Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-05-2017, 08:45 PM
RE: Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
"You can put a cat in the oven, but that don't make it a biscuit."

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
20-05-2017, 07:29 AM
RE: Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
(19-05-2017 09:47 AM)epronovost Wrote:  @SYZ

What proof to you have that these girls are Muslim fundamentalist exactly...

Simply because they're wearing awkward, impractical clothing to cover their bodies in fear of the wrath of their fathers/brothers/uncles and also of some imaginary, supernatural entity. No Methodist, Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, or Buddhist female wears a specific type of body covering for fear of being beaten or ostracised or disowned by her family. That's fundamentalism.

It's also a fact that here in Australia, there's been an increase in the incidence of vitamin D deficiency rickets in the neonatals of fundamentalist Muslim mothers—caused apparently by their wearing almost full body coverings.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2017, 07:51 AM
RE: Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
(19-05-2017 11:20 AM)morondog Wrote:  I mean our friend Syz is clearly superior to these kids...

Well, in actuality, I am both (sadly) intellectually and morally superior to these Muslim kids. I don't believe blindly in the existence of a mythical god who watches everything I do; my parents never forced a socially repressive lifestyle upon me; I wore whatever clothes I chose with no fear of a beating from my parents; I could fuck and drink with as many women as I wanted; and most importantly I have had the benefit of an all-inclusive, 21st-century science-based education rather than a Dark Ages one based ultimately around fairy stories.

According to an April 2013 Pew Research Center report about Islam, in nearly all countries surveyed, a majority says it is necessary to believe in God to be a moral person. There is also widespread agreement that some behaviours—including drinking alcohol, sex outside marriage, homosexuality, and committing suicide—are immoral.

—Are these really the sorts of primitive lifestyle "choices" with which we should be inculcating young Muslim schoolgirls in Australia? Absofuckinglutely not.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2017, 08:17 AM
RE: Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
(20-05-2017 07:29 AM)SYZ Wrote:  No Methodist, Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, or Buddhist female wears a specific type of body covering for fear of being beaten or ostracised or disowned by her family. That's fundamentalism.

And in that you're wrong. Maybe because of ignorance, maybe because of homing in on a certain religion because of prejudice, maybe because of malice. I don't care about your reasons. So I go with ignorance, which is as bad as the other reasons, if it's willful ignorance. Which, in lights of what a person is able to observe without even putting too much effort into it, this certainly is.

[Image: Labrador%20and%20Title.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like abaris's post
20-05-2017, 08:56 AM
RE: Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
(20-05-2017 07:51 AM)SYZ Wrote:  —Are these really the sorts of primitive lifestyle "choices" with which we should be inculcating young Muslim schoolgirls in Australia? Absofuckinglutely not.

Are you saying you should be their parent? Are you volunteering to raise them? Who the fuck are you to tell people what is acceptable to believe and what not? This exactly the point of religious tolerance.

I am all for doing away with religion, Islam, Christianity, the whole lot. But the way to achieve this is for people to choose it themselves. Trying to force it, as you are doing, firstly leaves an extremely bad taste in my mouth - don't you recall ever being forced to attend church? This attitude of yours is exactly the same, just in reverse. And secondly, it won't work. All it will do is harden attitudes of Muslims that Westerners really are out to get them, talk a good talk with pretty words about how their values are so great, but when push comes to shove they're just as incapable of respecting people's personal choices as any hardline Muslim.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
20-05-2017, 08:59 AM
RE: Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
(20-05-2017 08:17 AM)abaris Wrote:  
(20-05-2017 07:29 AM)SYZ Wrote:  No Methodist, Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, or Buddhist female wears a specific type of body covering for fear of being beaten or ostracised or disowned by her family. That's fundamentalism.

And in that you're wrong. Maybe because of ignorance, maybe because of homing in on a certain religion because of prejudice, maybe because of malice. I don't care about your reasons. So I go with ignorance, which is as bad as the other reasons, if it's willful ignorance. Which, in lights of what a person is able to observe without even putting too much effort into it, this certainly is.

I've attended church services where it's been preached that young ladies should keep their bodies covered to avoid tempting men. And I've heard the same (rather delicious) young ladies earnestly discussing it later. Christianity is no better than Islam at all, it's just that in Islam it's a more obvious thing because face covering is also part of it.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
23-05-2017, 02:03 PM
RE: Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
(19-05-2017 06:07 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Was that cross on federal land and maintained by federal funds?
I posted a link to the story, earlier. The cross was on city property, maintained by city funds; it was not, however, erected by the city, or with city permission.

Quote:I'm going to assume that only an asshole would care about a cross on private property.
<shrug> Maybe. If my next door neighbor decided to put up a 50-foot cross in his back yard, I might have something to say about it, especially if it was casting a shadow on my solar cells. But then, I could be an asshole. Smile

Quote:So the federal government has a girls basketball league paid for entirely by tax dollars?
Not sure why you would ask that question?

Discrimination is not only institutionalized by federal governments, nor are federal governments the only perpetrators or perpetuators of discrimination.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2017, 02:11 PM
RE: Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
(23-05-2017 02:03 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(19-05-2017 06:07 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  So the federal government has a girls basketball league paid for entirely by tax dollars?
Not sure why you would ask that question?

The point being that under those circumstances this whole separation of church and state deal might be invoked, in a similar way to how on government land crosses aren't allowed to be erected.

Although I submit that a cross and a person's body are two different things, and trying to pretend that the person is like a public building and shouldn't be allowed to decorate themselves except in constitutionally appropriate ways is ludicrous.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2017, 02:14 PM
RE: Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
(19-05-2017 07:20 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Most of htose communities either disappeared or are extremely well integrated.
Integration is not a bad thing.

Quote:These are recent arrivals. The processes thus start again with each new wave of arrivals. The current one, by far the largest started in the 70's when Middle East got increasingly unstabble.
That is about when the largest influx of Muslims to the US began, but I wouldn't exactly call it "recent". The 1970s are almost half a century ago -- two generations. Plenty of time for people to assimilate.

Quote:I would also like to point out that most Muslims in America before WWI came here as slaves and were forced to convert. The first mosque built in america was in 1929. Less than a hundred years ago.
The largest Muslim migration into the US prior to WWI began in about 1880.
Slavery was abolished in the United States in 1863.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2017, 02:23 PM
RE: Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
(20-05-2017 08:56 AM)morondog Wrote:  I am all for doing away with religion, Islam, Christianity, the whole lot.
But the way to achieve this is for people to choose it themselves.
Nice sentiment, but these girls are not being left free to choose for themselves; they have been indoctrinated by their parents. And society is condoning that indoctrination by making an exception to accommodate the views of their parents.

Quote:Trying to force it, as you are doing, firstly leaves an extremely bad taste in my mouth - don't you recall ever being forced to attend church?
I do recall; and I was forced to attend church. And that wasn't any more right than it is to force these girls to wear religious garb outside of a religious context. A second wrong doesn't correct the first wrong.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: