• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Ban the burka!

chuboy

<- It was THIS big!
In my honest opinion, if people want to go to live on a foreign country, they have to adapt to it no matter what circumstances so it means in my opinion the burka should be abolished without any polemic and they should suck it up or if they do not want to, there are always transports to where they came from thus I agree with what the French government wants to do.
http://www.xkcd.com/84/

There.
 

J.T.

ಠ_ಠ
How the hell did I miss this.

Well, my opinion is dead simple and it is concerning emigration. Simply people with other cultures want to implement them on the country they emigrate to which I am totally against.

Or maybe they just want to live their life and honor their culture without being told what culture they can and can't subscribe to.

In my honest opinion, if people want to go to live on a foreign country, they have to adapt to it no matter what circumstances

Because individuality can go **** itself.

No, are you seriously saying that you should not be allowed to be different in another country? That you can't live according to your own culture? That you need to just abandon everything about your past life, ancestry, religion, and philosophical beliefs for god knows what paranoid and flawed reason? How the **** can a country call itself free when it restricts its citizens like that?

so it means in my opinion the burka should be abolished without any polemic

Because you know, we can't stop and think or argue or debate about this or anything, otherwise we might realize that, holy crap guys, fascism is wrong.

and they should suck it up or if they do not want to, there are always transports to where they came from

How compassionate - either stay in your country or give up your entire life and culture. Trying to escape oppressive conditions in your own country? Well, sucks to be you! Get into a country, find out about this ******** law, and try to go back only to find out that you don't have enough money? Ooh, guess you're really screwed!

thus I agree with what the French government wants to do.

I don't recall the French government ever claiming they wanted to eliminate all different cultures.

Remember, I am also an emigrant myself

And that makes this so much better.

so I have the right to an opinion

Right. I have the right to my opinion too, and my opinion is that your opinion is cruel, ridiculous, and an affront to human rights, not to mention a steaming pile.

and if you are going to flame me because of this, read this post over and over again until you get the point ffs.

And by "get the point" you mean "agree with you", correct?

I get your point, and I got it on my first read-through. You're advocating fascism. Congratufreakinglations.

I hope you have some damn good reasons for advocating this ********.

I would decry the act of it being forced on by the husband at all times. Difference is a woman must wear her Burqa every time she goes out, while if a woman goes out and does not eat Kosher food, who is going to no? The only way would be if the husband follows her.

Similarly, the only way the husband knows the wife isn't going into a bathroom or something somewhere and changing out of her burqa into different clothes before going into public, and then changing back when she gets home is by following her.

If the act was forced upon the person by another member of the family against their will, I would be decrying that as well. I believe any act forced upon a person in such a way is wrong.

So why is the burqa so special?

If you want to discuss other religions we can, with Christianity there is a difference between bibles * Most do not subscribe to the Old Testament *.

Most Muslims I know don't subscribe to the extremist ideology either. What's your point?

You will notice nearly all of the Christian world has passed that, what is your excuse for the current status of the Middle East?

I'm not making excuses for them. What I'm saying is that Christianity doesn't exactly have a spotless record for treatment of women either.

Yet would you agree that if some one is wearing a Burqa, they mostly follow a more traditional form of Islam, which would possibly mean more restricted and hateful rights toward women?

Yes. Would you agree that it is said treatment of women that should be dealt with and stopped, and NOT the act of wearing burqas in itself? Because that's like banning other harmless* religious acts because people may be forcing it on their spouses or children.

*Before you jump on me, when I say harmless, I mean the act of wearing a burqa is harmless. Being forced into it is certainly harmful and oppressive, but wearing the burqa itself is not, particularly when, and this is what I've been trying to stress this whole time, the woman chooses to wear it.

Actually I would, as I mentioned before I champion the raids on the LDS ranches and churches where they practice polygamy and child marriages, and restrict the rights of women in the same way. One even happened my state not too far back.

Okay, but I'd hardly call child marriage a religious guideline. I don't know any line of the Bible that supports it. Fair enough, though, that statement was probably a bit unfair of me.
 

bel9

n3w 2 sppf :3
When the server crapped out I stopped reviewing your post as there was little to no need to if I was unable to comment on it.
I am talking about the Eastern European countries where many of the migrants are first generation immigrants ( or have directly moved ) from Middle Eastern countries with their families. Countries that allow such arranged marriages and brain washing.
So I presume you concede to the argument over women being forced to wear burqas in France. Just want to make sure we are all up to speed. Please be specific as too which East European countries- to simply say Eastern European countries is too vague and we will just be talking in generalizations.
By the way, the Government tends to raid the compounds and ranches of the LDS church because of their actions involving polygamy and child marriage. Something by the way I entirely approve of. Yet if we are going to compare the two, I take it you would support the feds raiding mosques that focus mainly toward muslims who have just migrated from Middle Eastern countries in which inappropriate actions toward women are common place.
Yes. If they are engaging in polygamous relationships that are outlawed in the United States or are engaging in underage marriages they deserve the same treatment as LDS.
Unless of course your husband FORCES you to wear the Burqa because of religious tradition. At which part the connection is valid. Is everyone who wears a Burqa forced into it? I doubt it. But then again most who wear one tend to come from families who practice a more traditional form of Islam, in which I would say the Women's rights and ability to refuse are in question.
Again, is everyone who wears a Burqa forced into it? I doubt it. But then again most who wear one tend to come from families who practice a more traditional form of Islam, in which I would say the Women's rights and ability to refuse are in question.
*facepalm* Please tell me you are not talking about France. And please explain what countries you are talking about so we can try to find some statistics rather than generalizations. Like I said before European countries and the Middle East are on two separate continents.
How many religions have God instructing you how to treat women in such a poor manner?
My very own Catholic Church has sects such as Opus Dei who are misogynists. Apparently “God” instructs them that women must be punished because of Eve’s actions.
You will notice nearly all of the Christian world has passed that, what is your excuse for the current status of the Middle East?
Nearly all of the Christian world has passed that but there are still sects and groups that hold onto that hatred.
You seem to not understand that it takes time. i.e. Women didn’t gain rights over night in America or any other country. It took time, effort and willpower of the women not someone holding a gun to the man’s head saying “Give them rights.”
Yet would you agree that if some one is wearing a Burqa, they mostly follow a more traditional form of Islam, which would possibly mean more restricted and hateful rights toward women?
The keyword there is possibly. My family is a long line of Irish Catholics. The older generations went to Catholic grade schools and high schools and an uncle even went to a Catholic college. This could signify a more traditional, Pre-Vatican II form of Catholicism, one parallel to Opus Dei. It is a possibility because it is a possibility does not make it true. Although there are some Catholic families who undoubtedly would practice a more traditional, Pre Vatican II form of Catholicism it doesn’t mean we are all like that.
 

BigLutz

Banned
Similarly, the only way the husband knows the wife isn't going into a bathroom or something somewhere and changing out of her burqa into different clothes before going into public, and then changing back when she gets home is by following her.

True but then going into a shop to get lunch only takes a few minutes, taking off your Burqa runs the risk of meeting some one such as a friend of your husband or your husband for the hours that you remain out and about. Also if the husband is going by traditional Islamic beliefs, the punishment for appearing outside 'lewd' would be life imprisonment in their house, never to leave again.

So why is the burqa so special?

You mean other than it is the focus of the topic?

Most Muslims I know don't subscribe to the extremist ideology either. What's your point?

Most Muslims you know most likely have tempered their beliefs from living in the west. The ones this law would most likely target are those who have just recently migrated from Islamic countries, where they do subscribe to more traditional Islamic beliefs.

I'm not making excuses for them. What I'm saying is that Christianity doesn't exactly have a spotless record for treatment of women either.

I would agree they do not, difference is Christianity has progressed past it, much of Islam hasnt

Yes. Would you agree that it is said treatment of women that should be dealt with and stopped, and NOT the act of wearing burqas in itself? Because that's like banning other harmless* religious acts because people may be forcing it on their spouses or children.

*Before you jump on me, when I say harmless, I mean the act of wearing a burqa is harmless. Being forced into it is certainly harmful and oppressive, but wearing the burqa itself is not, particularly when, and this is what I've been trying to stress this whole time, the woman chooses to wear it.[/quote]

Unless as I have repeated that the Burqa remains a symptom of a larger cause, now we can go on and on about security at banks and what not, but for this discussion would you agree that if some one is wearing a Burqa there is a pretty good possibility that their family also subscribes to traditional islamic beliefs and thus there is a good chance that the woman is being oppressed?

belbackinblack said:
So I presume you concede to the argument over women being forced to wear burqas in France. Just want to make sure we are all up to speed. Please be specific as too which East European countries- to simply say Eastern European countries is too vague and we will just be talking in generalizations.

We can continue the argument over Burqas in France if you wish, but lets keep things from getting too large so we do not overload the server.

As for the Eastern European Countries, those considering a ban would be France, Belgium, Italy and a few others, basically countries in the Eastern Half of Europe that are being immigrated to by those from Middle Eastern Countries.

Support for the ban is also found in other Eastern European countries, such as Spain, Britain, and Germany.

belbackinblack said:
Yes. If they are engaging in polygamous relationships that are outlawed in the United States or are engaging in underage marriages they deserve the same treatment as LDS.

Or if they are engaging in any other action that is part of this mistreatment of women.

belbackinblack said:
*facepalm* Please tell me you are not talking about France. And please explain what countries you are talking about so we can try to find some statistics rather than generalizations. Like I said before European countries and the Middle East are on two separate continents.

Yes I was talking about France.

belbackinblack said:
My very own Catholic Church has sects such as Opus Dei who are misogynists. Apparently “God” instructs them that women must be punished because of Eve’s actions.

And do they treat women to the same low level that Islam demands the treatment of women? House imprisonment for being lewd? One witness if they are believed to be cheating by their husband? Etc etc etc

belbackinblack said:
Nearly all of the Christian world has passed that but there are still sects and groups that hold onto that hatred.
You seem to not understand that it takes time. i.e. Women didn’t gain rights over night in America or any other country. It took time, effort and willpower of the women not someone holding a gun to the man’s head saying “Give them rights.”

And yet you are talking about the past, there are entire countries, hundreds of millions of practicing Muslims in the Middle East who treat women as being lower than animals. They have had over a thousand years since the creation of Islam, and it still hasn't changed. And why would it? The Koran is the word of God, and the word of God says women need to be treated like crap.

belbackinblack said:
The keyword there is possibly. My family is a long line of Irish Catholics. The older generations went to Catholic grade schools and high schools and an uncle even went to a Catholic college. This could signify a more traditional, Pre-Vatican II form of Catholicism, one parallel to Opus Dei. It is a possibility because it is a possibility does not make it true. Although there are some Catholic families who undoubtedly would practice a more traditional, Pre Vatican II form of Catholicism it doesn’t mean we are all like that.

No yet there is a high probability that if you engage in one restrictive tradition toward women, you are not going to shy away from the other ones.
 
Last edited:

bel9

n3w 2 sppf :3
Most Muslims you know most likely have tempered their beliefs from living in the west.

Like many Christians have tempered with the beliefs of the past (i.e. The Middle Ages, The Dark Ages, etc.)

The ones this law would most likely target are those who have just recently migrated from Islamic countries, where they do subscribe to more traditional Islamic beliefs.

Except from the evidence we do have so far it doesn't. France's law targets French girls who converted to Islam.

Unless as I have repeated that the Burqa remains a symptom of a larger cause, now we can go on and on about security at banks and what not, but for this discussion would you agree that if some one is wearing a Burqa there is a pretty good possibility that their family also subscribes to traditional islamic beliefs and thus there is a good chance that the woman is being oppressed?

You assume that. Your assumptions =/= fact

We can continue the argument over Burqas in France if you wish, but lets keep things from getting too large so we do not overload the server.

All the evidence that has been provided details that the women are choosing to wear the burqa in France. If you continue to argue out of your own ignorance because this information derails your argument I will take that as your concession over France. My post had absolutely nothing to do with the server issues and I believe everyone else here had no problem reading it.

You mean other than it is the focus of the topic?
You seem to have no trouble straying off topic.

As for the Eastern European Countries, those considering a ban would be France, Belgium, Italy and a few others, basically countries in the Eastern Half of Europe that are being immigrated to by those from Middle Eastern Countries.

Last time I checked France and Belgium were in Western Europe and Italy was in Western/Southern Europe. Please continue to name all of the countries you are arguing about so we don't have to argue in generalizations.

Support for the ban is also found in other Eastern European countries, such as Spain, Britain, and Germany.

You mean Western European countries I presume? BTW Your source doesn't load.

And yet you are talking about the past, there are entire countries, hundreds of millions of practicing Muslims in the Middle East who treat women as being lower than animals. They have had over a thousand years since the creation of Islam, and it still hasn't changed. And why would it?

Because these practices were around before Islam. To say there is a direct correlation and that Islam is the direct cause of this treatment is absurd. This treatment of women has been around before any Abrahamic religions.

Furthermore to align cultures on a scale and try to evaluate them according to their beliefs at that time is ridiculous. Cultures do not follow a unique pattern that is the key for every culture. Western culture has not been around as long as the Bushmen of Africa but Western culture has made much more technological advances in their short amount of time. Does that somehow make the Bushmen idiots because they could not advance their culture like ours. No. They did not need the technological advancements of the West to survive and have been able to keep their cultural traditions and practices over a longer period of time.

So to try to say "Oh the West was able to make x advancements in x amount of time so the Middle East should be able to make x amount of advancements in x amount of time" is wrong.

The Koran is the word of God, and the word of God says women need to be treated like crap.

This- I believe is where this entire debate is coming from. You want to prove that the "devil book" is the root of evil and the bane of the world and we must wipe it away.

If that is your thinking (I would hope it is not) then your thoughts are no different the Crusade era of Christianity which helps prove that people have not moved past that thinking in Christianity.

No yet there is a high probability that if you engage in one restrictive tradition toward women, you are not going to shy away from the other ones.

Okay. That was not what the post of yours I quoted was trying to say.
 

BigLutz

Banned
Except from the evidence we do have so far it doesn't. France's law targets French girls who converted to Islam.

Mr Copé, in an interview with Le Figaro to be published tomorrow, said that he would bring forward a law which would impose fines of up to €750 (£675) on anyone appearing in public "with their face entirely masked". Exemptions, still to be drafted, would permit the wearing of masks on "traditional, festive occasions", such as carnivals. Stiffer punishments would be laid down for men who "forced" their wives or daughters to wear full-body veils.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...the-burka-and-niqab-citing-galit-1861411.html

You assume that. Your assumptions =/= fact

So they are going to impose the strict traditionalist form of Islam with the Burqa but forgo anything else? That is like the Amish forgoing electricity, but everything else is okay.

All the evidence that has been provided details that the women are choosing to wear the burqa in France. If you continue to argue out of your own ignorance because this information derails your argument I will take that as your concession over France. My post had absolutely nothing to do with the server issues and I believe everyone else here had no problem reading it.

So far you have provided no details that women are not choosing, infact you seem to ignore the post from the woman who found her cousin being forced to wear one when she left the house. If you continue to spout your own ignorance and selective reading I will take that as your concession over the France issue. I was unable to access your post due to its length via the server not loading it for quote. I have no problem arguing with you over any of it, but with Serebii's servers being so damn hard to load I would suggest we condense are arguments.

You seem to have no trouble straying off topic.

Says the child who tries to distract us by throwing in any other religion he can find.


Last time I checked France and Belgium were in Western Europe and Italy was in Western/Southern Europe. Please continue to name all of the countries you are arguing about so we don't have to argue in generalizations.

Weastern, Eastern, you have the list of countries.

BTW Your source doesn't load.

Funny it loads fine for me, if you cannot respond to it I take it as a concession from you. See how that logic works?

Because these practices were around before Islam. To say there is a direct correlation and that Islam is the direct cause of this treatment is absurd. This treatment of women has been around before any Abrahamic religions.

And yet they have been solidified in the Koran, and held as Islamic law, keeping those practices from evolving over time.

Furthermore to align cultures on a scale and try to evaluate them according to their beliefs at that time is ridiculous. Cultures do not follow a unique pattern that is the key for every culture. Western culture has not been around as long as the Bushmen of Africa but Western culture has made much more technological advances in their short amount of time. Does that somehow make the Bushmen idiots because they could not advance their culture like ours. No. They did not need the technological advancements of the West to survive and have been able to keep their cultural traditions and practices over a longer period of time.

