No. I’m most interested in Muslims being able to merge with the rest of the world and modern times for their safety and prosperity, and ours. No need to twist my words.
And please don’t forget we are talking about all this in the context of Muslims immigrating to Europe or elsewhere, not what they choose to do in their homelands.[/quote]Mer, please, play nice. I did not attempt to twist your words. To ensure that I did not, I asked, “Is that fair?” If you feel that this symbolic of a larger debate, fine. But then the issues should be differently framed and addressed. In the interests of clarity, can you explain what “being able to merge with the rest of the world and modern times” means to you?[/quote]
I thought I was ‘playing nice’. I don’t take other Forumosan’s words out of context. Do you?
If you really want to know what I mean about ‘Islam being able to merge with the rest of the world and modern times’, then I’ll direct your attention to this video with Wafa Sultan. I can’t encapsulate what she says about Islam and the Clash of Civilizations well enough to do it justice, so just watch for yourself.
No, I try not to. But you dropped the question I posed requesting clarification, then stated “No need to twist my words.” If not offside as a misrepresentation of my intent, it was pretty close to the line.
I’m familiar with Wafa Sultan, her debate, and Samuel Huntington’s book. All very popular. Have you read Amartya Sen’s Identity and Violence. He does a good job of taking on the assumptions underlying Huntington’s assumptions.
At the moment, I’m interested in understanding your thoughts and statements, not theirs. But if you wish, I’ll let her well-made argument speak to your point.
[quote=“Jaboney”]I’m familiar with Wafa Sultan, her debate, and Samuel Huntington’s book. All very popular. Have you read Amartya Sen’s Identity and Violence. He does a good job of taking on the assumptions underlying Huntington’s assumptions.
At the moment, I’m interested in understanding your thoughts and statements, not theirs. But if you wish, I’ll let her well-made argument speak to your point.[/quote]
I don’t have a whole lot more to say than I’ve already said, and don’t want to go around in circles debating this topic if we simply don’t agree on the various issues and what it all represents.
I don’t think Holland is being too tough, and certainly not discriminatory. While the new law may appear to target Muslims, it’s not born out of a mean-spirited nature. As I’ve said, it’s common sense for society there, and other similar countries who have already adopted such measures.
If you want to live in someone else’s country and become a citizen, you have to make it work. That means some concessions on your part, even if that sometimes includes religious or deep cultural values for you. If the country you are wanting to immigrate to embraces your way of life and your code of conduct, hey - good for you. If it doesn’t, then it’s not the country and its citizens that have the problem, it’s you. Find somewhere you can live as you want then.
The rules are applied across the board, they apply to everyone. Fair is fair. Equal treatment for everyone, special treatment for no one.
[quote=“Jaboney”]TainanCowboy, until you can [url=http://tw.forumosa.com/t/the-morgue-2006/24298/221 them up[/url] with either fact, argument, or both, I’m little interested in your opinions. You’re entitled to them, but they don’t mean much to me.
(But I’m happy to entertain intuitions and feelings.)[/quote]
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Of course it targeting “certain” immigrants.
Ones that insist on wearing burkhas. What is unclear about this?
Until I start seeing news stories about suicide nuns wearing a belt of C-4 or Semtex under a vest of ball bearing and nuts & bolts…I’m just gonna have to say this is a burkha problem.
And your comment to Mer about “playing nice” is insulting and derogatory. But thats just my opinion.[/quote]
Back-up what? Pretty clear statements. Perhaps, and its just a surmise on my part, thats where your confusion is?
Anyway, choose what you like and respond!
Of course burkas are just the tip of the iceberg. How about their mosques? Everybody knows that’s where most of their plots are hatched. And giving sermons in those mosques in Arabic? I shudder to think what their imams are preaching in them. We’ll never know before it’s too late and they’ve taken over.
Personally I think once we’ve gotten them all looking, talking and acting like us we’ll still need to make them wear some kind of identifying symbol because everybody knows that you can take take the Muslim out of their burkas and mosques but you’ll never take the burkas and mosques out of the Muslim.
