 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What the actual fuck, France?
|
dolores
Apprentice
# 18650
|
Posted
This is my first post, so I am feeling my way. I was moved to post after watching the link to the short YouTube video of Yann Moix posted earlier.
Quite apart from his hectoring and bullying demeanour which seems to have become a hallmark of this debate, I was appalled by his disingenuous comparison of the religious cassock with the burqa.
It seems that people have become completely unable to see beyond the outward sign of any given symbol to look at the meaning contained therein. This does not mean that people are not aware at some level that a burqa and cassock both mean something, but we have become confused as to what these meanings might be.
The cassock is symbolic of the natural separation that God has made ( Book of Numbers) between the religious and the secular life. The priestly, class which God Himself established in the wilderness, bore the fruit of both John the Baptist and Christ. Christ thus became the eternal High Priest and the Church has continued the practice of setting aside priests to serve in this new living temple for hundreds of years. This separateness and office of divine service was signified by the wearing of sacred vestments. The meaning of these vestments was understood by all. They provided a clear demarcation between different aspects of life. The Church, for instance, whilst demanding that women cover their heads before God when in the sacred space, made no such encroachments into everyday life.
The burkini signals something quite different. First of all it is not at all clear that it is a religious symbol at all – based on the burqa and other female “coverings”, it is a cultural practice that originated in certain Muslim countries, and is by no means a religious practice as required by the Qur’an. It is a frightening symbol to many women. Young women in London and elsewhere have been harassed by Muslim men because of their “immodest” dress. Now, as a flabby prude, I often wince when I see what passes for being “clothed” these days, but I seethe when I see to what extent the female body and sexuality is becoming the ideological smokescreen for a much deeper ideological battle.
Behind every burqa on the beach you may see 10 honour killings, ten teenage girls conned into going on “holiday” to Pakistan only to be married to a man that they have never met, ten genital mutilations and ten housewives who are not allowed to learn the language of their adopted country. I have seen people defend the burqa because it protects women from being sexually assaulted and even gang raped in Muslim areas and countries. In short, to be uncovered means to invite assault. I am a woman and I can tell you that this mentality, that signals a rapid descent back to the spirit of the Middle Ages, makes my blood run cold.
But behind this lurks an even bigger elephant in the room. This cultural religio-fascism has at its heart the conviction that Islamic theocracy must be spread throughout the entire world. Non-believers must be forcibly converted and Sharia Law must be the supreme law where Islam reigns. This does not mean that millions of decent Muslims want this, but this is the force of idea that is pushing at the door of the West where many Muslims have sought sanctuary from the day to day reality of the societies that Islam has spawned. So whilst the cassock symbolizes a dignified separation between the sacred and the secular, the burkini symbolizes the ascent of a system of theocratic ideas which seek to control every aspect of our lives. The word Islam comes from a root which is often translated as peace – in fact it is a root which carries the idea of submission and obedience and these ideas are quite conveniently projected primarily onto women.
When a French woman sees a burkini on the beach at Nice, she is not allowed to say this. If Islam becomes a major force in Europe – which it will inevitably become – then women have a lot to fear. Bridget Bardot was fined five thousand euros for expressing her fears in writing. So, in a world where people are stopped from expressing their legitimate fears as they stare dumbfounded at the abandoned push chairs of dead children littering the seafront of Nice, do not be surprised when they are reduced to the support of the futile banning of pointless pieces of clothing. What the fuck France? What the fuck the liberal media that promotes this as the only allowable arena for debate?
And in the meantime the Western psyche continues to crumble under the weight of a cognitive dissonance of our own making.
Posts: 4 | Registered: Aug 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Billy goat Gruff, your turn?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
The cassock is symbolic of the natural separation that God has made ( Book of Numbers) between the religious and the secular life.
