France is close to banning Islamic face veils for women.

Xevious

Xevious

CAGiversary!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8480161.stm

France report backs face veil ban
A French parliamentary committee has recommended a partial ban on women wearing Islamic face veils.
The committee's near 200-page report has proposed a ban in hospitals, schools, government offices and on public transport.
It also recommends that anyone showing visible signs of "radical religious practice" should be refused residence cards and citizenship.
The interior ministry says just 1,900 women in France wear the full veils.


“ A law may follow, but MPs are divided over what to do ”
Gavin Hewitt BBC Europe editor

In its report, the committee said requiring women to cover their faces was against the French republican principles of secularism and equality.
"The wearing of the full veil is a challenge to our republic. This is unacceptable. We must condemn this excess," the report said.
The commission called on parliament to adopt a formal resolution stating that the face veil was "contrary to the values of the republic" and proclaiming that "all of France is saying 'no' to the full veil".
Presenting the report to the French National Assembly, speaker Bernard Accoyer said the face veil had too many negative connotations.
"It is the symbol of the repression of women, and... of extremist fundamentalism.


"This divisive approach is a denial of the equality between men and women and a rejection of co-existence side-by-side, without which our republic is nothing."
The report is expected to be followed by the drafting of a bill and a parliamentary debate on the issue.
The BBC's Hugh Schofield, in Paris, says the reasoning behind the report is to make it as impractical as possible for women in face veils to go about their daily business.
There is also a fear that an outright ban would not only be difficult to implement but would be distasteful and could make France a target for terrorism, our correspondent says.
France has an estimated five million Muslims - the largest such population in Western Europe.
Months of debate
The report follows months of public debate, including President Nicolas Sarkozy's intervention, saying all-encompassing veils were "not welcome in France".

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Parliament should pass a resolution denouncing full Muslim face veils Ban the veil in all schools, hospitals, public transport and government offices Bar foreign women from obtaining asylum or French citizenship if they insist on veiling their faces in state buildings Take into account in asylum requests the coercion to wear the full veil as an indication of a wider context of persecution Create a national school of Islamic studies

However, he did not explicitly call for a ban, saying "no-one should feel stigmatised" by any eventual law.
Opinion polls suggest a majority of French people support a full ban.
However, the parliamentary deputies have recommended that - for now - restrictions should be limited.
The committee suggests a ban inside public buildings, with those who defy the ban denied whatever services are on offer there - for example state benefits.
There are several types of headscarves and veils for Muslim women - those that cover the face being the niqab and the burka. In France, the niqab is the version most commonly worn.
The niqab usually leaves the eyes clear. It is worn with an accompanying headscarf and sometimes a separate eye veil.
The burka covers the entire face and body with just a mesh screen to see through.


The issue has divided France's political parties.
The Socialist opposition has come out officially against a ban, saying it would be difficult to enforce. It says it is opposed to full veils in principle, but some members have expressed fears about any ruling that could stigmatise Muslim women.
Meanwhile, the head of Mr Sarkozy's right-wing UMP party has already presented a bill in parliament supporting a full ban on grounds of security.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/8480161.stm

Published: 2010/01/26 16:05:51 GMT

© BBC MMX
 
[quote name='Xevious'] Parliament should pass a resolution denouncing full Muslim face veils Ban the veil in all schools, hospitals, public transport and government offices Bar foreign women from obtaining asylum or French citizenship if they insist on veiling their faces in state buildings Take into account in asylum requests the coercion to wear the full veil as an indication of a wider context of persecution Create a national school of Islamic studies
[/QUOTE]

I know it's just a gimpy HTML retention from the cut/paste, but that CSS class is right. This is bull.
 
Mixed feelings. The face veil is considered by most as not required by the faith, but others do say it's a requirement. Then again, I believe it was/is Turkey that made it illegal to be on state property with even the head scarf. That's pathetic.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Legislation forbidding an oppressive and patriarchal practice.

