Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

That's exactly what it's about for a lot of people. Cultural deviance.

Obviously the argument about the oppression of women is another way to approach it, and is much more complex.
However I would go back to what I said about breast implants, and how we could see other similar cultural practices in 'western culture' which are 'oppressing women' in the same manner. Unless you can actually prove that men actually 'force' muslim women to wear the burka then it's no more 'oppressive' than the miniskirt, the low neckline or high heels.

Yes, you could argue that the presence of such things within society is a form of sexism. However it is at society's digression to allow such cultural mores to be allowed and even promoted (You try taking away a woman's high heel collection!). Just as the Burqa, or at least the hijab, is promoted in many islamic societies, the concept of the 'sexy' woman is promoted in Western societies. But in most cases women who travel to such Islamic societies do adopt cultural courtesies, such as dressing more modestly. An example of this is Hilary Clinton's visit to the Middle East, where when she visited Mosques and other Holy sites, she wore a head scarf.

In regards to how these mores may oppress women, I would agree to some extent, however none of your examples actually oppress women to any great extent in the same way the Burqa does. The Burqa denies women the right to have a public identity. Without such identity she has little to no public role. Denying someone their identity is an extremely effective form of oppression.

Originally Posted by Balthazar

Because I know something about the history of Muslim women and the veil.

I also know something about the history of Islam, Muslim women included. So what is your point Balthazar and why are you so keen to defend this form of oppression?

They tend to cover up when Islam's under attack from people like you.

Firstly, please point out where I have attacked Islam or withdraw the remark please.

Secondly, the burka has nothing to do with religion or religious practice, it is a cultural symbol that some have attempted to attach to Islam.

Finally, precisely what are people like me Balthazar?

Originally Posted by stewy

its a racist principle and we both know it.discriminating against the little brown girl and her strange foreign culture and religion.(nothing personal ,just generalising.)

The only racial part of it is that it defends the values of a Western society. Of course it is aimed at Islamic women, so in that regard it is racist, but it is in no way malicious.

Originally Posted by DougieG

It is incredibly condescending to say 'oh poor Muslim women they don't know what's best for them. We had better fine them for letting their evil husbands force them to wear a burqa.' You are all aware, aren't you, that the majority of women do not wear the burqa because of fear of their men, but because they actually believe it is necessary? They have been told by their society that they must wear it.

I believe the majority of people know why the majority of women wear the burka, and probably most of them appreciate that those societies that encourage the wearing of the burka give greater rights, privileges and power to men. This is not, as some who have us believe, an issue of religion or religious tolerance, it is one of equality.

Going back to the naked example from earlier in the post, society tells women that they ought to wear clothes full stop in order to cover their decency. Burqa wearers simply go one step further and say that they must wear a full veil to cover their decency. Can someone explain to me, without using the preposterous phrase 'Western values', how the two situations are different.

Because society tells everyone, men, women, girls and boys, to wear clothes full stop to cover their decency; that is the difference.

As for 'Western Values', I understand the core values of western Europe as being democracy, personal freedom, free speech, freedom of expression and equality. Hardly preposterous.

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

I believe the majority of people know why the majority of women wear the burka, and probably most of them appreciate that those societies that encourage the wearing of the burka give greater rights, privileges and power to men. This is not, as some who have us believe, an issue of religion or religious tolerance, it is one of equality.



Because society tells everyone, men, women, girls and boys, to wear clothes full stop to cover their decency; that is the difference.

As for 'Western Values', I understand the core values of western Europe as being democracy, personal freedom, free speech, freedom of expression and equality. Hardly preposterous.

surely as one of our core values in freedom of expression , they should be allowed to wear the burkha.From what little i have read it seems to be a symbol of oppression in some muslim countries, with research showing(admittedly what little there is) that many in the west wear the burkha out of personal choice.

Originally Posted by DC

The only racial part of it is that it defends the values of a Western society. Of course it is aimed at Islamic women, so in that regard it is racist, but it is in no way malicious.

......but still racist.Do many women wear the burkha in oz and how is it perceived there?

Originally Posted by stewy

surely as one of our core values in freedom of expression , they should be allowed to wear the burkha.From what little i have read it seems to be a symbol of oppression in some muslim countries, with research showing(admittedly what little there is) that many in the west wear the burkha out of personal choice.

Personal choice to follow a tradition which has been used in recent times as a form of oppression. Personally I see the religious connotations it has as also oppressive. Their personal choice to wear it does not change its use as a tool of oppression. Freedom of expression of course, has its limits. In Germany and Austria I would not be allowed to wear a Swastika, so there is a form of constricting freedom of expression. What's more I would argue that the Burqa's removal of identity from women does more harm in denying them their rights than this law does in restricting the wearing of the Burqa.

Originally Posted by stewy

......but still racist.Do many women wear the burkha in oz and how is it perceived there?

I would say it isn't, as it bans face coverings in general, but the intent behind it probably is. But again, I see no problem with that. Now Australia does not have a large Islamic population, that there is is usually condensed. Personally I have seen one woman wearing a full Burqa. It's hard to gauge what the public feels about it, Australians are notoriously conservative in this area, they don't generally speak their mind and just let the more vocal left create policy, and then just wipe them out come election time. I would say the vast majority would be against it. Basically if any ban was proposed, the left would scream against it, but if it ever got before a referendum, then I believe it would easily pass into law.

Originally Posted by DC

Personal choice to follow a tradition which has been used in recent times as a form of oppression. Personally I see the religious connotations it has as also oppressive. Their personal choice to wear it does not change its use as a tool of oppression. Freedom of expression of course, has its limits. In Germany and Austria I would not be allowed to wear a Swastika, so there is a form of constricting freedom of expression. What's more I would argue that the Burqa's removal of identity from women does more harm in denying them their rights than this law does in restricting the wearing of the Burqa.

So you wish to impose liberation on others as you see fit?
Very strong connecting the swastika and burkha , dont you think??
Women , in most cases are intelligent adults that are free to choose how to dress and i hope it stays that way.I do not feel in the least bit frightened of a piece of cloth.

Originally Posted by DC

I would say it isn't, as it bans face coverings in general, but the intent behind it probably is. But again, I see no problem with that. Now Australia does not have a large Islamic population, that there is is usually condensed. Personally I have seen one woman wearing a full Burqa. It's hard to gauge what the public feels about it, Australians are notoriously conservative in this area, they don't generally speak their mind and just let the more vocal left create policy, and then just wipe them out come election time. I would say the vast majority would be against it. Basically if any ban was proposed, the left would scream against it, but if it ever got before a referendum, then I believe it would easily pass into law.

interesting , most aussies i have met seem so laid back (time for another beer mate - sort of thing)that i wouldnt have thought this an issue of any note for them.?!

Originally Posted by stewy

So you wish to impose liberation on others as you see fit?

No, but doesn't any decent society rally against the oppression of women?

Very strong connecting the swastika and burkha , dont you think??

I'm merely pointing out that freedom of expression is already restricted in regards to what people can wear. Like you say, there's no harm in a piece of cloth, so how is a flag with a Swastika on it any more harmful than a Burqa?

Women , in most cases are intelligent adults that are free to choose how to dress and i hope it stays that way.I do not feel in the least bit frightened of a piece of cloth.

In many, many cases all around the world women are not free, including in Europe. Besides, as the Swastika case proves, nobody has free reign when it comes to what they wear. And this is not about people being frightened by a piece of cloth, merely what that cloth does, which is hide identities. Something intimidating in Western cultures.

Originally Posted by DC

No, but doesn't any decent society rally against the oppression of women?

I'm merely pointing out that freedom of expression is already restricted in regards to what people can wear. Like you say, there's no harm in a piece of cloth, so how is a flag with a Swastika on it any more harmful than a Burqa?

In many, many cases all around the world women are not free, including in Europe. Besides, as the Swastika case proves, nobody has free reign when it comes to what they wear. And this is not about people being frightened by a piece of cloth, merely what that cloth does, which is hide identities. Something intimidating in Western cultures.

here in the uk , i see bikers wear swastikas on many an occassion.To many germans, it is a sign of something that they wish to forget from their past.the swastika is not banned here and neither it nor the burkha should be .
there is no real problem, locally or nationally with the burkha here in the uk.nor it appears many other countries , even belgium where only a very small minority wear it out of , it seems personal choice.It only seems to intimidate when people ,for whatever reason, WANT it to.So i say again live and let live.there is no problem so dont create one.

Originally Posted by stewy

interesting , most aussies i have met seem so laid back (time for another beer mate - sort of thing)that i wouldnt have thought this an issue of any note for them.?!

Australians are interesting in that are EXTREMELY conservative. Laid back, but very conservative. Our politics are simply so boring, we have two parties that are dead centre. When it was shaken up a bit with One Nation, actual Australian views reared their head. One Nation, a party whose main policy was restricting Asian immigration and adopting a hard line view on Aboriginals, got 1 million votes, 1/20th of our population. Whatever you say about the BNP, they do actually have real policies for most branches of Government, and at least on a policy level, are not outright racists, this cannot be said for One Nation. Pauline Hanson, the party leader in her inaugural speech to Parliament actually said "We are in danger of being swamped by Asians". One Nation was basically a party even more extreme than the BNP getting seats.

Originally Posted by DC

Australians are interesting in that are EXTREMELY conservative. Laid back, but very conservative. Our politics are simply so boring, we have two parties that are dead centre. When it was shaken up a bit with One Nation, actual Australian views reared their head. One Nation, a party whose main policy was restricting Asian immigration and adopting a hard line view on Aboriginals, got 1 million votes, 1/20th of our population. Whatever you say about the BNP, they do actually have real policies for most branches of Government, and at least on a policy level, are not outright racists, this cannot be said for One Nation. Pauline Hanson, the party leader in her inaugural speech to Parliament actually said "We are in danger of being swamped by Asians". One Nation was basically a party even more extreme than the BNP getting seats.

Only in Aussie would a party like that get any votes.

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

I believe the majority of people know why the majority of women wear the burka, and probably most of them appreciate that those societies that encourage the wearing of the burka give greater rights, privileges and power to men. This is not, as some who have us believe, an issue of religion or religious tolerance, it is one of equality.

'The majority of people know...' you see, this is the problem. It's the problem that the Daily Mail has. It's the problem that most populists have. They claim that everyone thinks or knows something when in actuality it is not the case. Common knowledge is not correct by virtue of being common. It is only an issue of equality insofar as you think yourself superior to these women in ordering them what to wear. It is not as if the men are the only ones who would protest such a law. The women would be just as riled and no amount of finger-wagging and claiming that you are helping them will get away from the fact that you would be furthering a nanny state.

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

Because society tells everyone, men, women, girls and boys, to wear clothes full stop to cover their decency; that is the difference.

Aha, now we have got to the nub of the problem. But in Britain, how many men do you see walking around with no top on during the summer? And how many women? Is this perhaps because Western Society has different standards for men and women in dress code concerning decency?

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

As for 'Western Values', I understand the core values of western Europe as being democracy, personal freedom, free speech, freedom of expression and equality. Hardly preposterous.

None of those as ideas are preposterous, but the idea that everyone believes in them fully is. You evidently don't believe in personal freedom for these women. Nor do you believe in freedom of speech/expression because you don't support Human Rights (if this is incorrect, my deepest apologies). I don't believe fully in freedom of speech because I think that too much can lead to the Nazis, as can too much democracy. It's always a balancing act, and as such it is ridiculous to claim that there is this big pie in the sky called 'Western Values' that all Western societies fully adopt. Hell, we don't even HAVE democracy in Britain.

Originally Posted by DC

Yes, you could argue that the presence of such things within society is a form of sexism. However it is at society's digression to allow such cultural mores to be allowed and even promoted (You try taking away a woman's high heel collection!). Just as the Burqa, or at least the hijab, is promoted in many islamic societies, the concept of the 'sexy' woman is promoted in Western societies.

So oppression is ok as long as it is the societal norm?
I wasn't aware that "society" had it's own conscience?

In regards to how these mores may oppress women, I would agree to some extent, however none of your examples actually oppress women to any great extent in the same way the Burqa does. The Burqa denies women the right to have a public identity. Without such identity she has little to no public role. Denying someone their identity is an extremely effective form of oppression.

Some would suggest that sexy clothing does the very same, effectively prohibiting women from being taken seriously as anything other than sex objects.

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

So oppression is ok as long as it is the societal norm?
I wasn't aware that "society" had it's own conscience?

Oppression is simply a factor of society, it is neither ok, nor not ok. We are all oppressed in every society. That is what society does. Thankfully we live in societies that are not very oppressive (relatively), we see various types of oppression as bad, like Dictatorships, but not other kinds of oppression. Japan for example, is an extremely socially oppressive society, yet it is ranked otherwise. The banning of the Burqa (with major support) merely illustrates that in Belgian society the Burqa was not acceptable within that society, just as other crimes aren't. The failure of Muslim women to respect that boundary in society has meant that society has felt a need to enforce its values.

Some would suggest that sexy clothing does the very same, effectively prohibiting women from being taken seriously as anything other than sex objects.

Some would suggest that, and I'm not disagreeing with that analysis, however society in most cases does not see the need to legislate against that.

Originally Posted by DougieG

'The majority of people know...' you see, this is the problem. It's the problem that the Daily Mail has. It's the problem that most populists have. They claim that everyone thinks or knows something when in actuality it is not the case. Common knowledge is not correct by virtue of being common.

Dealing with you specific point, do you really believe that the majority of the population does not think that women who wear the burka do so as a form of religious observance? I certainly believe that those who wear the burka are mistaken in their motivation for as DC has pointed out, the burka predates Islam as we understand it and it is an item of cultural not religious clothing.

As for your general point regarding popularists / popularism, I don't disagree with you, its just on this occasion concerning this specific issue I believe that most people do understand in general terms why women who wear the burka do so.

It is only an issue of equality insofar as you think yourself superior to these women in ordering them what to wear. It is not as if the men are the only ones who would protest such a law. The women would be just as riled and no amount of finger-wagging and claiming that you are helping them will get away from the fact that you would be furthering a nanny state.

First you criticise me for believing that everyone thinks the same as I do, then you claim that I think I am superior to women who wear the burka: do you not see the irony? As for my actual motivations, I don't believe that I am superior to these women, but I do believe my cultural values and beliefs are superior to those who believe it is acceptable for women to be segregated and disengaged from society. How about you?

This nanny state business really is quite stale and a very poor argument: is being forced to wear a seat-belt part of the nanny state, are not having social workers part of the nanny state, indeed is not having hospitals and free health not part of some mythical nanny state. If you want some form of lessez fair state then you're welcome to it.

Aha, now we have got to the nub of the problem. But in Britain, how many men do you see walking around with no top on during the summer? And how many women? Is this perhaps because Western Society has different standards for men and women in dress code concerning decency?

Yes, we do have different standards for men and women, but it is clearly a matter of degree, and in our society and culture (and in practically all other cultures) showing one's face has nothing to do with decency or modesty. Additionally, women covering their breasts does not exclude them from society.

None of those as ideas are preposterous, but the idea that everyone believes in them fully is. You evidently don't believe in personal freedom for these women. Nor do you believe in freedom of speech/expression because you don't support Human Rights (if this is incorrect, my deepest apologies). I don't believe fully in freedom of speech because I think that too much can lead to the Nazis, as can too much democracy. It's always a balancing act, and as such it is ridiculous to claim that there is this big pie in the sky called 'Western Values' that all Western societies fully adopt. Hell, we don't even HAVE democracy in Britain.

It is ridiculous to believe that 100% of the population must subscribe to a certain set of value in order for this values to be considered as common, do you not agree?

In terms of my support for freedom or speech / expression and human rights, I believe that providing your behaviour and speech does not harm others and does not threaten society then you should be free to do as you wish, and as I have have written in an earlier post on this thread, I would not ban the burka, however I certainly do not agree with its wearing as it demeans women and excludes them from full participation in society and is therefore potentially harmful to society.

As for western values, clearly there are common values that are shared by the liberal democracies of the west and frankly I don't understand why this rather self evident situation has managed to pass you by, and as for democracy in the UK, we do have democracy just not a particularly good form of it.

Originally Posted by DC

Oppression is simply a factor of society, it is neither ok, nor not ok. We are all oppressed in every society. That is what society does. Thankfully we live in societies that are not very oppressive (relatively), we see various types of oppression as bad, like Dictatorships, but not other kinds of oppression. Japan for example, is an extremely socially oppressive society, yet it is ranked otherwise. The banning of the Burqa (with major support) merely illustrates that in Belgian society the Burqa was not acceptable within that society, just as other crimes aren't. The failure of Muslim women to respect that boundary in society has meant that society has felt a need to enforce its values.

Some would suggest that, and I'm not disagreeing with that analysis, however society in most cases does not see the need to legislate against that.

You have a very negative view of individuality which I am pleased not to share.

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

Dealing with you specific point, do you really believe that the majority of the population does not think that women who wear the burka do so as a form of religious observance? I certainly believe that those who wear the burka are mistaken in their motivation for as DC has pointed out, the burka predates Islam as we understand it and it is an item of cultural not religious clothing.

As for your general point regarding popularists / popularism, I don't disagree with you, its just on this occasion concerning this specific issue I believe that most people do understand in general terms why women who wear the burka do so.



First you criticise me for believing that everyone thinks the same as I do, then you claim that I think I am superior to women who wear the burka: do you not see the irony? As for my actual motivations, I don't believe that I am superior to these women, but I do believe my cultural values and beliefs are superior to those who believe it is acceptable for women to be segregated and disengaged from society. How about you?

This nanny state business really is quite stale and a very poor argument: is being forced to wear a seat-belt part of the nanny state, are not having social workers part of the nanny state, indeed is not having hospitals and free health not part of some mythical nanny state. If you want some form of lessez fair state then you're welcome to it.



Yes, we do have different standards for men and women, but it is clearly a matter of degree, and in our society and culture (and in practically all other cultures) showing one's face has nothing to do with decency or modesty. Additionally, women covering their breasts does not exclude them from society.



It is ridiculous to believe that 100% of the population must subscribe to a certain set of value in order for this values to be considered as common, do you not agree?

In terms of my support for freedom or speech / expression and human rights, I believe that providing your behaviour and speech does not harm others and does not threaten society then you should be free to do as you wish, and as I have have written in an earlier post on this thread, I would not ban the burka, however I certainly do not agree with its wearing as it demeans women and excludes them from full participation in society and is therefore potentially harmful to society.

As for western values, clearly there are common values that are shared by the liberal democracies of the west and frankly I don't understand why this rather self evident situation has managed to pass you by, and as for democracy in the UK, we do have democracy just not a particularly good form of it.

I actually agree with most of this post, especially your conclusions. I dislike the burqa, and would outlaw its usage for teachers, nurses, airport staff and indeed any public service where contact with others is necessary, e.g. train staff. But ultimately it would be as oppressive to stop people wearing it if they wanted to as it would be to force people to wear it. Either way you are making a decision on something that is a personal choice and has no impact on others outside of the situations that I described.

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

You have a very negative view of individuality which I am pleased not to share.

I have a realistic view. Every society demands some kind of conformity through which it organises itself. This is a simple fact. We do live in societies which in comparison to others are very liberal, however there are still limits. 90% of the time these limits are social, and not legislative, however sometimes a society may see the need to enforce its social limitations of individuality and behaviour with legislature.

Originally Posted by DougieG

I actually agree with most of this post, especially your conclusions. I dislike the burqa, and would outlaw its usage for teachers, nurses, airport staff and indeed any public service where contact with others is necessary, e.g. train staff. But ultimately it would be as oppressive to stop people wearing it if they wanted to as it would be to force people to wear it. Either way you are making a decision on something that is a personal choice and has no impact on others outside of the situations that I described.

For me religion and religious practice is and should be a personal affair, a matter of personal conscience, albeit the state should recognise more freely the rights of all individuals to practise their religion. On that basis I can see the argument for accepting the burka even though it is not really an Islamic symbol, however, a line has to be drawn and limits set as to what is and is not acceptable in an open and free society. Aside from the fact that the burka is a very visible symbol of women as second-class citizens, the burka is also representative of a number of cultural norms and values that I find hateful, unpleasant and have no place in an open and democratic society, namely certain hard-line interpretations of Sharia law, women's and minority rights (or rather the lack thereof).

What really cheeses me off though, is that the hard left and hard right view this as an issue about race or religion; it is not, it is an issue about how we live together and the values, behaviours and boundaries we as a society chose to live by and within. I dislike burka and what it stands for as much as I dislike those American Christian idiots who picket funerals with offensive banners about 'fag America' or whatever drivelous hate they promote; but as I wrote, this is or certainly should not be a matter about religion, it is about cultural practices and behaviour, in my view anyway.

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

Tut, such intolerance Kiwi, you're not a bigot are you?!

The (left wing) Labour Government has ben destroying the freedoms of all people in the UK irrespective of colour and creed (albeit Christianity is being increasingly targetted for discriminatory treatment), and yes, my views remain unchanged: everyone should have the right to practice their religion and live their lives in accordance with whatever religious practice they choose with the proviso that it should not harm others or infringe on their rights or freedoms. The burka is representative of a rather unpleasant culture and has nothing to do with Islam or any other religion, it is a symbol of oppression against women and is a direct challenge to the liberal freedoms of the west, but should it be banned? In my opinion no, but I don't have a problem with it being banned.

Like some Muslims, left-wingers, quite often are the worst bigots going.

Originally Posted by octopus

Like some Muslims, left-wingers, quite often are the worst bigots going.

In addition to being misguided, naive and over controlling Octopus!

If women want to wear a burqa its up to them but they shouldn't be forced to by their religion or their men and they should have to remove it when anyone in public asks them to. I think the Belgian govenrnemt has gone jsut a bit too far in banning it but its their country and their laws.

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

In addition to being misguided, naive and over controlling Octopus!

And downright dangerous! All this reminds me of the 1930s (although I wasn"t around at the time). In my opnion, Islam is even more dangerous than Hitler"s nazis were.

Originally Posted by octopus

And downright dangerous! All this reminds me of the 1930s (although I wasn"t around at the time). In my opnion, Islam is even more dangerous than Hitler"s nazis were.

With respect Octopus, I do not think that Islam is dangerous, indeed it is a faith that, like most others, is worthy of our respect and understanding.

Islam teaches hospitality, caring for your neighbour and the environment around you, it protects and gives rights to women and insists on fair business practices to name just a few measures. Like the insane Christianity of North Western US 'survivalists' and Hitler-loving Aryan types, there is a form of this religion that is profoundly unpleasant, a form that believes in the subjucation of women, intolerance of other faiths, and wishes to end democracy and human rights: we confuse this small branch of Islam with the greater In every sense) religion at our peril.

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

Islam teaches hospitality, caring for your neighbour and the environment around you, it protects and gives rights to women and insists on fair business practices to name just a few measures. Like the insane Christianity of North Western US 'survivalists' and Hitler-loving Aryan types, there is a form of this religion that is profoundly unpleasant, a form that believes in the subjucation of women, intolerance of other faiths, and wishes to end democracy and human rights: we confuse this small branch of Islam with the greater In every sense) religion at our peril.

You've been listening to the government brainwashing.
Islam is the Qur'an and Hadiths and that IS the religion.
It says a woman's testimony in court is worth less than half of a man's.
It is definitely about subjugation of women.
...and what do they think of homosexuals.
... and what about the instructions in the Qur'an to kill Jews and Christians.
...and what about the instructions to tax non believers.

Please don't be in denial. The moderate form of Islam is actually the apostate form, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by Barry

You've been listening to the government brainwashing.
Islam is the Qur'an and Hadiths and that IS the religion.
It says a woman's testimony in court is worth less than half of a man's.
It is definitely about subjugation of women.
...and what do they think of homosexuals.
... and what about the instructions in the Qur'an to kill Jews and Christians.
...and what about the instructions to tax non believers.

