Women in face veils detained as France enforces ban

[Gerald]

At least two women have been detained in France while wearing Islamic veils across their faces, after a law banning the garment in public came into force.

Police said they were held not because of their veils but for joining an unauthorised protest against the ban.

France is the first country in Europe to publicly ban a form of dress some Muslims regard as a religious duty.

Anyone caught breaking the law will be liable to a fine of 150 euros (£133; $217) and a citizenship course.

People forcing women to wear the veil face a much larger fine and a prison sentence of up to two years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13031397


Note: 11 April 2011 Last updated at 11:08 GMT

[STEED]

VIVA FRANCE.

[Onkel Neal]

Go, France, go.

[Reece]

Good on em, at least one country has the balls to put their foot down!:up:

[Tchocky]

This will certainly help everyone get along.

[Betonov]

I'm not alowed to wear a costume that covers my face or even wear sunglases in some forms of establishments. Even just having my gas tank filled requires me to show my face completely (hats are allowed of course). Why?? Because of safety reasons. Not because the goverment is betonophobic. Ordinary non-muslim french women are also prohibited from covering their faces, that's not islamophobia, that's the law.
This is my argument, but because subsim is in short supply of extreme liberal hippies and fundamental muslims, my argument is not an argument but only a statement.

[Feuer Frei!]

And here comes the 'curve ball' (in baseball terms):
Some of these reasons are valid and they would show that the French Government is indeed behaving correctly, if true. However, when one examines these reasons, they fall apart, and reveal something else entirely.

1) “Ban the Niqaab for security”

The idea here is that identification of faces is necessary for the safety of a people to be ensured. This is a valid idea, but limited to certain areas. For example, a country has a right to demand that Muslimahs (Muslimah = Muslim woman) who wear the Niqaab, show their faces in passport photos. The supposed problem is that this conflicts with the fact that a Muslimah is wearing the Niqaab for religious reasons; but in actual fact, the Niqaab is only worn so that males (who have reached puberty) cannot see the face of a Muslimah. The solution here is simple: only females in the security teams of, say, airports have the right to see the passport photo of a Muslim with her face uncovered, and demand the Muslimah unveil her face in an enclosed area (i.e. not visible to the public or others). So here, a supposed problem has actually been simply resolved.
When it comes to minor issues of security, such as walking in the street or using public transport or going to hospitals, then it would be illogical to ban the Niqaab on the basis of security:

The first idea here is that it is necessary to see one’s face so that one identify the person. However this idea is not valid. A person with the intention to harm others in a public place can easily change his or her appearance. For example, growing a beard and moustache, dying your hair, getting a haircut (or shaving it all off) and changing your hairstyle, and many other methods, are all very effective means of changing your appearance to such an extent that you are no longer recognised. In-fact, the mentioned methods are so simply that anyone could do that. So clearly it is unimportant whether one’s face is shown or not when it comes to safety in common public places, for if someone really wanted to cause harm to the people present, then one could easily change their appearance. In-fact, it is not even necessary to hide one’s identity, by changing the appearance or covering the face, for a person could go ahead and cause harm to the people present, regardless of whatever may happen to him or her. Indeed, will a suicide bomber even care if his face is exposed, since he will also be killed?
The second idea is that when a Muslimah wears a Niqaab and loose-fitting outer garments, she can conceal weapons, and this represents a risk to public safety. On the contrary, anyone, be they Muslim or not, man or woman, could conceal weapons, even if they were wearing tight-clothing. If the ban on Niqaab was truly on the basis of security, then a ban would also be set on carrying knives (in most circumstances). The fact that no discussion has been held on this issue and no ban on Sikhs carrying knives has been suggested shows that the motive behind the ban on the Niqaab is not really about safety.


2) “Ban the Niqaab so Muslim women have a choice and aren’t forced into wearing it”

This supposed reason is very ironic. However, the first issue to consider is the claim that “Muslim women are forced into wearing the Niqaab”. This myth is often propagated, and often, if never, has evidence to back it up. It would only be necessary to help women being forced to wear the Niqaab if they were actually being forced to wear it. This is only logical.
Also, the fact that only about 0.038% of the Muslim population is actually wearing Niqaab, shows that the Muslim males are not forcing Muslim women to wear Niqaab; for if they were, then the percentage of those who wear Niqaab would be very high or at least significant, whereas the opposite is the case. Clearly then there is no oppression of Muslim women in France.

3) “Ban the Niqaab because it itself is oppressive”

The funny thing is that many people who claim this can’t actually specifically explain how a Muslim woman who chooses to wear the Niqaab is somehow being oppressed by a piece of cloth. In Islam, the Niqaab is recommended to be worn as even greater act of modesty. By wearing it, it is practically impossible for a man to “rate” or judge a woman by her body. Indeed, it is interesting to see that the majority who helping or supporting the ban, who supposedly care enough about the Muslim women to not want them to be oppressed by wearing a face-veil, are actually men. It is impossible to rationalise how choosing to be very modest is somehow oppressive. How on earth is a female not wanting men to judge her by looks being oppressed? How is this somehow an insult to gender equality?
Indeed, it is hypocritical to say this when in France women are allowed to walk around in miniskirts and very low-cut tops, nearly naked. Is gender equality being helped here?

4) “Ban the Niqaab because it promotes extremism”

There is no logical connection between a woman choosing to wear a Niqaab and extremism rising. It is simply that Muslim extremists tend to be from the few countries which order all women to wear Niqaab; there is no other connection. How will a Muslim woman wearing Niqaab out of great piety and out of wanting to be modest, somehow promote extremism?
By effectively banning the Niqaab in France, French Muslims and other Muslims will increasingly have feelings of dislike towards the French Government and France in general, and some of them will move to do the opposite of this ban. I.e. some will defend it, and a few will even start to wear it. The irony is that this ban will anger the extremists and increase their hatred of the West in general, and France specifically, and so increase the risk of an extremist attack in France. So much for public safety or preventing extremism! It will also increase Islamophobia.


5) “Ban the Niqaab in the interests of secularism”

This is part of the only real reason for the ban of the Niqaab. Another part of the reason is Islamophobia. France, after having been oppressed by the Church for a few centuries, is now paranoid of religion. It is disturbing for it to see increasing numbers of French people, whether they are of French origin or immigrant descent, become religious. The headscarf and Niqaab are seen as symbols of religion (even though the former is an obligation), and so there are attempts to ‘squash’ them. And so the French Government has taken away women’s choice to wear them in the name of protecting women’s rights. The ban is nothing more than a thinly disguised attack on Muslims practising their religion and Islam itself.

Not my words, but certainly something to think about.

[mookiemookie]

I used to work in a bank. Anytime someone came in wearing sunglasses, or had a hood on a hooded sweatshirt up, we asked them to take them off, as it made us very very nervous.

Just throwin that out there.

[Feuer Frei!]

I used to work in a bank. Anytime someone came in wearing sunglasses, or had a hood on a hooded sweatshirt up, we asked them to take them off, as it made us very very nervous.

Just throwin that out there.
As far as i'm aware, and correct me if i am wrong but here in Australia, it is law that you must remove helmets, head coverings, anything that covers your head, face and or both in banks and Credit Unions, money holding institutions and the like.

[Tribesman]

I used to work in a bank. Anytime someone came in wearing sunglasses, or had a hood on a hooded sweatshirt up, we asked them to take them off, as it made us very very nervous.


But could you ask them to remove their sunglasses if they was walking down the street?

I'm not alowed to wear a costume that covers my face or even wear sunglases in some forms of establishments.
But are you in other establishments or on the street?

Silly reactionary moves to ban something that less than 2000 women wear

[Gerald]

But could you ask them to remove their sunglasses if they was walking down the street?


But are you in other establishments or on the street?

Silly reactionary moves to ban something that less than 2000 women wear Out of five million Muslims in France, do you think the figure is around 2000 on women?

[Rilder]

I don't think this is about banks however, I think this is about just walking around in public and I don't think the entirety of France is just a big bank? (I thought that was Switzerland)

Personally its just a clothing item, if they want to walk down the street wearing it then let them. If walking around in a face veil or turban makes you a Muslim Extremist then obviously I am Communist because I walk around wearing a Ushanka during the winter months.

[Tribesman]

Out of five million Muslims in France, do you think the figure is around 2000 on women?
That is the higher figure that is most frequently put out, which is of course far higher than the few hundred in Holland or the few dozen in Belgium.

[gimpy117]

Personally, I think even though France is skirting a fine line here I like their idea. It is a symbol of oppression for women, a way of objectifying and treating them like property.

also, it is something to do with security for sure. Disguising yourself properly is much harder than just putting on a mask.

plus, it's France not the middle east...things are different there.

[MH]

There is no problem in practicing Islam without burka.
France as a country has a right to make itself less attractive for nuts.

[Feuer Frei!]

France as a country has a right to make itself less attractive for nuts.
That may be an objective of theirs, but it may well have the opposite effect.

[Gerald]

Personally, I think even though France is skirting a fine line here I like their idea. It is a symbol of oppression for women, a way of objectifying and treating them like property.

also, it is something to do with security for sure. Disguising yourself properly is much harder than just putting on a mask.

plus, it's France not the middle east...things are different there. No, France is not the Middle East is located between Italy and Spain, and the border with Lux, Belgians, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Monaco

[MH]

That may be an objective of theirs, but it may well have the opposite effect.
As the old saying:
"You cant eat cake and leave it whole"
Opposite effect-thats the whole problem.
You may see opposite effect sooner than later.

[gimpy117]

well I might also add the fact that Islam hasn't done much to further it's cause and get respect lately. If they don't want laws like this they shouldn't be tolerating the blowing up buildings, trains, planes and or killing cartoonists or professors. Respect comes when respect is earned.

[AVGWarhawk]

This will certainly help everyone get along.


Can we honestly say in the history of mankind two differing peoples ever "got along?"

[Skybird]

Displaying to all around you that you wish to look different at all cost from your new home's cultural standards and habits, surely is a strong hint for how much you desire to integrate yourself into your new hosting living place.

For the Islamisation movement, the Burkha and headscarfs simply are a political fightingtool to enforce more steps in retreat from the europeans - who are expected to adapt themselves to Islamic migrants, not that Islamic migrants in Europe have to adapt to European standards.

Muhammad himself demanded that women shall cover themselves. First the demand was just for toilet purposes, that women should not draw attention to themselves when exposing themselves on these occaisons, especially the attention of foreign infidel men. He later generalised the demand that women in principle should cover themselves. It was then when it became a tool of patriarchalic claiom for dominating women, and force them into a suppressed, obedient general attitude.

Wearing a Burkha in summer temperature, is a risk to health, causing cardiovasculare failure, and a statistically increased lethality and shortening of life expectancy of women.

The French are right to ban full veils, like the Germans are right to ban Swastikas in public display. Both are symbols for a totalitarian ideology, and both got and get used to support political ideologies that are incompatible with our laws and values.

But I do not want to be a flic in France these days. At best it means tremendous stress for them, due to the hysteric aggressiveness they most likely will meet from the woman herself when stopping a veiled women. At worst they will find themselves in physical fights and turmoils and getting injured when a whole local subgroups of well-integrated multicultural citizens with migration background go after them. I have had such scenes when I still worked in a shopping mall, and I know what the German police is telling about the situation in Muslim quarters of German metropoles. There are parts in Berlin where they do not go in at all without massive reinforcements. But even outside these quarters they more and more often meet physical violence and mobs of Muslim migrants when doiung their duty of whatever a kind - and the subject they deal with is a Muslim.

How comes they do not have such problems with migrants from other cultures? How comes that the biggest criminal family clans in Berlin, with hundreds of members, all are from Lebanon and Afghanistan and smaller ones also from Turkey and Albania - and the police usually avoiding to coinfront them withiout having called in hundreds of reinforcements? And the left-leaning jurisdication in Berlin trying to appease them and not confronting them, and hiding from the public that they are overrepresented in crime statistics in the city? At the sdame time the leaer of the German federal police union having demanded just days ago that finally the nationality and origin of criminal offenders must become part of warrants again and must be in cluded in the usual office paperload and office files again? Doing so was forbidden several years ago, to make it impossible for the casual observer to see in numbers black on white to what degree violence and crime in the metropoles of Germany is dominated by clans with a Muslim migration background.

It should be racism and discrimination to correctly identify criminal offenders...?

[Krauter]

This is my argument, but because subsim is in short supply of extreme liberal hippies and fundamental muslims, my argument is not an argument but only a statement.

And Thank God for that!

[Onkel Neal]

well I might also add the fact that Islam hasn't done much to further it's cause and get respect lately. If they don't want laws like this they shouldn't be tolerating the blowing up buildings, trains, planes and or killing cartoonists or professors. Respect comes when respect is earned.

This.

[Gerald]

Displaying to all around you that you wish to look different at all cost from your new home's cultural standards and habits, surely is a strong hint for how much you desire to integrate yourself into your new hosting living place.

For the Islamisation movement, the Burkha and headscarfs simply are a political fightingtool to enforce more steps in retreat from the europeans - who are expected to adapt themselves to Islamic migrants, not that Islamic migrants in Europe have to adapt to European standards.

Muhammad himself demanded that women shall cover themselves. First the demand was just for toilet purposes, that women should not draw attention to themselves when exposing themselves on these occaisons, especially the attention of foreign infidel men. He later generalised the demand that women in principle should cover themselves. It was then when it became a tool of patriarchalic claiom for dominating women, and force them into a suppressed, obedient general attitude.

Wearing a Burkha in summer temperature, is a risk to health, causing cardiovasculare failure, and a statistically increased lethality and shortening of life expectancy of women.

The French are right to ban full veils, like the Germans are right to ban Swastikas in public display. Both are symbols for a totalitarian ideology, and both got and get used to support political ideologies that are incompatible with our laws and values.

But I do not want to be a flic in France these days. At best it means tremendous stress for them, due to the hysteric aggressiveness they most likely will meet from the woman herself when stopping a veiled women. At worst they will find themselves in physical fights and turmoils and getting injured when a whole local subgroups of well-integrated multicultural citizens with migration background go after them. I have had such scenes when I still worked in a shopping mall, and I know what the German police is telling about the situation in Muslim quarters of German metropoles. There are parts in Berlin where they do not go in at all without massive reinforcements. But even outside these quarters they more and more often meet physical violence and mobs of Muslim migrants when doiung their duty of whatever a kind - and the subject they deal with is a Muslim.

How comes they do not have such problems with migrants from other cultures? How comes that the biggest criminal family clans in Berlin, with hundreds of members, all are from Lebanon and Afghanistan and smaller ones also from Turkey and Albania - and the police usually avoiding to coinfront them withiout having called in hundreds of reinforcements? And the left-leaning jurisdication in Berlin trying to appease them and not confronting them, and hiding from the public that they are overrepresented in crime statistics in the city? At the sdame time the leaer of the German federal police union having demanded just days ago that finally the nationality and origin of criminal offenders must become part of warrants again and must be in cluded in the usual office paperload and office files again? Doing so was forbidden several years ago, to make it impossible for the casual observer to see in numbers black on white to what degree violence and crime in the metropoles of Germany is dominated by clans with a Muslim migration background.

It should be racism and discrimination to correctly identify criminal offenders...?

"But I do not want to be a flic in France these days" Believe me they do a good job, also, this is not just about France in, large parts of the West which is multicultural

[Rilder]

well I might also add the fact that Islam hasn't done much to further it's cause and get respect lately. If they don't want laws like this they shouldn't be tolerating the blowing up buildings, trains, planes and or killing cartoonists or professors. Respect comes when respect is earned.

Who says that the entire Religon tolerates this extremism though? Do they have a Pope that speaks for everybody and says doing these things is good? Every group is gonna have its bad apples unfortunately but I wouldn't be against the entire group for the actions of a few. If I go out and Stab someone while screaming "FOR ZEUS" does that mean that all Pagans support stabbing people?

I have no idea if this post came out right I was having trouble trying to voice my thoughts. :O:

[AVGWarhawk]

Who says that the entire Religon tolerates this extremism though? Do they have a Pope that speaks for everybody and says doing these things is good? Every group is gonna have its bad apples unfortunately but I wouldn't be against the entire group for the actions of a few. If I go out and Stab someone while screaming "FOR ZEUS" does that mean that all Pagans support stabbing people?

I have no idea if this post came out right I was having trouble trying to voice my thoughts. :O:

Guilt by association. Happens all the time.

[antikristuseke]

The fact that it happens all the time does not make it any less retarded.

[AVGWarhawk]

The fact that it happens all the time does not make it any less retarded.

Do you have to associate the 'retarded' in the conversation? Does it make it anyless stupid if we use the word 'retarded'?

[Oberon]

Islamic riots in five...four...three...

[Gerald]

Islamic riots in five...four...three... Godwin's law?

[Alex]

But I do not want to be a flic in France these days.
Believe me they do a good job, also, this is not just about France in, large parts of the West which is multicultural
I hardly like the internet, making all people feel like the world is their village, just as if everyone was able to know what the current situation is in a country they'll never visit - or going back to their country after visiting the Eiffel tower, thinking they actually know everything about life in France, LOL.
Not that I do not want to believe you, Vendor. But first, the one who really can pretend he does a good job is the one who doesn't allow the emancipation of the foreign one trying to establish his culture where it doesn't belong. And secondly, the French flics as you call them :roll: just ARE NOT ABLE TO DO THEIR JOB ANY MORE AS THEY'RE EXPECTED TO DO IT.

Why ?

Simple ! :D

To sum it up in one and only sentence : there are less weapons in ABSOLUTELY ALL military reserves in the country, than there is in the Paris suburbs. Yes Sir.

The only advantage of that, is that in case the Germans try to invade France once again not using chemical weapons, not only they won't cross the capital, but they might even get pushed back all the way to Poland this time. :roll:

So NO, our "flics" are definitely not doing a good job.

**** MULTICULTURALISM !

[Gerald]

I hardly like the internet, making all people feel like the world is their village, just as if everyone was able to know what the current situation is in a country they'll never visit - or going back to their country after visiting the Eiffel tower, thinking they actually know everything about life in France, LOL.
Not that I do not want to believe you, Vendor. But first, the one who really can pretend he does a good job is the one who doesn't allow the emancipation of the foreign one trying to establish his culture where it doesn't belong. And secondly, the French flics as you call them :roll: just ARE NOT ABLE TO DO THEIR JOB ANY MORE AS THEY'RE EXPECTED TO DO IT.

Why ?

Simple ! :D

To sum it up in one and only sentence : there are less weapons in ABSOLUTELY ALL military reserves in the country, than there is in the Paris suburbs. Yes Sir.

The only advantage of that, is that in case the Germans try to invade France once again not using chemical weapons, not only they won't cross the capital, but they might even get pushed back all the way to Poland this time. :roll:

So NO, our "flics" are definitely not doing a good job. At least the ones I have worked with

[DarkFish]

If I go out and Stab someone while screaming "FOR ZEUS" does that mean that all Pagans support stabbing peopleNah... it just means all Roman Pagans support stabbing. Germanic Pagans like me don't:O:

[Alex]

At least the ones I have worked with
Maybe the situation is better in your country where you might have got some help from France.


It's worse than ever in here, and it will not end without a great bloodshed, that's for sure.

[Jimbuna]

well I might also add the fact that Islam hasn't done much to further it's cause and get respect lately. If they don't want laws like this they shouldn't be tolerating the blowing up buildings, trains, planes and or killing cartoonists or professors. Respect comes when respect is earned.

Aye that.

[Gerald]

Maybe the situation is better in your country where you might have got some help from France.


It's worse than ever in here, and it will not end without a bloodshed, that's for sure.

It happens to be that part of the intel is located in a city in france, so in this way it works, how it looks when they carry out patrols in the capital as an example, I can not answer, there you are better informed

[Skybird]

Who says that the entire Religon tolerates this extremism though? Do they have a Pope that speaks for everybody and says doing these things is good? Every group is gonna have its bad apples unfortunately but I wouldn't be against the entire group for the actions of a few. If I go out and Stab someone while screaming "FOR ZEUS" does that mean that all Pagans support stabbing people?

I have no idea if this post came out right I was having trouble trying to voice my thoughts. :O:

Guilty by association, Warhawk says, and he is right. You get assessed by the people you silently tolerate to act in your name (and this practice is the rule, no the exception from it), and by the compoany you chose, and by your behavior and by the scripture of the ideology you weant to be called a follower of.

And the latter is the point. Who says the entire religion tolerates this extremism, you said. Nicely spoken for a Wetserner trying to see the good in everything. But I must crush your illusions. Their Quran says so, and even more, the Quran and the Muhammad DEMAND it.

I strongly recommend you start to read it a bit, plus some academic secondary literature on Quran, Islamic history, the Hadith ans Muhammad'S biograohy. Muhammad may be fictional or not, but the biography - fiction or real - that is associated with his name nevertheless is key to understand why Islam is what it is, and why it is like it is. Which is why the precise term for Islam indeed is "Muhammeddanism". Muhammad is cause and origin and star of it - Allah is just what Muhammad let fall out of his mouth. All they believe to know about Allah and Islam - they know exclusively from Muhammad. And Muhammad - amongst others criminal allegations was a liar at least. Two of his secretaries (Muhammad could not write) had to flee in fear for their lives, because they were able to witness that those words he claimed to have been given to him by Allah - actually were suggestions and formulations recommended by his writers.

Religion, eh? A cult of selfjustification may be closer a description. Or as I claim: Islam may not separate religion and politics, but it is more concerned about politics, than religion. The latter is for those being ruled. The first is for those who rule.

[MH]

What is beyond me is why people are happy to tolerate intolerance in the name of tolerance.:damn:

[antikristuseke]

Do you have to associate the 'retarded' in the conversation? Does it make it anyless stupid if we use the word 'retarded'?

No, but the word retarded fits better than the word stupid to describe guild by assoiciation when talking about a group of abou a billion people.

[AVGWarhawk]

No, but the word retarded fits better than the word stupid to describe guild by assoiciation when talking about a group of abou a billion people.


Ok, let's try...birds of a feather flock together! :03:

[Jimbuna]

Can't ever see this happening in the UK....we're more likely to allow asylum to the more that want to come :hmmm:

[the_tyrant]

this topic reminds me of this:
http://satwcomic.com/art/religious-flags.jpg

[Happy Times]

What is beyond me is why people are happy to tolerate intolerance in the name of tolerance.:damn:

Many of those people are the same that wanted to bring "freedom" and "peace" to the world trough enslavement and war. :|\\

[gimpy117]

Who says that the entire Religon tolerates this extremism though? Do they have a Pope that speaks for everybody and says doing these things is good? Every group is gonna have its bad apples unfortunately but I wouldn't be against the entire group for the actions of a few. If I go out and Stab someone while screaming "FOR ZEUS" does that mean that all Pagans support stabbing people?

I have no idea if this post came out right I was having trouble trying to voice my thoughts. :O:

We bring our Radicals To justice in the U.S. Waco? yeah we raided that place with tanks AND burnt it to the ground. I don't see places like Palestine or Yemen storming Terrorist cell headquarters with tanks. If this is so I'd be tickled if you would provide a link.

[Jimbuna]

We bring our Radicals To justice in the U.S. Waco? yeah we raided that place with tanks AND burnt it to the ground. I don't see places like Palestine or Yemen storming Terrorist cell headquarters with tanks. If this is so I'd be tickled if you would provide a link.

That is a link nobody will ever be able to provide....for better or worse.

[STEED]

Listening to the radio and this veil is the subject, the Muslim men are saying its out dated or has nothing to do in being a Muslim while the women are saying it is and expressing there human rights!

[Platapus]

Guilt by association. Happens all the time.

Yes and it is usually wrong. Guilt by association is an emotional response, not a logical one.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yes and it is usually wrong. Guilt by association is an emotional response, not a logical one.

There is not much we do logically these days. I'm not sure if it is an emotional response either.

[TorpX]

France is the first country in Europe to publicly ban a form of dress some Muslims regard as a religious duty.

...........................................

The French are exercising their authority over France.

Why is this contriversial?

[Gorpet]

Yes and it is usually wrong. Guilt by association is an emotional response, not a logical one.
This is true.Check my only post.I was wrong.

[Tribesman]

The French are exercising their authority over France.

Why is this contriversial?

If there is nothing wrong or contraversial then support a ban on beards, a ban on not having beards, a ban on hats, ban not having hats, ban kilts, ban the colour green, ban the colour yellow.......

[MH]

If there is nothing wrong or contraversial then support a ban on beards, a ban on not having beards, a ban on hats, ban not having hats, ban kilts, ban the colour green, ban the colour yellow.......

Forgot to add the nazi world........or extreme Islam.?
Ah i forgot political islam is not about dna its about religion and nice sharia laws.

[Tribesman]

So MH you are unable to address the points, what a surprise.
How about another point for you to mull over then, what do you think of the Netherlands proposed ban on kosher practices?
After all it is Holland so there must be dutch law for dutch people, there is no room for those Jewish ways eh, nothing contraversial there.

[MH]

Is burka a traditional dress worn by sheeps or cows?

Burka is a symbol of religus opression of women.
Its a tradition taken to extreme.
Im not tolerant toward intolerance thats simple really.
There are actully peaple even in arab world that fight this sort of opression on women.

[antikristuseke]

Starting to ban things in the name of fighting intolerance is sort of ironic though.

[Blood_splat]

The problem is Religions should have to adapt to Western society not the other way around.

[Tribesman]

Im not tolerant toward intolerance thats simple really.

So you are intolerant, its that simple really. Once again you support that which you try to condemn.
Besides which why won't you answer the question, do you support the proposed ban on Jewish practices in Holland?

[Freiwillige]

France should be able to ban things that do not effect the French, It is after all France! The very idea of this ban is defensive, defensive of French culture over Islamic culture in France. Islams just beggining to see Europe's backlash against its culture I believe.

[Skybird]

Starting to ban things in the name of fighting intolerance is sort of ironic though.
Tolerating intolerance necessarily results in self-destruction. With the tolerant having eliminated himself that way (by tolerantly allowing to get eliminated by the intolerant), it is the intolerant to prevail.

Is that irony? Desirable? A proof of tolerance?

Preaching this since longer time now. Again:


The tolerance paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox) arises from the problem that a tolerant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerant) person is antagonistic toward intolerance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_intolerance), hence intolerant of it. The tolerant individual is by definition intolerant of intolerance. This problem is at the heart of the dilemma faced by pluralist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_pluralism) societies who wish to embrace diversity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism), but in doing so ostensibly exclude those who do not embrace diversity, which includes a large portion of the world's population.

Many philosophers including Karl Popper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#cite_note-0) and John Rawls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#cite_note-1) wrestled with this paradox.


And this very good, summarizing read:


http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2006/07/tolerating-the-intolerant.php

Tolerating the Intolerant

By Callimachus
I've been going back to the sources to try to discover whether the religious tolerance of the American Founders would or should extend to Islamist preaching. Even in a tolerant society, not all things are or should be tolerated. You have freedom of speech, but you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater.
Freedom of religion -- or liberty of conscience to give it its broadest name -- seems to admit very few exceptions. An astonishing range of religions thrive among us, from Santaria to Southern Baptism. In the name of liberty of conscience we tolerate religions that require their followers to surrender liberty of conscience and follow a preacher or a book.
But what about Islamist religion, which preaches identification with the worldwide Muslim ummah rather than local civic society, which sets religious authority above any secular state power, and which has a long-term goal of plowing under Western freedoms, including liberty of conscience, and replacing them with shari'a law? Such things existed in the world in the 18th century, too, but the American Founders never addressed them.
America is not re-invented every generation, despite the appearance, and it has underpinnings in certain currents of philosophy and the thoughts of specific men. Yet to discuss the Founders as a guide to present policy seems anathema (http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001176.html) to many otherwise thoughtful people on the liberal side; as if to accept the relevance of Madison and Jefferson is to accept the conservative vision of America. To less thoughtful leftists, I suspect, the past is a dead land, populated by monstrous slave-owning philosophes and Indian-killers and sexually repressed Puritans.
John Locke's Letter Concerning Toleration (http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm) is the philosophical foundation of the American separation of church and state, religious equality and freedom of conscience -- key elements of the Western pantheon, and hateful poisons to its Islamist enemies.
When it comes to religion, Locke politely tells the political authorites to butt out. He enjoins the would-be religious meddlers:

If any man err from the right way, it is his own misfortune, no injury to thee; nor therefore art thou to punish him in the things of this life because thou supposest he will be miserable in that which is to come. Nobody, therefore, in fine, neither single persons nor churches, nay, nor even commonwealths, have any just title to invade the civil rights and worldly goods of each other upon pretence of religion.
Locke mainly was concerned with mutual toleration among Christians in England. But he extended this philosophy beyond the Christian churches. Even pagans, who in his day would have been regarded with abhorrence, came in for the hands-off treatment.

But, indeed, if any people congregated upon account of religion should be desirous to sacrifice a calf, I deny that that ought to be prohibited by a law. Meliboeus, whose calf it is, may lawfully kill his calf at home, and burn any part of it that he thinks fit. For no injury is thereby done to any one, no prejudice to another man's goods. And for the same reason he may kill his calf also in a religious meeting. Whether the doing so be well-pleasing to God or no, it is their part to consider that do it. The part of the magistrate is only to take care that the commonwealth receive no prejudice, and that there be no injury done to any man, either in life or estate.
Locke wrote at the close of a generation rent by a civil war and a revolution, and in a century when the clash of Crown and Parliament and the overlapping conflicts between Protestants, Anglicans and Catholics, bloodied England.
Locke's "toleration," however, was not universal. It expressly excluded atheists, because, as is still commonly believed, they had no motive to be moral and therefore could not be trusted to be so. And Locke's toleration, like John Milton's, excluded Catholics, who, at that time, acknowledged the authority of a Pope who was prince of a secular realm, and a power-rival and dangerous enemy of the ruler of Britain.
And it certainly would have excluded the type of religion preached in the West by many Islamist imams. (http://www.muhajiroun.com/press_release/250704_londistan.htm) Locke excludes the intolerant from his toleration, a needle's eye that probably excludes a few modern Christian fundamentalists as well.

These, therefore, and the like, who attribute unto the faithful, religious, and orthodox, that is, in plain terms, unto themselves, any peculiar privilege or power above other mortals, in civil concernments; or who upon pretence of religion do challenge any manner of authority over such as are not associated with them in their ecclesiastical communion, I say these have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate; as neither those that will not own and teach the duty of tolerating all men in matters of mere religion. For what do all these and the like doctrines signify, but that they may and are ready upon any occasion to seize the Government and possess themselves of the estates and fortunes of their fellow subjects; and that they only ask leave to be tolerated by the magistrate so long until they find themselves strong enough to effect it?
In America a century later, James Madison took Locke one step further. Madison scholar Robert Alley writes that, "toleration presumed a state perogative that, for Madison, did not exist." Madison wrote that "the right to tolerate religion presumes the right to persecute it." Instead Madison argued for "liberty of conscience." The "natural rights of man," centering in the concept of "liberty of conscience," stand, without question for Madison, above and before any other authority.
No religion, or irreligion, can be banned by the state, even religions that make it a central aim to overthrow the state (up until the point where they act on that aim).
When Madison took his place in the Virginia legislature after the Revolutionary War, a bill stood in the General Assessment, sponsored by Patrick Henry, that would funnel tax money to support religious education in all denominations.
Henry justified this as a way to curtail the sin and immorality of young people. But the General Assessment bill would have hatched the monster Madison feared most: a "tyranny of the majority." If the ministers from all the major Protestant denominations were paid from the state treasury, a coalition of Protestant groups would relegate minority views to a "tolerated" status or worse.
The legislature was on the verge of passing the bill, but Madison convinced his colleagues to postpone a vote until the next session in 1785. Madison used the postponement to take his case to the public, writing a broadside critique, the "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments," (http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html) which has become the classic statement for religious freedom in North America.
I cannot find that Madison, here or anywhere else, made exceptions, as Locke did, to what the state ought to tolerate in the way of religion. His sole concern was protecting the individual conscience from the intrusion of state power.

The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.
Madison insisted government keep its hands absolutely off religion.

Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance.
Madison, it seems, took no cognizance of what Karl Popper, in a later, darker century than the 18th, would describe as the “paradox of tolerance.”

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even though those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade as criminal.
Who is more suited to the 21st century, Locke, Madison, or Popper? Popper's answer seems closer to the European laws regarding liberty of conscience: General tolerance up to a point, but with clear exceptions. Though Locke is in both the American heritage and the European, America alone seems to have Madison's radical insight that government has no right to "tolerate," because doing so implies a right to refuse toleration.

[Tribesman]

France should be able to ban things that do not effect the French, It is after all France!
What is France and what is French?
Since this ban does effect the French what are you on about?

Preaching this since longer time now. Again:


Yet still cannot give an answer:rotfl2:
Its why it is a paradox and philosophers wrestle with it.
As someone else said recently how can Sky show that he is not the very thing he is warning against?
He certainly appears to be the very sort of extremist who people should be worried about.
To follow the guilt by association line some bright spark raised, leaving aside his penchant for 1930s german propoganda hasn't he written that his personal campaign against Muslims has led him to join groups and protests made up of neo nazis?:yep:

[DarkFish]

If there is nothing wrong or contraversial then support a ban on beards, a ban on not having beards, a ban on hats, ban not having hats, ban kilts, ban the colour green, ban the colour yellow.......Except for that a hat or a beard or a kilt don't hide all of your body. Even a headscarf (I hate those as well but I don't think they should or can be banned) leaves most of the face uncovered. If I see someone I want to be able to look him/her in the eyes. I want to be able to see who he is. Not only does that makes you feel safe, it is in fact safer. Who knows if whoever is walking underneath a burqa is indeed an innocent muslim woman? It can just as easily be a male bankrobber with an AK47 underneath his clothes.

If you want to wear a burqa at home, fine by me. But don't do it in public space where you offend or frighten people with it.

Besides which why won't you answer the question, do you support the proposed ban on Jewish practices in Holland?What proposed ban on Jewish practices? I've heard nothing about such a proposal:06:

[Skybird]

BBC'S latest update nicely summarizes what it is about in just one sentence:

"The French government says the face-covering veil undermines the basic standards required for living in a shared society and also relegates its wearers to an inferior status incompatible with French notions of equality."

More there is not to say. Everybody not agreeing with this is free to leave and seek his fate in a Muslim country, which - all of them! - are so very much more free and more liberal and more tolerant and more multicultural than our european home nations are. Everybody knows that, right?

You don't like Europe? You are free to leave. You do not want to live by European cultural ways and habits? Then why the heck have you even come here in the first?

Our home places - our rules, our habits, our culture, our values, our laws, our way of life - not yours. You come to us, we do not come to you. In our home countries, we owe you nothing, but you owe us integration.'Don't like it that way? Pack your things and move away, we do not hinder you, we will not miss you.

Period.

[Tribesman]

Except for that a hat or a beard or a kilt don't hide all of your body
So why did they ban kilts then?

If I see someone I want to be able to look him/her in the eyes.
So you want to ban sunglasses?

It can just as easily be a male bankrobber with an AK47 underneath his clothes.

In that case it can just as easily be a bank robber wearing drag and a raincoat, ban raincoats and women who look like trannies.
A bank robber can be dressed as a policeman, ban police uniforms.

Can you see how your arguements fall apart?
Fuer Frei already did a thorough job on all the arguements that are used with that piece he posted.


What proposed ban on Jewish practices? I've heard nothing about such a proposal
Havn't you? Its part of Geerty boys program of racial purification:rock:
The same proposal to get rid of Muslim dietry practices also gets rid of Jewish dietry practices. It is rather reminiscent of the Swiss anti Jewish laws of the 19th century which they introduced because "the evil Jews just won't intergrate and are taking over the world"(sounds familiar doesn't it)
But anyway as you are there and the dutch are in the topic what do you think of the bible bashers making dutch people observe the sabbath by law and banning freedom of religion?

[MH]

So you are intolerant, its that simple really. Once again you support that which you try to condemn.
Besides which why won't you answer the question, do you support the proposed ban on Jewish practices in Holland?

I don't propose of baning Judaism or Islam but i think that there is need for boundaries.
The same as I'm against blind radicalism in Judaism.
But again fanaticism in Judaism is mostly inward directed while in Islam its opposite.

[danlisa]

You don't like Europe? You are free to leave. You do not want to live by European cultural ways and habits? Then why the heck have you even come here in the first?

Our home places - our rules, our habits, our culture, our values, our laws, our way of life - not yours. You come to us, we do not come to you. In our home countries, we owe you nothing, but you owe us integration.'Don't like it that way? Pack your things and move away, we do not hinder you, we will not miss you.

Nicely describes my view on the matter.:up:

(To answer the bold part, free healthcare, housing benefit, guaranteed work (or unemployment benefits) etc etc.....take your pick).

[gimpy117]

"The French government says the face-covering veil undermines the basic standards required for living in a shared society and also relegates its wearers to an inferior status incompatible with French notions of equality."

Bingo.

It's a symbol of property. Face covering basically states that: "you are my property, so much to the extent that only I have the right to view you". To opponents who will inevitably say that "it's a choice by the women" I say bull. Sure, maybe a few very devout Muslims will actually choose to do this, but I'm sure the majority of women who are "choosing" to face cover are more so being coerced to say they enjoy it.

and I also support the idea of an immigrants duty to integrate. It you aren't annexing a country, you are moving there. To expect that place to adopt your social traditions, especially Muslim fundamentalist law is as crazy as it in impractical.

[Tribesman]

@dansila
Nicely describes my view on the matter.
So your view only covers immigrants which means native born muslims can wear whatever they want.

@gimpy
Bingo
Apart from the fact that banning what people can wear destroys the notion of equality they claim to be preserving

[DarkFish]

So why did they ban kilts then?They did? Well that's just stupid.

So you want to ban sunglasses?Let me rephrase it for you: I want to be able to look him/her in the *face*.

In that case it can just as easily be a bank robber wearing drag and a raincoat, ban raincoats and women who look like trannies.
A bank robber can be dressed as a policeman, ban police uniforms.Except raincoats don't conceil the face, unless you use one of these devices:
http://nwamotherlode.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/burglar-in-ski-mask.jpg
Kinda draws attention, doesn't it? If you see someone wearing stockings over his head when there's no costume party anywhere near, you don't trust him. Now why should we trust people who wear essentially the same thing?

Fuer Frei already did a thorough job on all the arguements that are used with that piece he posted.Except his arguments didn't address my most important one. Can you find it?

Havn't you? Its part of Geerty boys program of racial purification:rock:
The same proposal to get rid of Muslim dietry practices also gets rid of Jewish dietry practices. It is rather reminiscent of the Swiss anti Jewish laws of the 19th century which they introduced because "the evil Jews just won't intergrate and are taking over the world"(sounds familiar doesn't it)Nope I hadn't heard of it yet. But knowing Ole Geert's party, I can easily imagine he proposed something like that.

For the record though, I'm against ritual slaughtering (I take it his proposal is about halal food?) for the sake of animal rights. That includes Jewish rituals as well as Islamic. But indeed, Wilders often wants to prohibit muslims the exact things he allows other people. If you want to prohibit halal, prohibit kosher as well.
But hell, what can you expect? He's simply a huge hypocrite. Isn't his wife an immigrant as well?

But anyway as you are there and the dutch are in the topic what do you think of the bible bashers making dutch people observe the sabbath by law and banning freedom of religion?I think they suck. If they want to observe sabbath, let them. Let them sit at home and do nothing all day, I hope they all bore themselves to death. As long as they don't impose the beliefs and rituals of their sad little sect on me.

[gimpy117]

@dansila

So your view only covers immigrants which means native born muslims can wear whatever they want.

@gimpy

Apart from the fact that banning what people can wear destroys the notion of equality they claim to be preserving

it's a moral dilemma for sure...except in this case the garment being banned is being used as a tool of oppression for women.

[Tribesman]

They did? Well that's just stupid.

Its to fit in with culture, not to stand apart. Plus of course people in kilts were evil terrorists and may well have been of the wrong religion

Let me rephrase it for you: I want to be able to look him/her in the *face*.

Thats better, so is there any good reason why your personal wants should set national policy or override other peoples wants?

Except raincoats don't conceil the face, unless you use one of these devices:


Your arguement was that they could have a machine gun under the robe,get your position in order.
But on your other point disguising the face is easy, a pair of glasses and some powder is quite sufficient.
Now why should we trust people who wear essentially the same thing?

Is there some special requirement that you personally have to feel you can trust every individual that walks through a city?

Except his arguments didn't address my most important one.
They most certainly did.

As long as they don't impose the beliefs and rituals of their sad little sect on me.
There is the problem. They are clamping down on the tourist and market exemptions which are unholy in their eyes. Though it was ruled that their local attempts on other legal isses were against the law, however their official policy in government is that Holland should have laws and punishments based on good old testament scripture...but on the bright side they have had to drop their objections to females being allowed to vote.

@gimpy
it's a moral dilemma for sure...except in this case the garment being banned is being used as a tool of oppression for women.
The woman in the opening article appears to object very strongly to what you are saying.

[gimpy117]

@gimpy

The woman in the opening article appears to object very strongly to what you are saying.

my point is..is that her talking or her husband talking?

[Tribesman]

my point is..is that her talking or her husband talking?
That was her talking, the husband has been in some different interviews.

[MH]

my point is..is that her talking or her husband talking?

While there is a chance that it was her talking there is no way that in general women in Muslim society willingly wear burka.
Sometimes they may know nothing better since they are brought up in certain and submissive way from age 0 having no real choice in life.

[DarkFish]

Its to fit in with culture, not to stand apart.Well that's the point, kilts are part of Scottish culture so they should remain part of Scottish culture. Burqas are not part of Western culture so they should not be part of Western culture.

Thats better, so is there any good reason why your personal wants should set national policy or override other peoples wants?And again you hit the nail on the head:up: Is there any good reason why the personal wants of muslims should override the wants of Westerners?

Your arguement was that they could have a machine gun under the robe,get your position in order.My argument was they could do both.
Meanwhile, did you notice yet the machine gun argument was just a support for my main argument? Which, by the way, you still haven't addressed.

Is there some special requirement that you personally have to feel you can trust every individual that walks through a city?There are some special requirements that I personally have to feel I can not trust every individual that walks through a city. If someone wears stockings on his head, I don't trust him. If someone wears a nikab, I don't trust him/her either.

They most certainly did.They most certainly didn't. I read through them and my argument wasn't even mentioned.

There is the problem. They are clamping down on the tourist and market exemptions which are unholy in their eyes. Though it was ruled that their local attempts on other legal isses were against the law, however their official policy in government is that Holland should have laws and punishments based on good old testament scripture...but on the bright side they have had to drop their objections to females being allowed to vote.Don't get me wrong, I hate those guys as much as I hate fanatic muslims. Every religious loon is a religious loon, the only difference is which loon they worship.

[Tribesman]

Well that's the point, kilts are part of Scottish culture so they should remain part of Scottish culture.
At what point did kilts become part of Scottish culture? was that scottish culture, highland culture or british culture? Irish maybe or norse? celtic perhaps or even french? such a mishmash ain't it that culture thing.

So if they became part of that culture was it wrong to ban them? What on earth was a bloke from lower saxony doing telling the locals how to dress?

Burqas are not part of Western culture so they should not be part of Western culture.

Nor were curry, kebabs, saris, turbans, mantillas and christianity.
So your point was?

Is there any good reason why the personal wants of muslims should override the wants of Westerners?


A person choosing to wear an item of clothing doesn't really impact on anyone in any meaningful way so there is nothing real to override, banning a person from wearing something overrides their freedom of choice.
Unless there is an extremely good reason for overriding that freedom then it should not be even contemplated.
So far all the reasons given amount to nothing of substance.

My argument was they could do both.

And since they could do still do both in a dozen different ways your arguement doesn't stand.

There are some special requirements that I personally have to feel I can not trust every individual that walks through a city. If someone wears stockings on his head, I don't trust him. If someone wears a nikab, I don't trust him/her either.


Do you think your personal sensibilities requires national legislation to make people to conform to fit to your insecurities?

They most certainly didn't. I read through them and my argument wasn't even mentioned.

Your only arguement that wasn't directly dealt with is your strange sense of fear, but it was indirectly dealt with by showing those fears to be irrational.

Don't get me wrong, I hate those guys as much as I hate fanatic muslims.
I know, it just surprised me that the government was really that desperate when it was looking to form a coilition, then again they were desperate enough to allow that pillock wilders in too.

[DarkFish]

At what point did kilts become part of Scottish culture? was that scottish culture, highland culture or british culture? Irish maybe or norse? celtic perhaps or even french? such a mishmash ain't it that culture thing.The small kilt or walking kilt (similar to the 'modern' kilt) did not develop until the late 17th or early 18th century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_kilt
:03:
I do get your point however which I will address below.

So if they became part of that culture was it wrong to ban them? What on earth was a bloke from lower saxony doing telling the locals how to dress?

[...]

Nor were curry, kebabs, saris, turbans, mantillas and christianity.
So your point was?Well first of all I don't see curry, kebab, saris and turbans as part of Western culture. You could have chosen better examples to make your point.

So let's continue with your kilt example, assuming it were indeed the Saxons who introduced the kilt. In the present time, the kilt is part of Scottish culture. Banning it would be senseless. But when the saxons introduced it, if the Caledonians disliked it, IMHO they would have been well within their rights to ban it.

Burqas may very well become part of our culture once. When that has happened, banning them would be just as stupid as banning kilts is nowadays. But until that day I will oppose them every bit I can.

A person choosing to wear an item of clothing doesn't really impact on anyone in any meaningful way so there is nothing real to overrideDepends on the clothing. Burqas can have an impact, see below.

banning a person from wearing something overrides their freedom of choice.Well we already have "clothing laws". I can't walk around naked. Now should I feel offended that my freedom of choice is overrided?

And since they could do still do both in a dozen different ways your arguement doesn't stand.which is why I only used the argument in support of my fear argument:up: The chances of a burqa-wearing person being a bankrobber are practically zero. There are a thousand other ways a bankrobber can dress, many of them much more likely. Fearing that someone wearing a burqa is a bankrobber isn't rational. But neither are our instincts. There could be an AK47 underneath that burqa. There could hide a criminal under that veil. And that alone is often enough to, either consciously or subconsciously, instill fear in the hearts of some.

Do you think your personal sensibilities requires national legislation to make people to conform to fit to your insecurities?If many people share those sensibilities, yes I do.

Your only arguement that wasn't directly dealt with is your strange sense of fear, but it was indirectly dealt with by showing those fears to be irrational.And I completely agree. Most fears are. But the fact that they are irrational and often instinctive doesn't mean they aren't real. And I think banning muslims from wearing burqas is a small price to pay to remove some of that fear from many Westerners.

[Rilder]

Well we already have "clothing laws". I can't walk around naked. Now should I feel offended that my freedom of choice is overrided?


Actually isn't there places all around Europe (Included districts in cities) where you can walk around naked? :hmmm:

[TLAM Strike]

While there is a chance that it was her talking there is no way that in general women in Muslim society willingly wear burka.
Sometimes they may know nothing better since they are brought up in certain and submissive way from age 0 having no real choice in life.

I was in the cafeteria at school today and I walk up to use the microwave. There was this girl in a Hijab there waiting and another girl who was cooking her own food. The one girl finishes and walks away and the girl in the Hijab tells me to go ahead and use the microwave, I tell her "no, you were here first". She still tells me to use it first. I don't know if it was a cultural thing or what but I felt really bad standing there for three minutes while my food cooked and she still waited.

I don't know sometimes... :-?

[Tribesman]

I do get your point however which I will address below.

You didn't, it was the saxon which banned it. I suppose it would be like if Hirsi Ali got to be beatrix and banned dutch people wearing jeans which are not really dutch

Well first of all I don't see curry, kebab, saris and turbans as part of Western culture. You could have chosen better examples to make your point.


You missed Christianity and Mantillas off that list, last time we had a discussion about dutch culture you was convinced that everyday christian practices which date back for many many hundereds of years in the Netherlands were also not part of Dutch culture.


@TLAM
I don't know sometimes...
Maybe she was Canadian, they have a reputaion of being very polite.

@Rilder
Actually isn't there places all around Europe (Included districts in cities) where you can walk around naked?
But that is errrrrr....freedom of choice.
We need to ban freedom to save errrrr....freedom

[MH]

But that is errrrrr....freedom of choice.
We need to ban freedom to save errrrr....freedom

Come on you can do better than that.....or not?

[Penguin]

The burka is not a religious symbol, it's a political and patriarchal symbol, it has more to do with tribal culture than with faith. I can't recognise it as just a garment like a kilt or pants.

Even if you regard it as a symbol for a religion. Imo the freedom of religion is one of the "soft" basic rights. It becomes superseded by the right of self-determination. I agree that most women who wear it don't do it out of their own free will - when you are brainwashed you also don't have free will.
Dressing modest is a total different thing, but nobody can tell me that somebody wears a black burka voluntarily when it's 30° C outside.

However the whole talk and action about the ban is nothing but a fight against the symptoms, not the root of the problem. The real problem are men who have such low self-esteem that they want to hide their women and chain them to themselves. Or those who are so sick that they assume that they have no self control and jump onto the next women who doesn't hide her female features.
Maybe those nuts should wear horse blinkers instead of forcing their women to wear a sack.
This offends me as a man who appreciates women, that those morons want to put every men into the same category.

[Tribesman]

Come on you can do better than that.....or not?
In essence that is all it boils down to, all the arguements against a form of clothing fall down very rapidly.
So all that is left is the removal of freedom of choice to maintain freedom of choice which is perfect newspeak.
Personaly I think the burqa and niquab are silly tribal affections which cannot even claim the strange "merit" of gods orders that some claim over dress codes. But banning them is fundamentaly wrong on every level in a free country, and to do so on what are admitted as "irrational fears" is so indefencible it would be laughable if it wasn't really happening.
The government has no role in regulating what clothes people can and cannot wear, leave that to nuts like the maoists the sauds and the taliban.

but nobody can tell me that somebody wears a black burka voluntarily when it's 30° C outside.