I’m glad Holland is taking a tougher stand on the issue, despite whatever lame backlash might pop up. Canada dropped the ball on similar issues years ago.
Years ago, the Canadian courts ruled that Sikh police officers (more specifically RCMP) could wear their turbans while on duty, and were not required to shave their beards, unlike their fellow white, black or other officers. I really couldn’t believe the courts blew that one. A white guy with a 70’s stash and long hair won’t get the job, but a Sikh with a turban and a beard is okay, because of his ‘religion’.
When you are representing your nation or province as an officer of the law, religion takes a back seat IMO, along with the style of hair you want to wear or your facial hair. Either you want the job or not.
I wondered, what’s next? What about the Sikh firefighter? Is he going to want to wear a turban while fighting fires? Of course not. But do we have to let him if he wants to, because it’s part of his religion?
Sikh kids are allowed to wear their ceremonial daggers to school in Canada too. But should anyone else get caught with a pocket knife, suspended!
How many Chinese immigrants have sought to terrorize Canada or sawed the head of anyone critical of the Chinese immigrant community in Canada?
[quote=“Jaboney”]Why? Europe isn’t enjoying the same success, but are there reasons why it can’t? (Goes to your concerns re: integration.)
A look at birth rates over the past fifty years offers another way of putting that fear to rest: make sure that those immigrants-male and female-can succeed economically, and that they’re very well educated. Birthrates will quickly plummet, and many of those cultural concerns will evaporate.[/quote]
The problem isn’t necessarily with immigrants who do wish to integrate. Its with those who do not wish to integrate. Generally speaking, Chinese have immigrated for economic reasons. Why have those who advocate implementation of Sharia immigrated to Europe?
And I understand that wearing a burqa is not required by Islamic law… but, it is required by many of those who seek to oppress women and who advocate Islamic law in Europe and other areas.
No. It doesn’t.
Doesn’t look like a picnic if its going to affect you, notwithstanding historical perspective.
What’s to sort out? The Dutch have sorted out their problems a long time ago. They now have one of the most conservative yet tolerant societies on the planet. Why should they allow immigrants to come in and press a different agenda, especially when that agenda is anathema to current Dutch ideas?
How is that relevant to the situation now? As indicated and agreed to, the Dutch have sorted themselves out and they are currently a very tolerant society. Why should they have to accept intolerance now imposed on them by immigrants?
[quote=“Tigerman”]What is the relevance of Muslim law to Dutch society and law?
Who is suggesting that these Dutch immigrants are being forced to wear the Burqa?[/quote]
Do you think Moslem women decided on their own to wear the Burqa? Some may assert so now. But, I really doubt that it was a female choice to wear the Burqa. Tell us how many Moslem rules and laws are drafted and implemented by Moslem women.
You cannot seriously believe that? Again, who (men or women) wrote the Quran and Moslem laws?
I don’t see how forcing women to wear a burqa is tolerant. The folks who this legislation is aimed at are obviously the folks who think it appropriate and just to kill women for not wearing burqas.
Also, the legislation obviously has a security purpose as well. How many times is it necessary to see a bomber board an Israeli bus wearing a burqa before people understand that its probably not a bad idea to ban people from wearing burqas?
What goal is achieved in forcing women to wear burqas? What goal can be achieved in banning the wearing of burqas?
[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“Tigerman”]What is the relevance of Muslim law to Dutch society and law?
Who is suggesting that these Dutch immigrants are being forced to wear the Burqa?[/quote]Do you think Moslem women decided on their own to wear the Burqa? Some may assert so now. But, I really doubt that it was a female choice to wear the Burqa. Tell us how many Moslem rules and laws are drafted and implemented by Moslem women.[quote=“Jaboney”]Bizarre and distasteful IMHO, but it may be their choice.[/quote]You cannot seriously believe that? Again, who (men or women) wrote the Quran and Moslem laws?[/quote]
Is the Burqa prescribed in Quran, or modest dress? Is it cultural, or religious? It’s cultural.
