Muslim head scarves: can there be consensus on this?

[Gringo]

Poll question: Muslim head scarves: can there be consensus on this?

I know where I stand. I don't think they are appropriate in public schools or driver's license photos, but to ban them in public buildings is going a bit far....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=9&u=/ap/20031211/ap_on_re_eu/france_islamic_head_scarves


What do you think of the French proposal, should it be done here?

[theivoryqueen]

1. I am so pissed off that women would voluntarily subjugate themselves

in this country or any other... Are they aware that they are self-demeaning??? Are they able to understand that by adapting a sex-based discriminatory tradition, they are furthering injustice to women??? As soon as I win the lottery I am placing a bounty on those headscarfs... all you have to do to collect is rip it off the duimbass chick who is wearing it.

[RPG-7]

6. That's stupid

Do you plan on ripping the tops off American women at the beach because it doesn't fit into the world consensus on beachwear?

[Gringo]

7. Religious fervor is NOT about logic or human rights.

Nothing about religion makes sense. The "god of Abraham" MURDERED all the first-born children of egypt because Pharaoh was mean to the Hebrews. Does that seem like a just god? Killing innocent kids? And yet people overlook that and continue to love "him". (I am speaking as though "god" was something that exists, but most of us, even those of us who go through the motions of religion, know that it is all a fantasy)

People cling to their religious delusions like a security blanket. You rip off those scarves, and you are causing severe psychic damage to those people. I'm an atheist married to a devout buddhist. I used to think she'd outgrow it, but no. I really think that there are two types of people - those who desparately need the crutch of religion to give their lives meaning, and those of us who don't. I don't think most people can change from one to the other.

I couldn't believe in a magical cloud being anymore than I could believe that Republicans really care about the poor and middle class. I've never seen even the slightest shred of evidence for either.

[Cheswick2.0]

10. there are two kinds of people...those who respect others and those...

with egos so pathetically fragile they have to make smirky comments about "magical cloud beings", desperation and "delusions" to bolster their own point of view. I am guessing you have an unhappy marriage based on the fact that you think your wife's religious beliefs are something she needs to "outgrow". It is clear the growing that needs to take place is on your part. Good luck with that.

[Gringo]

85. Check your own tone for haughtiness

I love and respect my wife, and treat the subject delicately with her. However, the fact remains that she believes in a reality that does not exist. I respect her practice, and appreciate the fact that it gives her comfort and a feeling of mental balance. And yet it is still so much mumbo-jumbo to me.

[Character Assassin]

16. Neither is your post, evidently.

Nothing about religion makes sense.

Ah, I see you're unaquainted with religion.

The "god of Abraham" MURDERED all the first-born children of egypt because Pharaoh was mean to the Hebrews. Does that seem like a just god? Killing innocent kids? And yet people overlook that and continue to love "him".

I see your unaquainted with differences in biblical theology.

(I am speaking as though "god" was something that exists, but most of us, even those of us who go through the motions of religion, know that it is all a fantasy)

I see you are familiar with baseless generalizations.

People cling to their religious delusions like a security blanket. You rip off those scarves, and you are causing severe psychic damage to those people.

No, you're infringing on their right to practise not only their religion as they see fit, but their right to dress themeselves as they see fit. It's not a question of 'damage'.

I'm an atheist married to a devout buddhist. I used to think she'd outgrow it, but no.

What a strange assumption.

I really think that there are two types of people - those who desparately need the crutch of religion to give their lives meaning, and those of us who don't. I don't think most people can change from one to the other.

Oh, there are many more types of people out there than that.

I couldn't believe in a magical cloud being anymore than I could believe that Republicans really care about the poor and middle class. I've never seen even the slightest shred of evidence for either.

You seem quite happy to dispense with evidence in regards to your own assumptions.

[JohnLocke]

20. great post

:yourock:

[Gringo]

89. Thank you for your snide post

Which says absolutely nothing.

Funny how people scoff at people like the Realians and the Heaven's Gate folks, but get all taken aback when you attack any sect with more than 10 or 20 million followers. Fact is, Realian or Catholic, Mormon or Hasidim, they are all followers of different versions of the same fantasy. Why is it that religious folks take such offense at such statements? You've got the inside track on the ultimate truth of the universe. Why should it bother you what some atheist says? My little comments shouldn't cause a ripple in your serenity of faith. But the truth is, comments like mine bother people like you, because the prick at that part of your mind that's always trying to assert itself, even though you willfully supress it. The LOGICAL part of your mind that tells you "This is it. This is the life you get, and when it's over, that's it, you no longer exist." I've resigned myself to that fact. Sorry it bugs you. Feel free to ignore my posts in the future.

[Character Assassin]

124. Oh, quite the contrary. It addressed the hypocrisy in your statements

Funny how people scoff at people like the Realians and the Heaven's Gate folks, but get all taken aback when you attack any sect with more than 10 or 20 million followers.

Who's taken aback? You made wild generalizations that you cannot support, and when you get called on them, this makes you uncomfortable. Go ahead and attack any particular faith; that's not the issue.

Fact is, Realian or Catholic, Mormon or Hasidim, they are all followers of different versions of the same fantasy.

Ah, I see. The same fantasy that you clearly do not understand by equating OT mythology with NT philosophy. It's a 'baby and the bathwater' affair, and utterly inappropriate to any serious discussion.

Why is it that religious folks take such offense at such statements?

I'm not religious. I have a habit of pointing out hypocrisy when I see it, much like I do for logic, which you claim to espouse, and then immediately relinquish.

You've got the inside track on the ultimate truth of the universe.

No, I don't.

Why should it bother you what some atheist says?

It only bothers me when an atheist, or anyone, for that matter, makes unwarranted and unsupportable assumptions and claims they're based on logic, when they're clearly not.

My little comments shouldn't cause a ripple in your serenity of faith.

How could they? I espouse no particular faith.

But the truth is, comments like mine bother people like you, because the prick at that part of your mind that's always trying to assert itself, even though you willfully supress it. The LOGICAL part of your mind that tells you "This is it. This is the life you get, and when it's over, that's it, you no longer exist."

Again, you attempt to employ logic, but you show zero evidence of either understanding it or utilizing it in your comments.

I've resigned myself to that fact. Sorry it bugs you. Feel free to ignore my posts in the future.

I'm sure you've resigned yourself to a vast, teeming multitude of compromises.

[Muddleoftheroad]

173. Given how your post oozes religious intolerance

It is amazing you are STILL married to someone who is religious.

[Gringo]

179. BS I'm totally tolerant of religion.

I don't go up to people on the street with yarmulkes or crosses and berate them (as religious people often do to others with their aggressive proselytizing)

I'm all for people exercising their religion as they please, and they never have to hear a word from me, unless they step into this OPINION forum.

My opinion is that all religions are pure fantasy. Religious folks are free to react to that as they please. I never called anyone a name, I simply said that religious fervor has nothing to do with logic or human rights. And it has nothing to do with either.

This society is completely dominated by Christians who impose their will on others at every chance. Atheists are by far the most marginalized "religious group" of all. In the same way that "an African-American cannot be a racist" I think it's pretty ludicrous of you to call an atheist "religiously intolerant".

Whose freedom of religion have I impeded? Tolerance and freedom of religion are not the same as telling people what they want to hear.

If somebody told me "Turn to the lord, he'll answer your questions and heal youor heart", would you attack him for his intolerance of my views? I think not.

Everyone on Earth should be free to worship whatever totem or blood-drenched messiah they choose, but that doesn't mean they should be protected from the facts that fly in the face of their superstitions. Just as kids have to learn about evolution in school, even if their parents think it's hogwash, I should be able to put out my view of things here without being called "intolerant".

[stopthegop]

8. the women consider it an issue of modesty

and I presume you're making a bad joke about ripping clothing off of women

[Cheswick2.0]

9. let me educate you a bit

I would tend to think like you do, being a feminazi myself. However last year I made a friend who is an african american woman and also a follower of the Nation of Islam. She wears the traditional head cover, and very modest clothes. She does not cover her face. She also does not touch men who she is not related to, not even to shake hands. She worked with me on the Rendell campaign and I can tell you she is one of the least subjugated woman I ever met.
She would look at you wearing makeup and tight clothes (I don't know that you do...but just for example) and think you have subjugated yourself to become nothing more than a sexual object.
My friend is a very beautiful strong liberated woman and it would be very disrespectful for you to act as if she didn't have the brains to decide for herself what to wear on her head.

[VelmaD]

21. Here's the problem...

the restictions placed on her to stay "modest" are different than the ones her religion places on men. Men aren't requied to cover their hair. Men don't have the restrictions on who they may and may not touch.

The simple fact is the various Islamic dress codes demean women from the least restrictive that only require a head scarf through the most draconian that require women to be covered from head to toe in black. They demean us because they treat women as if our bodies are somehow sinful or evil in and of themselves.

Plus it unfairly puts responsibility on women for men's behavior. If men are nothing but raging puddles of lust that cannot look at a woman without wanting to sin - why is the solution to hide or cover up the women rather than locking the men away in the home and not letting them out unsupervised in public.