Would you prefer pink burkas? maybe yellow ones with purple stripes?
Wasn't there a recent study on the best colours to wear for heat avoidance in hot climates that founds no noticable difference between black cloth and white cloth.
These people in deserts with hot weather, both male and female seem to wear big robes and head coverings don't they, maybe it hads something to do with it being over 30 degrees outside

[Skybird]

The battle over enforcing the burkha on Western streets makes it a political symbol. It is the same like waving a flag with an obscene symbol, or a swastika. Is a flag with a swastika just a rag of textile with some ink on it? Is it the same like a flag for a football club? Hardly, it is a political statement for Nazism, and a calculated, intended provocation. Is the burkha a dress like any other? Hardly, it is a statement for Sharia and it's ideal of what women should be like, and it is a wanted, claculat5ed, intended provocation to weaken Western resistence - by constant small callibre firing.

Recommended readings on the issue discussed here:

H.-P. Raddatz: Allahs Schleier. Die Frau im Kampf der Kulturen. Herbig 2004, 472 p.

the same^: Allahs Frauen. Djihad zwischen Scharia und Demokratie. Herbig 2005, 281 p.

I end this thread for me with saying this: I despise people who under the label of "free relgion" and "free speech" accept and tolerate the enslavement and almost racial discrimination of women, and who make cynic mockery of all those brave woimen who dare to stand up against this supression, who flee from their husbands, who turn their backs on their families and live in hiding for years and decades to go, who risk assassination by speaking out against slavery in Islam, who confess about enforced marriage and slave trades, violence in marriages and mutilations and family gang rape and accusing the victim of the crime afterwards, and dishonour murders, etc etc etc. There are many women of Islamic origin who came from Muslim countries to us and live here and hoped we would protect them from their abuses and would grant them safety and defence and the liberties we constantly boast with in the world. And we let them down - in the name of our precious values and freedoms...? How double-perverse is this a thinking?

Some people feel so bright by defending Idslam and they feel so clever by trying to hide Islam'S wicked nature by comparing it to everyday profanities of Western way of life. For some of them, it is a way to protest against the West in general, or to be anti-American and anti-Western for the sake of being "anti". The expotic must be better just becasue it is exotic. They think they know Islam better than Islam knows itself, they think they must explain Islam better than Islam explains itself, and they think they are more competent on Islam than even apostates from islam are who gained academic titles in oriental studies and Islamic studies and warn us Wetserners time and again that behave like a flock of stupid sheep when mistaking the hand that feeds us with the hand that leads us to the butcher's van. In Germany, Necla Kelec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necla_Kelek)is such a women, an somewhat apostate and of Armenian origin and a academic researcher in social sciences, with special field in Islam and Islamic family structures and how they collide head-on with Western value system and living conditions. Another example of course is Ayan Hirsi, or Seyran Ates. Biogapohies like these show the combination of acadmeic insight and competence on the issues by own personbal experience. Before you think that you must explain them what they talk about you must make sure you can dela with them on same eye level.

And some people here cannot. Their clever tricks to minimize such opinions, or any opinion on Islam they do not like, are just this: tricks at some times, rethoric surrogates at other times.

[Skybird]

However the whole talk and action about the ban is nothing but a fight against the symptoms, not the root of the problem. The real problem are men who have such low self-esteem that they want to hide their women and chain them to themselves. Or those who are so sick that they assume that they have no self control and jump onto the next women who doesn't hide her female features.
Pointing at the right direction, but dig deeper. Why are the men the way you correectly outline above? They get taught to be that way, and that education ideal is influenced by patriarchalic traditions and - Islam. Again, you end up with the ideology laying at the basis of the problem.

[DarkFish]

You missed Christianity and Mantillas off that list, last time we had a discussion about dutch culture you was convinced that everyday christian practices which date back for many many hundereds of years in the Netherlands were also not part of Dutch culture.Exactly - were not part of Dutch culture. You confuse present and past here. If you go back to the Germanic times, christianity didn't even exist yet so how could it be part of Dutch culture?

You must also differentiate between christian culture and Dutch culture. Important people wearing a white robe is part of christian culture but absolutely not part of Dutch culture. Christian traditions are only part of Dutch culture as long as lots of the common men follow those traditions.

Actually isn't there places all around Europe (Included districts in cities) where you can walk around naked? :hmmm:Only some isolated areas. Never heard of any city district where it's allowed.

[Tribesman]

christianity didn't even exist yet so how could it be part of Dutch culture?


The dutch didn't exist so how can they have any culture anyway?
Since christianity existed in those lowlands before there was any kingdom of the Netherlands then Dutch people must be banned as they are usurpers of the christian marshland culture.

[Armistead]

Any act of religious oppression shouldn't be tolerated by a government that believes in freedom. Muslims in more extreme nations shouldn't be offended. When a secular woman visits their nations, they expect them in full dress and faces covered by law. That gives our culture the right by law to say take it off. They'll cry religious freedom when here, but not give it when there.

[Tribesman]

Any act of religious oppression shouldn't be tolerated by a government that believes in freedom.
You do realise you are arguing against what you are argueing for:doh:

They'll cry religious freedom when here, but not give it when there.
So you want to become like the wahhibis. Well done.

[Sailor Steve]

The battle over enforcing the burkha on Western streets makes it a political symbol. It is the same like waving a flag with an obscene symbol, or a swastika. Is a flag with a swastika just a rag of textile with some ink on it? Is it the same like a flag for a football club? Hardly, it is a political statement for Nazism, and a calculated, intended provocation. Is the burkha a dress like any other? Hardly, it is a statement for Sharia and it's ideal of what women should be like, and it is a wanted, claculat5ed, intended provocation to weaken Western resistence - by constant small callibre firing.
The swastika comparison is a good one, because it raises an interesting comparison. Here in the United States there was the famous case of Skokie, Illinois vs the American Nazi Party, in which the nazis wanted to hold a rally in a largely Jewish community, many of whose members were holocaust survivors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_ Skokie

An telling quote from Federal Judge Bernard M. Decker:
"It is better to allow those who preach racial hatred to expend their venom in rhetoric rather than to be panicked into embarking on the dangerous course of permitting the government to decide what its citizens may say and hear...The ability of American society to tolerate the advocacy ot even hateful doctrines...is perhaps the best protection we have against the establishment of any Nazi-type regime in this country."

Please note that the above is only in reference to the "Swastika" comments.

I end this thread for me with saying this: I despise people who under the label of "free relgion" and "free speech" accept and tolerate the enslavement and almost racial discrimination of women...etc.
I completely agree on this point. Religious freedom in a free country does not include the right to enslave or abuse others in the name of religion any more than it includes the right to ritual sacrafice, human or animal.

The question raised of whether the clothing issue is religious or cultural is an interesting one. The efforts of France to fight Islamic incursion is questionable, but I don't claim, as some do, to have the answer. I don't think such a law could fly here in the United States.

And some people here cannot. Their clever tricks to minimize such opinions, or any opinion on Islam they do not like, are just this: tricks at some times, rethoric surrogates at other times.
So anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest? Anyone who questions whether total ousting of Islam is the answer is actually a closet supporter of Islam?

I'm just looking for answers, and I don't think you have them.

[Armistead]

I think the better answer is how the US states that allow open carry of firearms deals with it.

If you don't want someone on your premises with their faces covered, put a sign up, just like we do with "no shoes, no entry." or "no guns allowed."

It only becomes a criminal offense if you're asked to leave and don't. I can see banks, courts, etc., not wanting covered faces around.

Islam will always be difficult to deal with, it's religion, but in most places opposes civil rights.
In the end the civil rights have to come first even if the people don't agree with it or know any better.

Sure, I would love to make my wife cook and twaddle at my command by law, just ain't gonna happen.

[Skybird]

The question raised of whether the clothing issue is religious or cultural is an interesting one.
What should be the exact difference between "Islamic religion" and "Islamic culture"?
The efforts of France to fight Islamic incursion is questionable, but I don't claim, as some do, to have the answer.
I noticed repeatedly you express this attitude of "I do not know nothing", and you give me the impression you think that this somewhat enobles your attitude. But it doesn't. I see it often as a way in which you somewhat stun or paralyse yourself. You do not want to give up a thinking that is showing inner conflicts or contradictons, but you then say something liek the above and seem to think that then you can stay witgh that thinking without needing to give solid reasons for it. At least that is the way you get perceived by me sometimes. I do not see you struggling for ending this status of "I don't know it", instead you turn it into an argument of defending yourself.


So anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest? Anyone who questions whether total ousting of Islam is the answer is actually a closet supporter of Islam?
I reserve the right to take somebody who time and again illustrates he does not know the basics of Islam and/or constantly ignores them and ignores the theoretical/written fundaments of it and it's history, as somebody whose opinion I must value and seriously negotiate in debate. In other wordfs, diufferent to you I am not too shy to claim informational superiority of mmine if I think I have all good reason to think I know more about soemthing than somebody else. I sometimes chnage my mind, or correct my views and informationalö satndard. But I do not do that on the basis of the other using rethorical tricks, opportunistic ignoring of unwanted truths and facts and a general inability to found his different opinion on solid grounds.

I'm just looking for answers, and I don't think you have them.

At least I have more answers on the issue of Islam than you have, and I do not exaggerate my politeness to hide it endlessly. I call the totalitarianism by its name, and I am in good company of many even more insightful experts for Islam - apostates and academically trained critics - when doing so. I base oin both inout from plenty of literature and some commonly agree bysicv academic literature, and on experiences with Islam both in Muslim countries, and here in Germany. I am also directly and most personally confronmted with Islam, it'S most ugly face of threats and intimidation.

I know what I think of it, and why I think that way and not in another way. Like I readiuly admitted repeatedly to not know too much about Judaism and itz'S rites, I also say I know more about Islam than most ordinary people who are not professionally busy with it. Others know more about things where they have had more input and experience than I had. Maybe you think that attitude of mine is arrogant, or unpolite. But to be honest, this does not worry me too much, because beyond some certain point it simply is beyond me to make you or others holding me in good esteem or not. There is more important things on my mind, and I face quite some more real and imminent threats to me. Integrity means not to be liked by others, but to be true about my own ideals and thougthts and motives - no matter whether I am liked for that, or not.

In the end, I have taken quite some years of "odysseing" before I reached my current views on Islam, and many thioghts voiced by people here defending it naively and kind-heartedly, are familiar to me, for I once have shared them due to confusing input-overload, too. When I finally settled it by seeing the grim face of it, all the former contradictions resolved themselves and disappeared, and former contradictpory infromation pieces suddenly fell into their places. Since then it is that I see Islam being much more consitent in its natuzre, and mission. It's just that this nature is not friendly, and its mission is nothing I will bow my knee to, but I am putting up a fight about it. I have done that in real life, and in this forum, and in my social life as well, and I have taken quite some serious risks in doing so. But still - I live by what I say.

So what do you want to tell me? That I should make myself smaller than I am, and make others who are smaller on this issue indeed bigger beings/minds in relation to me? I am what I am and I think what I thinkl for reasons I have explained. You can like me for that, or you can hate me for that. But don't expect me to change my views and my knowledge basis just because you like or you hate me. That would be a lousy excuse for me to change my mind over the issues disputed here.

What it prgmatically can be summed up as is this: when inactivity and passivity have become the major threats in themselves, then anything seems to be better than just sitting still and doing nothing. The Burkha debate is a political propaganda weapon of Islamic jihad to enforce more concessions from the West in an attempt to weaken it's willingness to resist in general. Add the arguments I have made in earlier postings in this thread. It is the attitude of being undetermined and undecided that is expressed by statements like "I do not know the answers" that helps the Islamisation in the West more than anything else. And that's why I do not value such a confession, in this case. If you do not know about the issue of Islam, then have the decency to get yourself educated, that at least can be expected from everybody in the face of the biggest threat since the Third Reich and the Turks at Vienna and the Muslim invasion armies in Central France. The Western tradition has formed a superior toolkit of analytical research and examination, and until the 60s of last century, oriental studies, including the analysis of Muhammedanism, were well-reputated and strong disciplines especvially in the Francophone and Germanistic as well the Anglossaxon academic tradition. This can and should be trusted much more more than narcisstic and opportunistic self-descriptions of an ideological tradition that got stuck in a time more than a thosuand years ago, has strangled every evolution in the cradle since then and thus has most extreme deficits in critical self-reflection and self-analysis.

[MH]

An telling quote from Federal Judge Bernard M. Decker:
"It is better to allow those who preach racial hatred to expend their venom in rhetoric rather than to be panicked into embarking on the dangerous course of permitting the government to decide what its citizens may say and hear...The ability of American society to tolerate the advocacy ot even hateful doctrines...is perhaps the best protection we have against the establishment of any Nazi-type regime in this country."


Thats typical western attitude.
We think that we are so superior... that every one will simply want play by our rules.
Just because its best thing to do.
It seems we are maybe wrong....

I have the same inner conflict that you have but i think that this attitude needs to be reviewed.
I'm not talking about wearing hats with horns and starting making human sacrifices to Germanic gods.I don't hate Muslims-maybe i should for many reasons but i really dont....

I thing that each country with its peoples has a right to decide what sort of life style and values it wants for its citizens.
If French by next election decide to ban the burka law its their choice.
They have choice....and next election.
In US they debate abortion laws and health care which may be seen as stupid and conservative as hell.
French ban burka because they have enough of people who bring Taliban life style to their country.They multicultural experiment(that is being western but having Humus in the baguette:DL) has failed them.
Integration has failed them...now instead of blaming themselves for even more lack of tolerance they say "khallas"(enough)
Baning burka should not really affect moderate Muslims and the ones that it does affect maybe have no room and business in living in France.

[Tribesman]

At least I have more answers on the issue of Islam than you have
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
Given that Steve has never once linked to a lunatic website full of hate and nonsense and described it as an "academic source" it shows that even if he has no answers at all it is a far better answer than the answers Skybird thinks he has.

Integration has failed them...now instead of blaming themselves for even more lack of tolerance they say "khallas"(enough)

MH, that is exactly what was said about the jews.

[Bakkels]

I reserve the right to take somebody who time and again illustrates he does not know the basics of Islam and/or constantly ignores them and ignores the theoretical/written fundaments of it and it's history, as somebody whose opinion I must value and seriously negotiate in debate. In other wordfs, diufferent to you I am not too shy to claim informational superiority of mmine if I think I have all good reason to think I know more about soemthing than somebody else. I sometimes chnage my mind, or correct my views and informationalö satndard. But I do not do that on the basis of the other using rethorical tricks, opportunistic ignoring of unwanted truths and facts and a general inability to found his different opinion on solid grounds.


1. Nobody is ignoring what is written in the Quran. We know what it says, there's a lot of violence there and all that. But you seem to think that every single person that is Islamic, automatically and literally will carry out everything that's said or commanded the Quran. Just like Christian people won't automatically attack people that don't believe in God with a sword...

2. I'm curious where you get your self proclaimed expertise on this subject. Putting other people down because they're 'less informed' then you is just ridiculous. There's also a lot of UFO people out there on the net that use the same argument...
Do you have any personal experience with Arabic or Muslim people?

3. All you're doing here is typing one monologue after another. If you're not even willing to consider other peoples views, and you think you know the 'truth', then the only reason you're still on this topic seems to be to convert us non-believers. Thanks, but I'll pass.

[the_tyrant]

update:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=386_1302518440


Terrorists ‘will attack’ France after burka ban

It is only a matter of time before Islamic terrorists mount a successful attack on France, the country’s top spy believes.

The recent burka ban means all the ‘red lights are now flashing’ in regard to a possible atrocity, domestic intelligence boss Bernard Squarcini said.

Speaking after the evacuation of the Eiffel Tower last week following a bomb scare, Mr Squarcini warned: ‘France’s role in Afghanistan, its foreign policy and the debate over the law banning the burka have all increased the risk.’

He said security services foiled an average of two planned attacks every year, but added: ‘One day or another, we’re going to get hit.

‘The risk of a terrorist attack on French soil has never been higher and, objectively, there are reasons for worry.’

Leaders of al-Qaeda’s north African network have vowed revenge on France if it outlawed the full Islamic face veil from its streets. Muslim women have a six-month ‘grace period’ to adapt to the new burka rules without facing prosecution.

Meanwhile, security has been stepped up around Jewish institutions in Paris following the arrest of a suspected terrorist who planned to bomb an Israel defence forces fundraising event in the capital.

There have been 47 attacks against synagogues, Jewish schools, creches and association buildings in France so far this year, and 190 threats.

[Feuer Frei!]

Well, that was bound to happen.
France inevitably drawing attention to itself by the hardliners, fascists and nutcases.
No surprises there, really.
I feel this is just the tip of the ice berg. This could get very ugly.

[Tribesman]

It is only a matter of time before Islamic terrorists mount a successful attack on France, the country’s top spy believes.


