Like Tree298Likes

Soldier beheaded in Woolwich, UK. Sickening.

Closed Thread
Page 46 of 51 FirstFirst ... 38 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 ... LastLast
  1. #451

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,913
    Quote Originally Posted by gunsnroses:
    Turtles, you seriously think I'll be posting something so unique that hasn't yet been posted, said or argued yet?
    I can't imagine that you would say something unique. No.

  2. #452

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,913
    Quote Originally Posted by usehername:
    Perhaps the problem isn't islam - perhaps the problem is men
    This is quite pertinent. Even the UK, with its extensive equal pay and gender equality laws still suffers in a major way with things like unequal pay in the workplace. We have laws but they're still being flouted. Maybe we're not as civilised as we thought.

  3. #453

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,680
    Quote Originally Posted by usehername:
    The issue of it being mandatory is a difficult one. In deeply Islamic countries, the laws of the country reflect the guidelines set out in the koran - as they choose to interpret it. Arguing that some countries make the headscarf mandatory (for muslims) implies that women wouldn't wear it if it wasn't mandatory (otherwise there'd be no need for the rule).
    Wanna bet that many of not most women forced to wear the burka would do away with immediately it wouldn't it be for the laws? Then strip away the religious rules and cultural/social pressure and see how many would be left.
    I think it is rather reasonable to assume that if there weren't such rules or laws in the first place few if any Muslim women would ever get the idea to voluntarily wear a burka or even the head scarf.

    But is that a reasonable assumption? If you take the local example I mentioned earlier - in HK there is no rule that says muslim women must wear a headscarf but the majority still do. These helpers are away from their husbands/fathers and a risk of being beaten, but they still wear them. So doesn't it make more sense to assume that the vast majority of women choose to wear them?
    I think your conclusion is flawed - the Muslim women you see here (i.e. the helpers at Victoria Park) are virtually all Indonesians and even they wear the head scarf voluntarily it doesn't mean they are representative of all Muslim women, in particular those that live under strict laws in the Middle East for example.

    Actually I don't know if the majority if Indonesian helpers here in HK indeed wears a head scarf, I will try to pay attention to it next time I pass the park on a Sunday.

    So why have the rule in the first place? Good question. I don't know. But I'm assuming the rules also cover pork, alcohol etc etc - and yet nobody argues that this is an example of Islam being oppressive.
    Because oppressive requires 'unjustly inflicting hardship and constraint, esp. on a minority or other subordinate group.' - if you can eat beef and chicken instead of pork or drink water and coke then by definition it won't be oppressive.
    But force women to wear a black burka in the hot Middle East and surely it is.

    Doesn't really matter though, it's all about the fact that people are not given a choice if they want to follow the 'rules' but instead are being forced to by law and cultural/social pressure, sometimes with violence (or the threat thereof).

    As for the issue of islam being anti-women, again, a muslim would argue that Islam is very respectful towards women, and for every sexist, misogynistic quote you can find in the koran (and there are many), they will find a contradictory one which demands that men honour and respect women. Some/many muslim men use the koran as a tool to oppress women and get what they want. The same was/is done by men of all religions. Perhaps the problem isn't islam - perhaps the problem is men
    I guess that this was the case initially for many religions, and still is in some, but as it has been mentioned some religions have moved on and the 'men-problem' seems to have been solved. Although I doubt we will see a female pope anytime soon.
    Skyhook likes this.

  4. #454

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,455
    Quote Originally Posted by Raccon:
    Wanna bet that many of not most women forced to wear the burka would do away with immediately it wouldn't it be for the laws? Then strip away the religious rules and cultural/social pressure and see how many would be left.
    I think it is rather reasonable to assume that if there weren't such rules or laws in the first place few if any Muslim women would ever get the idea to voluntarily wear a burka or even the head scarf.
    I can't imagine wanting to wear a burka either. Having said that I saw a documentary once in which the woman (in saudi) said she was happy to. I didn't believe her, but then again, I'm not muslim and I've never worn one. Maybe I'd feel different if I was. Maybe.

    But as for just head scarves, do you feel the same way about sikh men wearing turbans? Or nuns wearing habits? Or orthodox jews in their black hats?

    I think your conclusion is flawed - the Muslim women you see here (i.e. the helpers at Victoria Park) are virtually all Indonesians and even they wear the head scarf voluntarily it doesn't mean they are representative of all Muslim women, in particular those that live under strict laws in the Middle East for example.
    You're right that they don't represent middle eastern muslim women, but they represent asian muslim women, and are probably more representative if western/european muslim women. Why should middle eastern muslims be the benchmark against which islam is judged when it is practised so widely? Middle eastern islam appears to be the worst version of islam, but is that a reason to treated as representative of the whole of islam?

    Actually I don't know if the majority if Indonesian helpers here in HK indeed wears a head scarf, I will try to pay attention to it next time I pass the park on a Sunday.Sunday
    I've no idea of the numbers but it feels like every muslim women in asia is in victoria park on sundays.


    Because oppressive requires 'unjustly inflicting hardship and constraint, esp. on a minority or other subordinate group.' - if you can eat beef and chicken instead of pork or drink water and coke then by definition it won't be oppressive.
    But force women to wear a black burka in the hot Middle East and surely it is.
    True, but again, is this a reflection of islam as a whole or just the countries in which these laws are in place? There's nothing in the koran about being covered head to toe in black cloth.