[smirkymonkey]

22. Here! Here!

Good Post!

[Blue_Chill]

32. She's not good enough unless behaves like a man?

I find that thinking interesting. To think that women will rage at other women for allowing themselves to be oppressed by men, and at the same time demand these women behave just like men.

Why do you worship men so that you need to emulate them?

I am a man and I find the things we are allowed/expected to do in society disgusting. Why anyone would want to follow the path our large hairy feet have flattened is beyond me. Women do not need to be just like men to be equal or superior. In fact when you goal is imitation the only thing you can ever be is a copy of the original.

It all strikes me as the ultimate joke to hear women proclaim that men want them to dress modest. Or that Men force restrictions on them. Do you not have eyes and ears? The last thing men want is for you to be these things. The only men who believe this a religious lunatics who think demanding such things will get them into heaven or where ever they go. 90% of living males want you to dress like a hooker and be as sexualy active as time will allow.

Here's a thought, encourage women to be what they think they should be. Be it modest or latex, be it house wife or President. Women need to stop measuring themselves by men who as you stated "are nothing but raging puddles of lust that cannot look at a woman without wanting to sin"

[supernova]

41. LOL!

There's a lot to be said for this post.

I think VelmaD is referring to muslim men. The problem is the patriarchy in arabic culture goes back long and deep. Except that the Koran only says that Mohammed's wife covered her hair as a show of respect and honor. It does not say that she covered herself from head to toe never to be seen or heard from again. But that's how some cultures have come to interpret it. It's been used to justify the hiding away of women for many centuries. I think really only muslim women have the credibility to change it. And some are.

Notice this isn't nearly so much an issue in Indonesia, the world's largest majority muslim nation.

[VelmaD]

59. Where the hell did you get...

that I think women should "behave just like men" out of me saying it was wrong for women to be treated as less than men?

If you don't see what's wrong with a woman not being allowed to touch a man she isn't related to - not even to shake hands hello - while men are allowed to touch whoever they want, then you and I have nothing to talk about.

By the way, the comment about "raging puddles of lust" was not an expression of my opinion of men. I was paraphrasing the reason I have often been told BY MEN (granted, religious-nut men) for why women MUST dress more modestly - because men cannot control themselves.

[Blue_Chill]

66. From your constant use of men

as a the measure by which all women are judged. Men can do this but women....blah blah blah. This kind of thinking does not free women at all, it only pushes them further into male worship. Equality is not measured in western dress codes but in respect and rights. You are showing a lack of respect towards your fellow woman by proclaiming that you know what is best for them.

The only thing women need the goverment to do is for it to prohibit anyone from forcing them to do anything and for people to stop talking for them and start talking to them. I find this the fatal flaw of modern feminism and why I hear the expression "Feminists don't represent women" all too often among the most educated women I know.

You are here picking apart responses to a comment made that we should pay people to rip religious clothing off of these dumbass chicks. How can you have no problem with that statement and claim to be pro-woman?

[VelmaD]

69. You still don't get it

I'm not holding up men as the example to emulate - merely pointing out rights men have that are denied to women simply because they are women. It is 100 percent about rights. By denying women the right to work where they want and live where they want and dress how they want and congregate with whoever they want and go to school and be who they were born to be it is men in the Muslim world who are denying them respect.

I guaran-damn-tee you that I listen to women a hell of a lot more than the men running most Muslim countries ever have. If you hear from women that "feminists don't represent them" you either hang out with republicans or with women who have been brain-washed by an anti-feminist backlash.

If I am picking apart anything it is responses to replies to my post. I already responded to the original poster.

[LeahMira]

39. But it's YOUR problem.

Men aren't requied to cover their hair. Men don't have the restrictions on who they may and may not touch.

I honestly don't know what Islamic men can or can't do, but very orthodox Jewish men must cover their heads with a kippah or a hat or some sort, and they may not touch any woman other than their wife.

They demean us because they treat women as if our bodies are somehow sinful or evil in and of themselves.

Well, you are bringing your own interpretation to that. Again, an Islamic woman would claim that covering herself modestly is a way of affirming her belief that her body is worthy of respect and honor.

If men are nothing but raging puddles of lust that cannot look at a woman without wanting to sin - why is the solution to hide or cover up the women rather than locking the men away in the home and not letting them out unsupervised in public.

You try to lock them up! :-)

But one more time, you are bringing your own interpretation to the issue. The customs of modesty have nothing to do with men or their response to any particular woman. They have everything to do with a woman's own feelings about the value of her body and her personal privacy.

The fact is simply that you weren't socialized that way. That's fine, but you really shouldn't try to impose your own values, religious or secular, on someone who really doesn't want them.

[VelmaD]

61. The customs of modesty...

have everything to do with men - they are the ones who devised them. Do a little reading. There's plenty of info out there about how women in Muslim countries feel about the chador, abayah or burka if you go and look. They have NO SAY in the matter. Yes, some of them may tell you it's about "respect for their body" or "modesty" but that's because that is what they have been raised to believe - that's what the men in their countries need them to believe so that they can keep control over them.

Also, you may think the comment about trying to lock the men up is cute. It would be a lot funnier if it wasn't for the fact that there are still countries where Muslim women are essentially prisoners in their own homes.

[Blue_Chill]

63. Modesty has to do with religious men.

And so does every sexy outfit you've ever seen. One is to limit the visual pleasure men get from looking at you, and the other is to increase it. Anyway you cut it you are behaving a certain way because of men.

Scarey isn't it?

Also I must comment on your statement that "they have no say in the matter" I simpley don't believe that to be the case. I'm sure it is true in many places but I don't see it being the case in France. After all many women from many cultures choose to follow customs of modesty or simpley refuse to dress provacatively because they choose to do so. Men in many Islamic nations also have restrictions placed on them such as having long beards and other man made religious regulation. If your problem is with oppression then a law making it illegal to force anyone to wear anything would be the answer, however the idea of replacing one forced dress code with another is absurd. You ceratinly don't add freedom to anyone you simpley impose your own ways on them.

[VelmaD]

65. The difference is this

I can choose whether I dress modestly or "sexy". (We can argue some other time about dressing sexy just because it makes you feel good rather than "for men".) Women in many Muslim countries do not get to choose. As long as they do not get to choose I think it incumbent upon women in the "free" world to set an example and show them that they don't have to kowtow to pressure from unltra-conservative religious whack-jobs. On the day when we are all free to choose I won't have any problem with women in scarves.

[Blue_Chill]

67. You shouldn't have a problem with women in scarves

But you should hae a problem with anyone forces them to look any certain way. In this I would join you. I too think it horrible that in much of the world women are still told what is best for them and how they must behave.

However in this thread we are talking about France and women in the free world being forced to dress a certain way. Imposing culture on women is not making them anymore free, it is only changing the source of the oppression from religious to state.

[VelmaD]

71. Read the whole article

This isn't just about scarves. It's about maintaining a secular society in France.

Personally I'm actually a little disappointed in the reasons they're giving for doing this. They just talk about secularism. I'd be happier if they were doing it to stand up and say "NO - you will not engage in rank sexism in the name of religion".

[jobycom]

44. I could agree with some of that, except not here

A woman in Saudi Arabia or Iraq who does not have the freedom to decide her own religion is oppressed, certainly, though not really by the requirement to wear head coverings as by the lack of subjective government.

But here, a woman can decide not to follow dress customs if she wants. Yes, she would suffer social consequences, and in some cases far worse, but the choice is still hers. If you tell a woman who has decided to follow such dress codes that she can't, you are not respecting her choice. You are forcing her to fit your ideals. That's wrong. Especially if, as your first post suggests, you use violence to enforce your ideals. That's Coulter-ish, as I suspect you will agree when you think about it.

Reminds me of the Republican complaints about feminism. They claim that liberals force women out of the home and away from their families. Any true feminist would say that they are about forcing society to accept options. A woman can do either-- stay at home, or work. Republicans only allow one option. Forcing women to remove veils is exactly the same as forcing a woman to wear one. We are about equal rights, and that means allowing someone to do something we don't understand.

And don't think for a moment that all Muslim women believe you are free. You are a slave to different ideals-- ones they reject. Cheswick's great anecdote above demonstrates that.

As for what other nations do, most of the nations that require women to wear veils are no less kind to their men. Men must follow very restrictive rules, as well, and in many of these countries there are also issues of class, even caste. The problem is lack of freedom in these places, not just mysogyny. It gives very literal representation to the MLK (or Ghandi?) quote that while one person is not free no one is free.

On edit: I realized that I innacurately implied you had written the first post. My bad.

[VelmaD]

64. I totally agree with your last point

As long as one person is not free none of us are free. And men in many Arab countries are oppressed by governments that are about as far as you can get from democracy. I would like to see them freed as well. However, as a woman the problems particular to women matter greatly to me. On top of the oppression every other person in her country has to live with, women in too many countries have to live with the extra burden of the sexism of men, even men of their own class. Rich women in Saudi Arabia, for all their money, cannot escape the abayah. A man, no matter how poor, still has more freedom to do and go where he pleases than his wife.