In other news......
It is only a matter of time before Islamic terrorists mount a successful attack on Iceland, the country’s top spy believes.

It is only a matter of time before Islamic terrorists mount a successful attack on Iran, the country’s top spy believes.

There have been 47 attacks against synagogues, Jewish schools, creches and association buildings in France so far this year, and 190 threats.
Thats low, are they having a quiet year?

[Sailor Steve]

What should be the exact difference between "Islamic religion" and "Islamic culture"?
I'm not sure. That's why I said it's an interesting question.

I noticed repeatedly you express this attitude of "I do not know nothing", and you give me the impression you think that this somewhat enobles your attitude. But it doesn't.
No, it doesn't, and your impression is incorrect.

I see it often as a way in which you somewhat stun or paralyse yourself. You do not want to give up a thinking that is showing inner conflicts or contradictons, but you then say something liek the above and seem to think that then you can stay witgh that thinking without needing to give solid reasons for it. At least that is the way you get perceived by me sometimes. I do not see you struggling for ending this status of "I don't know it", instead you turn it into an argument of defending yourself.
I only bother defending myself when I'm attacked. I simply don't trust people who claim to know the answers, because in my experience if there is the slightest chance they might be wrong they turn very ugly very quickly.

When I say I don't know anything, I mean that sincerely. The more I learn, the less I know, which means the more I learn the more I realize how many things I don't understand. You're still young enough to think you know everything, and you're perfectly willing to tell everyone exactly what's wrong with them and exactly why they should listen to you if they want to save themselves, which is why in the past I've accused you of religious-like fanaticism. The truth is I agree with you on a lot of this, but I don't see it clearly enough to join your crusade.

Yes, Islam is dangerous. Is it all as dangerous as you say? I don't know. But the questions that arise concerning rights and freedoms are still questions as far as I'm concerned. If someone wants to build a mosque, should I be concerned? I don't know. If a woman wants to cover herself completely, should I be concerned? I don't know. A bank or an airline is a private establishment, and if they want faces uncovered for security reasons then they have the right to make that demand. Should there be a law demanding that women not cover their faces on a public street? Some might think it's a good idea, but what happens when the next law is passed? When does protection turn into totalitarianism?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that you don't seem to take into account the possibility that you might be wrong, and that is as dangerous as anything.

I reserve the right to take somebody who time and again illustrates he does not know the basics of Islam and/or constantly ignores them and ignores the theoretical/written fundaments of it and it's history, as somebody whose opinion I must value and seriously negotiate in debate. In other wordfs, diufferent to you I am not too shy to claim informational superiority of mmine if I think I have all good reason to think I know more about soemthing than somebody else. I sometimes chnage my mind, or correct my views and informationalö satndard. But I do not do that on the basis of the other using rethorical tricks, opportunistic ignoring of unwanted truths and facts and a general inability to found his different opinion on solid grounds.
Since you didn't actually point out any particular rhetorical tricks your claim seems to be lacking in honesty and character, which is why I brought it up in the first place.

At least I have more answers on the issue of Islam than you have, and I do not exaggerate my politeness to hide it endlessly. I call the totalitarianism by its name, and I am in good company of many even more insightful experts for Islam - apostates and academically trained critics - when doing so. I base oin both inout from plenty of literature and some commonly agree bysicv academic literature, and on experiences with Islam both in Muslim countries, and here in Germany. I am also directly and most personally confronmted with Islam, it'S most ugly face of threats and intimidation.

I know what I think of it, and why I think that way and not in another way. Like I readiuly admitted repeatedly to not know too much about Judaism and itz'S rites, I also say I know more about Islam than most ordinary people who are not professionally busy with it. Others know more about things where they have had more input and experience than I had. Maybe you think that attitude of mine is arrogant, or unpolite. But to be honest, this does not worry me too much, because beyond some certain point it simply is beyond me to make you or others holding me in good esteem or not. There is more important things on my mind, and I face quite some more real and imminent threats to me. Integrity means not to be liked by others, but to be true about my own ideals and thougthts and motives - no matter whether I am liked for that, or not.
The problem there that it's not a question of being liked, it's a question of respect. You may also not care whether you are respected, but if people don't respect you then they won't listen to you, and if they don't listen to you because of the way you talk down to them then what's the point of making an argument in the first place? You accuse people who argue with you of twisting words and using rhetoric, but you in turn seem to treat the rest of us as inferior beings, whose only purpose is to listen to you.

In the end, I have taken quite some years of "odysseing" before I reached my current views on Islam, and many thioghts voiced by people here defending it naively and kind-heartedly, are familiar to me, for I once have shared them due to confusing input-overload, too. When I finally settled it by seeing the grim face of it, all the former contradictions resolved themselves and disappeared, and former contradictpory infromation pieces suddenly fell into their places. Since then it is that I see Islam being much more consitent in its natuzre, and mission. It's just that this nature is not friendly, and its mission is nothing I will bow my knee to, but I am putting up a fight about it. I have done that in real life, and in this forum, and in my social life as well, and I have taken quite some serious risks in doing so. But still - I live by what I say.
I agree with you about the dangers. But as we've argued before, while you talk about the dangers of giving so much freedom that we give it all away, I'm also concerned about restricting freedom so much that we remove all of it in the attempt to remove some of it.

Both are fine lines, lines that need to be discussed. I'm not the blind fool you sometimes try to make me out to be, but neither will I not discuss the dangers I see of going too far in either direction.

So what do you want to tell me? That I should make myself smaller than I am, and make others who are smaller on this issue indeed bigger beings/minds in relation to me? I am what I am and I think what I thinkl for reasons I have explained. You can like me for that, or you can hate me for that. But don't expect me to change my views and my knowledge basis just because you like or you hate me. That would be a lousy excuse for me to change my mind over the issues disputed here.
I don't expect you to change anything, except perhaps to heed the old saying "It's not what you say, it's how you say it." I agree with you on a lot of your concerns, but you seem to refuse to see the problems of the other side. If I try to show why I'm worried about going to far, you start arguing your side again and don't see that I agree with you, just the points that you want to see, and you attack those points relentlessly. That's what I mean by "arrogant."

What it prgmatically can be summed up as is this: when inactivity and passivity have become the major threats in themselves, then anything seems to be better than just sitting still and doing nothing. The Burkha debate is a political propaganda weapon of Islamic jihad to enforce more concessions from the West in an attempt to weaken it's willingness to resist in general. Add the arguments I have made in earlier postings in this thread.
Possibly. But if someone doesn't see it, or disagrees, you dismiss them and accuse them of "rhetoric". You don't admit the possiblility that they might be honest in their beliefs, and you don't allow for the slightest possibility that you might be wrong.

It is the attitude of being undetermined and undecided that is expressed by statements like "I do not know the answers" that helps the Islamisation in the West more than anything else.
So if I really don't know the answers I should listen only to you and take it on faith that you know what you're talking about? What if you're wrong?

And that's why I do not value such a confession, in this case. If you do not know about the issue of Islam, then have the decency to get yourself educated, that at least can be expected from everybody in the face of the biggest threat since the Third Reich and the Turks at Vienna and the Muslim invasion armies in Central France. The Western tradition has formed a superior toolkit of analytical research and examination, and until the 60s of last century, oriental studies, including the analysis of Muhammedanism, were well-reputated and strong disciplines especvially in the Francophone and Germanistic as well the Anglossaxon academic tradition. This can and should be trusted much more more than narcisstic and opportunistic self-descriptions of an ideological tradition that got stuck in a time more than a thosuand years ago, has strangled every evolution in the cradle since then and thus has most extreme deficits in critical self-reflection and self-analysis.
As I said, I agree with you. My problem is that, in my country at least, no matter how dangerous the speech may be we allow it, at the same time keeping a close watch on the speaker. It's a fine line, but we're not willing to cross it, simply because the opposite may be just as dangerous.

[Skybird]

1. Nobody is ignoring what is written in the Quran. We know what it says, there's a lot of violence there and all that. But you seem to think that every single person that is Islamic, automatically and literally will carry out everything that's said or commanded the Quran. Just like Christian people won't automatically attack people that don't believe in God with a sword...
Muslims that clkaim to be Muslim by faith but do not follow that faith's rules must ask themselves what then is elft to make them Muslim. Muhammad left little room for opinion manouverings. The Quran is clear in its message of aggressively seeking the subjugation of other cultues and their destruction, the subjugation of women, it'S hate for Jews especially. Sharia'S role is not available as an object to be moderated as well. For males, participation in in the outer jiohad - the pacificaiton of the world be deleting the house of war - is not volunatry, but mandatory, it is an obligation. You are not free to chose whether or not to take part or to accept this going - you must. So when a Muslim claims to be following this ideology, but then rejects parts of it (or claims to do so), then it is no wonder that I see a contrtadiction between his claim and his behavior. What is Muslim and what not, is not object of personal opinion, but gets decided by Quran and this personal decisioin making process gets further pushed by Sharia. Islam is what Quran says that Islam is. And that is my criterion, and always was.

Like I do not care for church prayers and pastor'S sermons and the pope'S speeches, but take the bible and read Jesus words as quoted there, if I want to know what he was teaching.

As a matter of fact, fi you follow Muhhad'S teaching you follow into a behavior of intolerance, hate, aggression and violence, and if you behave in a non-viiolent, passive, tolerant, "mutlicultural" way - then you need to violate Muhammad'S teachings.

I am not Christian, btw, but atheist, but that muist not stop me to see what is of wisdom


2. I'm curious where you get your self proclaimed expertise on this subject. Putting other people down because they're 'less informed' then you is just ridiculous. There's also a lot of UFO people out there on the net that use the same argument...
Do you have any personal experience with Arabic or Muslim people?

Oh dear, again - damned if I do and damned if I don't. Well, I get bashed when I list my "record", and I get bashed as well when I don'T. So be it, maybe you have not arrived earlier here and really did not witness earlier debates in past years. I "studied" (=extensively read and privately researched) Islam and its history, and did so by an input of roughly three dozen books, mostly in German, some in English, some of that considered to be academic standard literature on the matter. Some years ago I somewhere posted the list of the most important ones I am bvasing on. I have had several years of repeated long travels in Muslim countries, not tourist tours, but offroad expeditions, sometimes for professional reasons when i travelled with a team of Belgian and British sorrespondents. I had long (several months) stays in Turkey and Iran, and shorter ones in Algeria, Egypt, Syria, as well as transfer trips through Lybia, Jpordan, Israel, even one short hop to Afghjanistan. All that in the 90s. One of my best schoiolfriends was Armenian, one of my martial arts trainers was a Turk, I trusted and pout my safety into the hands of a young guy who came from Iran, I have supported two Muslims in germnany to become apostates despite the high social cost they payed for that, and I was part of a citizen movement in my hiometown that confronted a Muslim community over a fraud by which they wanted to increase the local mosque illegally and enforce it upon a neighbourhood where even no Muslims are living. I have been threatened with murder for that in written hate letters, the leading spokesman of our movement was mangled on the streets, his wife was harassed and intimiadted on open street. I liked Iranmost , I strongly disliked Turkey, I had friendly and unfriendly experiences with local people, and I see the diversity, but also the uniformity in both places.

I do not claim to be an expert in an academic meanikng, I am not. But I have no reason to think that all other ordinary people have digested as much literature input as well as I have, and IU have no reason to b eleive that the majority of those people who make themselves heared on the issue of Islam have had as much experience in Muslim countries than I have had. Some may have had even more, sure. But the point is - most have not, no doubt on that. And I - listen to and weigh what is said by those who have a similar or even better background than I have. I do not listen to those who fantasize on Islam and cannot differ between their fantasy and reality, and distort what it is and illustrate a lack of knowledge about it. And who would want to criticise me for doing like this...?

So yes, I claim to know some things a little bit better than somebody whos eonly input is the daily news on TV and the daily late night talk shpow wherre the usual hinch of opportunistic propagandists spray their usualy mixture of narcissism and lacking education on the matter of Islam. Stzangely, I am in good company-by-opinion with those experts who maybe know it better than any other: apostates who can explain quite precisely why and how they decided to turn their back on Islam even if this brought high risks and loss of family for them.

3. All you're doing here is typing one monologue after another. If you're not even willing to consider other peoples views, and you think you know the 'truth', then the only reason you're still on this topic seems to be to convert us non-believers. Thanks, but I'll pass.
Monologues - well, the same could be said about the constan t islamophile "Islam is harmless" babbling that our media is printing everya day, really every single day. I consider pother people'S views - when I get aware that they are basing their views on reasonable thinkling or factual information. When I see them distorting facts, or completely ignore them and just stick with their habit of opportunistically beloiueving only thta propaganda that serves thgeir opinion, then I do not take them serious, even less when I see by what they say they lack the education and also the experience.

I take oyu serious as a cooking master when the recipe you tell, by the list of ingredients, gives the impression of being something reaosnmable. But when you tell me that IU should put two spoons of salt into my coffee, and use garic in that Schwarzwälderkirsch, then I probably stop listening. I take nobody'S opinion as valuable jst becasue he has his precious porvate opinion. I at least need to see reason in why he holds that opinion, there needs to be a reasonable chain of thoughts and conclusions, and a basing on facts, even if he disagrees with me, in order for me to seriously deal with it. But just claims that ignore facts, rethorical attacks that do not reveal any insight of the speaker, but are onlöy tailored to hurt the opposing opinion-holder, and parroting the media mainstream of "Islam is peace", "Islam is kind", "whastever it is, it has nothing to do with Islam" - this kind of babbling I refuse to take serious. And the media are full and full of that.

The debate about Islam in the West - is fully based on a discouraging lack of education and information and realistic perception. Instead we have plenty and plenty of opportunistic ignorring unwanted truths, mistaking imaged fanatasy of what Islam is with real Islam, and a basic attitude of "vorauseilendem Gehorsam", and the desire to appease and to appeased and then to appease some more.
The truth is - nobody in the West has any recipe how to deal with this monster one has let in withiout need, without thinking, and now people are so scared that they instead prefer to assume that there is no beast in the house at all. It'S something lioke a diustant a variaton of the Stockholm syndrome.

[Skybird]

Steve, I'm coming back to you later, I now need to leave and get some businesses done.

[Tribesman]

Well, I get bashed when I list my "record",
your record is blemished by third reich rants, "academic sources" that complain about black people and rabidly anti muslim articles by extremist terrorst supporting religious nuts.:woot:

I "studied" (=extensively read and privately researched) Islam and its history,
Yet when challenged recently about a pretty basic claim which was clearly false he first quoted some nut then said he had looked briefly at a german translation of the koran and even if he was wrong he was right:yep:

some of that considered to be academic standard literature on the matter
:har::har::har::har::har:
academic standard:rotfl2:

So Bakkels his "expertise" is that he read some stuff.
Now if you consider that if you take his present favourite "philosophy" from Popper you will notice that he has reading problems as he completely misses the core element of the paradox and goes off on one in the wrong direction entirely at a very extreme level.
It doesn't put much strength in his "expertise" does it. In fact such basic errors would convince an ordinary person that they might indeed be wrong and it is them and not the rest of the world who has a problem.

[Skybird]

@ Steve,

I'm not sure. That's why I said it's an interesting question.
The claimed religion IS the culture in this case. Islam does not tolerate other cultural qualities beside itself.

No, it doesn't, and your impression is incorrect.
I don’t think so. You sometimes try to get too opportunistically gains from politely admitting that you do not know something. Nevertheless you give your admittance of you own lack of knowledge in the same way as one would give a convincing argument. Functionally you use it as a surrogate for argument – and expect to get the same reaction and credit as if you had given an argument. Clever – but I don’t buy it! :)

I only bother defending myself when I'm attacked. I simply don't trust people who claim to know the answers, because in my experience if there is the slightest chance they might be wrong they turn very ugly very quickly.
I may attack your positions, but I hope you see I do not attack you on a personal level. I also do not claim to know the ultimate and final answers. But I claim I have good reason to think that I have a better informational and experience basis than many other non-specialists for the issues discussed here who only parrot what they get fed in the mainstream media and its propaganda output. It is very obvious to me that most people simply have no clue of what they are talking about when they say Islam is this, Islam is that, and that they do not have any understanding of of the general tone and message of it’s fundaments in scripture. Most people think of it as something being an oriental pendant to Western churches, and the relation between church and state as it changed over the centuries. And that impression could not be more wrong.