Please don't be in denial. The moderate form of Islam is actually the apostate form, not the other way around.

In the bible god told david to kill the philistines, the people of jericho and another tribe whose name doesn't spring to mind.
The recent phillipa stroud case also illustrates that christianity is hardly progressive itself.

Leave your gated community once in a while and actually meet some Muslims, you might be pleasantly surprised.

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

In the bible god told david to kill the philistines,

Darn good shot with a sling, was young (King) David!
Bravo!

Originally Posted by Barry

Darn good shot with a sling, was young (King) David!
Bravo!

So basically on both of the threads on religion you've flat out ignored my point.

Still what else would I expect from a religious fundamentalist.

Originally Posted by Barry

You've been listening to the government brainwashing.

Nope, at my age I've managed to learn how to think for myself. And study to.

Islam is the Qur'an and Hadiths and that IS the religion.
It says a woman's testimony in court is worth less than half of a man's.
It is definitely about subjugation of women.

Just as the bible is your and my religion Barry; so, have you killed anyone for wearing clothes not cut from the same piece of cloth recently and lets not even talk about what we should do with those who work on the sabbath?

I think you are well aware of how faith is practiced and understood is largely due to interpretation and cultural factors, thus the Islam practised in certain parts of rural Pakistan is not the same as that practised in Turkey or Syria or Albania - just as there is no single form of Christianity there is no single form of Islam.

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

Still what else would I expect from a religious fundamentalist.

Thank you for the recognition.

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

With respect Octopus, I do not think that Islam is dangerous, indeed it is a faith that, like most others, is worthy of our respect and understanding.

Islam teaches hospitality, caring for your neighbour and the environment around you, it protects and gives rights to women and insists on fair business practices to name just a few measures. Like the insane Christianity of North Western US 'survivalists' and Hitler-loving Aryan types, there is a form of this religion that is profoundly unpleasant, a form that believes in the subjucation of women, intolerance of other faiths, and wishes to end democracy and human rights: we confuse this small branch of Islam with the greater In every sense) religion at our peril.

These two groups you have mentioned have one thing in common - THEY ARE SWORN ENIMIES OF FREEDOM! During WW2, a lot of Hitler"s troops weren"t nazis, but we still ended up fighting them, and killing them. I firmly believe that Islam will be our next major nemesis. With Iran"s nuclear project looming, we are in great danger. All the time Muslims are here in large numbers this danger multiplies 10 fold; blood is thicker than water. It is worthy of understanding and respect - IN THE MIDDLE EAST, WHERE IT BELONGS!

Originally Posted by octopus

These two groups you have mentioned have one thing in common - THEY ARE SWORN ENIMIES OF FREEDOM! During WW2, a lot of Hitler"s troops weren"t nazis, but we still ended up fighting them, and killing them. I firmly believe that Islam will be our next major nemesis. With Iran"s nuclear project looming, we are in great danger. All the time Muslims are here in large numbers this danger multiplies 10 fold; blood is thicker than water.

I believe that a great many of the problems, or perceived problems at least, with Islam stem from two things:

• That there's a widespread misunderstanding, both among Muslims themselves and other religions alike, of what's written in the Qur'an about fundamentalism and "killing the unfaithful", and
• The antipathy toward Muslims is very tied up with the immigration problem and many of the sheeple don't separate that from fundamentalism.

Having said that, one has to face day to day realities rather than simply look at what's written or intended; the two can be very much at odds with each other in the way that theory and practice often are. One also has to face the fact that Islam is still a primitive religion with its roots in desert community living some 1,500 years ago and hasn't yet progressed to the stage where it's compatible with 21st century democracy.

The bottom line is that I do have to agree with Octopus in that Islam, or rather the small but disproportionately vocal fundamentalist supporters of Islam, could well be our next enemy. If this happens though, Islam as a whole will unite and fundamentalists or not we'll end up killing Muslims left, right and centre in the way we killed any Germans, not just Nazis.

That is if the predicted widespread unrest caused by famine and water shortages as a result of climate change don't hit us first

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

Nope, at my age I've managed to learn how to think for myself. And study to.

Oh the irony!