I'm thoroughly conflicted.[/QUOTE]
I think the burqua is a piece of shit, but you gotta let dirt worshipers of every sort do their thing.
 
Lame, but not surprising.

At *least* it's a "don't oppress women" thing instead of a "Jesus is right - let's all get saved!" thing.... I suppose...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Legislation forbidding an oppressive and patriarchal practice.

I'm thoroughly conflicted.[/QUOTE]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. King of liberals is saying that a woman's choice to dress however she wants is oppressive and patriarchal? You and I disagree on just about everything, so this shouldn't come as a big surprise, but I'm actually amazed you'd say such an assanine thing. Dude...seriously. It shows a complete and total lack of understanding.

Read a book.

Actually, shouldn't just aim it at Myke. What is the "dirt worshipper" comment about, and how is this style of dress (if it's done by the woman's choice) being oppressed?
 
I get it's an oppressive tradition and everything, and I certainly don't support that, but I wouldn't support a ban. Even if it's successfully enforced I just don't see how it matters. It wouldn't really change anything.

And the dirt worshipers thing I guess is the praying? That's kinda low.

And I think they messed up in the article, the socialists can't be against the ban, everyone knows socialists hate freedom and take it away at every opportunity.
 
if you marry a guy that forces you to wear the stupid thing, tough luck, enjoy wearing it.

is it oppressive and demeaning, well ya in my opinion it is. but if someone wants to do it, let them.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Whoa, whoa, whoa. King of liberals is saying that a woman's choice to dress however she wants is oppressive and patriarchal? You and I disagree on just about everything, so this shouldn't come as a big surprise, but I'm actually amazed you'd say such an assanine thing. Dude...seriously. It shows a complete and total lack of understanding.

Read a book.

Actually, shouldn't just aim it at Myke. What is the "dirt worshipper" comment about, and how is this style of dress (if it's done by the woman's choice) being oppressed?[/QUOTE]

"asinine." please.

yes, this clothing is opressive and patriarchal, as it evolves from and reinforces that women are inferior. It is de facto oppressive due to the nature of the item of clothing itself, and that only women are effected by this law.

Just like Hooters uniforms are oppressive and sexist, or taking your top off for "Girls Gone Wild" is oppressive and sexist, sexism is a part of everyday life in our society. Would you deny that and claim that the sexes are largely equal in worth, treatment, sexualized objectification, wages, promotion in jobs, informal roles in the home, etc.?

Or do you believe that an action that is sexist in and of itself (say, posing for a pornographic magazine) is neutralized simply because the woman autonomously decides for herself to perform the action (and thus propagating the idea that it's perversely liberating)?

Yes, it is a symbol of male dominance and a symbol of women's place in society. That doesn't change simply because a woman chooses to wear it (and what an assumption we make if we assume women choose to wear them simply because they have it on their face!).

So, yeah, conflicted.
 
I think Myke is just confused. "Women's Rights" isn't about making women equal to men. It's about giving them the right to make fair choices for themselves.

For example - the idea of Abortion is a part of Women's Rights. Some women believe that forcing a woman to have a child against her will is sexist and oppressive. I think you'd be insane if you felt that letting a woman make the decision to have a child is "oppressive".

Yet, you argue that because a behavior *might* be oppressive, the fact that a woman chooses to do has no bearing on the oppressive nature of the behavior?
 
"asinine." please.

-Whoops, misspelled asinine. Fair enough.

yes, this clothing is opressive and patriarchal, as it evolves from and reinforces that women are inferior. It is de facto oppressive due to the nature of the item of clothing itself, and that only women are effected by this law.

-So this very belief reinforces the fact that you've never gone to the so-called oppressed and asked them for their opinion on the matter. If you're a single girl, living on your own, going to school, and elect to wear a head scarf, face veil, or full on burqa, how are you being oppressed. You're a grown adult, and you've elected to dress a certain way out of modesty and faith. Please explain to me how the religion says that women are inferior.