And yes, I’m serious, unbelievable though it may seem, that some women do freely choose to wear it. Why? I guess it’s familiar. Maybe it’s safe. (Why did many American women lobby against the equal wage amendment, which would appear to have been in their interest?) Pretty horrible, imho, but I’m not the one wearing it, and so long as they’re wearing it by choice, free of compulsion, who are we to say nay?
Are there are conceivable reasons why any women would choose to wear such a thing? Perhaps they don’t like some of the alternatives presented by more body-centric societies:
This lovely lady, Brazilian model Ana Carolina Reston died on November 14 from a generalized infection caused by anorexia.
Her body-mass-index was well below that of the limit defined as starvation.
I wonder–seriously, in the past I have tried to find out–what the rates of anorexia and other eating disorders are in societies in which women wear the burqa. I’m not suggesting that this explains why these women are wearing that terrible robe–after all, the burqa predates anorexia–only that there are reasons, however odd, why they might choose to do so. So long as no one is harmed, where’s the harm?
(Btw, I don’t understand S&M leather fetishes either, but I don’t get bent out of shape when I see such outfits being worn on the street in Vancouver or Montreal.)
[quote=“Tigerman”]Also, the legislation obviously has a security purpose as well. How many times is it necessary to see a bomber board an Israeli bus wearing a burqa before people understand that its probably not a bad idea to ban people from wearing burqas?
What goal is achieved in forcing women to wear burqas? What goal can be achieved in banning the wearing of burqas?[/quote]
How many Israeli buses cruise the streets of Amsterdam? Context.
Is a burqa a greater threat than a backpack? Backpacks were used in the Madrid bombings, not burqas. Shall they be banned as well?
What goal is achieved by forcing women to not wear what they choose?
I think there should be some kind of shoot-to-kill policy put in place once this anti-burka law passes like there was when that Brazilian electrician was shot and killed in London in the subway for reasons which still aren’t quite clear. Think about it. The only people likely to be wearing burkas in public after this law passes are people with some real Muslim attitude problems.
It is not prescribed in the Quran. And it is cultural. However, there are Moslems (men) who believe it is Islamic law and who have punished and who continue to punish women who do not wear the burqa.
J, do you really believe that Moslem women choose freely to wear the burqa? Per my understanding they wear it to avoid persecution. Tell me how that constitutes free choice.
[quote=“Jaboney”]Are there are conceivable reasons why any women would choose to wear such a thing? Perhaps they don’t like some of the alternatives presented by more body-centric societies:
This lovely lady, Brazilian model Ana Carolina Reston died on November 14 from a generalized infection caused by anorexia.
Her body-mass-index was well below that of the limit defined as starvation.
[/quote]
Strawman.
The Quran only requires that women cover their heads and limbs. It does not require that they wear a burqa and cover their face. Women are forced to wear a burqa by men who have and do and who will continue to persecute them for not wearing a burqa. So yes, women freely choose. But the choice is this: Wear a burqa and escape persecution or do not wear a burqa and be persecuted… the choice is theirs… who are we to complain?
Or do you really believe that women one day all decided that it was they who wanted to wear a burqa? You do not think that it might have been men who made the decision and men who enforced the decision?
Or maybe its not a good place. Do you honestly believe that many Moslem women freely speak their minds on controversial issues?
I wonder what the guys who advocate the wearing of burqas think of the S&M outfits?
[quote=“Tigerman”]Also, the legislation obviously has a security purpose as well. How many times is it necessary to see a bomber board an Israeli bus wearing a burqa before people understand that its probably not a bad idea to ban people from wearing burqas?
What goal is achieved in forcing women to wear burqas? What goal can be achieved in banning the wearing of burqas?[/quote]
Probably none. But, how many nutter Islamofascists walk the streets of Amsterdam and ride the buses of Amsterdam? That’s the better question.
That’s perfect. Let’s do nothing.
Again… I do not believe that women had any say in the decision to wear burqas.
I don’t think so. I think the only people likely to be wearing burqas in violation of statute will be those women who are controlled by their husbands, fathers and brothers.
IMO, it ain’t the women of the world who are causing most of our (religious and political) problems.
I assume that you are aware of the practice of female circumcision/mutilation that is carried out in some countries. I also assume that you are aware that in those countries, the mothers of daughters insist on and often assist in the female circumcisions/mutilations.