Says who? That is certainly not an argument recognised by a secular state. quote:
The burkini signals something quite different. First of all it is not at all clear that it is a religious symbol at all – based on the burqa and other female “coverings”, it is a cultural practice that originated in certain Muslim countries
What, Australia?
quote:
This cultural religio-fascism has at its heart the conviction that Islamic theocracy must be spread throughout the entire world. Non-believers must be forcibly converted and Sharia Law must be the supreme law where Islam reigns. This does not mean that millions of decent Muslims want this, but this is the force of idea that is pushing at the door of the West
Let’s just assume, for the sake of the argument, that all this is true. What is the best way of Western societies combating this?
To my mind it is to grant freedom of choice – including the freedom to practise the religion of one’s choice, provided it does not threaten public order. The answer to theocracy is pluralism, not militant secularism or half-concealed Catholic nationalism.
The burkini offers an opportunity for Muslims to mix with other members of society in a way they otherwise wouldn’t.
For those who accept it, it is a perfect compromise and poses no conceivable public order threat, as the French Council of State has ruled.
Banning even a compromise solution under the pretext that it represents militant Islam is not only misguided, it provides perfect fodder for radicalisation.
The fact is that Islam is here to stay in the West for the forseeable future. To my mind the best strategy for dispelling the more radical forms of Islam is to create an environment in which there is the opportunity for these to be diluted and to modernise.
In any case, trying to combat ideas and attitudes by attacking petty outward signs is doomed to failure, as anyone who has ever worn school uniform knows.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
This is my first post, so I am feeling my way.
Welcome to Hell. And buckle up!
quote:
What the fuck the liberal media that promotes this as the only allowable arena for debate?
The media -- the media owned by gigantic corporations dedicated to nothing other than making huge sums of money -- are liberal. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
Bridget Bardot was fined five thousand euros for expressing her fears in writing.
This truly is shocking. It is news to me. I hate laws against any kind of speech other than slander and straight forward incitement to violence and crime. I hate all sorts of things from the book I just read for my book club to pizza, and yes certain religions that encourage sexism and racism. I think we should all be free to say these things and let others say they hate us for it.
I'm frightened at the idea of people not being free to express their views, however unpopular, unfriendly, xenophobic, racist or bigoted they may be. I haven't read Bardot's writings so they may not even be any of those things, but perhaps just fearful of too much change in her country.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Bardot has been convicted multiple times for incitement to racial hatred and fined much more than €5000. Shipmates may also be interested to read her views on gays. Scroll down to Politics and legal issues.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
Well, she can't be all bad if she did indeed (quoting from the Wikipedia entry linked to above):
quote:
During the 2008 United States presidential election, she branded the Republican Party vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin as "stupid" and a "disgrace to women".
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
I don't have to agree with a word she says to believe she should be allowed to say it.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Nobody is all bad. Hitler was kind to rats.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
And dogs, IIRC.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
Young women in London and elsewhere have been harassed by Muslim men because of their “immodest” dress. Now, as a flabby prude, I often wince when I see what passes for being “clothed” these days, but I seethe when I see to what extent the female body and sexuality is becoming the ideological smokescreen for a much deeper ideological battle.
I have no problem agreeing with you that young women being harassed on the street is wrong. Where I differ from you is that I don't think young women should be harassed on the beach either.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
dolores
Apprentice
# 18650
|
Posted
I will try to respond where I can, but I’ve not had time yet to work out how to use the quote function. I’ll do the best that I can and hope that I don’t end up posting gobbledygook.
To Eutychus. Regarding the establishment of a priesthood instigating a separation of religious and secular functions, I was really talking at a broad philosophical level. Once a recognised priesthood exists, it could be argued that it is easier to distinguish the religious from the secular sphere and to separate out the various roles and responsibilities. At a legalistic level, and especially with regard to the history of clericalism, I could certainly pick holes in my own argument.
I forgive your deliberate misunderstanding of my badly worded point about the origins of the burqa which I believe to be Afghanistan. Kudos to your ducking and diving ability: you are obviously an old hand at this.
To your more serious point about the burkini, I think you miss my point. If we go back to the YouTube video that you posted, Yann Moix was obviously very proud of himself for having unearthed a law (dating back to 1905) which he used to “shut up” the woman to whom he is talking. This obscure clause asserts that the State has deliberately blinded itself to all religions and their outward manifestations: it refused to recognise any vestment as “religious.” In other words, the French state at the time felt that it could obliterate the religious sentiment, and its impact on all aspects of secular life, simply by robbing outward manifestations of religion of all meaning. Moix is so triumphant because this undermines all other attempts to recognise religious symbolism so that it may be banned from the public sphere in the policy of laïcité.
This is such a profound point that it is way beyond a humble post on a forum, but I would make the point that a policy of deliberate blindness is a very dangerous one. This clause is quite clearly aimed at undermining the Catholic Church in France, but will the same results arise from a policy of state-sanctioned blindness work as well in other contexts?
My essential point is that Islam is not a religion like Christianity. It is a religion that demands that secular life be subservient to the religious sphere. I do not make a distinction between radical and moderate Islam. The oppression of women for instance is ingrained in all the basic texts of the faith. There are of course radical and moderate Muslims, but that is an entirely different thing. If you think that you can dilute Islam then go ahead and try. I will watch with interest.
The burkini is a symbol neither of radical or moderate Islam – it is a symbol of a religion that brings with it political, social and legal ramifications that are entirely at odds with our much-vaunted Western values. It is a religion that will not and cannot confine itself to the spiritual sphere. It is a symbol of confusion and deliberate blindness. In a survey 69% of those polled felt that the burkini should be banned. This is crazy. You know it’s crazy. I know it’s crazy. I don’t personally support laicité. The majority of the 69% know it’s crazy. They just don’t know how to respond to what is happening. All I am saying is let them express their fears and don’t crow when they are “shut up.”
Posts: 4 | Registered: Aug 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nobody is all bad. Hitler was kind to rats.
Loved his Alsatian aswell. Mind you, did test out the cyanide capsule on it.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
My essential point is that Islam is not a religion like Christianity. It is a religion that demands that secular life be subservient to the religious sphere. I do not make a distinction between radical and moderate Islam. The oppression of women for instance is ingrained in all the basic texts of the faith. There are of course radical and moderate Muslims, but that is an entirely different thing. If you think that you can dilute Islam then go ahead and try. I will watch with interest.
Bullshit.
quote:
The burkini is a symbol neither of radical or moderate Islam – it is a symbol of a religion that brings with it political, social and legal ramifications that are entirely at odds with our much-vaunted Western values. It is a religion that will not and cannot confine itself to the spiritual sphere. It is a symbol of confusion and deliberate blindness. In a survey 69% of those polled felt that the burkini should be banned. This is crazy. You know it’s crazy. I know it’s crazy. I don’t personally support laicité. The majority of the 69% know it’s crazy. They just don’t know how to respond to what is happening. All I am saying is let them express their fears and don’t crow when they are “shut up.”
Utter crap.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dolores
Apprentice
# 18650
|
Posted
To RuthW – Thanks for the welcome. I did wonder about making a first post in hell!
As regards the corporate owners of the media, I think we can safely say that they push a liberal agenda because it suits them. They do not necessarily share the ideology that they wish to push on the masses. It is hard to know what their ideology is beyond self-perpetuation and an antipathy to all things Christian. The whole globe is in the midst of a huge corporate reorganization – what the world will look like when it is done is anybody’s guess.
To Twilight. I agree with you entirely. I didn’t choose Briggite Bardot for any reason – she was the first name that came to mind. Hence I spelt her name wrong! She is well known for being eccentric and I don’t know anything beyond the fact that she could have been imprisoned for a year for expressing her dismay at the “Islamification” of France. She may be right, she may be wrong, but she should be free to say it.
Even worse, since the 1990s, publishers in Britain have been increasingly afraid to publish anything that may offend the Saudi elite (who push a particularly hard line version of Islam) because our libel laws favour the wealthy. For instance, at least two books on the possible involvement of Saudis in the funding of terrorism are available in the States but not in Britain because of Saudi intimidation. In fact one American woman was ordered to pay one wealthy banker $225,000 by the British courts and her book was ordered to be withdrawn in Britain. This led to the American govt. passing a law that would prevent foreigners pursuing libel actions against American writers.
To Orfeo – You do not differ from me because I never said that that young women should be harassed on beaches, but I would say that the media worked very hard to push that image into the minds of people. There are so many things to be debated but they succeeded in plunging the general debate into the absurd realms of the burkini. France remains one of the most peaceable, beautiful and tolerant places to live in the world – which is why so many Muslim women wish to live here.
Posts: 4 | Registered: Aug 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I never really understand these vague warnings and admonitions about Islam. What the fuck is meant? Are the right wing saying that Muslims are dangerous, therefore keep them out, or intern them, or make them wear yellow stars?
Or what?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wesley J
Silly Shipmate
# 6075
|
Posted
Yellow crescents, more likely.
--------------------
Be it as it may: Wesley J will stay. --- Euthanasia, that sounds good. An alpine neutral neighbourhood. Then back to Britain, all dressed in wood. Things were gonna get worse. (John Cooper Clarke)
Posts: 7354 | From: The Isles of Silly | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
I forgive your deliberate misunderstanding of my badly worded point about the origins of the burqa which I believe to be Afghanistan. Kudos to your ducking and diving ability: you are obviously an old hand at this.
If you word things badly, or don't write what you mean, don't expect indulgence in Hell.
It wasn’t a deliberate misunderstanding. The discussion was about the burkini and not about the burka, and it is well-attested that the purpose of the former is to allow observant muslims to engage in a social activity from which they would otherwise be excluded, basically on grounds of conscience.
quote:
To your more serious point about the burkini, I think you miss my point. If we go back to the YouTube video that you posted, Yann Moix was obviously very proud of himself for having unearthed a law (dating back to 1905) which he used to “shut up” the woman to whom he is talking.
It's not some random obscure law. As I pointed out, the 1905 law is foundational to the principle of separation of Church and state in France.
(NKM is pathetic when she says "there were lots of laws in 1905". "1905 law" means this law in common parlance in modern France and she either knows this perfectly well or is even more ignorant than I thought).
While the original law was clearly designed to limit the power of the Catholic church above all (because that’s pretty much all there was at the time) the thinking behind it was very definitely one of a level playing field for all religious expression - and not one of militant secularism (the latter position is currently espoused by Manuel Valls - although Jews get something of a free pass, largely for uncomfortable historic reasons).
The struggle between these two contemporary interpretations of the 1905 law is a crucial debate today.
quote:
Moix is so triumphant because this undermines all other attempts to recognise religious symbolism so that it may be banned from the public sphere in the policy of laïcité.
He quotes the purpose of the law as providing liberty of worship, and the point he is making is that it is stupid to establish public order on the basis of clothing. In today’s context, I’m more worried about whether someoone is a violent extremist likely to shoot people or blow themselves up than about what colour they are or what they are wearing.
quote:
This is such a profound point that it is way beyond a humble post on a forum, but I would make the point that a policy of deliberate blindness is a very dangerous one.
Deliberate blindness, if that is what it is, is no worse and, depending on how you interpret it, a whole lot better than a wrong focus, which is what anti-burkini laws are.
quote:
My essential point is that Islam is not a religion like Christianity. It is a religion that demands that secular life be subservient to the religious sphere. I do not make a distinction between radical and moderate Islam.
Why not ? For much of its history Christianity in the form of the Holy Roman Empire demanded as much. There are different forms of Christianity. Why abitrarily accuse all islam of being radical ? quote:
If you think that you can dilute Islam then go ahead and try.
I don’t know if I can, but to stem radical Islam in the West my money is certainly on facilitating modernisation, dilution and diversity rather than repression based on religious symbolism as opposed to targeting violent extremism.
Yes this is a gamble, no the outcome isn't certain, but I've thought about it and that's where I stand and that's how I act, including putting my head above the parapet as and when I feel the need to, even if I think the odds are that makes me personally more of a target for radicalised terrorists than less of one.
quote:
The burkini is a symbol neither of radical or moderate Islam – it is a symbol of a religion that brings with it political, social and legal ramifications that are entirely at odds with our much-vaunted Western values.
It’s a symbol of accommodation. quote:
I don’t personally support laicité.
You’re going to have to explain what you understand by laicité, and what you do support instead.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
... Islam is not a religion like Christianity. It is a religion that demands that secular life be subservient to the religious sphere. I do not make a distinction between radical and moderate Islam. The oppression of women for instance is ingrained in all the basic texts of the faith. ...
Bullshit. Well, no, actually not bullshit, because I can say the same about Christianity. The oppression of women is ingrained in all the basic texts of the faith. There's no need to make a distinction between radical and moderate Christians because they all read the same Bible. Christians are polygamist, snake-handling, demon-exorcising sexist homophobes that require women to wear hats and don't allow them to wear pants.
Gosh, that was fun. Let's do it again sometime.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I do honestly admire the patience of those posters who can calmly respond to the voices emitted from under the bridge, hungering for birria.
I do not have the patience, but it is interesting, and occasionally edifying, to listen to those who do.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
I never said that that young women should be harassed on beaches, but I would say that the media worked very hard to push that image into the minds of people.
There was a young woman on a beach in France. Three or four armed policemen showed up and ordered her to disrobe. This is factual. It happened - it wasn't an episode of a soap opera. The policemen were real policemen, not hired actors.
Did the media "work hard" to push that image into people's minds? Sure - that's what the media does - it pushes hard at things it thinks are major stories. Over the years it has pushed pretty hard at images of Rodney King being beaten up; Diana, Princess of Wales dying in a car crash; the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center; Alan Kurdi lying dead on a beach; and many more.
You would have us believe that this is the "liberal media" pushing a "liberal agenda". Well, if not wanting women to be undressed at gunpoint is "a liberal agenda" then sure - some of the media is doing that, although I'll note that the fascists are using the same imagery to applaud the anti-burkini law and suggest that we should have more of that sort of thing.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
My essential point is that Islam is not a religion like Christianity. It is a religion that demands that secular life be subservient to the religious sphere. I do not make a distinction between radical and moderate Islam.
Christianity doesn't demand that secular life be subservient to the religious sphere? I think not. If that were the case then homosexuality would be perfectly ordinary and men marrying men would be commonplace. Remind me again who the primary opponents of such a situation are?
Christians are violently against gays and lesbians. They demand that such people either deny their fundamental selves or be shunned and/or incarcerated. I do not make a distinction between radical and moderate Christianity.
You're either a hypocrite or a bigot. Your reply to this post will tell me which it is.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I do not make a distinction between radical and moderate Christianity.
Then you generalize in vain.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I do not make a distinction between radical and moderate Christianity.
Then you generalize in vain.
It's entirely possible I was riffing off dolores' post to make my point.
More than possible, in fact.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I do not make a distinction between radical and moderate Christianity.
Then you generalize in vain.
It's entirely possible I was riffing off dolores' post to make my point.
More than possible, in fact.
It's entirely possible I realized that.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
My essential point is that Islam is not a religion like Christianity. It is a religion that demands that secular life be subservient to the religious sphere.
To make this point, you have to ignore a very large chunk of the history of Christianity, as well as the attitude of a great many Christians currently alive who talk all the time about God's law being higher than man's law.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, Christians burned people for about 1000 years. OK, they have improved on this, but am I supposed to say, never mind?
I still don't get where Dolores' points are heading. I assume she is an anti-Islam bigot.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I still don't get where Dolores' points are heading.