So technology some how is responsible for the Middle Eastern countries from evolving in their treatment of women? The Bushmen are relegated to a part of Africa pretty much cut off from foreign influence, the Middle East how ever has played a massive part in Europe for centuries. Trade, cultural exchanges, etc etc have happened through out the 1700s, 1800s, and 1900s. Yet they refuse to come out of the 1500s in their treatment of women.

So to try to say "Oh the West was able to make x advancements in x amount of time so the Middle East should be able to make x amount of advancements in x amount of time" is wrong.

Not as wrong as saying "Well they have no made such and such technological advancement, so its perfectly fine for them to continue on with their barbaric treatment of women"

This- I believe is where this entire debate is coming from. You want to prove that the "devil book" is the root of evil and the bane of the world and we must wipe it away.

If that is your thinking (I would hope it is not) then your thoughts are no different the Crusade era of Christianity which helps prove that people have not moved past that thinking in Christianity.

Actually no, I believe there are healthy and vital parts of the Koran, I do believe there are dangerous parts of the Koran in its treatment of warfare and its treatment of women. The thing is that the Koran, unlike say the bible, is viewed as the word of God, it is to be read as if God himself wrote it. That causes many problems for people who wish to move past some of the 1300s ideology, because well "If God says it is okay, who is to argue with that"

Okay. That was not what the post of yours I quoted was trying to say.

You also misread my post, just because you come from a Catholic line, or a Muslim line does not mean you are going to practice Opus Dei, or Traditional Islam. How ever if you do practice customs that come from Opus Dei or Traditional Islam, there is a pretty good chance you are not going to cherry pick them.
 

bel9

n3w 2 sppf :3
Mr Copé, in an interview with Le Figaro to be published tomorrow, said that he would bring forward a law which would impose fines of up to €750 (£675) on anyone appearing in public "with their face entirely masked". Exemptions, still to be drafted, would permit the wearing of masks on "traditional, festive occasions", such as carnivals. Stiffer punishments would be laid down for men who "forced" their wives or daughters to wear full-body veils.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...the-burka-and-niqab-citing-galit-1861411.html
There it finally loaded. Early I got a page that said access restricted. Your own source actually agrees with my argument, I love it. 2000 out of about 1.5million to 2 million, most of them FRENCH CONVERTS.
And let us just say for debate (and since you love hypotheticals) that the other 500 ARE forced into wearing a burqa. Why can’t France just fine the husbands and let the girls who CHOOSE to wear a burqa wear them?
So far you have provided no details that women are not choosing, infact you seem to ignore the post from the woman who found her cousin being forced to wear one when she left the house. If you continue to spout your own ignorance and selective reading I will take that as your concession over the France issue.
That example you described was taking place in The Middle East and not France. Trying to compare those two is again, like trying to compare apples to oranges. You are the one who is "selectively" reading in that you ignore the evidence that derails your argument, making an excuse: “I can’t load any of it”. I made it absolutely clear several posts ago that there are 2000 women in France out of 2million who actually wear a burqa. Our of those 2000, 75% are actually French converts who choose to marry a Muslim man and they themselves choose to wear a burqa. I cannot make this any more clear to you. Even your own source states this.
I was unable to access your post due to its length via the server not loading it for quote. I have no problem arguing with you over any of it, but with Serebii's servers being so damn hard to load I would suggest we condense are arguments.
There are other ways to quote that don't involve loading the server as a quote but I suppose you just want to keep making up excuses.
Says the child who tries to distract us by throwing in any other religion he can find.
You are the one trying to stray off into Islam in the Middle East and saying that because it is a sign of oppression there is MUST BE a sign of oppression everywhere else. You are also throwing out various religions.
Funny it loads fine for me, if you cannot respond to it I take it as a concession from you. See how that logic works?
I never said you had to concede because you couldn't load my links. That was not the problem. The problem is that the post which basically derailed your entire argument is "too difficult" to respond to and apparently on the page where it is everyone elses' posts show up but not mine. Seems like a pretty bullsh*t excuse to not responding to the actual content. And like I stated earlier there are different ways to respond to a post as opposed to just quoting.
And yet they have been solidified in the Koran, and held as Islamic law, keeping those practices from evolving over time.
It has been solidified in sects’ interpretations of the Quran. It is not solidified into every Muslim man and woman’s interpretations.
So technology some how is responsible for the Middle Eastern countries from evolving in their treatment of women? The Bushmen are relegated to a part of Africa pretty much cut off from foreign influence, the Middle East how ever has played a massive part in Europe for centuries. Trade, cultural exchanges, etc etc have happened through out the 1700s, 1800s, and 1900s. Yet they refuse to come out of the 1500s in their treatment of women.
No I am saying that your assumption we can measure a culture’s advances on a single key and say “oh look at Western Civ, they got women’s rights faster than Eastern Civ, Eastern Civ must be slow and inferior” is an idiotic thing to say, especially when we still have our own anti-feminist hurdles to conquer.
Not as wrong as saying "Well they have no made such and such technological advancement, so its perfectly fine for them to continue on with their barbaric treatment of women"
I am not saying that is right. Those are words you are putting in my mouth. I am just saying that you can’t compare two different cultures and expect them to have the same patterns of cultural and technological advancement in such a fashion. You can’t argue because Western Civ did this in x amount of days so East Civ should be able to do it in x amount of days. If you were to present that reasoning to any anthropologist, sociologist, and anyone who studies human behavior they would write you off as an idiot.
Actually no, I believe there are healthy and vital parts of the Koran, I do believe there are dangerous parts of the Koran in its treatment of warfare and its treatment of women.
Thankgod. So even you have reconciled the old beliefs like many contemporary Muslims are doing/working to do.
The thing is that the Koran, unlike say the bible, is viewed as the word of God, it is to be read as if God himself wrote it. That causes many problems for people who wish to move past some of the 1300s ideology, because well "If God says it is okay, who is to argue with that"
“The Bible is the word of God.” I have heard that spoken so many times in my 19 years of life. There are plenty of Christians who use that as grounds to persecute many different ethnic and minority groups such as: Jews, Blacks, South Americans, Gays and Lesbians, even different Christian groups, etc. (i.e. Fred Phelps claims that all Catholics are going to hell and he even recently protested a local Catholic High School on Good Friday. He also protests military funerals because they let “gays” in)
also misread my post, just because you come from a Catholic line, or a Muslim line does not mean you are going to practice Opus Dei, or Traditional Islam. How ever if you do practice customs that come from Opus Dei or Traditional Islam, there is a pretty good chance you are not going to cherry pick them.
Okay. That is not what you seemed to be describing earlier but that statement you just made has some truth to it.
 

willpower

Add my FC
J.T. Simple question:

Would you like a stranger coming into your house and start doing demands?

Or

Would you give him all the freedom (dont forget this is in YOUR house) and let him do whatever he wants?
 

Tim the turtle

Happy Mudkip
Comparing a piece of private property to a social state is a woefully ignorant comparison to make. Especially when you consider that many people who practice Muslim ideals or who hold international philosophies and practices that you so frown upon are citizens of the country just as much as you are. A much more apt analogy would be if someone came into a house that they were part owner of.
 

J.T.

ಠ_ಠ
J.T. Simple question:

Would you like a stranger coming into your house and start doing demands?

Or

Would you give him all the freedom (dont forget this is in YOUR house) and let him do whatever he wants?

What Tim said. Also, an even more apt analogy would be walking into a public school when you have an uncommon religious belief, and expecting to be accepted.
 

BigLutz

Banned
There it finally loaded. Early I got a page that said access restricted. Your own source actually agrees with my argument, I love it. 2000 out of about 1.5million to 2 million, most of them FRENCH CONVERTS.

You do realize that immigration has been increasing from the Middle East, which is why so many countries are now fearing the increasing islamization of Europe.

And let us just say for debate (and since you love hypotheticals) that the other 500 ARE forced into wearing a burqa. Why can’t France just fine the husbands and let the girls who CHOOSE to wear a burqa wear them?

And how do you believe they are going to find the ones that are forced and the ones that choose it? How do we know that they were truly able to choose it and now cowed into it via fear?

That example you described was taking place in The Middle East and not France. Trying to compare those two is again, like trying to compare apples to oranges.

Psst it took place in Britain

You are the one who is "selectively" reading in that you ignore the evidence that derails your argument, making an excuse: “I can’t load any of it”.

Because I cant? If you want I will show you the "Server cannot load" screen from my net browser.

I made it absolutely clear several posts ago that there are 2000 women in France out of 2million who actually wear a burqa. Our of those 2000, 75% are actually French converts who choose to marry a Muslim man and they themselves choose to wear a burqa. I cannot make this any more clear to you. Even your own source states this.

And as I have said many times before where are the cross tabs for it? How did they come about it? How many did they interview? When was the survey taken? 2000? 2006? 2010? The influx of Middle Eastern immigrants both legal and illegal change these numbers daily. So far you have answered none of these questions.

There are other ways to quote that don't involve loading the server as a quote but I suppose you just want to keep making up excuses.

And it would freeze up my post when I do quote that much, the information backlog wont go to or away from my computer since it is so much. I have no problem debating with you, I am suggesting we break it down to consice arguments and not have a 15 page long post because the Serebii servers cannot really handle it.

You are the one trying to stray off into Islam in the Middle East and saying that because it is a sign of oppression there is MUST BE a sign of oppression everywhere else. You are also throwing out various religions.

The reason I am using Islam in the Middle East is because of the amount of Immigrants who are coming from the Middle East into Europe are what are affecting these laws. You cannot have millions of immigrants flood into Europe and then say that France cannot take into account that these immigrants coming in from the Middle East have been brought up into a oppressive culture that they are bringing with them.

I never said you had to concede because you couldn't load my links. That was not the problem. The problem is that the post which basically derailed your entire argument is "too difficult" to respond to and apparently on the page where it is everyone elses' posts show up but not mine. Seems like a pretty bullsh*t excuse to not responding to the actual content. And like I stated earlier there are different ways to respond to a post as opposed to just quoting.

Except it didn't derail my entire argument, it never had, your posts never have. Now if you wish to restate your points in a consise manner instead of making a long 15 page post we can do that and I can strike those arguments down. If you do not, then lets move on.

It has been solidified in sects’ interpretations of the Quran. It is not solidified into every Muslim man and woman’s interpretations.

Except those interpretations have become the law in many Islamic lands, and taught in many islamic mosques, thus they are solidified into the beliefs of the men and women in those countries and in those mosques.

No I am saying that your assumption we can measure a culture’s advances on a single key and say “oh look at Western Civ, they got women’s rights faster than Eastern Civ, Eastern Civ must be slow and inferior” is an idiotic thing to say, especially when we still have our own anti-feminist hurdles to conquer.

Oh I can measure Middle Eastern advances through many different keys, yet one of the main sticking points is how they treat women and other minorities such as gays. They are not 100 years behind us or even 200 years behind us. They are essentially stuck in the time of Mohammad and refuse to move, and part of that is because they have placed upon themselves strict religious law.

I am not saying that is right. Those are words you are putting in my mouth. I am just saying that you can’t compare two different cultures and expect them to have the same patterns of cultural and technological advancement in such a fashion. You can’t argue because Western Civ did this in x amount of days so East Civ should be able to do it in x amount of days. If you were to present that reasoning to any anthropologist, sociologist, and anyone who studies human behavior they would write you off as an idiot.

Again you are not getting it, there is a reason they are not making advancement, and that reason can be found squarely on religious law that comes from the Koran. How can you have advancement, truly have advancement when you have laws that you believe are from God, and that have been in place with out change for 700 years or so? The struggle to change something like that would be daunting and immense, for one thing they would have to acknowledge that God's law is wrong. Something that is nearly impossible to do in these traditional religious countries.

“The Bible is the word of God.” I have heard that spoken so many times in my 19 years of life. There are plenty of Christians who use that as grounds to persecute many different ethnic and minority groups such as: Jews, Blacks, South Americans, Gays and Lesbians, even different Christian groups, etc. (i.e. Fred Phelps claims that all Catholics are going to hell and he even recently protested a local Catholic High School on Good Friday. He also protests military funerals because they let “gays” in)

Actually that is different the Bible was created by men who are believed to have divine inspiration for some part. The Koran on the other hand is the direct word of God, it is believed Mohammad could not read or write, and that God came down and essentially wrote the bible for him.

I'll also point out that there are no Christian nations out there who directly have Biblical law as their own law. Who say "If you do not believe in the Christian God you must die" or something similar. How ever you do have many Islamic nations out there who directly have Islamic law as their own law.
 

chuboy

<- It was THIS big!
You do realize that immigration has been increasing from the Middle East, which is why so many countries are now fearing the increasing islamization of Europe.
I don't see how this is relevant. belinblack quite clearly showed that the Muslims who wear the burka are prevalently French converts who choose to wear them. The Muslims who come from the Middle-East represent a statistically insignificant proportion of burka wearers in France.

And this argument really summarises your position on the debate. You aren't against the burka, you are against Islam. Anything which presents itself as Islamic clearly embodies the extremist views of radicalist Islam, isn't that right? Women who choose to wear a Burka aren't making a statement of modesty and loyalty, they are walking symbols of oppression, genital mutilation and terrorism. Amirite?

You can easily go the other way. I could say rosary beads represent extremist Christians, since the only people who really use them these days are hardcore Christians. Does that mean that someone who either chooses or is forced to say the rosary every day represents child sexual abuse, terrorism in Northern Ireland and misogynism?

Your ability to assume correlation equals causation astounds me.

And how do you believe they are going to find the ones that are forced and the ones that choose it? How do we know that they were truly able to choose it and now cowed into it via fear?
Hmm, ask them? They are hardly going to lie about why they wear a burka if it so endemic to Islamism, the word that they live by.

And as I have said many times before where are the cross tabs for it? How did they come about it? How many did they interview? When was the survey taken? 2000? 2006? 2010? The influx of Middle Eastern immigrants both legal and illegal change these numbers daily. So far you have answered none of these questions.
Biglutz it is absurd of you to make this request. As has been stated in the article, the number was given by the French Secret Service advisers who do not frequently publish their information for the world to see. The fact the same number has been quoted in news articles all over the world gives all the credibility you should require.

Also, the fact the this issue has come up fairly recently in French politics would indicate that the survey would have been done very recently. In fact two were done, the second was commissioned because the first study they did returned a number that was embarrassingly small. If you took the time to fully read the sources belinblack provided, you would know this.

If you are still to insist that a comprehensive report on the study be provided, please allow me to colour all the statements in the rest of your post where would have to do the same to have any credibility. So go on, you accept belinblack's figure, or you provide full study reports on all of the coloured statements, including who, when, how and what was asked.

The reason I am using Islam in the Middle East is because of the amount of Immigrants who are coming from the Middle East into Europe are what are affecting these laws. You cannot have millions of immigrants flood into Europe and then say that France cannot take into account that these immigrants coming in from the Middle East have been brought up into a oppressive culture that they are bringing with them.
Really? How can you confirm this? Who took the census, when was it done? Does it take into account holidaymakers? Are we talking about all of Europe or a summation of individual countries. Show me all the cross tabs. How many Muslims were asked, how could they tell whether they were brought up in an oppressive culture?

Except those interpretations have become the law in many Islamic lands, and taught in many islamic mosques, thus they are solidified into the beliefs of the men and women in those countries and in those mosques.
Really? And how many Islamic mosques do you frequent? How many Muslims do you actually know? And of course, even if it were true, it is unrelated to the mostly French convert Muslims who wear burkas, because Islamic law is not law in France, nor is France one of 'those countries'. Thus your point is moot (and false) because we aren't discussing banning burkas in the United Arab Emirates.

Oh I can measure Middle Eastern advances through many different keys, yet one of the main sticking points is how they treat women and other minorities such as gays. They are not 100 years behind us or even 200 years behind us. They are essentially stuck in the time of Mohammad and refuse to move, and part of that is because they have placed upon themselves strict religious law.
Oh really? And what percentage of US states is it currently legal to engage in homosexual relations? In how many countries is it legal to engage in sodomy? For how many years has a homosexual partnership been legally recognised for the purposes of social security in the USA, UK or Australia? How many Afro-American citizens can truthfully say they have not experienced direct cases of racism in their lives?

Don't forget, women have only been able to vote for what, 50 or 60 years? The average wage for a women is still less than that of a man, and there are still occupations which a predominantly filled with males, suggesting that sexism still remains in our 'advanced, Western society'.

So really, we aren't any further ahead than they are.