Suppose a number of people from such nations immigrated to The Netherlands and continued this particular practice. Would you be opposed to legislation banning this practice because some women “chose” to undergo it, or chose to have their daughters undergo it?
Why or why not?
Dunno about you, but I suspect that like burqa wearing, women were not asked what they thought about female circumcision/mutilation… what do you want to bet this was another idea thunk up by men?
[quote=“Tigerman”][T]here are Moslems (men) who believe it is Islamic law and who have punished and who continue to punish women who do not wear the burqa.
[…]
J, do you really believe that Moslem women choose freely to wear the burqa? Per my understanding they wear it to avoid persecution. Tell me how that constitutes free choice. [/quote]
Yes, there are men who believe this, have and continue to punish women who do not wear the burqa. Again, I support similar legislation in place in Turkey because Turkish women not wishing to adopt Islamic dress would otherwise find themselves at risk. My support for a similar ban in the Netherlands is contingent on the demonstration of a similarly general and pervasive threat.
Many, perhaps most, women wear the burqa to avoid persecution, and that’s terrible. I find it somewhat difficult to believe that you seriously believe that no women freely choose to wear it. Do you believe that the 3 dozen or so women wearing it in the Netherlands are subject to the same repression, and have as few options as women wearing it elsewhere? I suspect that a bit of ‘if they better understood what’s in their own interests’ is sneaking in here. If so, fine, but I’d like to be clear whether or not that’s so. Or maybe it’s just that the number of women freely choosing to wear the robe is so small, and the risk to society so great, that it’s in the public interest to police fashion and cultural expression. The burden of proof should, in that case, be on the state, should it not? And the emphasis must be on real harm, not fear.
[quote=“Tigerman”]Also, the legislation obviously has a security purpose as well. How many times is it necessary to see a bomber board an Israeli bus wearing a burqa before people understand that its probably not a bad idea to ban people from wearing burqas?
What goal is achieved in forcing women to wear burqas? What goal can be achieved in banning the wearing of burqas?
Probably none. But, how many nutter Islamofascists walk the streets of Amsterdam and ride the buses of Amsterdam? That’s the better question. [/quote]Here’s another question: do you think the women of Amsterdam are at greater risk from nutter Islamofascists walking the streets, or nutter women hating rapists? Surely you’re not about to advocate compulsorily, universal male chemical castration (something in the water, maybe?), no matter how many times women are attacked by randy bastards? It’s a silly question, posed only because I think banning clothing in this context is silly too. Hmm…then again, maybe not. Here’s a far better, analogous question: would you support a ban on the wearing of Klan robes?
[quote=“Tigerman”]Or maybe its not a good place. Do you honestly believe that many Moslem women freely speak their minds on controversial issues? [/quote] [/quote] :roflmao: Are you serious? How many Muslim women do you know?
[quote=“Tigerman”]I assume that you are aware of the practice of female circumcision/mutilation that is carried out in some countries. I also assume that you are aware that in those countries, the mothers of daughters insist on and often assist in the female circumcisions/mutilations.
Suppose a number of people from such nations immigrated to The Netherlands and continued this particular practice. Would you be opposed to legislation banning this practice because some women “chose” to undergo it, or chose to have their daughters undergo it?
Why or why not? [/quote]Hee hee. Surely you recognize the difference between wearing a robe and surgically altering a body?
Whether or not mothers or fathers should be able to choose to mutilate their daughters is easily answered: they should not.
But you continue to assume compulsion. Let’s test the limits of our libertarian leanings.
Assume, for a moment, the absence of compulsion. If a young–say mid-20s–woman, unmarried and independent, wished to undergo female circumcision, should she be prevented from doing so? (Given the weird shit people do, this isn’t out of the range of possibility, nor even of probability.) Societies allow, even support, sex change operations (as a matter of sexual identity), is this so different that it should necessarily and automatically be disallowed?
Personally, I find the idea grotesque, but if it’s truly her choice doesn’t the ‘no harm, no foul’ rule apply? Is there any reason why safeguards similar to those associated with gender reassignment procedures would be insufficient?