There are very strict clothing requirements for men as well in fact. They don't require hair and neck cover, but many men still choose to dress with a headcover.

And then the most glaring hypocrisy. How is a muslim women's choice to wear a head scarf and dress in loose robe-like clothing any different than a nun's? They're both doing it because they think it's what their religion teaches. Those nuns, they're so pious. Unlike those poor, oppressed heathens that dress the same way but have a different God.

Just like Hooters uniforms are oppressive and sexist, or taking your top off for "Girls Gone Wild" is oppressive and sexist, sexism is a part of everyday life in our society. Would you deny that and claim that the sexes are largely equal in worth, treatment, sexualized objectification, wages, promotion in jobs, informal roles in the home, etc.?

-If those women are choosing to do the action when they have alternatives...explain to me why it's oppressive?

Or do you believe that an action that is sexist in and of itself (say, posing for a pornographic magazine) is neutralized simply because the woman autonomously decides for herself to perform the action (and thus propagating the idea that it's perversely liberating)?

-how is someone posing for porn sexist? Aren't there men and women in porn? And if someone chooses an action when alternatives are available, isn't that against the very nature of oppression? You may not like their decision, and think it's wrong for whatever reason, but now you're imposing your beliefs on someone else. Dare I say, you'd be edging towards oppression by trying to place shame on them based on your background?

Yes, it is a symbol of male dominance and a symbol of women's place in society. That doesn't change simply because a woman chooses to wear it (and what an assumption we make if we assume women choose to wear them simply because they have it on their face!).

-So this symbol of male dominance rooted to the religion, the same one that gave women the ability to own property, vote, receive an education 1,400 years ago, even though most of Europe didn't allow it until hundreds of years later, those women are systematically oppressed? This is not an ethnic group, this is a religious group.

In summary, you desperately need to talk to a woman and ask her about why she does it. If you haven't, then you really have no basis for your opinion. But maybe because you're an educated male, you're smarter and better than these poor, little, lost girls who can't make decisions for themselves and choose a life of oppression.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']
Yet, you argue that because a behavior *might* be oppressive, the fact that a woman chooses to do has no bearing on the oppressive nature of the behavior?[/QUOTE]

That last sentence is much more concise than my effort to effectively say the same thing. Very, very well said.
 
I'm going to lock you in a cage, but in that cage you can do whatever you want! Run around, scream, strip naked and hump the wall, I don't care, there are no rules, you are only limited by your imagination! Enjoy your freedom!

I guess that kinda works, don't hang too much on it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Doesn't it feel liberating to shit in your hand and throw it at someone from inside the cage?[/QUOTE]

Not so fast, it's plexiglass, nothing's coming out of there. But I do have paid actors outside who will react as if you did hit them when you throw your shit against the glass. So you can still get that warm feeling like you're doing something.
 
berzirk, I'm certainly not singling out any one religion for being more or less sexist than another. But the false comparison to nuns actually reinforces my point.

Aren't nuns but further evidence that structural oppression rooted in sexism exists? What is a nun if not the highest rung on the Catholic ladder a woman can achieve? She cannot be a priest; she cannot perform transubstantiation or distribute the eucharist. She is a bat boy in the ball park of the Catholic faith. Of course she is oppressed, even as she chooses to do so.

So please get off of your world-traveled high horse and don't try to frame this as an issue of being anti-Islam. Forgive me if I recognize that a particular faith is flawed and sexist and oppressive, and not perfect and flawless and ideal. You're doing the same shit someone else did when we discussed the homosexual execution laws in Uganda. I'm pointing to a sexist, oppressive flaw in a faith, and you can't see the trees in the forest. You falsely turn this issue into one of being against anything and everything in Islam. Which is not true, so put away your straw man.

I don't have the time today to explain how the oppressive nature of actions, even chosen, can still remain oppressive despite the victim's satisfaction with their worldview. But there's plenty of research that people will justify their existence after the fact - complacency doesn't exactly make oppression disappear, now, does it?

Ideas of satisfaction, oppression, sexism, and choice are far too narrowly thought of by you.

Thought another way, should we as a society not prosecute criminals who kidnap and abuse others against their will in the event that the victim develops Stockholm's syndrome? After all, aren't they kinda satisfied with how things in life went?
 
[quote name='SpazX']Not so fast, it's plexiglass, nothing's coming out of there. But I do have paid actors outside who will react as if you did hit them when you throw your shit against the glass. So you can still get that warm feeling like you're doing something.[/QUOTE]

Cute that you guys think about caging humans and throwing feces, but physically confining an individual inside of a locked cage and someone making the religious choice to dress a certain way isn't even mildly similar.

But then again, that skirts the real issue, neither one of you has ever spoken to the women you say are so badly oppressed, to learn their view on it. Have you?

Keep wallowing in your own shit.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Cute that you guys think about caging humans and throwing feces, but physically confining an individual inside of a locked cage and someone making the religious choice to dress a certain way isn't even mildly similar.[/quote]

It's not the best analogy, but I'll explain it - the cage is the oppressive and sexist religion, and the person inside is the religious woman, legally free to do whatever she wants within it.

[quote name='berzirk']But then again, that skirts the real issue, neither one of you has ever spoken to the women you say are so badly oppressed, to learn their view on it. Have you?[/QUOTE]

You don't seriously think that none of us have ever spoken to women, do you?
 
[quote name='SpazX']You don't seriously think that none of us have ever spoken to women, do you?[/QUOTE]

No, that's not what he's doing. He's using the I'M FRIENDS WITH BLACK PPL line, but in this regards is using it to say you aren't friends with Muslim women so what do you know.
 
[quote name='berzirk']But then again, that skirts the real issue, neither one of you has ever spoken to the women you say are so badly oppressed, to learn their view on it. Have you?[/QUOTE]

Many of the women (well, not women, but juvenile girls) who were one of several wives to the lecherous fundamentalist latter-day saints that Warren Jeffs oversaw were totally happy where they were. Just living the quiet, pastoral life of a 13-year old wife that, along with his other wives, provide and serve the husband.

Also, 12% of people surveyed believe Elvis is still alive.

You overvalue perception. Significantly.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']berzirk, I'm certainly not singling out any one religion for being more or less sexist than another. But the false comparison to nuns actually reinforces my point.

Aren't nuns but further evidence that structural oppression rooted in sexism exists? What is a nun if not the highest rung on the Catholic ladder a woman can achieve? She cannot be a priest; she cannot perform transubstantiation or distribute the eucharist. She is a bat boy in the ball park of the Catholic faith. Of course she is oppressed, even as she chooses to do so.

So please get off of your world-traveled high horse and don't try to frame this as an issue of being anti-Islam. Forgive me if I recognize that a particular faith is flawed and sexist and oppressive, and not perfect and flawless and ideal. You're doing the same shit someone else did when we discussed the homosexual execution laws in Uganda. I'm pointing to a sexist, oppressive flaw in a faith, and you can't see the trees in the forest. You falsely turn this issue into one of being against anything and everything in Islam. Which is not true, so put away your straw man.

I don't have the time today to explain how the oppressive nature of actions, even chosen, can still remain oppressive despite the victim's satisfaction with their worldview. But there's plenty of research that people will justify their existence after the fact - complacency doesn't exactly make oppression disappear, now, does it?

Ideas of satisfaction, oppression, sexism, and choice are far too narrowly thought of by you.

Thought another way, should we as a society not prosecute criminals who kidnap and abuse others against their will in the event that the victim develops Stockholm's syndrome? After all, aren't they kinda satisfied with how things in life went?[/QUOTE]

You talk about strawman arguments, then close with Stockholm syndrome and how to handle it?