Again you are not getting it, there is a reason they are not making advancement, and that reason can be found squarely on religious law that comes from the Koran. How can you have advancement, truly have advancement when you have laws that you believe are from God, and that have been in place with out change for 700 years or so? The struggle to change something like that would be daunting and immense, for one thing they would have to acknowledge that God's law is wrong. Something that is nearly impossible to do in these traditional religious countries.
Religion is still embodied in politics everywhere. Why isn't abortion legal in so many countries? Religion. Why is homosexuality illegal in so many countries? Religion. Why are/were banks closed on Sundays? Religion.
Actually that is different the Bible was created by men who are believed to have divine inspiration for some part. The Koran on the other hand is the direct word of God, it is believed Mohammad could not read or write, and that God came down and essentially wrote the bible for him.
What is the difference? In both cases it is the considered to be the word of God.

I'll also point out that there are no Christian nations out there who directly have Biblical law as their own law. Who say "If you do not believe in the Christian God you must die" or something similar. How ever you do have many Islamic nations out there who directly have Islamic law as their own law.
There are plenty of countries who still have laws which are derived from the dogma of the time they were written.
 

BigLutz

Banned
I don't see how this is relevant. belinblack quite clearly showed that the Muslims who wear the burka are prevalently French converts who choose to wear them. The Muslims who come from the Middle-East represent a statistically insignificant proportion of burka wearers in France.

His last survey came from 2000, in the ten years Europe has experienced a flood of Immigrants from Africa and the Middle East that has gradually unsettled the countries. Much of this is from war torn countries in Africa, as well as in Afghanistan and Iraq, both nations entered into wars AFTER 2000. I put up the NYT article as proof.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/world/europe/02iht-greece.4.16650775.html

And this argument really summarises your position on the debate. You aren't against the burka, you are against Islam. Anything which presents itself as Islamic clearly embodies the extremist views of radicalist Islam, isn't that right? Women who choose to wear a Burka aren't making a statement of modesty and loyalty, they are walking symbols of oppression, genital mutilation and terrorism. Amirite?

Actually you are wrong, I am fine with the Hajib which tends to be clothing worn by most moderate muslims. The Hajib does not pose a security risk, nor is it connected with the more traditionalist and sexist form of traditional Islam.

You can easily go the other way. I could say rosary beads represent extremist Christians, since the only people who really use them these days are hardcore Christians. Does that mean that someone who either chooses or is forced to say the rosary every day represents child sexual abuse, terrorism in Northern Ireland and misogynism?

Are the rosary beads a symbol of oppression or a traditional sign of prayer. You are comparing apples and oranges because while rosary beads are nothing more than simple beads used for prayers, especially for many catholics. The Burka is more a sign of misogynism toward women, instead of using the more moderate Hajib.

Your ability to assume correlation equals causation astounds me.

You and belbackinblack inability to differentiate things continues to astound me.

Hmm, ask them? They are hardly going to lie about why they wear a burka if it so endemic to Islamism, the word that they live by.

And what happens when they do get back home? Will the police protect them at all hours of every day? When a person already has a lower view of women, and that woman causes him pain either physically or in this case financially, he is going to inflict retaliatory pain.

Biglutz it is absurd of you to make this request. As has been stated in the article, the number was given by the French Secret Service advisers who do not frequently publish their information for the world to see. The fact the same number has been quoted in news articles all over the world gives all the credibility you should require.

As with any poll, I am asking for the break down, any other poll posted on this forum we are typically able to get a idea of the sample, how it was conducted, when it was conducted, etc etc etc. We have no such thing here, if we are going to take such a poll as fact, simple questions about the validity of it need to be answered.

Also, the fact the this issue has come up fairly recently in French politics would indicate that the survey would have been done very recently. In fact two were done, the second was commissioned because the first study they did returned a number that was embarrassingly small. If you took the time to fully read the sources belinblack provided, you would know this.

Yes the issue has been fairly recent, mostly because of the large amount of immigration coming in, which is why the "Choose to wear" poll is largely irrelevant. But as I said before, if we're going to take this poll as fact, then questions should be raised.

If you are still to insist that a comprehensive report on the study be provided, please allow me to colour all the statements in the rest of your post where would have to do the same to have any credibility. So go on, you accept belinblack's figure, or you provide full study reports on all of the coloured statements, including who, when, how and what was asked.

No problem.

Really? How can you confirm this? Who took the census, when was it done? Does it take into account holidaymakers? Are we talking about all of Europe or a summation of individual countries. Show me all the cross tabs. How many Muslims were asked, how could they tell whether they were brought up in an oppressive culture?

Fair enough, currently I am working to track down a EU report, until then.

The numbers are startling. Only 3.2 per cent of Spain's population was foreign-born in 1998. In 2007 it was 13.4 per cent. Europe's Muslim population has more than doubled in the past 30 years and will have doubled again by 2015. In Brussels, the top seven baby boys' names recently were Mohamed, Adam, Rayan, Ayoub, Mehdi, Amine and Hamza.

How dramatic are the population changes? Everyone is aware that certain neighbourhoods of certain cities in Europe are becoming more Muslim, and that the change is gathering pace. But raw details are hard to come by as the data is sensitive: many countries in the EU do not collect population statistics by religion.

EU numbers on general immigration tell a story on their own. In the latter years of the 20th century, the 27 countries of the EU attracted half a million more people a year than left. "Since 2002, however," the latest EU report says, "net migration into the EU has roughly tripled to between 1.6 million and two million people per year."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...hic-time-bomb-transforming-our-continent.html

Really? And how many Islamic mosques do you frequent? How many Muslims do you actually know? And of course, even if it were true, it is unrelated to the mostly French convert Muslims who wear burkas, because Islamic law is not law in France, nor is France one of 'those countries'. Thus your point is moot (and false) because we aren't discussing banning burkas in the United Arab Emirates.

I visit none, but the answers can be gleamed by not having to travel to Islamic mosques or knowing muslims, especially since most muslims and mosques in the US have been pretty much modernized. How ever Sharia Law, or the sacred law of Islam, is essentially the law of the land in many Middle Eastern countries, this would include: Lebanon, Palestine, Libya, Syria, Iran, Malaysia, Qatar, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, United Arab Emirates. While Islamic law is not the law of France, seeing how so many legal and illegal immigrants who are currently entering Europe come from these countries that have Sharia law, and because of assimilation problems, they are going to keep practicing it in their household.

Oh really? And what percentage of US states is it currently legal to engage in homosexual relations? In how many countries is it legal to engage in sodomy? For how many years has a homosexual partnership been legally recognised for the purposes of social security in the USA, UK or Australia? How many Afro-American citizens can truthfully say they have not experienced direct cases of racism in their lives?

And is that more due to intolerance to those that are different or is it due to religious bigotry? Its harder to decern seeing how people many times are bigoted to those they see as different.

Don't forget, women have only been able to vote for what, 50 or 60 years?

Yes? And is that due to misogyny or religious bigotry? Misogyny is your answer.

The average wage for a women is still less than that of a man, and there are still occupations which a predominantly filled with males, suggesting that sexism still remains in our 'advanced, Western society'.

Actually both of these are easily answered by the Department of Labor

A greater percentage of women than men tend to work part-time. Part-time work tends to pay less than full-time work.

A greater percentage of women than men tend to leave the labor force for child birth, child care and elder care. Some of the wage gap is explained by the percentage of women who were not in the labor force during previous years, the age of women, and the number of children in the home.

Women, especially working mothers, tend to value “family friendly” workplace policies more than men. Some of the wage gap is explained by industry and occupation, particularly, the percentage of women who work in the industry and occupation.

http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender Wage Gap Final Report.pdf

You will find information as to how the research was conducted at the bottom of the report.

The difference in wages and predominantly male filled occupations such as CEOs has less to do with sexism, and more to do with the numbers of women who enter the work force ( Stay at home mom is not considered a workforce job ) and how long they stay into it.

So really, we aren't any further ahead than they are.

Actually we are, women may not be able to vote a century ago in the US, but in say Afghanistan before the US invasion women were not allowed to hold jobs or even leave the house with out a male escort. Homosexual marriages may not exist in many countries, but stoning of homosexuals is a common practice in countries like Iran. As for the equal pay thing, well I have already disproven that.

When you compare where we are, and where they are, the gap is immense.

Religion is still embodied in politics everywhere. Why isn't abortion legal in so many countries? Religion. Why is homosexuality illegal in so many countries? Religion. Why are/were banks closed on Sundays? Religion.

And how many of those are religious laws written in the bible and how many of those are religious principals or in the case of abortion moral principals?

What is the difference? In both cases it is the considered to be the word of God.

One is the direct word of God, the other is accounts written by men.

There are plenty of countries who still have laws which are derived from the dogma of the time they were written.

Which countries? Which laws? Are those dogmatic laws directly in religious text or are they moral laws such as a law against killing? What line of religious text are they specifically from?
 

bel9

n3w 2 sppf :3
Sorry guys I will be busy with finals this week so I may not be able to post for a few days. I know BigLutz is in tears.
You do realize that immigration has been increasing from the Middle East, which is why so many countries are now fearing the increasing islamization of Europe.
So the ban in France is out of fear like I said earlier. France is facing an identity crises. This however is not the solution. Also like J.T. and chuboy stated earlier this is a pretty big slippery slope you are referencing. Just because Islamic immigrants are rising in Europe doesn’t mean they are going to overthrow Europe. That is really what that insinuates to me.
And how do you believe they are going to find the ones that are forced and the ones that choose it? How do we know that they were truly able to choose it and now cowed into it via fear?
While your source said that they were going to fine men who force the women to wear it so I assumed that they have ways of finding this information out. If it is going to be something they plan on doing. How did they do the poll in the first place? How do the feds find out that LDS are engaging in such activities? How will they find out?
Psst it took place in Britain
Psst I never saw you mention that. You bounce back and forth between the Middle East and Europe constantly. I couldn’t tell- mea culpa. But it is just like the LDS women I referenced. Things like this are universal and not mutually exclusive to Islam.
Because I cant? If you want I will show you the "Server cannot load" screen from my net browser.
Excuses. Just use the quote button and copy and paste the post into the quote brackets, then write your response.
And as I have said many times before where are the cross tabs for it? How did they come about it? How many did they interview? When was the survey taken? 2000? 2006? 2010? The influx of Middle Eastern immigrants both legal and illegal change these numbers daily. So far you have answered none of these questions.
If you really want to argue against the number I suggest you learn French and check the Ministry of Interior’s website to find evidence that contradicts mine. It has been proven to be the number that they came up with. I have about 10+ sources that I posted that state that is the estimate of # of Muslims who wear burqas in France. If the number changes daily it shouldn’t really matter. The percentage will still be similar in that there will be many women immigrating who do not wear burqas or niqabs in higher number of those that supposedly do (there are seriously only 500 that we are unsure of because the 1500 were French converts).
You were so quick to post your own source you didn’t realize that it contained information that helps my argument. But now is that information in that source somehow compromised?
Also you have not made any effort whatsoever to back up any of your statements with numbers or evidence. You just spout the same hypothetical situations, assumptions, and generalizations over and over again. I would agree with chuboy that if you are not going to back up your own claims stop questioning mine. My claims at least have grounds to back them up whereas your claims just have your claims to back them up.
And it would freeze up my post when I do quote that much, the information backlog wont go to or away from my computer since it is so much. I have no problem debating with you, I am suggesting we break it down to consice arguments and not have a 15 page long post because the Serebii servers cannot really handle it.
I would like the freedom to make a long post (and there have been much longer) but I will try to keep it shorter for you (sorry this post got long. Scratch that statement out). Like I said before if push comes to shove just copy the text and put the quote symbols around it.
The serebii servers seem to be doing just fine. I have been assured there is no correlation to the post I made and the server issues we experience within the past 48-24 hours.
The reason I am using Islam in the Middle East is because of the amount of Immigrants who are coming from the Middle East into Europe are what are affecting these laws. You cannot have millions of immigrants flood into Europe and then say that France cannot take into account that these immigrants coming in from the Middle East have been brought up into a oppressive culture that they are bringing with them.
But the numbers in France show otherwise. And like I said (since we are arguing in hypotheticals) How do we know that these immigrants aren’t escaping the “oppressive culture” and most don’t care for their traditionalist rules?
Except it didn't derail my entire argument, it never had, your posts never have. Now if you wish to restate your points in a consise manner instead of making a long 15 page post we can do that and I can strike those arguments down. If you do not, then lets move on.
Except for the parts where it does. You are not doing quite as well as you think you are.
Except those interpretations have become the law in many Islamic lands, and taught in many islamic mosques, thus they are solidified into the beliefs of the men and women in those countries and in those mosques.
But not into the entire Islamic world population?
Oh I can measure Middle Eastern advances through many different keys, yet one of the main sticking points is how they treat women and other minorities such as gays. They are not 100 years behind us or even 200 years behind us. They are essentially stuck in the time of Mohammad and refuse to move, and part of that is because they have placed upon themselves strict religious law.
I don’t know how to make it any more clearer that there is/are no key(s).
Again you are not getting it, there is a reason they are not making advancement, and that reason can be found squarely on religious law that comes from the Koran. How can you have advancement, truly have advancement when you have laws that you believe are from God, and that have been in place with out change for 700 years or so? The struggle to change something like that would be daunting and immense, for one thing they would have to acknowledge that God's law is wrong. Something that is nearly impossible to do in these traditional religious countries.
Let me try and rephrase this. I am not sure you understood my earlier post. One of the key things in understanding other cultures is not everyone wants advancement and not everyone needs advancement. Now we might be able to say “The Middle East needs cultural advancement in its treatment of women and minorities.” But we cannot say force the Middle East by gunpoint to change. That doesn’t work. And if you don’t believe me just ask a British historian who studies British Imperialism. In many cases when the British forced laws on the Middle East and Africa to try and change them the natives became more polarized in their opposition to the change.
However there are better results when countries and communities make changes on their own with little outside influence, like pressure from WHO and feminists. There are a growing number of Muslims who do not follow the traditionalist beliefs but still follow the ways and Quran of Islam. These are the people that must make changes in their culture. We must support these people.
Actually that is different the Bible was created by men who are believed to have divine inspiration for some part. The Koran on the other hand is the direct word of God, it is believed Mohammad could not read or write, and that God came down and essentially wrote the bible for him.
Actually that is a really lame excuse. There are Christians that will argue that and say you are absolutely wrong.
His last survey came from 2000, in the ten years Europe has experienced a flood of Immigrants from Africa and the Middle East that has gradually unsettled the countries. Much of this is from war torn countries in Africa, as well as in Afghanistan and Iraq, both nations entered into wars AFTER 2000. I put up the NYT article as proof.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/world/europe/02iht-greece.4.16650775.html
Where does it say my last survey was from 2000? I didn’t see it in that NYT article. Please cite the source that lists this. Maybe even quote it in the post. Excuse my skepticism but that convenient bit of info was not present in anything I have looked at.
Are the rosary beads a symbol of oppression or a traditional sign of prayer. You are comparing apples and oranges because while rosary beads are nothing more than simple beads used for prayers, especially for many catholics. The Burka is more a sign of misogynism toward women, instead of using the more moderate Hajib.
So is the hijab misogynist toward women if they are forced to wear it? We may equate the burqa as being misogynist because of women’s treatment in the Middle East but to the European women (like the French) it can mean something different. (You call the rosary nothing more than simple prayer beads- I call them powerful prayer beads that can be used to speak to the Virgin Mary. They can also be crafted to represent different things. BIG mistake for you to make in saying the rosary is just beads when debating with a Catholic. I also have a beautiful wooden rosary with hand painted clovers on each bead. On the back of the cross is inscribed “erin” and then the back of Mary is inscribed with “Our Lady of Knock.”)
AND you forget that As I mentioned there are many different views within Catholicism. An Opus dei member will make different prayers than I will. He will, in effect, use the Rosary to pray for separate things.
You and belbackinblack inability to differentiate things continues to astound me.
Hey you must suffer from the same complex seeing as how you switch back and forth between Europe and The Middle East without clearly doing so like there is no tomorrow. Or is that maybe a tactful ploy that actually keeps you in the debate?
And what happens when they do get back home? Will the police protect them at all hours of every day? When a person already has a lower view of women, and that woman causes him pain either physically or in this case financially, he is going to inflict retaliatory pain.
So then why impose a fine at all when women wear burqas in France and make it illegal? Your first source stated that they will impose a fine when a women wears a burqa and a larger fine when she is forced into it. You claim that the numbers are inaccurate and that there are more women in France forced into a burqa so by your claim the ban you support will cause more women harm.
As with any poll, I am asking for the break down, any other poll posted on this forum we are typically able to get a idea of the sample, how it was conducted, when it was conducted, etc etc etc. We have no such thing here, if we are going to take such a poll as fact, simple questions about the validity of it need to be answered.
Yes the issue has been fairly recent, mostly because of the large amount of immigration coming in, which is why the "Choose to wear" poll is largely irrelevant. But as I said before, if we're going to take this poll as fact, then questions should be raised.
Like chuboy and now myself are now asking for your polls.
The numbers are startling. Only 3.2 per cent of Spain's population was foreign-born in 1998. In 2007 it was 13.4 per cent. Europe's Muslim population has more than doubled in the past 30 years and will have doubled again by 2015.
You say foreign born. That does not specifically mean Muslim. That just means foreign born. Now Europe’s Muslim population doubling and doubling again? Sounds shocking but let us looks at the evidence against that…
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/04/eurabian_follies?page=0,1
According to the higher range of estimates by the U.S. National Intelligence Council (NIC), there are already as many as 18 million Muslims in Western Europe, or 4.5 percent of the population. The percentage is even lower for the 27-country European Union as a whole.
The future will certainly see an increase, but it's hard to imagine that Europe will even reach the 10 percent mark (except in some countries or cities). For one thing, as the same NIC study indicates and demographers agree, fertility rates among Muslims are sharply declining as children of immigrants gradually conform to prevailing social and economic norms.
The NIC study: http://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol19/9/
Recent poll data from Gallup show that most European Muslims happily combine their national and religious identities, and a 2009 Harvard University working paper by Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris demonstrates that in the long term, the basic cultural values of Muslim migrants evolve to conform to the predominant culture of the European society in which they live.
*I will find that gallup poll.
The link to the Harvard University paper is in the source. The paper opens as a .pdf
As a 2006 pan-European Pew Research Center study makes clear, "Muslims in Europe worry about their future, but their concern is more economic than religious or cultural," and though there are tensions, these are mostly due to racism, not some grandiose clash of cultures.
Pew Research Poll: http://pewglobal.org/2006/07/06/mus...ncerns-about-religious-and-cultural-identity/
You see Biglutz they are more scared of you than you are of them.
In Brussels, the top seven baby boys' names recently were Mohamed, Adam, Rayan, Ayoub, Mehdi, Amine and Hamza.
OMG! Shocking! Blasphemy!
No, not really….
How dramatic are the population changes? Everyone is aware that certain neighbourhoods of certain cities in Europe are becoming more Muslim, and that the change is gathering pace. But raw details are hard to come by as the data is sensitive: many countries in the EU do not collect population statistics by religion.
So we can all just make hypothetical arguments now? AND slippery slopes? I would suggest the countries do before they make laws like this. If more of them did it and found compelling evidence maybe some of us wouldn’t be as skeptical of their actions.
EU numbers on general immigration tell a story on their own. In the latter years of the 20th century, the 27 countries of the EU attracted half a million more people a year than left. "Since 2002, however," the latest EU report says, "net migration into the EU has roughly tripled to between 1.6 million and two million people per year."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...hic-time-bomb-transforming-our-continent.html
Okay. We need more specific information pertaining to Islamic immigrants. Otherwise we can just sit back and make hypothetical arguments like “But how do we know that they are trying to escape from the traditionalist views and adapt more moderate views?” I am still trying to find where it lists that evidence as being from 2000 but even then so how do we know the current increase in immigrants also means an exponential rather than linear increase in traditionalist Muslims as you are basically claiming?
I visit none, but the answers can be gleamed by not having to travel to Islamic mosques or knowing muslims, especially since most muslims and mosques in the US have been pretty much modernized. How ever Sharia Law, or the sacred law of Islam, is essentially the law of the land in many Middle Eastern countries, this would include: Lebanon, Palestine, Libya, Syria, Iran, Malaysia, Qatar, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, United Arab Emirates.
There are many different interpretations of Sharia law that differ between countries and Muslim groups. To say the most fundamentalist translation represents all Muslims is about where your argument falls down. You have basically been making that generalization that traditional Islam= all Islam this whole debate.
While Islamic law is not the law of France, seeing how so many legal and illegal immigrants who are currently entering Europe come from these countries that have Sharia law, and because of assimilation problems, they are going to keep practicing it in their household.
Again you make the major assumption that many of them are not trying to escape Sharia law.
And is that more due to intolerance to those that are different or is it due to religious bigotry? Its harder to decern seeing how people many times are bigoted to those they see as different.
Yes? And is that due to misogyny or religious bigotry? Misogyny is your answer.
But didn’t you explain that burqas are due to mispgyny earlier? Also in Western culture there were times when religious bigotry held women back from advancing. In fact at times they are the same thing! So misogyny is NOT the only answer to that question.
A greater percentage of women than men tend to work part-time. Part-time work tends to pay less than full-time work.
The difference in wages and predominantly male filled occupations such as CEOs has less to do with sexism, and more to do with the numbers of women who enter the work force ( Stay at home mom is not considered a workforce job ) and how long they stay into it.
Yes because so many women want part time jobs. How many want to be cashiers at retail stores? How many want to be waitresses/ other part time shitty jobs. That is why we still see sexism in the U.S.
Actually we are, women may not be able to vote a century ago in the US, but in say Afghanistan before the US invasion women were not allowed to hold jobs or even leave the house with out a male escort. Homosexual marriages may not exist in many countries, but stoning of homosexuals is a common practice in countries like Iran. As for the equal pay thing, well I have already disproven that.
Oh wow I didn’t realize so many women didn’t want equal pay. Thanks for clearing that up BigLutz. EVERY ONE Sexism in the U.S. is totally resolved. :/ Sarcasm. You really didn’t disprove anything. Those reasons are why sexism is prevalent in the U.S.
Haha I was so happy when I saw Biglutz use the term “apples and oranges” BTW your post is a little bit long but hey who am I to judge.
 