You seem to be focused only on the present. Do you really think the Dutch are not looking ahead and attempting to avoid problems before they arise? One should treat problems like trees. A sapling is much easier to deal with than is a fully grown oak tree.
Yes it is. So why complain about the Dutch proposed law?
I haven’t said that. Of course there are some women who choose to wear the burqa. But seriously, why do you think they freely choose to wear the burqa? Do you think it a natural choice? How many women do you know who like to wear clothes?
Don’t you think they may be wearing the burqa out of some misguided sense of piety? Again, the Qoran does not require women to wear a burqa… it is men who have enforced this ridiculous dress requirement on women. I am willing to bet that if we started from scratch, with no silly religious dogma clouding our eyes or crushing our souls, the burqa would be the last clothing option selected by women anywhere.
I don’t know. I wouldn’t be surprized to learn that they are pressured or forced to wear the burqa. Neither would I be surprized to learn that they “freely” choose to wear the burqa.
But, I believe that the proposed legislation is aimed at avoiding problems in the future and in this regard I think it is wise and reasonable legislation.
Damned right. You don’t think Moslem women have been manipulated by Moslem men? You think Moslem women are making Moslem dress code policy?
Well, why not tell us where and when Moslem women have been consulted on dress code matters.
Why must the Dutch wait until someone wears a burqa to hide explosives boards a bus and blows everyone up?
What’s the difference between nutter Islamofacists and nutter women hating rapists?
No.
Yes.
No. Because the Klan is not currently active in bombings and assasinations. Were there indications or reason to believe that the Klan were planning to start employing terrorism again and that the use of Klan robes figured into the terrorism, then I would support such a ban.
I just traveled to the US. Because there is now a risk of terrorists using liquid explosives, I was forced to limit the number and volume of liquids that i carried on board the plane with me. Its a pain in the butt, but, its a reasonable precaution.
I’ve known some in my life. How many burqa wearing Moslem women do you know?
But this is a silly question, and you ought to know it. If you are going to argue that Moslem women are so free, why not tell us about how much input Moslem women have had in coming up with Moslem rrules and laws. And yes, you may know some more modern Moslem women, who basically appeared to be just like you and me. But, we’re not talking about those Moslem women, are we? How many burqa-wearing Moslem women do you know?
Of course. But, that’s not the issue.
So why should parents, brothers and fathers be able to force their daughters, sisters and wives to wear a burqa?
And you continue to assume free choice.
But what if some women do wear the burqa freely. Surely they are a small minority relevant to women who are forced to wear the burqa. You would rather protect the right of those few women to wear a burqa than to protect the right of the many to not wear the burqa?
[quote=“Jaboney”]Let’s test the limits of our libertarian leanings.
Assume, for a moment, the absence of compulsion. If a young–say mid-20s–woman, unmarried and independent, wished to undergo female circumcision, should she be prevented from doing so? (Given the weird shit people do, this isn’t out of the range of possibility, nor even of probability.) Societies allow, even support, sex change operations (as a matter of sexual identity), is this so different that it should necessarily and automatically be disallowed?[/quote]
Absent compulsion, she should be permitted.
Again, absent compulsion, I don’t care what adults decide to do.
However, we are not concerned with those who do things of their own free will. They are not the class sought to be protected, and the security risk is another factor.
[quote=“Tigerman”]Of course there are some women who choose to wear the burqa. But seriously, why do you think they freely choose to wear the burqa? Do you think it a natural choice?[/quote]Absent compulsion or harm, why they choose to wear it isn’t my concern. Few social conventions are ‘natural’.
[quote=“Tigerman”]How many women do you know who like to wear clothes?[/quote]Too Many! Damn clothes.
[quote=“Tigerman”]Don’t you think they may be wearing the burqa out of some misguided sense of piety? Again, the Qoran does not require women to wear a burqa… it is men who have enforced this ridiculous dress requirement on women. I am willing to bet that if we started from scratch, with no silly religious dogma clouding our eyes or crushing our souls, the burqa would be the last clothing option selected by women anywhere.[/quote]Ah. Those poor, benighted souls. Are there many religious tenets or cultural practices that you would have the state strike down? Again, absent compulsion or harm, their religious beliefs and cultural practices aren’t my concern. And even when they are, the state must be extremely cautious before interfering. You’ve accepted adult, female circumcision. Would you disallow the Jehovah Witnesses’ prohibition against receiving blood transfusions, on the basis that their religious beliefs are directly harmful to them (again, adults), or is that alright because only the believer is harmed? At what point is it permissible for the state to interfere?
[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“Jaboney”]I suspect that a bit of ‘if they better understood what’s in their own interests’ is sneaking in here.[/quote]Damned right. You don’t think Moslem women have been manipulated by Moslem men? You think Moslem women are making Moslem dress code policy?[quote=“Jaboney”]If so, fine, but I’d like to be clear whether or not that’s so.[/quote]Well, why not tell us where and when Moslem women have been consulted on dress code matters.[/quote]I thought that we (small l) liberal folk were working from the position that interference in the lives of others requires a demonstration of harm and great need, not supposition and assumption. In Turkey, that demonstration has been made. In Afghanistan, everyone–men and women–were compelled to adhere to Pashtun cultural practices (beards and burqas), and the demonstration has been made. In Egypt, the state has targeted some fundamentalist practices as part of a program of political repression. There, the demonstration has not been made, and the ban is illegitimate. The onus is on the government to make its case before interfering in private life. Demonstrate the need for such a ban in the Netherlands.
[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“Jaboney”]Or maybe it’s just that the number of women freely choosing to wear the robe is so small, and the risk to society so great, that it’s in the public interest to police fashion and cultural expression. The burden of proof should, in that case, be on the state, should it not? And the emphasis must be on real harm, not fear.[/quote]Why must the Dutch wait until someone wears a burqa to hide explosives boards a bus and blows everyone up?[/quote]Preemptive action, taken in ignorance, based on fear. This is your prescription for a better, more secure society?
I’ve known some in my life. How many burqa wearing Moslem women do you know?[/quote]I’ve known a few. Not well, not many, but I’ve known a few.
[quote=“Tigerman”]So why should parents, brothers and fathers be able to force their daughters, sisters and wives to wear a burqa?[quote=“Jaboney”]But you continue to assume compulsion.[/quote]And you continue to assume free choice.
But what if some women do wear the burqa freely. Surely they are a small minority relevant to women who are forced to wear the burqa. You would rather protect the right of those few women to wear a burqa than to protect the right of the many to not wear the burqa?[/quote]The Dutch are dealing with a very, very small number of women out of a much larger number of Dutch Muslims. Where are these many oppressed women in the Netherlands?
[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“Jaboney”]Let’s test the limits of our libertarian leanings.
Assume, for a moment, the absence of compulsion. If a young–say mid-20s–woman, unmarried and independent, wished to undergo female circumcision, should she be prevented from doing so? (Given the weird shit people do, this isn’t out of the range of possibility, nor even of probability.) Societies allow, even support, sex change operations (as a matter of sexual identity), is this so different that it should necessarily and automatically be disallowed?[/quote]
Absent compulsion, she should be permitted.
Again, absent compulsion, I don’t care what adults decide to do.[/quote]Ok. Why shouldn’t that same woman be permitted to wear whatever she wishes?
Some more articles of clothing that Europeans should consider banning:
(1) Trousers / Pants. If “modesty” is no defense, then we might as well go whole hog.
(2) Yarmulkas. After all, we want to be even-handed in the Middle East conflict, don’t we? And as Adolf Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf (describing Jews wearing the whole Askenazi get-up), “Is this a German?!”
(3) Women’s clothing, when worn by men. Did somebody mention “European values”? (Oh wait, there’d have to be an exception for Greece, I think.)
(4) Berets. They’re a symbol of Basque identity, apparently, and therefore anathema.
(5) Fur. (Murderers!) Except the natural kind, sprouting out of the ladies’ legs and armpits.
This lovely lady, Brazilian model Ana Carolina Reston died on November 14 from a generalized infection caused by anorexia.
Context.