I didn't say you were anti-Islam, but you did just write "..and don't try to frame this as an issue of being anti-Islam. Forgive me if I recognize that a particular faith is flawed and sexist and oppressive..." That would pretty strongly insinuate you're "anti"-Islam. No need to put words in your mouth.

What I said was that you have an utter lack of understanding on why a woman would choose to dress that way, and how her choice to dress that way makes her oppressed or free. It would be like me arguing why Adam Smith was a moron, but that John Keynes was amazing. I'm out of my league when it comes to talking about economic theories. You're apparently out of your league when you're discussing this issue.

Trying to discredit my incredibly relevant experiences in the process is laughable. I haven't questioned your expertise on any other issue we've debated here on CAG, because I either didn't care enough to, or just gave you the benefit of the doubt, but on this one, you're so unbelievably wrong, I'm saying you desperately need to educate yourself on this if you want to claim an intelligent opinion, and I'm not the one that can do it.

You should talk to a woman who chooses to dress this way if you care enough. And if you don't care, you should step aside and let those that do, discuss.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']No, that's not what he's doing. He's using the I'M FRIENDS WITH BLACK PPL line, but in this regards is using it to say you aren't friends with Muslim women so what do you know.[/QUOTE]

Wow, this truly an interesting sub-group of CAG. Overwhelmingly liberal when it comes to homosexuality, health care, social programs, but then hawkishly conservative when it comes to world religion. Don't have more of a comment than that, just a very, very unique group.

And the "I'm friends with black people" goes a bit further than that, but then again, it's funnier to make one liners, rather than discuss the issue.
 
So, then, fill us with tales of your ribald adventures. Let us sit back and bask in your presence as the world famous traveler bezirk fills us in with information he has taken from nations across the globe!

Let us be rapt with attention and anticipation as you tell us of exotic locations, sophisticated conversations with unique persons of various reputations, and scolds us for having thoughts!

Quit yer fuckin' stuttering if it's so simple, and fuckin' spit it out already, Carmen Sandiego.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So, then, fill us with tales of your ribald adventures. Let us sit back and bask in your presence as the world famous traveler bezirk fills us in with information he has taken from nations across the globe!

Let us be rapt with attention and anticipation as you tell us of exotic locations, sophisticated conversations with unique persons of various reputations, and scolds us for having thoughts!

Quit yer fuckin' stuttering if it's so simple, and fuckin' spit it out already, Carmen Sandiego.[/QUOTE]

I guess 3 liners are an upgrade from the funny one liner.

If you had an actual question based on my experiences, please list them out. I'd be happy to discuss. If email is more convenient, I'd be happy to discuss it with you that way for the sake of reducing board clutter.
 
No no no. YOU'RE the expert here, YOU'RE the one who knows it all about "world religions" (what an occidentially ethnocentric thing to say, world religions).

So, if there's a simple explanation, and you seem to know it, fuckin' spit it out. You want to present yourself as the great all-knowing dude? Then show it. Give us your deep knowledge.

I may even say 'please.'
 
[quote name='mykevermin']No no no. YOU'RE the expert here, YOU'RE the one who knows it all about "world religions" (what an occidentially ethnocentric thing to say, world religions).

So, if there's a simple explanation, and you seem to know it, fuckin' spit it out. You want to present yourself as the great all-knowing dude? Then show it. Give us your deep knowledge.

I may even say 'please.'[/QUOTE]

Sure. PM my your email address, and I'll give you my explanation on the significance, and choice, of religious and cultural clothing, most specifically, Muslim attire.


...Hunh. It got quiet. Wait a second, were you just trying to be patronizing, and didn't really mean it when you said you wanted to hear my brilliant observations? Oh man. You sneaky guy!
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']that or he wanted you to back up your statements instead of just throwing out broad sweeping conclusions that you magically came up with.[/QUOTE]

Either way, I offered to explain via email, apparently he's rejecting that offer. I also asked him to list out questions he had on the board, and I'd be happy to answer. Apparently he rejected that as well. Not sure what I could've done differently there. Both options were ignored in favor of a couple more one liners.

Anybody notice the nice targeted Google advertising banner at the top. Every so often you can score a great deal on quality jilbabs, or essentially abayas, which are like gowns rather than the full body burqa-thing. Nice touch, Google.
 
[quote name='berzirk']What I said was that you have an utter lack of understanding on why a woman would choose to dress that way, and how her choice to dress that way makes her oppressed or free.[/QUOTE]

You could always start by elaborating on this.

[quote name='mykevermin']Now look what you've done: made me agree with perdition troy.[/QUOTE]

Thats what I was thinking, this is twilight zone material.
 
Maybe they should stop allowing so many people who hate France and Western Society to emigrate there, collect welfare and live in their public housing.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Either way, I offered to explain via email, apparently he's rejecting that offer. I also asked him to list out questions he had on the board, and I'd be happy to answer. Apparently he rejected that as well. Not sure what I could've done differently there. Both options were ignored in favor of a couple more one liners.
[/QUOTE]

How about a PM? That way, I can repost it here.

OR

You could post your explanation here. Even if somebody derides it, it might help somebody else.
 
OK troy, no problem.

So, some women, especially those who grew up in countries with a large Muslim population can often do it for little more than cultural reasons, seen by the differences in dress. Afghanistan, under the oppressive (yes, oppressive) Taliban rule, imposed things like women must be fully covered, can't even see hands, etc, but strangely they allowed for colorful burqas, which is usually more common in places like Pakistan, India, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Oppressive laws like those in Saudi which say a woman can't drive or be in public without a male relative, are also cultural, as the former PM of Pakistan, and past president of Indonesia (maybe Malaysia too) was in fact a female.

The goal is that by maintaining modesty, not showing a lot of skin for both men and women, you discourage the catcalling and harassment that a lot of women receive when they're dressed differently, and you learn to keep your hands, tongue, and eyes to yourself, rather than scanning the landscape for the next hot dude/lady. For women, religiously they're told they should wear loose fitting clothing that covers their neck and hair. For men, they are told they should wear loose fitting clothing that ideally covers the whole body (exclusive of the neck and head), but it is permissable to cover just from the knees to above the belly button if it can't be avoided.

The clothing conditions take effect when a child turns 13 (I believe, could be wrong on that point though).

Muslim women can choose to wear a bikini and prance around the streets of Baghdad, or they can elect to wear any combination of clothing. The most common arab dress for women is the all black "abaya" which is like that jilbab advertisment. I've heard two explanations for black. 1) it doesn't attract as much attention as a colorful design or pattern 2) in extremely hot places, it actually serves as a ventilation system. The sun is attracted to the hot surface of the fabric, then underneath, the air circulates to try and reduce the heat. Anyhoo, again, cultural differences.

Women that I know or are related to vary from wearing the all black including the face cover (we call them ninjas :p ) to women that wear mini-skirts and sleeveless shirts. Most of the women who elect not to dress modestly and with their hair and neck covered understand that religiously they're supposed to, but it's their decision.

My wife is a prime example of that. She elects not to cover her hair and neck, but dresses in loose fitting clothing. She's more worried that if she were to dress more "muslim" that a host of things could happen, from someone tainting food at a restaurant because they dislike muslims, to her or our kids being attacked by some wacko while out in public. Based on the religion, would I prefer that she wore the head scarf? Sure. But I'm not the one that has to do it and be scrutinized for it, so I don't say a word. She hears I'm travelling somewhere in the middle east, and she'd like me to buy her some of that style of clothing, I'll gladly do it and support it in that way.

My wife has her masters in education, taught for years, and now elects to stay at home with our kids. If she wanted to work again, I'd fully support it. She feels like the sacrifice she's making by choosing to stay at home and not be in the job market is better than having kids in daycare.

