|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Should countries outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Greatest I am Member (Idle past 301 days) Posts: 1676 Joined: |
Blue Jay
They can make all the statements they want. I did every time I paid a ticket. I put two good links just above. Have a listen if you like. They are pertinent. RegardsDL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Greatest I am Member (Idle past 301 days) Posts: 1676 Joined: |
Dr Adequate
Wimpy Gods don't last long. This needs to follow your quote. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUo1TTDZCWc RegardsDL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
True, Nazism and Marxism share the mindset. Can you think of anyone you've missed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
True, Nazism and Marxism share the mindset.
Can you think of anyone you've missed? Well one can split Marxism into separate groups such as Stalinism, Maoism etc., and there may be some groups I'm unfamiliar with of course, but I have to say no to the question as posed. We're talking about ideologies that have the ambition to rule the world, right? and think killing and in some cases torturing anyone who objects is a reasonable way to achieve their ambition, right? I'd say I've covered the range here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2725 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, GIA.
GIA writes: They can make all the statements they want. I did every time I paid a ticket. What are you talking about? Is this all you have to say? Edited by Blue Jay, : No reason given.-Blue Jay, Ph.D.* *Yeah, it's real Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
Indeed it is:
It's all in that Jefferson quote if you can manage not to gloss over its plain meaning.quote:It says directly that THOUGH the will of the majority prevails, it is a SACRED principle that the minority possesses equal rights. Jefferson does NOT agree with you. Faith writes:
No. It is a bad thing to treat people unequally. It is also a bad thing to say one thing and do another. BUT it is a good thing to profess belief in equality. The bad part of political correctness is not the saying, it's the lack of doing.
Political Correctness twists the meaning of equality and freedom and minority rights.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Greatest I am writes:
The difference is that it's YOU abusing the few. And you not only want the right to abuse women yourself; you also want to implicate ALL Canadians in your abuse by institutionalizing it. Just a few women being abused is better than having many women abused. It's far, far better for us to approach the abuse of women in a constructive way instead of adding to the problem like you want to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
We're talking about ideologies that have the ambition to rule the world, right? and think killing and in some cases torturing anyone who objects is a reasonable way to achieve their ambition, right? I'd say I've covered the range here. Ooh, I can thing of someone you've missed. Does this ring any bells?
Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt.This is not laid down on human authority; it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for his Church. It is not in vain that he banishes all those human affections which soften our hearts; that he commands paternal love and all the benevolent feelings between brothers, relations, and friends to cease; in a word, that he almost deprives men of their nature in order that nothing may hinder their holy zeal. Why is so implacable a severity exacted but that we may know that God is defrauded of his honor, unless the piety that is due to him be preferred to all human duties, and that when his glory is to be asserted, humanity must be almost obliterated from our memories? Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face. Here's another clue: he was a theocrat who ruled over the city of Geneva with an iron fist, and he wrote that in defense of burning a man alive. Now I know you've heard of him ... Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Calvin had ONE heretic put to death and the rest of Protestantism thinks he was wrong, and he had no ambition to rule the world. If that's the best you can do, clearly I've covered all the examples.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Calvin had ONE heretic put to death and the rest of Protestantism thinks he was wrong, and he had no ambition to rule the world. You think he thought Geneva was enough? I'd say it was too much.
The execution of Servetus helped to solidify Calvin's hold on Geneva. In 1555, his friends were victorious in the elections, and a riot gave an excuse for crushing his enemies, some of whom fled while others were put to death. From 1555 to his death in 1564, Calvin was supreme in the city. Not only in the church but also in the state was his influence dominant; the councils treated him with great reverence and respect, granted his requests, and consulted him on matters of public policy. In 1559 he was asked to accept citizenship in Geneva, which he had previously refrained from doing to avoid the appearance of self-seeking. One of the most significant signs of his victory was that the right of excommunication was acknowledged to belong to the Consistory. This was something that Calvin had wanted since his first appearance in Geneva; until this time, however, the council had always insisted on taking part. From now on, the Consistory received the wholehearted cooperation of the civil authorities and the full Calvinist regime, as described earlier, was imposed on the citizens. Regulations were made more strict: For example, ministers were to have their dwellings throughout the city, in order to watch over vice more effectively. In 1558, edicts were issued that closely regulated clothing and food, to repress the extravagance that had prevailed in these areas. In 1561, the Ecclesiastical Ordinances of the Church of Geneva of 1541 were revised in such a way as to conform more closely to Calvin's wishes. The press was censored by the ministers. Crosses that remained on the church spires were removed. The number of excommunications rose. (Note the bit about his enemies being put to death.) But in what sense do Protestants not want to rule the world? (Apart from calling it "being salt and light"? Tomayto, tomahto.) If all you mean is that very few of them want to be sole ruler of the world, you could say that of the adherents of any religion. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You didn't provide the source of that quote which is a pretty jaundiced attack on Calvin.
Amazing you'd compare Calvin to the RCC which murdered fifty million or more over a six hundred year period, or Islam whose murders are uncounted and maybe uncountable nas far as I know, or the Russian revolution or Stalin or Mao whose murders exceed by far any of the religious murders, as do Nazism's so many millions in half a decade or so. You have to go out of your way to find your Protestant examples, and keep in mind that the Reformers were fresh from Catholicism too, some of whose bad habits took time to purge. Funny how liberals exert themselves against Biblical Protestantism above all. And do you know why? Because it's the truth and none of the others are. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You didn't provide the source of that quote which is a pretty jaundiced attack on Calvin. Was any of it untrue?
Amazing you'd compare Calvin to the RCC which murdered fifty million or more over a six hundred year period, or Islam whose murders are uncounted and maybe uncountable nas far as I know, or the Russian revolution or Stalin or Mao whose murders exceed by far any of the religious murders, as do Nazism's so many millions in half a decade or so. Yeah, when you put it like that, it seems so unfair on Calvin. He just burned *one* guy to death, and everyone's so critical of him. Well, apart from the millions of people who proudly call themselves Calvinists.
You have to go out of your way to find your Protestant examples ... Right. When I'm looking for loathsome Protestants I have to scrape the bottom of the barrel and come up with minor figures such as Luther and Calvin, the fathers of Protestantism.
... and keep in mind that the Reformers were fresh from Catholicism too, some of whose bad habits took time to purge. Ah yes, of course, that's what was wrong with Calvin, he was too darn Catholic.
Funny how liberals exert themselves against Biblical Protestantism above all. And do you know why? Well one reason is because round here you guys are the source of most of the dumb shit. I mean, yeah, Catholics believe in transubstantiation, but they don't try to get it taught in chemistry class. Another reason is that they're arguing with you. If there was a fanatical Muslim round here, I'd laugh at his opinions too. But what we have, in fact, is a diehard Calvinist, a representative of a religion which is equally loathsome and ridiculous, and one which you parade before us on a regular basis.
Because it's the truth ... Which bit is the truth? The bit about how we should burn Unitarians as heretics, or the bit about the talking snake? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Greatest I am Member (Idle past 301 days) Posts: 1676 Joined: |
ringo
Every law of the land is permission and compulsion to abouse a sub-section of society. All should be as benevolent as the law against men forcing their daughters and wives to dress as they say. Would you let your wife force you to wear something? Why do you think we should let other men force their will on free Canadians? RegardsDL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
That's what I'm asking you: Why should we allow you to forbid a woman from wearing the hijab, niqab or burka if she wants to?
Why do you think we should let other men force their will on free Canadians?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Greatest I am Member (Idle past 301 days) Posts: 1676 Joined: |
Then the taxes you and I pay for security by facial recognition technology misses her and you and I do not do our civic duty towards these women.
Plus signs of slavery should not be allowed in a free nation. The benefits outweigh the negatives by a long shot and that is what guides all good aw. RegardsDL
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024