Icup

Well-Known Member
Lutz...not only have your arguments been completely torn apart by Chuboy and Black, I myself am wondering if you are not plunged into islamophobia? I am a Muslim...my sister, my mother, my aunts, my cousins and my grandmothers where hijabs. Not burqua's hijab..now you may ask yourself how is that relevant to burquas? The hijab, headscarf itself is NOT mandatory it is up to the women to choose if she wants to wear it or not...now you're talking about Islam forcing women to wear burquas. I am not denying there are people out there that are forcing their wives\daughters to wear it...and I actually believe the number is actually very alarming.

And also...what's up with Muslim women being slaves? Women can choose if they want to divorce...they can choose their own spouse, heck Muhammad (PBUH) said that the best amongst the people are the ones that treat their wives well. In the Quran there is an ENTIRE Surah entitled Al-Nisa, The Women...another ENTIRE Surah for the mother of Jesus, Marie. It is said that Heaven lies under the feet of your mother. The importance that is given in Islam towards your mother is absolutely astounding! Now how can ANY man that loves his mother or even has the slightest amount of respect for her degrade a women?

BUT once again...like I said earlier there are many many people that do not treat women well, in an extremely poor manner but that can be found everywhere.

Back to the topic on Burqua...I don't think I have much to had, it's all been said by Chuboy and Black. There is absolutely NO point in abolishing something that has sooo little usage even in the Muslim countries you will find much more women wearing regular hijab (headscarfs) than the ones wearing burquas.
 

BigLutz

Banned
Good luck belbackinblack I had finals last week as I announced on here, you just have to put the most important things first. Study hard and we will see you when we get back.

Now on to business I am deleting the crap about the Server problems, you know what went wrong, I have offered to debate you on any part of it, but you continue to refuse, so there is no where else to go.

So the ban in France is out of fear like I said earlier. France is facing an identity crises. This however is not the solution. Also like J.T. and chuboy stated earlier this is a pretty big slippery slope you are referencing. Just because Islamic immigrants are rising in Europe doesn’t mean they are going to overthrow Europe. That is really what that insinuates to me.

It is out of fear, fear of people using the Islamic headdress to get past security. Now if France wanted to ban all things Muslim they very well could have, they could ban Minaret on Mosques like Switzerland did, which was utterly and completely out of line. The difference here is that there is a fundamental safety concern here ( Which is why ALL masks are banned ), while in Switzerland it was more done to jab muslims in the eye.

While your source said that they were going to fine men who force the women to wear it so I assumed that they have ways of finding this information out. If it is going to be something they plan on doing. How did they do the poll in the first place? How do the feds find out that LDS are engaging in such activities? How will they find out?

With the LDS ranch in Texas the feds found out about it because one woman escaped from there and alerted the Feds to what is going on. Obviously with that and this, women being able to leave everything and escape a abusive relationship both on a physical and spiritual level is going to be very hard and is very rare, which is why the LDS Ranch was able to continue on for so long.