    Doesn't really matter though, it's all about the fact that people are not given a choice if they want to follow the 'rules' but instead are being forced to by law and cultural/social pressure, sometimes with violence (or the threat thereof).
    But assuming these women want to be muslim - and you might argue they are forced to be muslim, but for now let's say they are happy to be muslim, is it unreasonable for a faith to have a code of conduct which followers have to adhere to in order to actually be 'following' the faith? If you got rid of all the rules in any religion, what would be left? How would you distinguish a jew from a muslim if they no longer had distinct customs and clothes which set them apart. After all most faiths are basically the same: be good or the invisible man will punish you.

    I guess that this was the case initially for many religions, and still is in some, but as it has been mentioned some religions have moved on and the 'men-problem' seems to have been solved. Although I doubt we will see a female pope anytime soon.
    I suspect 'never'...
    Last edited by usehername; 04-06-2013 at 12:44 AM.

  5. #455

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,680
    Quote Originally Posted by usehername:
    I can't imagine wanting to wear a burka either. Having said that I saw a documentary once in which the woman (in saudi) said she was happy to. I didn't believe her, but then again, I'm not muslim and I've never worn one. Maybe I'd feel different if I was. Maybe.
    I can't imagine that she felt happy either. Although I can imagine that you can get used to it if you were brought up in an environment where it's considered the norm.

    But as for just head scarves, do you feel the same way about sikh men wearing turbans? Or nuns wearing habits? Or orthodox jews in their black hats?
    I assume that most of those mentioned wear it by choice, not because someone or some law forces them to. So it's quite different since the issue was oppression, not wearing religious clothing in general. Else I would feel the same.

    You're right that they don't represent middle eastern muslim women, but they represent asian muslim women, and are probably more representative if western/european muslim women. Why should middle eastern muslims be the benchmark against which islam is judged when it is practised so widely? Middle eastern islam appears to be the worst version of islam, but is that a reason to treated as representative of the whole of islam?
    You are right, it is not representative as such but a good example of how oppressive it can be, and no doubt a lot of oppressive "Islamic rules" are being tried to be implemented in Western/European countries.
    Even in moderate Malaysia renouncing Islam will make your life damned hard, so if you asked me if Islam is generally oppressive I can only answer with a clear 'yes'.

    True, but again, is this a reflection of islam as a whole or just the countries in which these laws are in place? There's nothing in the koran about being covered head to toe in black cloth.
    It's a reflection on those countries (see also previous paragraph).

    But assuming these women want to be muslim - and you might argue they are forced to be muslim, but for now let's say they are happy to be muslim, is it unreasonable for a faith to have a code of conduct which followers have to adhere to in order to actually be 'following' the faith? If you got rid of all the rules in any religion, what would be left? How would you distinguish a jew from a muslim if they no longer had distinct customs and clothes which set them apart. After all most faiths are basically the same: be good or the invisible man will punish you.
    I think you are still missing the point - they can have all the rules they want and dress as they like as long as it's voluntarily and doesn't hurt or oppress anyone, because it's not the invisible man that is doing the punishing then.

  6. #456

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,831

    For people who would like to peruse some quite extensive survey data: http://www.pewforum.org/Muslim/the-w...s-society.aspx (Click on the links in the right hand column for the different topics.)


  7. #457

  8. #458
    ouwen
    Quote Originally Posted by MovingIn07:
    Personally, I think we should completely ban religion around children until they are about, say 11 or 12, and then let them decide for themselves.

    I can see where INXS is coming from. I think most of his posts do more harm than good, but he does actually make some relevant points!

    Islam is NOT a race and being anti-islamic is NOT racist. That's just daft to say that it is.

    Pretty much all religions DO involve believing some fairytales but I don't think you need to believe them all to still consider yourself religious.

    For example, I had a friend at University who was strongly Catholic. He was also studying science. I asked him once how he squared beliefs in evolution with the Bible and his answer was pretty pragmatic - revolving around the Bible being a metaphor not a literal reading. I think you can be religious without believing in every fairytale and so you can get very rational thinkers who are also religious. I have no problem with any of them. Anyone who tries to convert me, however, stops being a friend pretty fast!

    As for Islam being more to blame for terrorism than any other religion ... that does seem rather far fetched when you look at what atrocities have been done in the name of the Holy Roman Empire over the years. It does seem, however, that Christians seem, on balance, to have evolved a little faster than Islam. Mostly though I suspect if the US was invading and bombing Sikh or Bhuddist or whatever other religion countries they would all start being anti-USA too ..... it's much more to do with territory than religion in the end. But religion makes for a great recruiting tool - a few charismatic preachers and off you go.
    Rumsfelt and co did use the charismatic preacher effect to support their foreign policy initiatives. Religion works for the US govt militants, the same as it works for the Islamic militants.

  9. #459

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,471

    This was it...


  10. #460

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,259

    Is Bryant the first ever born-again atheist? (They always say the late arrivals are the worst)

    Anyway, a balanced view here, although I am sure geo will find room to disagree

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/russ...b_3347964.html


Closed Thread
Page 46 of 51 FirstFirst ... 38 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 ... LastLast