I get frustrated, and get into these debates, and go on longer than I should, because it infuriates me that too many men don't see how the system that oppresses women oppresses them as well.

[_Jumper_]

47. Excellent point

:toast:

"If men are nothing but raging puddles of lust that cannot look at a woman without wanting to sin - why is the solution to hide or cover up the women rather than locking the men away in the home and not letting them out unsupervised in public."

We liberals try to understand and be tolerant of minorities which overall a very good thing. However, we know what the reaction here would be if Falwell and co. ordered their women to wear headscarves or tell them to dress like a ninja...

[PsychoDad]

60. Not entirely true.

Muslim men are also required to dress modestly and are not allowed to wear silk or gold, whereas women are. Muslim men, like women, are also restricted from touching women who are not related to them.

It is not the intention of Islam to demean anyone. If you look at western fashion, scarves for women have a long history (although not for a religous purpose) And western women are still bound, even today , by a dress code in public.. and I don't hear many men or women complain how demeaning it is for them to wear a shirt or shoes.

A woman is more than her looks. My sister should be judged on her character, her worth lies within, not without. She should not feel that she needs to compete with her body. Look at "liberated" western women. Many are enslaved by the fashon and cosmetics industry, diet plans that do as much harm as good are all the rage. Many are dying to look good. "Die young and leave a good looking corpse" is the fashion mantra of the west.

Muslim women are not responsible for muslim men, or their lusts. In Islam each person is responsible for their own actions and thoughts. Some men may attempt to shirk this resposibility by blaming others for their faults, but such is not confined only to muslim men, and they will be accountable for what they did.

The Hijab is worn by many of my sisters as a symbol of their faith, much as a christian may wear a cross to demonstrate their devotion, or a nun cover her head, but after all these centuries of women being oppressed and demeaned in the "christian" west, I have yet to hear that a nun is somehow lessened by her vows and her head covering, or that every woman who wears a cross is somehow less of a person for it.

Women were given the right to vote in Medina 1400 years ago by Islam, something the west did not allow women until the 20th century

[VelmaD]

62. They may have been allowed to vote 1400 years ago...

in Medina, but can they now?

Can they drive?

Can they serve on a jury?

Can they hold a job?

And please explain to me why in some countries modest for women means covered from head to toe with only the eyes showing while there is NO Muslim country with that kind of dress requirement for men. Modesty is one thing...this goes beyond modesty.

[PsychoDad]

70. Your points are noted.

And in Saudi Arabia women are prohibited from many of these things.

But that is not Islam. That is the culture of the country.
The dress you discribe is called the berqa, and it is not required by Islam. The Quran and Hadith (the record of the sayings and doings of the prophet) only ask that a woman should cover her head as a sign of her modesty and piety. These writings also state the various requirements upon a man.

Saudi arabia is not the only "islamic" country. (Islamic law, btw, also states that government should be an elected one, not a monarchy which SA is.)
There are many countries where the majority is Islamic and women are allowed the vote, allowed to drive and hold a job. Consider Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country. or Irish muslims, or American muslims.

The problems you state are resident in the culture, but please do not consider my sisters as being somewhat lesser than you because their culture places this hardship upon them. These cultural hardships are not of Islam, these are things that must change to conform with the idea of Islam.

And weither or not my sister decides to wear the Hijab, the scarf that covers the head, I shall support her decision, for it is hers to make. In either case I would never consider her less of a person for her decision.

[VelmaD]

73. I don't consider those women being lesser...

quite the contrary. I am amazed at what women in many Middle Eastern countries have to endure. The women I have met from that part of the world are lively, intelligent, strong women who deserve better than they're getting.

And your points are well taken that the Middle East does not represent all of Islam and that many of the things governments (both secular and religious) do are truly not within either the letter or the spirit of the Koran. However, the Middle East, Saudi Arabia in particular, has been exporting a particularly conservative version of Islam in recent years and that is a scary proposition. Women in some countries there they used to have a choice are being pushed further and further toward the veil and that upsets me. It makes me think it isn't all about "culture".

I for one pray for the day when not just Islam but the other major religions as well actually live up to their teachings. Then we won't be having this argument at all I think. :-)

I don't really argue with your sister's right to choose for herself about the scarf. It's just that it rankles in a world where a lot of women don't have the choice.

[PsychoDad]

78. Agreed :)

"I for one pray for the day when not just Islam but the other major religions as well actually live up to their teachings. Then we won't be having this argument at all I think. :-)"

I couldn't agree more. I pray for the same thing. And all of us have to work toward that goal, and the first step on this long journey is understanding and communication.

And we had a livily discussion, not an argument. ;-)

[VelmaD]

79. Oh I like you

:-)

You'd fit right in in my family if this was just a "lively discussion" to you. :-)

[_Jumper_]

87. "Conservative" versions of religion are the real deal

Fundies are the true believers in their religion. Let's face it: religions are inherently intolerant and many of them, including the three largest American ones, are violent.

[Blue_Chill]

88. Um no they aren't

I can't speak for others but being a real deal christian means giving up all material things and serving others your entire life. Does that sound very fundie to you?

[_Jumper_]

113. On social issues they are

These religions are intolerant, violent, sexist, and homophobic--exactly the things we excoriate fundies who we claim "distort their religion."

[Blue_Chill]

128. If you pick and choose lines to take literally then yes

But I can see your knowledge of these religions is limited to such lines of text, so feel free to believe what you wish.

[_Jumper_]

140. Spin away

"God's words" from the Bible(since I you are probably a Christian):

Intolerance in the Bible
I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.--Rev.2:9
Genesis

God likes Abel's dead animals better than Cain's fruits and vegetables. Why? Well, no reason is given, but it probably has something to do with the amount of pain, blood, and gore involved. 4:3-5

God gives Abraham and his descendants all of the land of Canaan "forever". This promise is still used to justify the the unending battles over the land in the Middle East. 13:14-15, 17:8

An uncircumcised boy is to be abandoned by his parents and community. 17:14

Lot's nameless wife looks back, and God turns her into a pillar of salt. 19:26

Abraham makes his servant swear that he won't let Isaac marry a Canaanite. 24:3

Isaac tells Jacob not to marry a Canaanite. 28:1

Jacob's sons can't stand the idea of their sister marrying someone who is uncircumcised.34:20

"And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him." What did Er do to elicit God's wrath? The Bible doesn't say. Maybe he picked up some sticks on Saturday. 38:7

After God killed Er, Judah tells Onan to "go in unto they brother's wife." But "Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and ... when he went in unto his brother's wife ... he spilled it on the ground.... And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; wherefore he slew him also." This lovely Bible story is seldom read in Sunday School, but it is the basis of many Christian doctrines, including the condemnation of both masturbation and birth control. 38:8-10
Exodus

God decides to kill Moses because his son had not yet been circumcised. 4:24-26

God will kill the Egyptian children to show that he puts "a difference between the Egyptians and Israel." 11:7

After God has sufficiently hardened the Pharaoh's heart, he kills all the firstborn Egyptian children. When he was finished "there was not a house where there was not one dead." 12:29

No stranger, foreigner, or uncircumcised person can eat the passover. 12:43, 45, 48

Joshua, with God's approval, kills the Amalekites "with the edge of the sword." 17:13

The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation." 17:14

God favors Israelites "above all people." 19:5

The first commandment ("Thou shalt have no other gods before me.") condemns those who worship any other than the biblical god. 20:3

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Thousands of innocent women have suffered excruciating deaths because of this verse. 22:18

"He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." If this commandment is obeyed, then the four billion people who do not believe in the biblical god must be killed. 22:20

Don't even mention the names of the other gods. 23:13

Do not allow others to worship a different god. Conquer them and destroy their religious property. 23:24

God promises to "send his fear before the Israelites" and to kill everyone that they encounter when they enter the promised land. 23:27

Stay away from those who worship a different god. 23:32

Don't let any strangers attend your animal sacrifices. 29:33

Whoever puts holy oil on a stranger shall be "cut off from his people." 30:33

Those who break the Sabbath are to be executed. 31:14

God orders the sons of Levi (Moses, Aaron, and the other members of their tribe that were "on the Lord's side") to kill "every man his neighbor.... And there fell of the people that day about 3000 men." 32:27-28

God drives out the pagan tribes and commands the Israelites to destroy their altars and places of worship. 34:11-14

God, "whose name is Jealous", will not tolerate the worship of any other god. 34:14

Whoever works, or even kindles a fire, on the Sabbath "shall be put to death." 35:2-3
Leviticus

Two of the sons of Aaron "offered strange fire before the Lord" and "there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord." 10:1-2

Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. 18:22

Don't eat anything with blood, observe times, round the corners of your head, mar the corners of your beard, make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, or print any marks on you. 19:26-28

Stay away from wizards and people with familiar spirits. 19:31

Stay away from people with familiar spirits and don't "go a whoring" after them either. 20:6

People with "familiar spirits" (witches, fortune tellers, etc.) are to be stoned to death. 20:27

Handicapped people cannot approach the altar of God. They would "profane" it. 21:16-23

No stranger or slave can "eat of the holy thing." 22:10

A man curses and blasphemes while disputing with another man. Moses asks God what to do about it. God says that the whole community must stone him to death. "And the children of Israel did as the Lord and Moses commanded." 24:10-23

Anyone who blasphemes or curses shall be stoned to death by the entire community. 24:16
Numbers

"The stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death." 1:51

Two of Aaron's sons are killed by God for "offering strange fire before the Lord." 3:4

God repeats his order (see 1:51) to kill any strangers who happen to come near. 3:10

Once again (see 1:51 and 3:10) God tells his favorite people to kill any strangers that come near. 3:38

God tells the people to expel from camp "every leper, every one that hath an issue, and whoever is defiled by the dead." So by God's instructions, the sick are abandoned and left to suffer and die alone. 5:1-4

"And when the people complained, it displeased the Lord: and the Lord heard it." (He had his hearing aid on.) He then burns the complainers alive. That'll teach them. 11:1

"And while the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the Lord was kindled against the people, and the Lord smote the people with a very great plague. "The Bible isn't too clear about what these poor folks did to upset God so much; all it says is that they had "lusted." 11:33

Because of a dispute between Korah and Moses, God has the ground open up and swallow Korah and his family. And then, just for the hell of it, God has a fire burn 250 men (friends of Korah?) to death. 16:20-49

After God killed Korah, his family, and 250 innocent bystanders, the people complained saying, "ye have killed the people of the Lord." So God, who doesn't take kindly to criticism, sends a plague on the people. And "they that died in the plague were 14,700." 16:41-50


God will strengthen the Israelites so they can "beat in pieces many peoples" and give the booty to God. 4:13

"Burn more witches! Destroy the images of gods who aren't me!" sayeth the Lord. 5:12-13
Zephaniah

God will "cut off" all those who "have not sought the Lord" or who worship another god.1:4-6

God "will punish the princes, and the king's children, and all such as are clothed with strange apparel."1:8

God doesn't have night-vision, so he needs candles when he comes to punish these people that say, "The LORD will not do good, neither will he do evil": atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, etc. 1:12
Zechariah

God will "smite the heathen" with a plague. 14:18
Malachi

God hates the Edomites, and his hatred will last forever. 1:4
Matthew

Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14

"the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 8:12

Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen.19:24). 10:14-15

"Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." 10:33

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24

Jesus says, "He that is not with me is against me." 12:30

Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 13:41-42, 50

Jesus refuses to heal the Canaanite (Mk.7:26 says she was Greek) woman's possessed daughter, saying "it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to the dogs." 15:22-26

The ever-so-kind Jesus calls the Pharisees "hypocrites, wicked, and adulterous." 15:2-3

Jesus condemns the Jews for being "the children of them which killed the prophets." 23:31

This verse blames the Jews for the death of Jesus and has been used to justify their persecution for twenty centuries. 27:25
Mark

Jesus becomes angry at those who said that he had "an unclean spirit," so he announces the unforgivable sin: "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost." 3:29

Any city that doesn't "receive" the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. 6:11

Jesus initially refuses to cast out a devil from a Syrophoenician woman's daughter, calling the woman a "dog". After much pleading, he finally agrees to cast out the devil. 7:25-29

Jesus says that those that believe and are baptized will be saved, while those who don't will be damned. 16:16
Luke

[Blue_Chill]

153. Nice job you found quotes that display the mindset of the time

Goodie for you! Even the Vatican doesn't consider such quotes out of context. You think the time when such things were written were peaceful outside of the church? lol.

[_Jumper_]

155. Aren't they "God's words" in the view of Xian fundies?

?

[Blue_Chill]

161. To fundies yes, like I said

To most no.

[_Jumper_]

162. So what are they in the view of typical Xians?

How can anyone not believe their religions' holy book or books and consider themselves a true believer in that religion?

[_Jumper_]

86. Where does Islam call for democracy?

I have heard about calls for "legitimate" government but democracy???? If so, why did has democracy failed to take root in every Islamic nation but one for the past 1,4000 years, while it has flourished outside of the Islamic world?

[PsychoDad]

176. Good questions.

When Muhammed (pbuh)and the Muslims who fled oppression in Mecca were invited to Medina to help in ending the inter clan feuding Muhammed wrote up a city charter guaranteeing the rights of all citizens, and providing for the common defense of Medina, sort of the world's first constitution. This is the first Islamic state, and the ideal of many muslims today when they speak of an Islamic state. by the decree of the prophet and the new charter, backed up with the Quran, all citizens were guranteed the same rights, including the freedom to choose their religion. Muhammed, was the de-facto head of the state, as he was the prophet, and his companions acted as his administration. Decisions were made in councel meetings, called shura, where all, muslim and non-muslim, man or woman had an equal say. Normally Muhammad acted and ruled by majority concensus.

Before his death Muhammed talked at great length with his companions and the people about what was to be done after his death. Detailed Instructions were given on the responsibilities of the new head of state, to be elected by the people, who's term would be for as long as he abided by the precepts of Islam.

In the year 661, 30 years after the death of Muhammed, after a great deal of internal feuding, Ali (mAbpwh), the last elected Caliph was assassinated. Mu'awiya became the first monarch in a long line of successors. The Umayyad dynasty flourished and spread Islam and prosperty. But after a number of invasions and internal disputes, successive dynasties would rule a constantly fracturing Islamic world.

That's the background. Muhammed created a constitional elective government that fell apart after 30 years due to the greed of men. By the time of the crusades, the empire had become fractured, and by colonial times Islamic unity had dientigrated. The europian's assisted in the further fracturing and created borders to further devide the arabs. Dictators and monarchs were supported, as they are today by the western governments.

Muhammed's legacy, an elective constitunal government that protects the rights of all men and women, muslim or not, is the birthright of all muslims. It is the goal the Islamic world should seek.

Unfortunatly this knowlege and goal is not in the best interests of the current arab monarchs, or western governments. Democracies are to messy and unpredictable, don't you know?

[sharkbait2]

120. Saudi Arabia is NOT the Muslim world

... and yes, in many Muslim countries (I don't say Islamic, because the governments are secular) unlike Saudi Arabia and Iran which are "Islamic", women drive, serve on juries and have jobs... and those who are veiled do so out of choice.

[_Jumper_]

126. Correct

Yet, even in moderate Muslim nations women are treated as second-class citizens and religious tolerance is an alien concept. SA is extreme but can anyone point to a tolerant, democratic, liberal Muslim nation?

[sharkbait2]

130. Sorry...

but you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about... not to mentio you're "jumping" all over the thread with spewing your prejudiced drivel.

Take a trip to Tunisia or Lebanon for example. If anything, most radical Muslims living in countries other than Iran and Saudi Arabia are pursued with a vigor that would make Homeland security drool with envy. In fact, in a number of Muslim countries have gone as far as outlawing beards and certain religious garb at universities.

[_Jumper_]

143. Did you even read my post?

Respond to the issue of religious tolerance and the status of women. Thanks in advance.

[sharkbait2]

149. Yes.

tolerant, democratic, liberal Muslim nation?

Turkey. And if you eliminate the democratic requirement (which I understand to mean free elections), and if "liberal" means basically tolerant and progressive, I can name a few:

Lebanon is pretty democratic also.

Close in line as far as women's rights (but lacking the democracy) are Tunisia, Morocco and Qatar.

... it goes a little downhill from there:

Jordan, Algeria (in civil war against the Islamic fundamentalists), Egypt (with a big disparity between fundies and progressives), UAE, Oman, Syria (still lacking as far as women's rights)...

I'm not as familiar with the status of African Muslim countries (I think Senegal is one of them).

[_Jumper_]

164. Response

Turkey is may fit the criteria but is it liberal by Western standards?

Lebanon may be the model for France. It is a tolerant nation with a singificant Christian minority. France will not have the democratic deficit Lebanon has.


"Jordan, Algeria (in civil war against the Islamic fundamentalists), Egypt (with a big disparity between fundies and progressives), UAE, Oman, Syria (still lacking as far as women's rights)..."

How do they fare with respect to religious tolerance?

[_Jumper_]

84. When did women vote in Medina?

Who were the candidates? Were the elections legitimate? 99.999% of my family is Muslim and I have never heard of any veritable elections held during Muhammad's rule.

Islam does demean women. There is ample evidence to prove this. Look no further than Islamic law, where women are 1/2 as valuable as men. 1/2 folks. That is less then what slaves were counted as in the early years of America...

[_Jumper_]

97. Why aren't Muslim men forced to cover their hair?

?

[Cheswick2.0]

98. velma you missed the point

I used to feel the way you do. Then I got educated. There are no restrictions placed on her, she does this by choice.

[_Jumper_]

99. Why aren't men forced to cover their hair?

Face it, the double standard is a result of sexism that is replete in Islam. Guess which sex is the second-class one..

I'll give you an example of how sexist Islam is. Moderate, well-educated Muslims--all doctors, engineers, or veternarians were discussing the role of women in society at a social gathering. There were about ten of them. One called for complete equality. The rest of them all vehemently stated that it would be preferable for women to stay at home. If Xian fundies said that wouldn't we denounce them?