If you really want to argue against the number I suggest you learn French and check the Ministry of Interior’s website to find evidence that contradicts mine. It has been proven to be the number that they came up with. I have about 10+ sources that I posted that state that is the estimate of # of Muslims who wear burqas in France. If the number changes daily it shouldn’t really matter. The percentage will still be similar in that there will be many women immigrating who do not wear burqas or niqabs in higher number of those that supposedly do (there are seriously only 500 that we are unsure of because the 1500 were French converts).

I am only asking very basic information about a poll, something you would typically find in any Rasmussen Poll, Gallup poll, etc etc. Here there is none, you're sources quoted it but they are only quoting the same sliver of information over and over again with absolutely no additional information what so ever.

Also you have not made any effort whatsoever to back up any of your statements with numbers or evidence. You just spout the same hypothetical situations, assumptions, and generalizations over and over again. I would agree with chuboy that if you are not going to back up your own claims stop questioning mine. My claims at least have grounds to back them up whereas your claims just have your claims to back them up.

Again I have no problem backing up my claims, but if we are going to get into a pissing match about backing up every single solitary thing, something I have not asked to do, then we're going to reach a stalemate very quickly.

But the numbers in France show otherwise. And like I said (since we are arguing in hypotheticals) How do we know that these immigrants aren’t escaping the “oppressive culture” and most don’t care for their traditionalist rules?

Okay. We need more specific information pertaining to Islamic immigrants. Otherwise we can just sit back and make hypothetical arguments like “But how do we know that they are trying to escape from the traditionalist views and adapt more moderate views?” I am still trying to find where it lists that evidence as being from 2000 but even then so how do we know the current increase in immigrants also means an exponential rather than linear increase in traditionalist Muslims as you are basically claiming?

Again you make the major assumption that many of them are not trying to escape Sharia law.

Combining this together as it is basically the same claim made over three times, 'are they escaping traditional islam/sharia law/ etc etc etc'

The problem here is that they are not showing signs of assimilating into the culture they are moving to, part of this is because of imams in French mosques, part of this is poverty leading them to stay within Muslim neighborhoods that more represent the countries they left.

Muslims in Europe said:
Until very recently, the countries of origin of French Muslims sent imams to France to lead the different mosques. Many of these imams had no knowledge of France, and did not know the French language. The messages they brought to France normally underscored traditional sentiments found in their country of origin, and as such worked against any French ideal of assimilation. In recent years, some brought a more radical message, including Islamic fundamentalism, that French officials viewed as hostile to French interests.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33166.pdf

Now this doesn't mean it will always be this way, France can work to crack down on Mosques that have radical Imams in them. Nor does this mean France is entirely innocent in this. Due to the hard socialist labor laws in France, discrimination happens against hiring immigrants meaning there are high unemployment in immigrant communities which also helps keep them from assimilating into their culture.

Now if no more immigrants were to come in to France, there is a good chance all of this would be a non issue several generations down the line as more generations move away from links to their parents country of origin and into French culture.

But not into the entire Islamic world population?

Never said it did, much of the Muslims in the US for example are quite assimilated into the culture and have thrown off the shackles of traditional Islam. Europe on the other hand is having a assimilation problem.

Let me try and rephrase this. I am not sure you understood my earlier post. One of the key things in understanding other cultures is not everyone wants advancement and not everyone needs advancement. Now we might be able to say “The Middle East needs cultural advancement in its treatment of women and minorities.” But we cannot say force the Middle East by gunpoint to change. That doesn’t work. And if you don’t believe me just ask a British historian who studies British Imperialism. In many cases when the British forced laws on the Middle East and Africa to try and change them the natives became more polarized in their opposition to the change.

I never said we could force them at gunpoint to change, I am how ever saying that because this isn't just a cultural thing but also a religious thing, it is going to be much much harder to change.

However there are better results when countries and communities make changes on their own with little outside influence, like pressure from WHO and feminists. There are a growing number of Muslims who do not follow the traditionalist beliefs but still follow the ways and Quran of Islam. These are the people that must make changes in their culture. We must support these people.

The problem with that is that those people are in the minority, and usually are rounded up and killed or silenced. A great example being the uprisings in Iran in which the police force killed and captured so many of the protesters to silence them. Now does that mean the Middle East will always be a hot bed if hatred and bigotry toward women and minorities? Probably not, but for the forseeable future they are not going to change not just because of traditions but because they believe this is God's law.

Actually that is a really lame excuse. There are Christians that will argue that and say you are absolutely wrong.

Then I would ask them to consider why the New Testiment is made up of different books, such as the Book of Mathew, the Book of Mark, the Book of John, etc etc etc. And why there is no "Book of God"

So is the hijab misogynist toward women if they are forced to wear it? We may equate the burqa as being misogynist because of women’s treatment in the Middle East but to the European women (like the French) it can mean something different.

It very well could, but then it also satisfies the French requirement of allowing faces to be shown, while it allows the Muslim Qoran requirement to cover your head and chest. Thus a appropriate compromise.


So then why impose a fine at all when women wear burqas in France and make it illegal? Your first source stated that they will impose a fine when a women wears a burqa and a larger fine when she is forced into it. You claim that the numbers are inaccurate and that there are more women in France forced into a burqa so by your claim the ban you support will cause more women harm.

Same reason we have penalties for family violence, abuse, and any number of things in which the victim returning to their abuser will place them into harm's way again.

You say foreign born. That does not specifically mean Muslim. That just means foreign born. Now Europe’s Muslim population doubling and doubling again? Sounds shocking but let us looks at the evidence against that…

Which right now is a guessing game, that being said the facts remain now is that Muslim immigration is drastically increasing in Europe

So we can all just make hypothetical arguments now? AND slippery slopes? I would suggest the countries do before they make laws like this. If more of them did it and found compelling evidence maybe some of us wouldn’t be as skeptical of their actions.

You do realize that I was quoting from the article correct? You did see the article link below?

There are many different interpretations of Sharia law that differ between countries and Muslim groups. To say the most fundamentalist translation represents all Muslims is about where your argument falls down. You have basically been making that generalization that traditional Islam= all Islam this whole debate.

I have never said traditional Islam = all Islam, that argument exists only in your mind. As for Sharia law there are different interpretations of Islamic law, Sharia law is one of them. How ever you will be hard pressed to find any Islamic law in the Middle East that is friendly toward women.

Yes because so many women want part time jobs. How many want to be cashiers at retail stores? How many want to be waitresses/ other part time shitty jobs. That is why we still see sexism in the U.S.

Oh wow I didn’t realize so many women didn’t want equal pay. Thanks for clearing that up BigLutz. EVERY ONE Sexism in the U.S. is totally resolved. :/ Sarcasm. You really didn’t disprove anything. Those reasons are why sexism is prevalent in the U.S.

Did it ever cross your mind that the reason Women take so many part time jobs is because they are doing it during the school day so that they can be home for their kids when they get home in the afternoon? Or does your mind just jump to Sexism?

See there is no 'equal pay' problem in the US, Debra does not make less money than Bill does doing the same job. The problem is Women take certain kinds of jobs, and men take other kinds of jobs. There are a variety of factors in that as the study lists some of them. That does not mean it is 'sexist' or that there is a 'equal pay' problem. It means that the type of jobs being taken are clouding the statistics and numbers.
 

willpower

Add my FC
Comparing a piece of private property to a social state is a woefully ignorant comparison to make. Especially when you consider that many people who practice Muslim ideals or who hold international philosophies and practices that you so frown upon are citizens of the country just as much as you are. A much more apt analogy would be if someone came into a house that they were part owner of.

Really? What is the difference about that and the fact that politicians want to establish rules in their own country? Honestly I do not think I am the one who is being ignorant here.

The fact that I am trying talk about is that countries have religion as a patriotic symbol and the countries people emigrate to are Christian. Facts like the one Ethan told is ridiculous and completely insulting and in my opinion, people just have too many rights.

Sorry mate, but Muslim people having more rights than Christian people in a CHRISTIAN COUNTRY, thats fucking insane.
 
Last edited:

Tim the turtle

Happy Mudkip
Really? What is the difference about that and the fact that politicians want to establish rules in their own country? Honestly I do not think I am the one who is being ignorant here.
I have no idea what you are trying to say with this sentence. