Men, for the most part of history, have been assholes.
It may be genetic (that broken off leg of the better XX chromosome).
It's all about making *MY* genes spread and I have the biggest weapon!
Fortunately, women, for the most part, have been willing to forgive that aspect. Afterall, those brutes have chosen the ones who will go along with their schemes, so by time, they may have selected a subset of the general genepool of women that knuckle under, so to speak. So in fact, maybe it's truly unfortunate.
But then, the UK, France, the Netherlands, etc does have a real problem on its hands with London turning in to Londonistan right before the eyes of its citizens.
And that, of course, is the real reason for these measures. Xenophobia, pure and simple.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Yeah, the Chimp is usually so cerebral. I'm kind of surprised he's taking this position. But then, the UK, France, the Netherlands, etc does have a real problem on its hands with London turning in to Londonistan right before the eyes of its citizens.
Oh, for crying out loud. London is not turning into Londonistan. At the last census (admittedly almost ten years ago now) about 8.5% of the population claimed to be Muslim. London's just a very diverse city with people from just about every country in the world living in it. Sure, if you spend your time hanging around in Bethnal Green or other Bengali areas, you can start thinking that almost everyone's Muslim. But then if you camped in Golder's Green or parts of Hackney every other person you'd see would be an Orthodox Jew - doesn't mean the Chasidim are taking over.
I think I've spouted enough "absurd, unrealistic, petulant, hateful, moronic and childish" comments on this topic, so I'll make this my last post.
Granny Magda writes: And you're going to fix that by making these women subservient to you instead. Nice work Chimp! You are not going to remake a whole culture in a style more to your liking with childishly crude legislation such as you have suggested. You are advocating a sledgehammer where even a scalpel would be too much. Your suggestion (apart from being legally absurd) would only cause uproar. Muslims would not obey it. There would be mass disobedience. There would be outrage amongst Muslims, who would fell that they were being discriminated against. It would fan the flames of Islamic extremism and directly lead to thousands more women being ordered to wear the veil.
I entirely agree. And I already said in a reply to Huntard, before you weighed in, that it wasn't meant as a serious suggestion for a law but was more of a statement. Sorry if you didn't see that post and I mislead you (I know we don't all have time to read all the posts).
I will do my best to make my position clear.
- I do not support banning the Burka or any form of dress (if it's genuinely their own choice, people can walk around stark naked or covered head to toe for all I care)
- I am genuinely concerned about people being denied equality and freedom of thought, and this includes people from all kinds of religious backgrounds. (I'm no more anti-Muslim than anti-Christian in that respect.)
- I would love to find a way in which we can "out" any instances of someone being denied equality and freedom - or rather "out" the perpetrators. That would include a way of demonstrating whether or not someone wearing a Burka is doing so of their own freewill and that there would be no repercussions whatsoever if they were not to wear it. I realise that may be impossible without infringing on various rights, unless the people concerned demonstrate this themselves - not by my obviously silly law proposal, but by their general conduct. My silly law proposal was really a statement aimed at Muslim men:- "if you're not bullying your women, let's see you demonstrate this in some way."
- I am convinced that the Islamic culture generally denies women such equality and freedom. This view is enforced by the lack of effort they make to demonstrate otherwise. (When did you ever see a public demonstration by Muslims - particulary Muslim men - in Britain against things associated with Muslims, such as FGM or arranged marriages?) If there ever has been such demonstration, there should have been 100 more of them. And they should keep demonstrating against them until they are ended. Unless of course, they do support the denial of female liberty, which is the conclusion I must draw at this stage from their appalling and shocking lack of effort.
Edited by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, : I have deleted a section - See messages 141 & 142 for explanation.
Quote from British Muslim explaining why she wears the Burka
She's not wearing a burqa, she's wearing a hijab, which is rather different. Just wanted to point that ou, because it makes your following comment a bit, shall we say, illogical?
If she's trying to identify herself as a Muslim, she's failing miserably. All the people in the street would know is that there's someone walking past them unwilling or unable to show their face.
Like this one. Hijab's show the face.
She's not identifying herself at all, let alone as a Muslim! Anyway, you're right. Whatever strange reasoning she adopts, if it is genuinely her own then that's her business.
Jumped Up Chimpanzee writes: Quote from British Muslim explaining why she wears the Burka
Huntard writes: She's not wearing a burqa, she's wearing a hijab, which is rather different. Just wanted to point that ou, because it makes your following comment a bit, shall we say, illogical?
Whoops! My error. Thanks for pointing that out. Although, I guess it then makes it illogical for GM to have used that quote in the first place as this topic is not about the hijab.
Oh, for crying out loud. London is not turning into Londonistan. At the last census (admittedly almost ten years ago now) about 8.5% of the population claimed to be Muslim. London's just a very diverse city with people from just about every country in the world living in it.
Okay, well, whether it was hyperbole on my part or not, I'm simply saying I understand the anger over the Finsbury Park radicals have incited. Muslims have long reported that they would out-populate the rest of the European demographic.
Is it hysteria or is it accurate? I can't say. But this is why burqa's are being banned, and why Europeans are beginning to show concern.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
Okay, well, whether it was hyperbole on my part or not, I'm simply saying I understand the anger over the Finsbury Park radicals have incited. Muslims have long reported that they would out-populate the rest of the European demographic.
They can try all they like, they'll never succeed.
Is it hysteria or is it accurate?
Hysteria.
But this is why burqa's are being banned, and why Europeans are beginning to show concern.
Yep. They seem to fail to realize that banning a piece of clothing does nothing to expose the real problem. The supression of human beings. This is what we should fight.
How is a burqa different? Can a bomb be hidden under a sports coat, a shirt, pants, in a backpack, grocery bag, briefcase?
Why is a burqa different than any of the others?
Why do bank robbers wear masks? Why don't they wear large hats, carry back packs, wear overcoats or whatever other garb noted by you and other members in this thread in responding to my message?
The answer to that is very simple. No security camera; no witness, no public transit driver, no airline personell and no law enforcement can identify them as criminals. Thus no justice and no closure for crimes commited by this right. Nobody would even know the gender of such a criminal.
I wonder if a Christian sect's ministers who were allowed to always appear in public, stealthfully hidden behind head masks and who wore the masks, always while in public would be allowed on busses, airliners, trains, near a mosque, in city hall, in crowded malls, in banks, photographed for driver's liscense permit, etc.
Would criminal elements like bank robbers then either join the sect or disguise as members so as to never be identified?
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
How is a burqa different? Can a bomb be hidden under a sports coat, a shirt, pants, in a backpack, grocery bag, briefcase?
Why is a burqa different than any of the others?
Why do bank robbers wear masks? Why don't they wear large hats, carry back packs, wear overcoats or whatever other garb noted by you and other members in this thread in responding to my message?
The answer to that is very simple. No security camera; no witness, no public transit driver, no airline personell and no law enforcement can identify them as criminals. Thus no justice and no closure for crimes commited by this right. Nobody would even know the gender of such a criminal.
I wonder if a Christian sect's ministers who were allowed to always appear in public, stealthfully hidden behind head masks and who wore the masks, always while in public would be allowed on busses, airliners, trains, near a mosque, in city hall, in crowded malls, in banks, photographed for driver's liscense permit, etc.
Would criminal elements like bank robbers then either join the sect or disguise as members so as to never be identified?
Bank robbers do wear large hats, carry back packs, wear overcoats and even Bush masks.
But that has nothing to do with the questions asked.
So once again...
How is a burqa different?
Can a bomb be hidden under a sports coat, a shirt, pants, in a backpack, grocery bag, briefcase?
Why is a burqa different than any of the others?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Muslims have long reported that they would out-populate the rest of the European demographic.
They can try all they like, they'll never succeed.
Why not? Their birth rate in Europe is 8 to 1.7 over non Muslims. Europeans indeed have reason to be concerned. As it has gone in totalitarian nations, when Muslims achieve about thirty percent of the population they begin to move towards dominating the nation.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
Why not? Their birth rate in Europe is 8 to 1.7 over non Muslims. Europeans indeed have reason to be concerned. As it has gone in totalitarian nations, when Muslims achieve about thirty percent of the population they begin to move towards dominating the nation.
Well that is very hopeful then. Currently slightly over 20% of the population of Israel is Arab, predominately Sunni Muslim. That means pretty soon they will dominate the nation according to Buz and so the Palestinian situation will get solved and men can stop wearing Yarmulkes.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
It's absurd, divisive and bigoted. I don't need any excuse to jump on Buz. He is providing me with plenty of reason to take exception to his comments. He clearly has a bee in his bonnet about Islam.
No Islam bonnet bee, Granny and no bigotry. I study Islam's Quran and the doctrines of the Haddith and Sunnahs (regarded equally with the Quran) enough to know that the so called radical elements are simply the devout ones who religiously follow the tennants of their scriptures. These scriptures require that Islam rules the planet by the sword, so to speak.
I also study the Holy Bible, it's prophets Ezekiel, Zechariah and others corroborating that nations presently dominated by Islam will indeed become the dominant players in the affairs of the nations.
Genocide and persecution via Islamic fundies is ongoing in African nations as well as totalitarian nations.
While our nation sends scores of billions into Afganistan and while our troops are dying in that nation, it is a crime requiring the death penaly in that nation to convert from Islam to another religion or to proselatize another religion to a Muslim. - It's in the Afgan Constitution.
Edited by Buzsaw, : missed a spelling error
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
™ Version 4.2