Dolores is new here. This is Hell. I reckon she is taking advantage of the opportunity while people are cutting her some slack.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
people are cutting her some slack.
Seriously? Open the gunports and deliver a devastating broadside that'll rip out her rigging and hole her below the waterline.
Ain't no slack in Hell.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
If she were a typical newbie, I would say some courtesy would be in order. However, dolores' post shows enough awareness of where she is posting and hits every bigot target cleanly. I do not believe it is a genuine attempt to engage.
Double load the port side cannon, aim for the waterline and launch flaming pitch into 'er sails.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Some bigots use flowery language, with long paragraphs, and long sentences, and I start to want them to just say it - whatever it is. Deport Muslims, Muslims are shit, intern Muslims, whatever, instead of these interminable paragraphs. It's very like the Gish gallop.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
dolores
Apprentice
# 18650
|
Posted
OK, so I guess I asked for that. I was interested to see what reaction I would get and I have seen. I will have another try to explain my point.
Yesterday there was an article in the Guardian about a group of Muslim women who want an end to the sharia councils in Britain. A Muslim woman called Elham Manea has spent four years researching these councils, so I guess she knows more about them than any of us. They are used mainly by women seeking an Islamic divorce. Under sharia law, men can divorce their wives unilaterally by pronouncing talaq (divorce) three times, but women must get a judicial decree on specific grounds or give up financial rights to obtain a divorce from a religious judge, a process that costs up to £400. Manea says the vast majority of women attending sharia councils have not formalised their religious marriage under British law and are often forced into conceding their civil rights in order to secure an Islamic divorce. The sharia councils have become necessary because without them muslim women would be very vulnerable as they would not have access to civil courts. But Manea and a number of women’s rights groups want them to be abolished as she sees them as an obstacle to Muslim women obtaining any level of equality. She points out that the councils amount to a parallel legal system. She has mounted a campaign to have all Muslim marriages registered and believes that it will show that polygamy is becoming normalized in Britain. I quote:
“Evidence to the inquiry claims the ideology behind many of Britain’s sharia councils condones wife beating, marital rape and child marriage. Nus Ghani, who sits on the home affairs select committee and initially pushed for the inquiry, said: “Under sharia, men are in charge and women are treated as their property. That does not sit well under British law and cannot go unchallenged.”
What is most interesting in the article is the point that a number of women’s groups boycotted a separate enquiry set up by Theresa May quite clearly because she proposed to make an Islamic scholar chair of the enquiry.
The last point is crucial. These women know that their status as possessions in enshrined in Islam and they want to be pulled out from under the weight of Sharia law and put under the full jurisdiction of the British legal system. It is not so long ago that British women were also treated as second class citizens under the law, so it is hard to take when the Archbishop of Canterbury argues that sharia law should run parallel to the mainstream system. He is arguing that shadowy courts, run by men, working to a system of ideology that very few in the West understand should be allowed to govern the lives of women.
This is why I find the concentration on the burkini irritating. There is one photograph of one woman being harassed by four policemen which has obvious immediate impact. You would have to have the brain of a flea to think that I am arguing that this is right. But do you know how many Muslim women I see walking around France in complete security because they have faith in those same gendarmes to protect them? But how many photographs of women forced into polygamous marriages or being raped in the home where they should feel safe do we have? And how many of you sanctimonious gobshites even care? Because you can sit on your moral high grounds, drawing up your lists of who can say what and where without so much as the obvious engagement of one functioning brain cell. If you think that I hate Muslims because I can see what the consequences of an encroaching and increasingly aggressive ideology, promoted by a cruel and fabulously wealthy Saudi elite may be then you must be blind or mad or both. They are not just threatening havoc here – look what they are doing in Yemen and investigate their collaboration with the Americans in their attempts to destabilize the Middle East. They have cracked open Iraq, Syria, Libya. Do you ever wonder why they are doing this or are you too busy getting your internet dopamine hits from calling people bigots? You obviously are quite unable to make the distinction between Islam – body of idea and a Muslim – a person of flesh and blood. How can I engage with people who appear to be unable to think or uninterested in the truth?
Posts: 4 | Registered: Aug 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Boy dolores, you posted in the right place.
If you'd stop bunching people into homogenous sets you may get somewhere in your argument.
Even bunching the posters on this thread into one 'you' shows how little you listen.
Spouting forth convinces no-one. Our Muslim next door neighbours bear no resemblance whatsoever to your caricature.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I obviously have no right to comment, as I'm a self-righteous gobshite. So roast in your own self-righteousness, O mistress of projection and queen of venomous spittle. Better yet, fuck off.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
Yesterday there was an article in the Guardian about a group of Muslim women who want an end to the sharia councils in Britain.
Please explain what this, or anything that follows in your diatribe, has to do with burkinis and French law, in France.
And while you're at it, please clarify what you mean by "not supporting laïcité". What do you support instead?
quote:
But do you know how many Muslim women I see walking around France in complete security because they have faith in those same gendarmes to protect them?
Do tell. Please tell us not only how many you see, but how come you are so you are they are confident in the protection, as opposed to the harrassment, of those gendarmes. quote:
But how many photographs of women forced into polygamous marriages or being raped in the home where they should feel safe do we have?
What has that got to do with whether banning burkinis is a good idea? The immediate result that I can see of that is further arguments by hardline muslims in favour of cloistering muslim women at home and out of the public eye.
What suggestions to you have to combat domestic abuse, irrespective of race or religion? quote:
And how many of you sanctimonious gobshites even care? Because you can sit on your moral high grounds, drawing up your lists of who can say what and where without so much as the obvious engagement of one functioning brain cell.
I don't have to justify anything to you, and am not about to go into specifics, but I can confidently assert that I'm engaged on this issue, am in print with my views, and in my roles as both pastor and prison chaplain, am in my own small way putting my life in the balance as I live my views out in the current context in these real-life roles.
You don't walk into prisons and sit in solitary with allegedly radicalised muslims and other (in my view) far more dangerous individuals who can easily find out where you live from a nice cosy moral high ground. quote:
If you think that I hate Muslims because I can see what the consequences of an encroaching and increasingly aggressive ideology, promoted by a cruel and fabulously wealthy Saudi elite may be then you must be blind or mad or both.
So why do you hate Muslims? And what, precisely, are your strategies for countering this ideology, and what, precisely, are your real-world practical engagements in this direction? quote:
You obviously are quite unable to make the distinction between Islam – body of idea and a Muslim – a person of flesh and blood.
Are you trying to suggest that burkini-banning is an effective blow against nasty Islam and not against the person of flesh and blood wearing it?
[ 05. September 2016, 18:43: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's quite interesting actually, that the more that dolores posts, the less clear I am about what she is trying to say. That's why I call it the Gish gallop, as supposedly used by some Christians, in order to obfuscate.
[ 05. September 2016, 20:25: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
How can I engage with people who appear to be unable to think or uninterested in the truth?
Aaand there we have it. The cry of the internet conspiracy theorist.
WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
How can I engage with people who appear to be unable to think or uninterested in the truth?
You could demonstrate your willingness to engage by commenting on other posts. A one-trick pony is most unattractive.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
There are people on the SOF whom I suspect of being unable to think. Few of them are on this thread, save perhaps me.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
How can I engage with people who appear to be unable to think or uninterested in the truth?
Try posting the truth and we'll give it a go.
But I doubt you will, Grendelores.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
lB--
If she's Grend(e)l, does that mean you're Beowulf? ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
Just the usual bullshit from sexist idiots.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
...How can I engage with people who appear to be unable to think or uninterested in the truth?
Learn how to use the quote function to have a conversation?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
...How can I engage with people who appear to be unable to think or uninterested in the truth?
You can't. Bye.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Meanwhile in the UK...
That makes me so proud to be British I can barely breath.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 4
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