When I say I don't know anything, I mean that sincerely. The more I learn, the less I know, which means the more I learn the more I realize how many things I don't understand. You're still young enough to think you know everything, and you're perfectly willing to tell everyone exactly what's wrong with them and exactly why they should listen to you if they want to save themselves, which is why in the past I've accused you of religious-like fanaticism. The truth is I agree with you on a lot of this, but I don't see it clearly enough to join your crusade.
I know precisely what you mean, becaue I feel the same when I deal with sicnc es, astronomy, physics as far as I dive into the latter by popular science books for the broad audience. Indeed, the mnore I learn about astronomy, the more I learn to be amazed again, and wonder, and how little we know. I had a sig until some weeks ago, saying that science does not help to know us more, but to know in different ways, if you remember. However, Islam is no science, nor is any religion, even if you apply scientific methodology to examine its creation and tradition. And the truth is, I shared man opinions I meet in this forum and in the media, many years ago, at the beginning of my stuggle with Islam. Back then I wanted tzo see it as something good and misunderstood, and was confused by the many contradictions between this desire, and the grim reality I was confronted with by the books and by it’S history. Not before I had started to travel and not before I sdpend some time to digest those very different impressions and experiences and allowing myself the conclusion that maybe it is not that positive a thing at all, but something bad, it all started to fall into its place and then it all made sense. I do not oppose Islam because I have not learned anything about it and am prejudiced – I oppose Islam right because the more I have learned about it the more I had to realize how bad it is.

Yes, Islam is dangerous. Is it all as dangerous as you say? I don't know. But the questions that arise concerning rights and freedoms are still questions as far as I'm concerned. If someone wants to build a mosque, should I be concerned? I don't know. If a woman wants to cover herself completely, should I be concerned? I don't know. A bank or an airline is a private establishment, and if they want faces uncovered for security reasons then they have the right to make that demand. Should there be a law demanding that women not cover their faces on a public street? Some might think it's a good idea, but what happens when the next law is passed? When does protection turn into totalitarianism?
The immense amount of things you claim to not know, and your fatalistic passivity and tolerance you ground on that, makes you a very dangerous man. May I call you top press harder to learn about these things – because different to big bang theories and theoretical physics, you can know these things about Islam for sure. Or would you say that you still do not know whether or not Nazism was evil and whether or not apartheid was bad and whether or not slavery should be forbidden?
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that you don't seem to take into account the possibility that you might be wrong, and that is as dangerous as anything.
You are basing on false assumptions there. I do take into account that I could err quite often, on many things, and if you go back over the years ion this forum you can see that on some things I indeed have admitted that I have changed my mind over them. But there are also other issues on which to change my mind I so far have not been shown any need or reason or argument – quite the opposite, in case of Islam. I do not make it a general attitude to assume I could be wrong, but I make differences, probabilities, if you want. And the probability that I will need to see that I am wrong about Islam, I now rate as very, very low.

Since you didn't actually point out any particular rhetorical tricks your claim seems to be lacking in honesty and character, which is why I brought it up in the first place.
You seem to think the paragraph you replied to was aimed at you, and that I accused you of rhetorical tricks. Neither did I do that, nor was it meant that way, but I was talking in general, pointing at5 several different people here and over many years and threads where they have shown this kind of behavior their debating strategy of choice. Some of these names are now on my ignore list, or meanwhile got fired by Neal. Some of these names are put on ignore by many other people as well, so it cannot be just me - Tribesman may serve as an example.

The problem there that it's not a question of being liked, it's a question of respect. You may also not care whether you are respected, but if people don't respect you then they won't listen to you, and if they don't listen to you because of the way you talk down to them then what's the point of making an argument in the first place? You accuse people who argue with you of twisting words and using rhetoric, but you in turn seem to treat the rest of us as inferior beings, whose only purpose is to listen to you.
I deliberately refuse to respect all and everything and everybody, no matter what and who. I will never respect neo-Nazis for example, or scientology, and I am not interested in whether they think this or that way about me. So, in some cases I also do not care for being listened to by those I oppose. I do not want any more time being wasted with discussions with how Islam could be integrated. I want it to shut up and leave, and whether it’s fan community likes me for that or not, is not important – they have proven and they are characterized by their attitude that no matter what you tell them they will not change Islam and integrate. I also do not accuse everybody disagreeing with my of twisting words. I accuse some people of doing so, and these are the ones I feel strong personal antipathy for. They claim to argue and debate or seeking dialogue, but in fact they betray, cheat and attempt character assassination. There are others who also do not agree with me, but with whom I can live and debate, and whom I may even like. James, for example – we could not be more apart on many issues, and still we had some very long exchanges via PM. Even August and me have learned to not collide with each other anymore, although we know quite well that we differ on certain things. Live and let live. But if you deal with somebody or something that wants to live but not let live the other, then my tolerance comes to a quick and total end. And Islam is such a thing.

I agree with you about the dangers. But as we've argued before, while you talk about the dangers of giving so much freedom that we give it all away, I'm also concerned about restricting freedom so much that we remove all of it in the attempt to remove some of it.
Let me ask you if you would have thought the same way if you had lived in Europe in 1935? Would you have refused to oppose Germany and the NSDAP like Chamberlain refused to do, because you would have been too concerned about damages to your homegrown freedom?
What you just said illustrates what I mean when I say you encircle yourself and doom yourself to dangerous passivity (see above, and earlier post). In principle you can refuse all action forever – for fears of losing something that you have gained in the past. But life is not that way. You must decide. You must live with the consequences. And yes, nobody guarantees that you will be in the winning team that way. But you can be assured that you will suffer guaranteed defeat and ultimate loss if you never act at all. I, I have come to conclusions that lead me to confront Islam and to get engaged in fighting against it – without remorse, without wanting to negotiate with it anymore. That is because I directly compare it to proven historic evils like Stalinism, fascism, and the like. It’s not that you can never know sufficiently about things, Steve. Alweays claiming to not know and needing more information can also be a strategy to avoid action and not choosing a side and not deciding your own stand on something.

Both are fine lines, lines that need to be discussed. I'm not the blind fool you sometimes try to make me out to be, but neither will I not discuss the dangers I see of going too far in either direction.
I never said nor indirectly implied you were a fool, Steve. And I do not even think that way in the silence of my hidden cabin. But as I said above: I think by dealing in absolutes, you run the risk of encircling yourself and ending up in paralysis.
I don't expect you to change anything, except perhaps to heed the old saying "It's not what you say, it's how you say it." I agree with you on a lot of your concerns, but you seem to refuse to see the problems of the other side. If I try to show why I'm worried about going to far, you start arguing your side again and don't see that I agree with you, just the points that you want to see, and you attack those points relentlessly. That's what I mean by "arrogant."
That’s exactly what I thought about you in that debate about total freedom versus limited freedom, just that I did not concluded for myself to see you as “arrogant”, but as “locked in place”, or paralyzed.

So if I really don't know the answers I should listen only to you and take it on faith that you know what you're talking about? What if you're wrong?
I often said it before and I say it again: this is an important conflict that will be decisive for whether or not our children and children’s children will live in decency and freedom, or as human property of an enslaving, primitive and totalitarian ideology that bases on hate, intolerance, sexual discrimination and monoculturalism, and claims all globe for itself to be subjugated in order to bring its “peace” to mankind. So if you find all what I have written over the years as unconvincing, but still admit you do not know the things yourself (how can you then know I am wrong, btw?), then at least you can take this as a signal for getting started yourself and get yourself educated on the matters. Read the Quran, and one or two secondary books of academic comment of it. Read two or three books about Islam’s history, and about Muhammad’s biography as far as we think to know about it. Just do not believe me, and just do not believe what politicians with an agenda and what Muslims clerics with their agenda as well are telling you. Get up and check it out yourself. It takes time and energy, yes, but it is an important issue, and we all are being effected by it, whether we want to be effected and want to care for it, or not – we do not get asked whether we like it that way, or not. So stop needing to say “I do not know”. Get started. How can you form any opinion about for example the Wilders trials if you cannot assess whether or not Wilder’s claims are true, or not? The matter is not only about free speech, it also is about whether or not he is right in what he accuses Islam of, or not. I say, of course, he is right, and that it is a show trial to implement that unjustified amount of censorship and limitation of freedom that you fear so much.
As I said, I agree with you. My problem is that, in my country at least, no matter how dangerous the speech may be we allow it, at the same time keeping a close watch on the speaker. It's a fine line, but we're not willing to cross it, simply because the opposite may be just as dangerous.
Some days ago, I quoted in full that essay on Locke and Madison and Popper, if you remember. I can only point at that essay’s description of the three and the differences, and can only say once again that I think you encircle yourself and somewhat paralyze yourself by thinking too much in absolutes – absolutes that in this world are unrealistic to be expected. You and me are not the first struggling with this tolerance paradoxon, but I find a pragmatic approach like the one I defend much more convincing than that all-or-nothing-at-all approach that you represent. It’s an example of the binary (or polaristic) American thinking, as I have called it in past discussions.

[Tribesman]

The claimed religion IS the culture in this case. Islam does not tolerate other cultural qualities beside itself.


A perfect illustration of Skybird the "expert".
Are burqas an islamic thing or a culture thing?
If its an islamic thing then what are all the other forms of dress?
Are those others cultural things or other islamic things?
How can there be more than one thing if everthing is set out in stone with only one interpretation.
Are women who don't go the whole hog on the saudi culture thing somehow not muslims?

[Sailor Steve]

The claimed religion IS the culture in this case. Islam does not tolerate other cultural qualities beside itself.
I realize that, but even in Islam not everyone thinks exactly alike, and I don't find the dress itself as insidious as you do. Of course I could be wrong.

I don’t think so. You sometimes try to get too opportunistically gains from politely admitting that you do not know something. Nevertheless you give your admittance of you own lack of knowledge in the same way as one would give a convincing argument. Functionally you use it as a surrogate for argument – and expect to get the same reaction and credit as if you had given an argument. Clever – but I don’t buy it! :)
Are you my therapist? Do you want to be? Whether you buy it or not is your business. I just don't trust people who talk as if they're absolutely convinced they're right.

I may attack your positions, but I hope you see I do not attack you on a personal level. I also do not claim to know the ultimate and final answers. But I claim I have good reason to think that I have a better informational and experience basis than many other non-specialists for the issues discussed here who only parrot what they get fed in the mainstream media and its propaganda output. It is very obvious to me that most people simply have no clue of what they are talking about when they say Islam is this, Islam is that, and that they do not have any understanding of of the general tone and message of it’s fundaments in scripture. Most people think of it as something being an oriental pendant to Western churches, and the relation between church and state as it changed over the centuries. And that impression could not be more wrong.
Fair enough. As I've said, I agree with you about the dangers of Islam, but I know that I could be wrong, and I hesitate to make absolute decisions concerning how to deal with them. As I've also said, there is a fine line between restricting one segment and restricting all of us. I'm not sure exactly where that line is, and I don't believe you do either. I'm just trying to balance the equation of going to far and not going far enough. This makes me question people at either extreme end of any discussion.

I know precisely what you mean, becaue I feel the same when I deal with sicnc es, astronomy, physics as far as I dive into the latter by popular science books for the broad audience. Indeed, the mnore I learn about astronomy, the more I learn to be amazed again, and wonder, and how little we know. I had a sig until some weeks ago, saying that science does not help to know us more, but to know in different ways, if you remember. However, Islam is no science, nor is any religion, even if you apply scientific methodology to examine its creation and tradition. And the truth is, I shared man opinions I meet in this forum and in the media, many years ago, at the beginning of my stuggle with Islam. Back then I wanted tzo see it as something good and misunderstood, and was confused by the many contradictions between this desire, and the grim reality I was confronted with by the books and by it’S history. Not before I had started to travel and not before I sdpend some time to digest those very different impressions and experiences and allowing myself the conclusion that maybe it is not that positive a thing at all, but something bad, it all started to fall into its place and then it all made sense. I do not oppose Islam because I have not learned anything about it and am prejudiced – I oppose Islam right because the more I have learned about it the more I had to realize how bad it is.
I understand, and I actually don't oppose your opinion on this. I do, however, question exactly what needs to be done, and again I stress the dangers I see of going too far.

The immense amount of things you claim to not know, and your fatalistic passivity and tolerance you ground on that, makes you a very dangerous man. May I call you top press harder to learn about these things – because different to big bang theories and theoretical physics, you can know these things about Islam for sure. Or would you say that you still do not know whether or not Nazism was evil and whether or not apartheid was bad and whether or not slavery should be forbidden?
I know that Naziism was evil in hindsight. I can't say that I would have recognized it at the time. That said, we did and still do tolerate it in my country, as shown by my links to the Skokie incident.

As to slavery, of course it should be forbidden; but here we are talking about the practice itself, not the people who practiced it. Is Islamic terror bad? Yes. Should it be stopped? Of course. On the other hand, is the burqua evil? I don't see it. Is Islamic worship evil? Should all mosques be banned from the country? I don't know, and until I do I still see intolerance as the greater evil.

You are basing on false assumptions there. I do take into account that I could err quite often, on many things, and if you go back over the years ion this forum you can see that on some things I indeed have admitted that I have changed my mind over them. But there are also other issues on which to change my mind I so far have not been shown any need or reason or argument – quite the opposite, in case of Islam. I do not make it a general attitude to assume I could be wrong, but I make differences, probabilities, if you want. And the probability that I will need to see that I am wrong about Islam, I now rate as very, very low.
As I said, I'm not talking about your beliefs, but the way you express them. If you don't discuss the issue reasonably, no one will listen, you won't ever get your point across and your comments become ultimately useless. Shouting the other guy down only serves to encourage him to try to shout you down, and nothing is accomplished.

You seem to think the paragraph you replied to was aimed at you, and that I accused you of rhetorical tricks. Neither did I do that, nor was it meant that way, but I was talking in general, pointing at5 several different people here and over many years and threads where they have shown this kind of behavior their debating strategy of choice. Some of these names are now on my ignore list, or meanwhile got fired by Neal. Some of these names are put on ignore by many other people as well, so it cannot be just me - Tribesman may serve as an example.
Actually that was my first reply to you in this thread, and I knew you didn't mean me. I am somewhat obtuse, and I don't see the rhetorical tricks you mentioned. On the other hand it looks to me like you were indeed accusing people of that just because they disagreed with you; and some of that disagreement looks to me like a reaction to your style of argument.

I never put anyone on my ignore list. Well, one person, once.

I deliberately refuse to respect all and everything and everybody, no matter what and who.
I edited out the whole block of text just for the sake of brevity. I fully understand your opposition to certain people, but it's hard to know who you meant when you generalize. My problem is that I see other people accuse each other of playing games, and the other accuses the first of the same. I respect others' arguments because I know I don't have all the answers, and I've been wrong as often as I've been right. I do lose respect for people who obviously play games such as changing tactics in mid-thread and using personal attacks. Most of them are gone now.

Let me ask you if you would have thought the same way if you had lived in Europe in 1935? Would you have refused to oppose Germany and the NSDAP like Chamberlain refused to do, because you would have been too concerned about damages to your homegrown freedom?
I honestly don't know. The real question is whether I would have recognized it at the time. On the other hand this leads us back to modern Naziism in the US. We allow them their freedom of speech and it doesn't seem to be causing any overt harm. So should they be outlawed here? Again I have to ask "Where do we draw that line?"

What you just said illustrates what I mean when I say you encircle yourself and doom yourself to dangerous passivity (see above, and earlier post). In principle you can refuse all action forever – for fears of losing something that you have gained in the past. But life is not that way. You must decide. You must live with the consequences. And yes, nobody guarantees that you will be in the winning team that way. But you can be assured that you will suffer guaranteed defeat and ultimate loss if you never act at all. I, I have come to conclusions that lead me to confront Islam and to get engaged in fighting against it – without remorse, without wanting to negotiate with it anymore. That is because I directly compare it to proven historic evils like Stalinism, fascism, and the like. It’s not that you can never know sufficiently about things, Steve. Alweays claiming to not know and needing more information can also be a strategy to avoid action and not choosing a side and not deciding your own stand on something.
Again you misunderstand exactly how passive I am. The evils of Naziism, Stalinism and Islam are real, but the first two exist here in the United States without causing any real harm, mainly because we see them, recognize them for what they are and keep them where we can see them. But I also recognize what you seem not to: That the real dangers of those were not the philosophies themselves, agree or disagree as we may. The real danger was the use they were put to, which was to form a government that used absolute totalitarianism as the tool to forward their agendas. What you seem to miss is the danger of taking us down that same road, and opening the door to banning me right after you get done banning them. This is why I've said in the past that I see you as being just as dangerous as them. This is also why I've asked in the past for guarantees that that won't happen. All crusades are dangerous, and the people who lead and follow them usually don't see those dangers.

So yes, I hesitate, not because I believe you are wrong, but because you are single-minded in this quest, and single-mindedness is inherently dangerous, whether it comes from them or from you.

I never said nor indirectly implied you were a fool, Steve. And I do not even think that way in the silence of my hidden cabin. But as I said above: I think by dealing in absolutes, you run the risk of encircling yourself and ending up in paralysis.
Yes I do, and I'm aware of that. But you're the one who absolutely believes that Islam is absolutely evil, and I think you run the risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, meaning destroying the rest of us along with your intended target. And that frightens me.

That’s exactly what I thought about you in that debate about total freedom versus limited freedom, just that I did not concluded for myself to see you as “arrogant”, but as “locked in place”, or paralyzed.
And I told you more than once that my "absolute" is just a starting point, and that I believe nothing is truly absolute. But you ignored that part. I firmly believe that there is a lot of give-and-take involved, but you seem to want to do all the taking and none of the giving, so true debate is impossible.

I often said it before and I say it again: this is an important conflict that will be decisive for whether or not our children and children’s children will live in decency and freedom, or as human property of an enslaving, primitive and totalitarian ideology that bases on hate, intolerance, sexual discrimination and monoculturalism, and claims all globe for itself to be subjugated in order to bring its “peace” to mankind.
And I agree. What I disagree with is what exactly needs to be done.

So if you find all what I have written over the years as unconvincing, but still admit you do not know the things yourself (how can you then know I am wrong, btw?), then at least you can take this as a signal for getting started yourself and get yourself educated on the matters.
I don't know that you're wrong. But I don't know you're right either, and I'm not willing to take your word for it.

Read the Quran, and one or two secondary books of academic comment of it. Read two or three books about Islam’s history, and about Muhammad’s biography as far as we think to know about it. Just do not believe me, and just do not believe what politicians with an agenda and what Muslims clerics with their agenda as well are telling you. Get up and check it out yourself. It takes time and energy, yes, but it is an important issue, and we all are being effected by it, whether we want to be effected and want to care for it, or not – we do not get asked whether we like it that way, or not. So stop needing to say “I do not know”. Get started. How can you form any opinion about for example the Wilders trials if you cannot assess whether or not Wilder’s claims are true, or not? The matter is not only about free speech, it also is about whether or not he is right in what he accuses Islam of, or not. I say, of course, he is right, and that it is a show trial to implement that unjustified amount of censorship and limitation of freedom that you fear so much.
I've tried to read the Quran, and found it confusing and hard to understand. I have read some of Islam's history, and I'm well aware of their attempts to take over everywhere they went, and of their successes and failures. Perhaps I haven't read enough, but I do know that I agree with you more than you think.

As I said, my problem isn't with your assessment, it's with your destination. What should be done? Banning all things Islam from the Western World entirely? Another Crusade? That's what I don't know, and that's what you've never fully explained.

Some days ago, I quoted in full that essay on Locke and Madison and Popper, if you remember. I can only point at that essay’s description of the three and the differences, and can only say once again that I think you encircle yourself and somewhat paralyze yourself by thinking too much in absolutes – absolutes that in this world are unrealistic to be expected. You and me are not the first struggling with this tolerance paradoxon, but I find a pragmatic approach like the one I defend much more convincing than that all-or-nothing-at-all approach that you represent. It’s an example of the binary (or polaristic) American thinking, as I have called it in past discussions.
Again you say I have an absolute, "all-or-nothing" philosophy, yet accuse me at the same time of holding nothing absolutely. You are the one who is absolutely convince you are right on this. I'm convinced of nothing.

And you side with Popper, while I side with Locke and Madison. Criticize American thinking all you want. So far, in spite of problems, disagreements and even a civil war, it has worked pretty well. I believe we're strong enough to stay our course and defeat any threat, and smart enough to see the threat for what it is, and wise enough to tolerate that which is different while at the same time keeping a watchful eye on it, just in case.

That you believe that none of the above is true is why Americans and Europeans of all stripes will never truly understand each other. We managed to do something that most "experts" at the time said was impossible, and we continue to hold that philosophy. That you keep saying we can't keep doing it just shows your lack of understanding of our culture. Yes, we may fail, and we may be wrong in our version of "tolerance", but we may also be right, and you can't face that possibility, so you continue to hold onto your own absolutes, and accuse me of the same.

Sorry, but I'm not who you insist on thinking I am, and you may never understand that. Your loss.

[MH]

A perfect illustration of Skybird the "expert".
Are burqas an islamic thing or a culture thing?
If its an islamic thing then what are all the other forms of dress?
Are those others cultural things or other islamic things?
How can there be more than one thing if everthing is set out in stone with only one interpretation.
Are women who don't go the whole hog on the saudi culture thing somehow not muslims?

I agree that its all matter of interpretation that comes from core meaning.
When it says that woman must be modest you can interpret it in dress contex or/and behavior contex.
When some one does interpret modesty to extreme which means wearing Burka it usually comes with the rest of the package where imagination is a limit.
When you see a women wearing Burka in Iran(law enforced by revolutionary guards) let say there is a chance that she is having alcohol and drugs parties at home while having sex with husband and an neighbor.:)
When you see an women in burka in free state like France its something that should be looked into because it will come usually with extreme interpretation just about any aspect of Koran.

[Gerald]

http://i.imgur.com/omkSP.jpg

[Happy Times]

I agree that its all matter of interpretation that comes from core meaning. When it says that woman must be modest you can interpret it in dress contex or/and behavior contex. When some one does interpret modesty to extreme which means wearing Burka it usually comes with the rest of the package where imagination is a limit. When you see a women wearing Burka in Iran(law enforced by revolutionary guards) let say there is a chance that she is having alcohol and drugs parties at home while having sex with husband and an neighbor.:) When you see an women in burka in free state like France its something that should be looked into because it will come usually with extreme interpretation just about any aspect of Koran. Dont bother, you will spend your time better looking at this.

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/5185/opticalillusionsdetail3.jpg (http://img716.imageshack.us/i/opticalillusionsdetail3.jpg/)

[Skybird]

@ Steve,


I realize that, but even in Islam not everyone thinks exactly alike, and I don't find the dress itself as insidious as you do. Of course I could be wrong.

I have only given a short hindsight to the historic connotation of why women originally should cover themselves. Beyond that historic referring, I said the Burkha today is used as a political symbol for pro-Islamisation parties to enforce further concessions for Islam in general by the West again, and that this is the reason why I oppose it. I said it compares to provoke by waving for example Nazi symbols on German streets. It is not the only reason I oppose it, but it is the one I have focused on in here. As a matter of fact I cut it short and did not comment on the cultural and religious meaning fo the Burkha, instead bypassed that by linking to two books that thoroughly deal with this issue and others issues of Islam’s use of female oppression.
I could also additionally hint to the proven statistical link to Burkha-wearing and health problems, as well as shortened life expectancy due to the immense heat inside of these. This is something that is more and more being brought up even by doctors in Muslim countries.

I am convinced of course that I get it right, else I would not talk the way I do. What have you thought? Do you think it is a virtue to base on an opinion founded so weak that every coupe of weeks you need to correct it? Somebody correcting his opinion too often does not impress me at all. To me it illustrates that he is thinking loosely and not thoroughly enough. Maybe he should be silent and start thinking better before opening his mouth, don’t you think? I am not sure of some things being discuss this forum, too. For example the air strikes in Lybia. That’s why from all beginning on I said my support for them is only as long as we cannot show for sure the nature of the rebels to be just another Al Kaida or Gaddafi clone, so that our uncertainty about them may justify to invest into a risk because maybe they show to be something better than Gaddafi or Al Kaida. But have you ever realized how often I got accused for producing “walls of texts” when putting my thoughts into a bigger context or explaining an – imo – necessary precondition for my arguments? That are the moments when I sometimes could pull my hairs out over this forum.

[quote]Fair enough. As I've said, I agree with you about the dangers of Islam, but I know that I could be wrong, and I hesitate to make absolute decisions concerning how to deal with them.
Steve. I’m getting a bit tired of your constant self-contradicting behavior of “ I think like this but I do not know”. If you do not know it, then why do you tell an opinion at all?
As I've also said, there is a fine line between restricting one segment and restricting all of us. I'm not sure exactly where that line is, and I don't believe you do either. I'm just trying to balance the equation of going to far and not going far enough.
Balancing? You are crucifying yourself over it, with great pleasure, endlessly, and you do not stop. That’s why you refuse to accept a standpoint for yourself for which you maybe could be held responsible for one day. On things where I feel I do not know enough, I either mark any contributions of mine as speculation, or I do not make these “contributions” in the first.
My quarrel with islamophile mainstream opinion is that it has too much of “mere opinion”, but too little knowledge of the basics of Islam, the historic examples it has set, and the scripture. With so little knwoeldge many people and many columnists in the press prove to have, they should not dare to form opinions in defence of Islam. As I said earlier, I do not pay respect to just any opinion just because it is being voiced. I demand a bit more. But I have explained that before, too, haven’t I.
I understand, and I actually don't oppose your opinion on this. I do, however, question exactly what needs to be done, and again I stress the dangers I see of going too far.
I do not think in terms of philosophy anymore when I am meeting a hungry crocodile in the bush that gioes after me. I run or I shoot it, depending on the situation. You think you still have the time to not decide where you stand, although we are under siege since almost 50 years, which repeatedly I have argued and illustrated with examples in the past years. You do not listen to their own leaders when they tell you they want your ay of life destroyed, and you just find ever more starting points for those endless concerns of yours – just so that you must not take action and accept responsibility, and must not risk a conflict over it. You say you are concerned about freedom, in a way I can understand that if you would point to the implication of freedoms being reversed in the name of more security and “war against terror”. But your undecided attitude on Islam is because you – run away form the challenge it has set up. And that, Steve, is something totally different, although you probably represent a wide majority in Western societies. Most people I ever talked to about it seemed to prefer to just not wanting to realize unwanted grim truths, for that would mean they would need to chose a side and take action.

I know that Naziism was evil in hindsight. I can't say that I would have recognized it at the time. That said, we did and still do tolerate it in my country, as shown by my links to the Skokie incident.
Which I find to be one of the great absurdities in America. Prevention is rankling low in your country, you prefer to see real heavy damage and then repair it at much greater costs. Thousands and thousands and tens of thousands of your forefathers have lost their lives, many more got wounded and suffered miserably when they fought against Nazism – and now you save this hostile enemy ideology from confronting it because you think not tolerating the intolerant would man you are tyrants yourself. Steve, I deliberately refuse to take that serious. In my book it is hilarious, cynical, unthankful, somewhat decadent, and insane. I already have a problem with turning the other cheek when I get hit. But to wage the greatest war in human history with the greatest amount of suffering and destruction, just to afterwards still tolerate the reasons and the thinking that caused it – for that I have nothing but bitter laughs. I refuse to pay that attitude any respect at all.
As to slavery, of course it should be forbidden; but here we are talking about the practice itself, not the people who practiced it. Is Islamic terror bad? Yes. Should it be stopped? Of course. On the other hand, is the burqua evil? I don't see it. Is Islamic worship evil? Should all mosques be banned from the country? I don't know, and until I do I still see intolerance as the greater evil.
You do not. You tolerate the immense and unhidden intolerance of Islam and in Islamic countries. Also, above you give the impression as if we discussed or made a distinction between Islam and Islamic terror. But I haven’t done it. I talked about Islamic ideology, and that is what Islam is: an ideology. I did not even talk about Muslims in general. Most of the time I am about the ideology in these kinds of threads, and I say so time and again. Islam is nothing linked to race, ethnicity, geography, and this being against Islam is no racism or nationalism or ethnicity-based discrmination. It is the rejection of an ideology that neutrally analysed from the outside is more political than religious, but still does not and strictly refuses to differenciate between politics and religion. Muhammad has called for terror against his critics, he has called for their assassination. Muhammad mocked his fighters when they expressed hesitation and fear over attacking and overthrowing the infidels. Muhammad ordered for the discrimination of infidels, and he willed and ordered terror being used to weaken them by pouring fear into the hearts of those tribes and people resisting. He committed massacres and genocide by his own hand and command. And this was a pattern that has repeated itself time and time again through the centuries. It were Muslim slave traders bringing the slave trade to the Western societies into swing. Richard the Lionheart once ordered the execution of a great number of Muslims fighters that were taken prisoners after a battle. He did so, because he was short in supply, had not sufficient men to leave behind a sufficient guard to keep them in check, and did not wish to risk to have such a huge force of enemy warriors in his back when he was confronting Saladdin later on. He had military motives. But some years before he arrived in the socalled Holy Land, and Saladdin still was to rise to full power and still was in service with some king in today’s Syria, he had defeated a big French army in the North and took many princes and sons from noble families and many knights as prisoners. He too executed them, all of them. But he was in full supply of water and food, and had overwhelming forces and no more enemy anywhere, and no risks to be taken be guarding the prisoners. His supply lines were short, for he basically fought that battle inside the territory he ruled about. He did so because he wanted to send a message to the Europeans: look, these were the best you can sent, your bets knights and most noble men, and look how we killed them all – is that all you can bring up against us?

Do you see the basic and fundamental difference here between the execution ordered by Richard, and the execution ordered by Saladdin? And it is like this very very often in Islam’s violence-driven, war-obsessed history. Saladdin gave Muhammad as his example by which he followed. Terror is a fully legitimate tool to spread Islam, as is enforced subjugation of others, enforced Islamisation, and the assassination of apostates. Strength by uniformity. Power by totalitarianism. Peace by wiping out all others. Even the killing of Muslims is allowed if they are no real Muslims, but are claiming to be Muslim why not fully living by Muhammad’ rules and demands to participate in djihad. It is often said that Islamic terror has nothing to do with Islam, and is in violation to it, and that this is proven by that the extremists also bomb and kill Muslims. But that is wrong as a matter of fact. First, Bin Laden for example has explicitly based his reasons to fight against Islkamic establishements on the corruption of the leading elites of the Islamic countries which violate Islam by being that way, and he is right when he argues that way. Second, killing non-combatant Muslims or getting killed in fight to spread Islam in djihad is acceptable and legitimized by Sharia and Hadith as long as it is for the purpose to win the battle on behalf of the Islamic cause. That’S why you see no awareness of guilt when “extremists” build ammo depots inside schools and put their artillery on the roof of a hospital and try human shields in order to score in the propaganda war. From truly Islamic perspectives, this is acceptable, all of this.

Of course, it gets opportunistically abused as well by the powerful as well. For slave traders in Northafrica also sold Muslim slaves whom they attacked and justified it by ranbdompoy accusing them of having violated Islam’S rules and demands, which – if true – woudl have caused them to loose any protection indeed. What these slave traders wanted, was to make big andf quick money. So abuse there was and is, yes. But that does not mean the grim face of Islam behind it becomes any nicier.

Nobody wants to be seen as somebody being related to such a brutal and inhumane ideology, of course. And so there is plenty of effort amongst Muslims to deceive not only us but also themselves over the grim reality of things. But still – the slent majority of these somewhat “false” Muslims by that passivity and unwillingness to inegrate and to hand over the extremists in their rows, and to not stand up and fight against the rule of the religious dogma and its barbaric orders, still support this grim Islam through their tolerance for it, while at the same time they tell you in your face they are not like that. Of course they do tell you that, and nothing else? What do you expect…? I said that Westerners have no informational absis about Islam, and that debate in the West is grounded on lacking knpowedge. The ironicpoint is – many socalled Muslims also are uneducated abiout the redral content of that ideoliogy named Islam and what iot really means, but by cultural climate and education thy nevert5helss got brainwashed to support it, if somehow unaware.

That’S why I often make a difference between real Muslims and untrue Muslims. And for words having a meaning, I base my definition of what Islam is and what not, on the authority of Islam’S own fundament: the Quran, the Sharia, both work hand in hand, you cannot take the one away from the other, it is not possible. You cannot take away the sermon on the mount and Jesus’ teachings and then claim that what is left still is the Christian message, that is stupid nonsense. The chriuch did take it away in the dark medioevla times, and look how Christian it was what was left: it was the most unchristian brutal era and dogma since Jesus’ days that you can imagine.
I cannot know about whether or not Islam is good or not? Could be tolerated or not? Pulling my leg, maybe? And in case you question the information I brutally summarized in the above paragraphs – no, that is not just some stuff from some islamophobic website, but I summarise it by memory from what is left of the quite some numbers of books I have read years ago. It is now general knowledge of mine, not just something specifically attributed to one sentence in one book. It does not matter to recall specific names and specific details, for example I always forget the cities near t which the two battles I quoted, Richard and Saladdin took place. The important thing is that I remember that I have read it indeed, and not just in one book, and that these battels and mass executions have taken place indeed. I am no academic expert on Islam, and I cannot quote Suras blindly – and why should I? That I have nevertheless a good general knowledge about the layout and hidden intricacies – this I what counts, and this is what we all base our daily decision making on – ALL OF US. It’s like bicycle-riding. But still I can say that I have read and learned many single facts about it, who all got assimilated like we assimilate all things that we learn and understand (else we forget them if not constantly juggling with them), and by that I claim that I have accumulated a sufficient basis of understanding of what Islam is, in order to trust my general knowledge on it and form an opinion on it that I refuse to arbitrarily manipulate and to not take serious.