So, is that enough of a summary, or should I detail how my wife is oppressed?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
France is just doing what all the other European nations are starting to do: making sure their culture isn't destroyed by immigrants who refuse to embrace it. I'm pretty sure Switzerland recently banned minarets from mosques.
 
What, no rebuttal?

And NutMan...the immigrants are destroying the culture by refusing to embrace it? Then quit letting so many immigrants in, if that's truly what's happening. The gov't has a fair bit of power in this situation. It's not like France and Lebanon share a border. Xenophobia aside, explain to me how someone's cultural dress destroys a nation.
 
It's not just the dress. It's a combination of everything together and the "destruction"(or change) of the French culture would happen over the span of multiple decades.

They probably should do something about the immigration, but I wouldn't know what to tell them. It seems like America and Canada can't get it right either.
 
[quote name='NutManIV']It's not just the dress. It's a combination of everything together and the "destruction"(or change) of the French culture would happen over the span of multiple decades.

They probably should do something about the immigration, but I wouldn't know what to tell them. It seems like America and Canada can't get it right either.[/QUOTE]

Gotcha. So it's dress and falafel. If they ever bring us hummous too, we might as well all get used to saying "Allahu akbar" 5 times a day, right?
 
[quote name='berzirk']What, no rebuttal?[/QUOTE]

Keep yer pants on, I'm busy tonight.

Here's a preview: I should have seen the personal perspective coming from a mile away.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Keep yer pants on, I'm busy tonight.

Here's a preview: I should have seen the personal perspective coming from a mile away.[/QUOTE]

Preparing to read a reply that tries to discredit personal perspectives as experiences.
 
[quote name='berzirk']What, no rebuttal?

And NutMan...the immigrants are destroying the culture by refusing to embrace it? Then quit letting so many immigrants in, if that's truly what's happening. The gov't has a fair bit of power in this situation. It's not like France and Lebanon share a border. Xenophobia aside, explain to me how someone's cultural dress destroys a nation.[/QUOTE]
Sending waves of immigrants into another country to either increase your influence or to take it over completely is a very real tactic. I'm not surprised that the Europeans didn't recognize the problem right away, but the way they're handling it now is just silly.

Different cultures can all contribute something to their countries, but they have to be willing to assimilate first. They have to function within the framework of the society that they've chosen to live in, that doesn't mean they can't practice their religion or wear clothing that is acceptable to them, but for example, you need to be able to show your face in a courtroom. They're addressing a very small part of the problem in the completely wrong way by doing this, they're further alienating these people.

Look at the Russian Far East. Resource rich but utterly devoid of people. China is sending illegal immigrants there by the thousands, they'll outnumber the Russians in a generation.
 
So ultimately, bezirk, you're making a few errors in terms of what my argument is. I said something blah blah about the sexism in "this particular faith" and you misread that to mean I think it's the most sexist religion ever and Christianity gets a pass. I was wondering how you came to that conclusion (my use of "this particular" was because I was identifying the topic of discussion in this thread, which was not Christianity) - and there it hit me.

Your wife is Muslim and one who literally wears some degree of orthodoxy. So you're probably accustomed to being hyperdefensive in a nation and a culture that creates a false analogy b/w "Muslim" and "terrorist." So because I criticize the symbolic tenets of a faith, you think I'm specifically anti-Muslim and not anti-religion. That's your misreading of my words.

I'm glad you're happy and I'm glad you're wife is happy, but that doesn't change the socio/historical/cultural aspect of repressive sexuality and gender-based differences in dress as sought by the faith. It's the very point that one is a less-perfect Muslim if they opt to not wear a hijab, or not even a jilbab, right?

I see that you seem to think I'm singling out Islam here. Well, I am, because it is the topic of conversation - not because of any specific animus that I lack for any other faith or general social norms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top