[Blue_Chill]

129. Are you talking about what the religion actually stands for

or the current interpretations? Because in case you didn't know these things evolve and change.

[_Jumper_]

144. Both

Try actually interacting with Muslims and ask them what they think.:)

[Blue_Chill]

154. yes those dirty mean muslims!

BTW - I have many Muslim friends, and I don't appreciate your insults. We talk about these things all the time and the junk your spewing never seems to be the case.

[_Jumper_]

160. So do they believe in gender equality?

Surely you realize that the Muslim version of "equality for women" is not the same as the Western version? Any Muslim will say they believe in gender equality, and they do based on their standards. Most Muslims still believe a woman's place is the home and that a man should be the head of the household. I do not consider that equality.

American Muslims are not an accurate reflection of Muslims. They are much more liberal than Muslims in general. For instance, most U.S. Muslims have no problem with women working and getting an education and believe in religious pluralism.

[Blue_Chill]

163. It's called progress

It happens and has very little to do with faith being that it was basically the way all cultures began.

[Chovexani]

111. I completely agree

I personally find the practice abhorrent myself. But I would never deny another woman the right to practice it, as much as I find it a totally foul and demeaning practice. It's her right to believe what she wants.

It's really an issue of freedom of belief. If we get into trying to ban headscarves because we don't agree with them, it's a very slippery slope and we are no better than the Talibornagain fundies that want to beat everyone over the head with the Ten Commandments and shove their narrow hateful version of Christianity down everyone's throats.

[a_lil_wall_fly]

11. Then banned all religious icons and traditions in schools and government

buildings..... We in the US has the choice of what we wear and how we wear it.
"Voluntarily subjugate themselves"..it is call TRADITION.
But you might have no true sense of what traditions are in other countries. Most countries of the world , especially the developing world, are fighting not to lose traditions, cultural and religious; in the tide of modernization of society.

Why not read the WOMAN FROM IRAN THAT WON THE NOBLE PEACE PRIZE THIS YEAR SPEECH'S enlighten yourself about this woman has endured in a culture that was mandated to become a modern society without regard to its historical and traditional roots then have the that mindset and live style ripped away in too a more suppressive livestyle under a theocracy dicatorship. She has survived the two-faceness of Shah of Iran, the lunacy of Aytollah Khomeni, and now the regressiveness of Atollyah Khameni.

She was the 1st woman judge under the Shah of Iran. Then she was stripped of judgeship under the Islamic code. SInce 1979, she has been fighting for the rights of women, children and minorities; in this enviroment that is male dominated. She has been thrown in jail and her family threaten more times than you or I would be in this country 100 times over. She is one of the numerous women walking in the streets of Tehran, Iran today with out the chadore(the full head scarf) on her head in public; thou she does were a "plain and very small" westernized scarf. She states it as a symbol of repressiveness and as well a symbol of tradition and respect.

Her name is Shirin Ebadi.

[LeahMira]

23. I'm sorry you feel that way...

Are they aware that they are self-demeaning???

... because the women who wear head coverings pity you. Are you aware that you are "adapting a sex-based discriminatory tradition" which insists that your character and personal value be evaluated by your appearance?

[VelmaD]

28. Tell you what...

I'll keep right on being judged by my appearance as long as I can keep on living in a country where I'm allowed to have an education and a job.

[PsychoDad]

74. Is that what you want though?

To be judged only by your appearance? To be judged based upon what you look like without regard to your worth as a person?

[RobinA]

29. I Know What You Mean

with this thinking, I have a similar urge to rip off headscarves and can't help feeling that a lot of women with them in this country and outside an Islamic community are playing dress-up. However, I do recognize that people in America have the right to demean themselves and play dress-up, so I fume in silence.

Oh....to answer the question, no attire that obscures appearance on anything that is used as ID. School and government buildings are a different story.

[mb7588a]

31. I was told in France that I had to wear a speedo

into a public swimming pool. That pissed me off. It was hot. I wanted to swim. :(

This issue is not the same. Religious rights > your argument. Your bounty hunt sounds like some kind of freeper-speak, imo.

Passports etc are excluded. Those are explicitely for facial identity. Until we have something better, it will have to do.

[Bridget Burke]

34. "dumbass chick"--spoken like a true feminist

Don't Orthodox Jewish married women wear hats or wigs? What about Mennonites? Some Catholic nuns have not totally abandoned their habits.

Are you going to humiliate all of them because they offend your fashion sense?

[ACK]

43. Cultural imperialism from the left?!?

If the woman does not believe the way you believe about freedom and modesty you want to call her a "dumbass chick" and "rip her headscarf" off.

Religious people in general muslim and christian get on my nerves but I would never start go ripping the little head caps off some orthodox jew's head.

The kind of crap you are pushing is just culturally imperialism and another reason why the west does not understand the muslim world.

[quaker bill]

151. Cultural illiteracy abounds

The muslim women I know here wear the shadour as a matter of faith and because they believe it reduces the tendency to be objectified sexually. Modesty in their attire is not the completely male imposed choice that many here believe it to be.

I support relieving women of male imposed restrictions on their attire. I also support allowing women to attire themselves in the manner of their choosing. Even if that choice is much more modest than others here would chose for them.

You may not agree with this, but why would you chose to make other women uncomfortable by imposing your belief on them?

[reachout]

2. It worked for the Turks

I think France definitely has the right idea.

[RPG-7]

40. what worked for the Turks?

[_Jumper_]

48. banning religious attire in schools

It is interesting how secular Turkey is the only functioning Muslim democracy to ever exist on the face of this Earth...

[RPG-7]

51. no, that's very easy

It wasn't a democracy for most of it's history but it was a US lackey state and so is remembered as a 20th century democracy in the American narrative.

Also education is something that most Turkish children can't afford because they need to work. The secular descendents of the "young turks" are the class most likely to be attending school and so there was little opposition on this front.

[_Jumper_]

54. The state of Turkey was founded in this century

It has been a democracy for a long enough to qualify as a bona fide democracy. When are we going to see a non-secular Muslim democracy emerge?

[RPG-7]

58. if it sits on oil..

The answer is likely never.

You think those satraps got there because the people were Muslim? They got there because the US, France, and the UK spent an enormous amount of energy to get them there.

[no name no slogan]

68. Yes, partially

However, the secular government has also done a bang-up job of cracking down on religious "fundementalists", too, and trying to deny them a voice in the parliament.

Not to mention the atrocities Turkey committed against the Kurds and Armenians who live within its borders.

Turkey is a democracy the same way Israel is a democracy. For the fortunate ones in the "majority", it's a democracy. But for those in a despised minority, it's anything but.

[PsychoDad]

80. In turkey

The banning of the Hijab in public places is creating a polarizing force. IMHO- Banning the Hijab is as bad as forcing someone to wear it.
As for ME democracies, the UAE seems to be doing ok. Iran was progressing along quite nicely until recently. in fact democracy was making some inroads in the ME until quite recently. :eyes: American policy in the ME is not conducive to a real democratic awakining as there is no longer any middle ground..."yer either with us or against us" And many democraticly inclined arabs are surley not "with us" any longer.

The ME is being tworn between 2 extremes, just as this Hijab argument seems to be between two extremes. Forced to, or forced not to...

[ACK]

3. Come on people

I am a non-religious agnostic.

Someone asked me about my beliefs in god I literally reply, "God may exist. God may not exist. But frankly I don't give a flying fuck."

Even with that being said as long as people are not bashing other people or infringing on their rights what is the harm in religious attire?

Freedom of Religion. I believe in that.

People should be able to wear the head scarves anywhere but on an id you have to have an identifying face. Otherwise, an id is useless for identification.

Why am I wrong on this? Discuss among yourselves while I get coffee.

[reachout]

5. Secularism

I believe in freedom to practice whatever religion you wish.

That being said, I think a constitutional guarantee of secularism (as they have in France) is a great idea and would benefit this country as well.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

4. Secular Uniforms for Everyone!

Wait, you mean people should be allowed to wear whatever they want to? Bah, that's freedom for you!

[supernova]

12. This is a tough one

While I don't really care what religious attire people wish to adopt, I don't think it belongs on IDs, drivers' licenses and the like.

School is another issue. Not for religious reasons so much as kids find it all to easy to develop cliques around anything, including attire. IOW, the hajib (the headscarf) can become a clique-forming piece of clothing just as much as in my day the "Members Only" jackets and certain types of tennis shoes are today.

Reading the article, the headscarf issue is really more about how much influence the muslim community will have in France. The headscarves are just the tip of the ice berg.

I don't know. I haven't made up my mind about it. I can see both sides here. On the one hand, I support the secular goals of the French state. Good goal. Keep religion private and all that. OTOH, by banning headscarves are they cutting off their noses to spite their faces? By not adapting to the relatively benign headscarf issue is the French governement setting themselves up for a more caustic battle over a more important theological/political battle down the road?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

13. can you wear a cross necklace or star of david in your photo id?

I can't believe this is even being discussed really.

[supernova]

17. Don't be melodramatic

I'm talking about attire that hides the identity of the wearer. It defeats the purpose of a photo ID.

[LeahMira]

57. Appearance can be changed.

I'm talking about attire that hides the identity of the wearer. It defeats the purpose of a photo ID.


I suppose it depends on the purpose of a photo ID.

I have a drivers license. I can't think of any time in many years when I've had to show it other than to have it renewed. Cards that I use regularly have black strips on the back and I need to use a "secret number" or sign something to prove my identity.

It seems that with all the technology we have at our disposal there ought to be another way to identify someone. Fingerprints? Social security cards? If someone has objections to a photo, shouldn't there be some options for them?

Besides, what with Botox and Clairol, one's appearance can be changed easily enough if one is up to some skullduggery, so how reliable is a photo ID really?

Honestly, some drivers license photos don't look much like the person ... or at least I like to think they don't. I am much better looking than my drivers license photo would lead one to believe!

[PVnRT]

15. So, you're for school uniforms?

I seriously doubt a clique would spring up around someone wearing a hajib.

[supernova]

18. Well, one would think

I tend to agree with you.

But I don't know what it's like to be a public school student in France. Are they getting to the point where some schools are majority muslim?

[Gringo]

19. I'm totally for uniforms

They eliminate notions of class, a lot of cliquish behavior, gang identification, and help kids focus more on school than on $100 sneakers.

School should be about learning, not a fashion show. Kids can wear whatever they like after school and on weekends.


If you're some goth poser or hip-hop wannabe, and your meaningless fashion is so important to you, you should get home-schooled. I don't want my kids distracted by such frivolous nonsense.

Here in Miami, most of the public schools have uniforms, and everyone seems to like them. It's one positive side to the rather conservative latin culture here.

[alfredo]

27. Oh yes. You can see class distinctions in the weave, patterns and such

Even covered from head to toe, you can tell the ones from wealth and high position.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

30. when I wore a uniform in school

The rich kids let us know who they were, uniform or no uniform.

[RPG-7]

25. if you believe it's some incredible step forward not to wear a scarf

Experience shows that your goal is best served by not giving a damn what people wear. The Shah turned a fairly secular country into a hotbed of Shia fundamentalists through doing things like having soldiers rip the veils off women in the street like the pleasant person earlier in the thread suggested. When people feel that their culture is under attack they embrace it more. The schmaltzy, gaudy, uber-patriotic nonsense in the months after 9/11 are a similar example.

[PVnRT]

14. Driver's license/passport

In that case, taking a picture of someone swathed in black clothing does not serve the purpose of the license/passport, that is, to provide identification.

[SheilaT]

24. For me, it's the "obscures identity"

part that matters.

There's a Moslem family attending the school my younger son attends,and the daughters wear traditional dress, meaning the long dress and a head scarf. I am bothered that they're not more assimilated, as I know the children were born in this country. On the other hand, I want to respect everyone's religious beliefs and practices, and so should support that kind of dress.

But in an ID photo, the head scarf wouldn't make it impossible to recognize that person. A face covering would.

[rucky]

35. All those Female Muslim fugitives bothering you?

I don't support profiling in any way. But it doesn't even make sense for law enforcement to push for the ID clause. If religious convictions require wearing certain clothing, then shouldn't the ID photo reflect how they would be seen in public?
But helping law enforcement isn't - and should not be - the primary purpose of Identification. Officials who use IDs to verify identity should be trained to handle these few exceptions.

We may see wearing a head scarf as degrading. But they see NOT wearing the scarf as degrading. What matters is what they think - not us.

Then there may be the .00001% of people in this country who may be using a head scarf to conceal their image from law enforcement. So we're going to legislate a requirement that violates freedom of religion based on that small, unproven chance? Doesn't it also violate our presumption of innocence?

[supernova]

37. Not Us, France

has the (percieved) problem. They have a sizeable muslim community especially around the metro Paris area.

[BonjourUSA]

83. Just a point

The French muslim are before all French and share French values of the secular principle.

Some recent stats :

Only 6% of the French (muslims included of course) indentificate themselves with a religion.

8% of the French muslim practice their religion ( 4% for the catho)

if 49% % of the French Femal Muslim want a law against the wearing of religious symbols in the public school, 85% of them want the ban principle to be applied.

[_Jumper_]

90. Awesome!

So why did the fundies win the elections for the Muslim council? Was it just a result of a good get-out-the-vote effort on part of the fundies?

[BonjourUSA]

96. Very good question !

This election is a little bit dark and curious.

It seems the French muslims don't idenfy themselves in it.

Perhaps the gov wants them to be "under its eyes" ?

[Blue_Chill]

137. here we go again with your excuses

Since there aren't many of them it's ok to oppress them! YAY FRANCE!

[_Jumper_]

145. Oppress?

Muslim fundies knew what kind of country France was when they immigrated to it. What is wrong with the French attempting to preserve their secular society?

[_Jumper_]

49. "What matters is what they think--not us"

Why? They fled failed states to come here. Why shouldn't they adopt Western values?

BTW, ask those women what they think of Western women...

[rucky]

55. Then it would be their choice to remove the scarf

and there would be no controversy.

but apparently there is a controversy.

Should we all speak English and wear blue jeans as well? Do you really want to legislate cultural assimilation? If so, there's another political party with your name on it.

One of the things I like best about America is the diversity - especially in the big cities - where you can go into a neighborhood and experience an entirely different culture.

[_Jumper_]

92. There is a difference between diversity and a cultural takeover

You'll have an extremely difficult time painting me as anti-immigrant.:)

The difference between diverseity engendered by immigration to the USA and immigration to France is this: one group--a religious group--will eventually become the majority in France. That will likely happen at some point this century. If they fail to assimilate France's culture will not be diverse but become Islamicized. Diversity is great. I don't believe that it is wise to allow another religious group with alien values to take over a country.

A Muslim majority in France per se is not a problem; an unassimilated one is. Would you support the USA becoming a Muslim nation like, let's say, Pakistan or Libya, at some point this century????? Answer honestly...

[rucky]

116. For a free, egalitarian society to work...

You can't treat minorities as a threat.

You said it yourself, they immigrated for a reason & I don't think it is to colonize. I just don't see France becoming another Pakistan, and I oppose any legislation that's based on fear.

"alien values" is a strange term. do they eat kittens?

[_Jumper_]

121. Islamicization is not a threat to France?

Do you think Islamic societies don't have alien values? They believe women are second-class citizens, do not believe in religious tolerance or secularism, and are anti-democratic. These are serious differences, are they not?

"I just don't see France becoming another Pakistan, and I oppose any legislation that's based on fear."

That is not the reality. France will become a majority Muslim nation. If they do not assimilate what do you think will happen? They will be calling the shots and make France reflect their values. Look at "moderate" Muslim nations like Pakistan or Malaysia to see the future of France--IF they do not assimilate. Based on BonjourUSA's statistics, it appears they are assimilating.

[Blue_Chill]

139. And there it is RACISM!

They are this They are that. WHy not just start throwing names like sandn**** to complete the flaming of a entire people you just wrote.

[_Jumper_]

141. That is a straw man

Respond to my points.

Do you honestly think there are no significant differences between the Islamic world and the West?

BTW, do you know what "race" I am? :eyes:

[Blue_Chill]

156. Strawman? No it's called the truth

You insulted an entire race, and you have done so over and over again on this thread. Your race is irrelevent being that no race is incapable of hating others or even itself.

[_Jumper_]

165. What race?

:)

BTW, how about responding to my comments instead of calling me a racist for talking about a religious group?

[Character Assassin]

178. Yes, I'd like to know that as well: what race?

Well?

[AntiCoup2K4]

26. Perhaps the question should be..

Why the fuck is someone with a veil over their face driving to begin with? That can't be legal, given that it would definitely impair vision.

[supernova]

36. Many who wear the full veil

with only slits for eyes, do not drive. Just, FYI.

[Blue_Chill]

33. I will never support forced secularism

However if the cross you carry around is so big that the guy behind the camera at the DMV can see nothing but cherry polish, move the damn thing out of the way. Your God won't be mad I promise.

[ibegurpard]

38. The only reason I could see that they would be inappropriate

is for pictures for identification purposes. Why on earth would they be inappropriate anywhere else?

[jobycom]

42. See, the next step is making them remove scarves when they are

asked to show the ID. If the photo is taken without a scarf, and the subject is stopped by the police or at an airport and compared to the photo, they will have to remove their scarves to show that their face matches the photo. I don't see how that doesn't violate illegal search and seizure, privacy, religion, and a half dozen other rights.

I say make the government prove that there is some real reason to suspect anyone of anything before the government can force people to undress, or violate any religious beliefs (radical, huh?). Freedom isn't free, as they say, but that cuts both ways. We can't violate someone else's freedoms just to feel a little safer, and that's what all this nonsense is an example of.

[_Jumper_]

45. What is wrong with that?

Can I wear a baseball cap while taking a passport photo?

The real issue here is assimilation. France will become a majority-Muslim nation at some point of present immigration trends continue and birth rates remain the same. Non-Muslim French people know this. They are nervous about this. Instead of adapting to their new country like most immigrants (even most U.S.-born American Muslims are assimilated) they wish to preserve the culture of the failed state they or their family came from. This will lead to more discrimination against Muslims in France as they become more fearful of being forced to live with conservative Muslims. Once again, Muslims are shooting themselves in the foot.

Before anyone here thinks I am Franklin Graham I will state that 99.9999% of my family is Muslim. My parents are immigrants. I have no interest in spreading hate against Islam and Muslims because that redounds to my disadvantage since many people perceive me as "looking Arab." However, I have suffered from the political mistakes and backwardness of the Islamic world and I will be the first to criticize it. I make no apologies for that.

[jobycom]

52. To me, the issue is forced assimilation

First, you didn't come across as anti-Muslim (and certainly not as Franklin Graham), so no worries.

But to me the issue is forced assimilation. Immigrants (and not all Muslims in America are, but for the sake of it) have the right to pursue happiness here however they see fit. If that means they reject their "failed" government's policies but choose to keep aspects of their culture, that is their right. If that changes our (or France's) culture, so be it. All of our culture is a mishmash of immigrant and Native American in the first place. Assimilation works in both directions.

But government shouldn't force people to violate their culture or their religion. If that causes frictions that emerge as prejudice, it just does, and we deal with that-- again without violating freedoms as much as possible. That's been the whole point of America from the beginning. Our biggest problems come about when people DON'T respect everyone's differences.

And I know there are a lot of complex issues involving cultures and their abilities to oppress their own members, but that wasn't the original question. The original question dealt with what our government could do.

[Character Assassin]

75. Muslim immigrants are only approximately 5% of the population

From what I've read. That would be a VERY long time before they became the majority.

[_Jumper_]

93. They are between 5-10% of the population

However, the huge disparity in birth rates between Muslims and non-Muslims, with an assist from predominantly Muslim immigration, will result in France being a majority Muslim nation at some point this century. I have read--in a U.S. Islamic magazine--that by 2020 there will be 20 million Muslims in France. That seems a bit high but make no mistake about it, France will be Muslim. Inherently that is not bad. However, if they fail to assimilate that will be a very negative thing for France.

[theboss]

46. Compelling government interest test

It's that simple.

The government has a compelling interest in you being identifiable on your ID. Otherwise, what the hell is the point of an ID.

The government does not have a compelling interest in telling you what to wear to the market.

[DrWeird]

50. Who the hell am I to tell people what they can and can't wear?

I'm against making people remove veils as I am against school uniforms.

[Terwilliger]

53. yes, and I don't want to see any more yamulkes either

that's really stupid...as much as the west may have a problem, many muslim women have no problem with the way they dress themselves

Once again, religious prejudice in a world of believers seems to be ok.

[David__77]

56. I think banning it in school is too much.

Head coverings are fine in school I think. We have always allowed a wide latiture versus that in other countries and should continue to do so.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

72. More fearmongering by fascists.

The Islamic bogeyman(or woman) is gonna getcha. Don't forget to check under your beds.

[_Jumper_]

94. France is en route to becoming a majority Muslim nation

This is not fascism, this is a real issue for France. Would you want your grandkids to live in a Muslim nation like the Muslim nations that exist today??????? Assimilation is imperative for France.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

150. Give me a break. France is even more secular than we are.

I can't believe that anyone with their wits about them are going to get the heebie-jeebies because some (a tiny minority) women are wearing headscarves for religious reasons.

[_Jumper_]

166. Read what I said

France is en route to become a Muslim nation. This is a symoblic issue about Muslim assimilation. If France does not assimilate them it will become a moderate Muslim nation. Would you like your grandchildren to live in a moderate Muslim nation? The French have a right to preserve their secular society.

[Padraig18]

76. To quote a Muslim friend of mine from...

... Pakistan, "Why should I dress in a way I believe to be immodest, just to ease your fear?'. She did remove her veil for both her driver's license and passport photos, and believes it is proper that other do the same. In public and in school, however, she does remain veiled.

[absyntheNsugar]

81. Simple - Nothing to do with fear

but she's flaunting her religion. Has no place in a public school or a public position. Same as a Jesus poster or sticker would have no place in my cubicle here at work.

[Padraig18]

101. What if I asked you to remove your pants @ work?

I pointed out it was a CULTURAL perception of modesty. You have no right to ask her to dress in a manner she belives to be immodest--- NONE.

[_Jumper_]

103. Secularism

France has a right to force people to act in accordance to France's secular values. If they disagree, they can find another country to live in.

[Padraig18]

108. That's France, not the US.

Care to cite some legal basis for doing the same thing here? Please cite relevant sections of State and Federal constitutions and/or statutes.

[_Jumper_]

119. we're talking about France aren't we?

Obviously we cannot do that here, nor do we need to.

[Blue_Chill]

131. So you support that shit in France but not where you live?

Nice.

[_Jumper_]

146. Yes, because of a thing called the U.S. Constitution...

...they don't have that in France.

[Blue_Chill]

157. Sure but the constitution doesn't stop law making

based in faith. For example fundies in large numbers could easily ban many immoral things, they just can't force you to pray.

You need to get away from the idea that the majority is justified in oppressing the minority just because you fall on the larger side. Such things can turn on you quickly.

[Padraig18]

134. Why would you think I was talking about France?

I'm in Illinois, USA.

[_Jumper_]

147. This thread is about France

Weren't you citing that U.S. Muslim women to attack the French position on secularism?

[Padraig18]

167. No.

I was offering it as a statement of general sentiment on the subject.

[_Jumper_]

170. Ok

The fact of the matter is that France has a right to preserve its secular society. If some find showing their hair follicles immodest they can move to another country. France is not obligated to not offend those that do not believe in fundamental French values.

[Muddleoftheroad]

174. I heard all day in another thread that freedom was a French value

I guess not.

[PsychoDad]

177. Or they can choose another government.

France is a democracy after all. And the HUGE future muslim majority you are talking about coming into existance can simply bide their time and when they become the overwhelming majority they can vote in their own canidates and change the government of France and its laws.

On further consideration, maybe it's best that the muslims of France not dress differently, or wear beards or hijab.... That way the Massivly huge muslim majority, that is so scarry to you, can slip in under the french radar :silly:

Then BOOM! One morning everyone in France will awaken to the call of the Adzan, and to the new French Islamic Republic!

Sacre bleu! We are all Muslims now!
Viva La' Islamic Republic!

Sorta like an Iran with escargot and croissants! :silly:

[_Jumper_]

95. Simple: secularism

If anyone does not like secularism I suggest they not immigrate to a secular nation.

[Blue_Chill]

132. Could I say the same for the US?

You don't like religion then get the fuck out?

I'm guessing you wouldn't like that?

[_Jumper_]

168. Read the constitution

n/t

[absyntheNsugar]

77. Sorry....I may be culturally insensitive

But I voted for banning all religious paraphernalia.

Besides, any muslim scholar will tell you the hajib was never around in the day of Mohammed - they are a current answer proscribed by Wahabbist Islam (which came about in the 1920's)

[Aidoneus]

82. got both the dates and allegations wrong

Fine work. :eyes:

[absyntheNsugar]

138. Please explain

n/t

[Aidoneus]

172. for starters,

a) the hejab was not brought in by the so-called "Wahhabis" (it was a common feature long before these Hanbalis were on the march), b) the so-called "Wahhabi" movement dates back many decades before the 1920s.

The cliche (as is the subject in general) is a lightning rod for a remarkable level of distortion, invention, and ignorance, which are not only seemingly dominant and preferable but infectious..

[BonjourUSA]

91. For the clarification of the discussion.

It seems this question is asked because the French debate about the promulgation or not of a law against the wearing of all religious symbols in the public schools and in the public jobs exists right now.

I'm going to repeat here the stats I wrote in a thread above. Our culture and our way of life are not yours and you must know these stats for judging.

The French muslim are before all French and they share French values of the secular principle.

These stats are very recent :

Only 6% of the French people (muslims included of course) identify themselves with a religion.

8% of the French muslim practice their religion ( 4% for the catho)

if 49% % of the French Female Muslim want a law against the wearing of religious symbols in the public school, 85% of them want the ban principle to be applied.

[OhioStateProgressive]

100. i think this is all very irrelevant

people should be allowed to do as they please, wherever they please, as long as it doesn't compromise someone else from doing the same

religion is bullshit, and Im an atheist, but a public dress code of any kind is overly Orwellian

[_Jumper_]

102. It is the crux of the issue

Muslims will become the majority in France at some point this century. If they are unassimilated you can say goodbye to religious freedom in France. This is the root cause of the hostility surrounding the headscarf. It is a symbolic issue representing the major issue of Muslim integration. Thankfully, it appears they have adopting the secular values of France.

[OhioStateProgressive]

104. societies integrate, thats how it goes

over time they do...centuries ago, the angles and celts assimilated...the franks and huns...it happens

[_Jumper_]

107. If Muslims do not assimilate...

...non-Muslim French people will have to integrate into a conservative Islamic society. Would you like living in a conservative Islamic society? Note: I consider "moderate" Muslims to be conservative, for they are very similar to the American religious right.

[OhioStateProgressive]

110. think 200 years from now, not about tomorrow(nt)

[Blue_Chill]

133. Funny when I say that exact same thing about atheists

I'm labled a nut. It seems you have a double standard problem.

[OhioStateProgressive]

105. there are not values of nations, there are values of HUMANS(nt)

[_Jumper_]

106. I disagree

Islam and secularism are not compatible. Go to Tehran, Islamabad, Cairo, or Riyadh and ask them what they think of secularism. Many, if not most, Muslims consider secularism anti-Islamic.

[OhioStateProgressive]

109. i disagree more

we are one, and in time we will all be as one, without borders or other measures to control us and tie us down to limited realities

why not embrace the inevitable truth now that we are all part of this same earth together...Islam will burn out of it's own importance in time...as Catholicism did (about 200 years ago it was worse than the worst of the fundie terrorists)

look at the world and see 200 years from now

today doesn't matter

we are all ideologues

[_Jumper_]

114. I agree that eventually we will all be one

However, I know for certain that I would not want my several generations of my descendants to live in a conservative Islamic nation.

[Blue_Chill]

136. Forced secularism is not compatible with anything, including freedom

Truth champ, deal with it.

[_Jumper_]

148. It is their country, they can do whatever they wish

Indeed it does infringe on some freedoms but so do many things. Do you support school prayer? Is not banning it infringing upon the religious freedom of Xian fundies?

[Blue_Chill]

159. Such garbage

1 - I don't care if it's france or mars, I don't support oppression.

2 - Prayer isn't banned in school, it simpley can't be lead by teachers so that non christian students aren't forced into anything.

[IranianDemocrat]

112. Hijab is a symbol of backwardness, oppression, and sexism...

...no matter how you try to spin it.

[_Jumper_]

115. Amen

IranianDemocrat, is your family Muslim? Did you live in a Muslim society?

[Terwilliger]

117. spin it?

so you're calling Islam backward, oppressive, and sexist?

[_Jumper_]

123. That is what the facts show

n/t

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

127. Terwilliger, do you think Christianity is backward, oppressive, sexist?

just curious?

[sharkbait2]

118. I'm pretty surprised at the prejudices being

brought out into the open in this thread. Tell me again how Democrats are more tolerant of other religions and cultures?

Seriously, do you truly believe that France would become an Islamic state, even if the majority of the population were Muslims, practicing or otherwise? And by the sound of some of the misconceptions in this thread, it sounds like many of the users here think that Saudi Arabia and Iran are true representations of most Muslim countries.

[_Jumper_]

122. Yes

Islam will become a Muslim state like Pakistan or Indonesia if they do not assimilate. What do you think will happen if unassimilated Muslims become the majority?

Prejudices? I've LIVED with "moderate" Muslims. I know what they are really like.

Which countries do you think truly represent Islam? Pakistan? Malaysia? Indonesia? Egypt?

We ought not to be tolerant of sexism, even if it is manifested because of religion.

[sharkbait2]

125. Really?

Why wouldn't they become Muslim states like Morocco, Tunisia, Lebanon, Qatar, Jordan...etc.? (the joke being, you could hardly call them Muslim states).

Actually, if they were to become a "Muslim" state, chances are it would be closer to Tunisia or Morocco, since neither are really Muslim states, and given the fact that a great number of Muslims in France are from North Africa. (read: Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco).

So what has your experience been like living with "moderate" Muslims? You sound almost as if you're describing having the flu... in other words, your prejudices are showing.

[_Jumper_]

135. They could be like them

The key point is that "moderate" Muslim nations are sexist, religious intolerant, and are similar to what America would look like if Xian fundies gained control of it. Honestly, is that a good thing? Would you want your grandchildren to live in such a society?

"So what has your experience been like living with "moderate" Muslims? You sound almost as if you're describing having the flu... in other words, your prejudices are showing."

Talk to anyone raised in Muslim family in America. There is a reason we are predominantly very secular and have a very unfavorable view of our parent's culture. Granted, most of these people remain Muslim,
but they are very liberal Muslims. Aside from their self-identification of being Muslim they are indistinguishable from typical Americans Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, et al.

Moderate Muslims are very, very conservative. They are similar to American Xian fundies--and to the right of them on gender issues. We should not be hailing them as ideal Muslims. My familiarlity with moderate Islam has made me very critical of moderate Islam. People that are unfamilar with Islam are making a big mistake by assuming that the typical immigrant Muslim has the same values as non-Muslim Westerners.

In our case Muslims will not become the majority and they are assimilating so we do not have a problem. France may have one, and we need to realize that France becoming a moderate Muslim nation would be a major change.

Islam will eventually reform itself and assimilated U.S. Muslims will be at the vanguard of this change. That is why I am sanguine
about American Islam.

[sharkbait2]

142. Nope.

I was raised as a Muslim, and in a Muslim country... one with more freedoms than America has if you eliminate freedom of press and voting out of the equation.

While there are probably Muslim radicals here that you mistake as moderates, you obviously haven't met a very wide range of Muslims.

Keep in mind also, some of the most radical fundies in the Muslim world fled to the West to avoid incarceration... The US pre 9-11 was dishing out plenty of morality to countries like Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt for their human rights records, which was strictly limited to radical Muslims who wanted to overthrow the secular governments. Many of those radicals are now in Europe and the US and some of them supported from Europe movements such as al-Qaida and other extremist groups.

I would be careful about making generalizations about Islam based on how conservative a Muslim may be. Don't get me wrong, being an ultra-conservative practicing Muslim doesn't equate to being a trouble-maker, but that conservatism isn't representative of much of the Muslim world outside of the radical examples like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

[_Jumper_]

152. Which country?

First of all freedom of press and voting are two things that are not exactly minor guages of freedom.;)

How did that country fare with respect to religions tolerence and gender equality?

"While there are probably Muslim radicals here that you mistake as moderates, you obviously haven't met a very wide range of Muslims."

That is false. I have seen hardcore fundies and very liberal ones, and I see a technically apostate Muslim in the mirror each day.

"Don't get me wrong, being an ultra-conservative practicing Muslim doesn't equate to being a trouble-maker, but that conservatism isn't representative of much of the Muslim world outside of the radical examples like Iran and Saudi Arabia."

I think you are misunderstanding my definition of a conservative. I am calling them conservative based on U.S. standards. Of course, compared to Muslims they are indeed moderate, and among some ethnic groups even relatively liberal.

Do you honestly think the typical Muslim believes in equal rights for women, a degree of tolerance for homosexuals, is pro-choice, and secuarlism?

[sharkbait2]

158. Conservative based on US standards?

You obviously haven't turned on the Lebanese version of MTV and other teeny bopper crap, or taken a walk on a topless beach in Tunisia after getting drunk and dancing all night with Tunisian girls in mini-skirts at a night club which closes at 7:00 am in the morning.

Practicing Muslims (and a major chunck of the Muslim world aren't exactly what most would call practicing) aren't any more conservative or liberal than practicing Christians.

[Djinn]

171. For someone who claims to come from a muslim family, Jumper

you seem to have very little knowledge about it, that is what the actual Hadiths say as opposed to how Wahhabism is practised - which by the way has cultural roots not religious - eg the issue of female genital mutilation is often held up as proof of Islam's sexism - however it is not supported by the Koran - it predates it - and is also practised by christians and animists in Africa.

It is easy to pick and choose quotes from the Koran which seem to 21st centiry eyes to be sexist - it is equally easy to do so with texts from the bible. There are MANY Muslims throughout the world who understand that times change and you need to interepret these texts with that in mind. Just as most Christians do not advocate the stoning of ones daughter if she is not a virgin on her wedding day anymore most muslims also practise a modern version of Islam.

As for your rather ignorant call that "If anyone does not like secularism I suggest they not immigrate to a secular nation." three points spring to mind - first it's a stretch to call most western nations truly secular - public holidays on Christmas anyone?; second point, a secular government does not mean all citizens need be atheists - I'd like it if it did personally but as I'm not a fascist I have no desire to tell people what to beleive; and thirdly many people don't exactly "choose" their new home when you're a refugee you take what you can.

If the fundie neo cons got their most desired wish and started instituting rules outlawing homosexuality and pre marital sex based on their reading of the bible, then brutally crack down on "offenders" using the newly formed "Office of Public Morality - should the subsequent mass of fleeing humanity be forced to give up their interpretation of christianity because after all they fled the great christian US of A??

OK I'm rambling a bit here but as I said you make sweeping generalisations and seem to completely ignore the other reasons why it's not so much fun to be a women in some muslims countries - the political interference of our own governments also plays a part - perhaps if we stopped installing and propping up non-muslim governments (a Kingdom as in Saudi is expressly NOT following Islamic teachings) in the middle east there may be MORE democratic islamic nations then there currently are

[MrSlayer]

169. The less religion the better.

Religion is nothing but primitive superstition that we as a race should be way past at this point.

[Muddleoftheroad]

175. I consider bigotry a primitive act as well

But your post reminds me we aren't done with it.

[Clark Can WIN]

180. Any attire that creates a security concern in schools

or on Driver's licenses should be banned.