As I said, I'm not talking about your beliefs, but the way you express them. If you don't discuss the issue reasonably, no one will listen, you won't ever get your point across and your comments become ultimately useless. Shouting the other guy down only serves to encourage him to try to shout you down, and nothing is accomplished.
Ideological extremists and religious people NEVER discuss reasonably anyway, they are not in that business. Their business is mere believing and brainwashing. And we Westerns – we discuss Islam since almost 50 years now, since the 60s, and what must be known about it we can already know, and do know, even since longer. It’s just that we do not want to realize it, because it is not the wanted outcome we hoped for, and illustrates how naive and doomed-to-fail from the beginning on we were when hoping we could civilize and integrate and educate Islam and change it to make it compatible with our laws and values. We are now openly attacked, we are under siege. If you still not know whom you are dealing with, then you will never know even if you discuss the issue for another 1400 years.
But go on, send more Chamberlains to Munich. And after the heaps of dead bodies of more WWIIs have mounted, save tolerance and freedom by giving your enemy again the opportunity to foster, to survive, and cause another disaster. You have all reasons to be still iun doubt about his wishes and intentions, right? What does historic examples mean in the face of the convincing shine of absolute tolerance and absolute freedoms? When has reality ever beaten utopia? Facts get formed on the ground, demographic and cultural realities get created, established orders get adjusted relativized, vaporized – so what? We just can turn back the wheels of time and have another WWII, so to speak, to repair the damage we have passively let happen by tolerating that once again we repeated the mistakes from history that we have already done repeatedly.

Let’S discuss the issue some longer time. Let’s learn some more. That’s good.
Nur über meine Leiche.
I never put anyone on my ignore list. Well, one person, once.
Well I do, and more than once, but never over differing opinions but always about issues of foul behavior and personal attacks, mostly repeatedly, but in one case - because it was hefty - already after the first strike. In case of such things it would be a case for the moderator taking disciplinary measures, but my standards and Neal’s standards for that are slightly different maybe, so then the ignore button is my tool to compensate for that.

I honestly don't know. The real question is whether I would have recognized it at the time. On the other hand this leads us back to modern Naziism in the US. We allow them their freedom of speech and it doesn't seem to be causing any overt harm. So should they be outlawed here? Again I have to ask "Where do we draw that line?"
Draw the line where the new, unknown evil emerges, that is not fully known and understood and thus doubt remains. The proven evil that already has been shown by evidence and historic record to be evil – well, I just said it: it has already been proven to be evil. You must not send the sentenced offender time and again to court over the same offence. You do not gain anything positive by tolerating Nazism. It does not enoble you, but makes you suspicious, because you will the risk that it brakes out again and goes on rampage again. Has one holocaust and one Word War II not be enough? Can’t you learn from history? Nazism will not learn from history, I assure you.
So yes, I hesitate, not because I believe you are wrong, but because you are single-minded in this quest, and single-mindedness is inherently dangerous, whether it comes from them or from you.
I am not single-minded. I am determined – no due to lacking understanbding of the issue, but because right my understanding of the issue. The more I understood Islam, the more hostile I became to it – and from a moral standpoint I even had no other choice. Tolerating Islam would need me to be intolerant to my own moral basiics and my own ethical fundament, and I would need to villate what I consider to be og good and of beauty and to be right in the understanding of ancient Greek and modern humanitarian tradition as well as Buddhism and Taoism.

From my point of view I would be immoral if I DO NOT oppose Islam. I also would contradict myself and everything that is dear and precious to me, and that I see as rational and reasonable and sensible.

So you see I have good reasons to be determined and uncompromised.

Yes I do, and I'm aware of that. But you're the one who absolutely believes that Islam is absolutely evil, and I think you run the risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, meaning destroying the rest of us along with your intended target. And that frightens me.
Funny, to imagine that Roosevelt and Churchill have thrown out the baby with the bathwater when they refused tolerant coexistence and tolerance for fascist Germany. Can you imagine why they ruled out any deals and compromises, and destroyed Germany until the unconditional surrender?

I sum up the answer in short: because it was the only way that could work.

With some ideologies, compromise is not possible. And you should not even wish to make a deal with it – for the sake of what is precious and valuable and noble to yourself.

And I told you more than once that my "absolute" is just a starting point, and that I believe nothing is truly absolute. But you ignored that part. I firmly believe that there is a lot of give-and-take involved, but you seem to want to do all the taking and none of the giving, so true debate is impossible.
I don’t ignore your words on that matter. I just do not take them as anything else but self-contradicting. To me you claim that you mean something different than what you say.
I don't know that you're wrong. But I don't know you're right either, and I'm not willing to take your word for it.
Nor did I demand it. Several times in several threads over the years I said, guys, read yourself. Do not believe the Muslim cleric, nor do believe me. Check it out yourself, read some books of diverse origin, than form your own opinion and accept full responsibility for this your opinion. I fully follow in the Buddha’s footprints here! :D Do not beieve something, do not believe somebody. Check yourself. Turn it, look at it, analyse it. When you finally find it to be for the good of the few and the good of the many, than accept it and live by it. I add the motto of an author whom I rediscovered last year from my teenage years, and for whom I feel a deep admiration and respect, Nikolay von Michalewsky: “Woran Du glaubst, dafür sollst Du leben und sterben.” In the end, in the face of this mysterious universe and the unimaginable abyss of times, what matters regarding our lives cannot be “how long”, but only “how”.

Oh yes, and I explained in the past why it is so, there are historic causes that have little to do with Muhammad but the later Caliphs, and that there have been several circulating versions of Qurans. Nevertheless, Muhammad surely also used his preachings as self-justifications for his warmongering and powerhungry intentions. The Quran IS difficult to oversee indeed, and is full of –mostly probably wanted – contradictions, but contradictions that can be solved, and has been agreed to be solved in a commonly and widely accepted way since the 10th century, focussing on timestamps. But you may have noted that where I say “Read the thing yourself, guys” I almost always say: “also read academic comment and secondary literature about it”. With the Quran alone, almost everybody gets lost.
With studying the chaos of the Hadith, it gets even worse… :lol:
[quote]As I said, my problem isn't with your assessment, it's with your destination. What should be done? Banning all things Islam from the Western World entirely? Another Crusade? That's what I don't know, and that's what you've never fully explained.
You asked that some months ago, and I gave a list to start with , and your reply was to ask again as if I had answered nothing. But I have. I sum it up very brief here, therefore. The two magical words are: “reciprocity”, and “determination”.
Reciprocity: Muslim nations must act as tolerant on other cultures and human rights and women and relgions, like we have treated them in the Wets in the past 50 years. So far, they have not replied to that, but have driven on their cultural cleansing. Islam prevents them to turn tolerant, Islamic ideology is not taching tolerance, but monoculturalism. I am pessimistic that they wil, change, andn that’S why I am pessimistic about Islam in the West.

Determination: no more costly, foul compromises on behalf of special status for Islam in the west. They have to fully integrate (which necessarily means to become unislamic by leaving the inhumane and incompatabile aspects of this ideology behind), or they have to leave and go back to where they came from. Full stop to further Muslim migration. In our home countries, Islam has to adapt to our culture and has to give up, unconditionally, any inherent claim to make us adapting to it. FULL ENFORCEMENT OF ALREADY EXISTING CRIME LAWS. Destruction of the islamophile EU, replacement with a new pragmatic economy union that gives up the claim for a European, pan-Arabian superstate focussing around the Mediterranean sea. Giving priority to overcome dependence on Muslim oil. Isolation and rejection of Turkey’s attempts to sneak into Europe.

No more foul compromises and always always always assuming that Islam means it well and that it is just our own fault. Islam does not mean it well.
On the rest regarding Locke, Popper and American tolerance, I cut it short: the paradoxon I lined out so often now, does not get addressed but ignored by you, and when your version of tolerance hinders you to learn from mistake and evil that exist as proven facts in history, then you have a big problem with yourself in America. Like they use to say: he who refuses to learn from history is doomed to repeat it. Germany ha changed, so it is okay to seek new relations with it. Nazi ideology still is what it was. Your tolerance should understand the need of limits, for this ideology already has costed you and the world dearly. Same is true for Islam. And compared to the historic effect of Fascism, Islam is by far the worse enemy.
Boah, long thread, I feel like having been thrown back to 2004 :D
0115 over here, time to shut down the system. Good night.

[MH]

Dont bother, you will spend your time better looking at this.

http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0507/BURKAImage1.jpg (http://img716.imageshack.us/i/opticalillusionsdetail3.jpg/)

Yep :up:

[Tribesman]

When you see a women wearing Burka in Iran(law enforced by revolutionary guards)
A good example MH. Not quite right but a good example for the purpose.......
Don't you mean a Chador which isn't a Burka as not only is it a different culture its a different flavour islam.
Isn't it funny that any female crazy Iranian revolutionary fundamentalist muslim terrorist will still be able to walk the streets of Paris in their "religious" attire as their cultural dress isn't covered by the ban.

[Sailor Steve]

I am convinced of course that I get it right, else I would not talk the way I do. What have you thought? Do you think it is a virtue to base on an opinion founded so weak that every coupe of weeks you need to correct it?
No, the virtue is in honest debate, which you apparently are too superior to understand. Thank you for stooping to lecture us from on high, oh wonder of academia.

Steve. I’m getting a bit tired of your constant self-contradicting behavior of “ I think like this but I do not know”. If you do not know it, then why do you tell an opinion at all?
I didn't enter this thread to give opinions on the topic, but to point out to you why no one ever listens to your arrogant diatribes. You claim to know exactly what you're talking about, but you fail to convince anyone else.

Balancing? You are crucifying yourself over it, with great pleasure, endlessly, and you do not stop. That’s why you refuse to accept a standpoint for yourself for which you maybe could be held responsible for one day. On things where I feel I do not know enough, I either mark any contributions of mine as speculation, or I do not make these “contributions” in the first.
And once again you attack what you think I'm thinking, without bothering to listen to what I actually say. You live in your own little heaven, knowing that everyone is inferior to you and needs your correction, and yet you know nothing, at least about me. But you keep jumping on your own opinion of me, and not who I am. You are so blind in your arrogance I'm beginning to think you know nothing at all.

My quarrel with islamophile mainstream opinion is that it has too much of “mere opinion”, but too little knowledge of the basics of Islam, the historic examples it has set, and the scripture. With so little knwoeldge many people and many columnists in the press prove to have, they should not dare to form opinions in defence of Islam. As I said earlier, I do not pay respect to just any opinion just because it is being voiced. I demand a bit more. But I have explained that before, too, haven’t I.
And again you attack me for agreeing with you.

I do not think in terms of philosophy anymore when I am meeting a hungry crocodile in the bush that gioes after me. I run or I shoot it, depending on the situation.
So Islam has gone after you directly? You would shoot anyone you thought might think about going after you, which, as I keep saying, makes you as dangerous as them.

[quote]You think you still have the time to not decide where you stand, although we are under siege since almost 50 years, which repeatedly I have argued and illustrated with examples in the past years. You do not listen to their own leaders when they tell you they want your ay of life destroyed, and you just find ever more starting points for those endless concerns of yours – just so that you must not take action and accept responsibility, and must not risk a conflict over it. You say you are concerned about freedom, in a way I can understand that if you would point to the implication of freedoms being reversed in the name of more security and “war against terror”. But your undecided attitude on Islam is because you – run away form the challenge it has set up. And that, Steve, is something totally different, although you probably represent a wide majority in Western societies. Most people I ever talked to about it seemed to prefer to just not wanting to realize unwanted grim truths, for that would mean they would need to chose a side and take action.

Which I find to be one of the great absurdities in America. Prevention is rankling low in your country, you prefer to see real heavy damage and then repair it at much greater costs. Thousands and thousands and tens of thousands of your forefathers have lost their lives, many more got wounded and suffered miserably when they fought against Nazism – and now you save this hostile enemy ideology from confronting it because you think not tolerating the intolerant would man you are tyrants yourself. Steve, I deliberately refuse to take that serious. In my book it is hilarious, cynical, unthankful, somewhat decadent, and insane. I already have a problem with turning the other cheek when I get hit. But to wage the greatest war in human history with the greatest amount of suffering and destruction, just to afterwards still tolerate the reasons and the thinking that caused it – for that I have nothing but bitter laughs. I refuse to pay that attitude any respect at all.

Okay, I'm done with you. All I wanted to do was explain that your method of posting was keeping people from listening to you, making yourself your own worst enemy in this kind of discussion. But you want to jump back into judging me, even when I say I agree with you.

Don't bother answering. You've just become the first jackass in more than a year to end up on my ignore list.

[MH]

A good example MH. Not quite right but a good example for the purpose.......
Don't you mean a Chador which isn't a Burka as not only is it a different culture its a different flavour islam.
Isn't it funny that any female crazy Iranian revolutionary fundamentalist muslim terrorist will still be able to walk the streets of Paris in their "religious" attire as their cultural dress isn't covered by the ban.

Its not about preventing terrorism by itself-:)
Burka law can never prevent anything of this sort.

For me its a more statement against anachronistic and intolerant way of life that pushes its self deeper and deeper.
Constantly exercising limits of law and tolerance screaming racism each time they don't get what they want.
Believe it or not but in many cases its purposeful tactics ...

As i live in Jerusalem which is Muslim in part i cant really simply hate Muslims/Palestinians because for every hammas terrorist there is 1000 others that just want to live their lives here.
I can also see how certain groups use religion/politics for gains.
I believe than many French simply get pissed when someone behaves ME way
I don't have problem with that since Israel has a lot of ME in its culture now.
Jerusalem in particular.
Believe i prefer it this way than Paris way.

[Tribesman]

Its not about preventing terrorism by itself-:)
Burka law can never prevent anything of this sort.


I know, that was one of the silliest reasons given in support of the ban, but if it is to combat muslim fundamentalists and stick up for womens rights then why are they not banning the Iranian version?
Surely Iranian fundys are just as incompatible with French values as Saudi fundys.
Doesn't that demonstrate that yet another of the arguements for the ban is complete rubbish.
The more you look at the legislation the sillier it looks, it really is nothing but a very stupid piece of knee jerk populism which actually serves no real purpose.

For me its a more statement against anachronistic and intolerant way of life that pushes its self deeper and deeper.
Constantly exercising limits of law and tolerance screaming racism each time they don't get what they want.
Believe it or not but in many cases its purposeful tactics ...

Yes, but this ban does nothing to even remotely address that does it.

[Skybird]

I now see, Steve. You never pull the cat's tail, you just hold it tight. It's not your grab, but it's the cat.


http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/7682/livemealonelion.jpg (http://img193.imageshack.us/i/livemealonelion.jpg/)

[MH]

At the end of the line its just matter of how French perceive themselves.
They want Islamic traditions in their country or not.
Can they deal with Islamic influence in politics or not.
Forget integration as some would like to see it-Ahmad from ME becoming Mr Sarcozy.
IF French let the emigration flow they will become Islam influenced country period.

[Alex]

@ Steve & Skybird : Hey guys, I've been following your conversation with MUCH interest. @ Skybird : I'd have to let you know something in private - not in this thread, please can you let me know via PM where/how I can contact you, thanks in advance. ;)

[tater]

Isn't the actual wording that it is illegal in France to hide the face in public? Not women, but everyone. Not Muslims, but everyone?

In the west, who wears face-covering masks in public with the exception of criminals?

What they should have done instead was make every kid in France got to schools that meet some gov standard (likely already true), but have school with forced, coed activities, ideally topless swimming :)

[Gerald]

Isn't the actual wording that it is illegal in France to hide the face in public? Not women, but everyone. Not Muslims, but everyone?

In the west, who wears face-covering masks in public with the exception of criminals?

What they should have done instead was make every kid in France got to schools that meet some gov standard (likely already true), but have school with forced, coed activities, ideally topless swimming :) Good question, in some countries as you say-yes

[onelifecrisis]

Yay. Now they just need to start burning Qu'rans and their journey towards the dark side will be complete.

I've only read the OP, but I can guess the reaction. Skybird approves of this amd takes the opportunity to preach. Tribesman points out the stupidity of the French (and, probably, the stupidity of Skybird). Several Americans with IQs that match the number of guns they own say things like "well those Muslims deserve it" and metaphorically nod at each other in knowing agreement. How close am I?

[onelifecrisis]

Holy crap, Steve, you got mad! And at Skybird! Haha, go Steve!!! :rock:

[Sailor Steve]

Holy crap, Steve, you got mad! And at Skybird! Haha, go Steve!!! :rock:
Well, on one hand I feel like the British Attache in Battle Of Britain, after his "The last little corporal..." speech: "I lost my temper. Unforgivable!"

On the other hand my feelings about this are unchanged.

[Gerald]

* Motorcycle helmets
* Face-masks for health reasons
* Face-covering for sporting or professional activities
* Sunglasses, hats etc which do not completely hide the face
* Masks used in "traditional activities", such as carnivals or religious processions