of informants the FBI has here in their counter terrorism efforts are muslims
Going after a religion just gives credence to the radical line of "exterior group X is attacking your faith/culture/people/family!" You can see it in the way terrorist groups abroad use our bullshit anti-muslim stuff here in their recruiting efforts.
There are many relatively progressive Muslim women who wear such coverings willingly and not due to community pressure and/or brainwashing. For instance, some professional women (doctors, lawyers, etc) in Turkey choose to veil in public to protect themselves from the secular male gaze. It provides them a small bubble of privacy and protection and eases their lives.
The state has no place in mediating or dictating the meaning of such items, particularly when it is the majority telling the minority what their symbols "really" mean. This is problematic on its face.
...wow.
That's a definition of attack so broad as to be meaningless.
This may be true but it certainly does not intentionally marginalize or stigmatize one religious group out of many. Treating one particular religious group unfairly has vastly different implications than creating general conditions that may reduce overall religious adherence.
Is there a study that backs this up? Anywhere? Or is this just crazytown belief systems?
pleasepaypreacher.net
Simply because the act is somewhat similar does not mean they're equivalent.
Pretty much this right here. Any religion that survives for any length of time is going to have some sort of persecution narrative. People who are seriously committed to a religious belief are going to double-down on it in the face of assaults on that faith. I would go so far as to say that this is why you find hardcore Christians in secular Western countries so desperate to paint themselves as somehow being persecuted.
Integration and polite indifference (reasonable accommodation where possible; polite, yet firm, non-compliance where accommodation isn't possible) are really the way forward. Every religion is going to have hardcore adherents and probably always will. The unfortunate reality is that sometimes there are going to be people who either feel victimized within that subculture or are perceived to be victims (willing or unwilling) by the mainstream culture. Going into the subculture and trying to steamroll them into compliance is going to lead to disaster. Having the resources in place to help those who want out to get out is about all we can do.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
Quite the opposite actually even, it'll force the women into more isolation. I have not seen a convincing argument otherwise.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Right I feel like we're going into the same territory as some of the gun control discussions (in that many propositions would be great if they stopped guns from physically existing). Ought is not is, banning the burqa doesn't get rid of its reasons for being imposed on women in France or anywhere and doesn't do shit, you end up putting the people it's supposed to help in the worst spot.
This is not the equivalent of forcing a woman to leave her abusive husband.
The closest thing in this strained analogy of yours is forcing all women to leave their husbands, because we believe that some husbands are abusive.
You're only handicapping your own education by doing so. David Irving is a textbook example: he's as fascist, loony and racist as they come, but he's also proven to be an invaluable asset in illustrating the entire ugly picture of the world during the late 30s to mid 40s. We would know almost next to nothing about Winston Churchill or FDR if it wasn't for the tireless digging of Irving.
The only cost that we had to pay for the greater illumination of our past is the sharp but fleeting pain in our collective chests when we read about Irving's thoughts on the matter of the Jewish population.
...How is the Burqa ban mounting an effective attack against the religion, though? Forcing women to wear them is a symptom of the problem, and trying to police away the symptom will in no way damage the superstitious nonsense. If anything, I could see it as empowering the radicals, as they can now claim to be victims of repression.
I'm all for rigorously pulverizing superstition, but this law doesn't do that job.
The "intended consequence" is to shore up political support on the right wing for Sarkozy's UMP party, following significant gains by the farther-right Front National (think France's version of the Tea Party) in March's local elections.
Indeed.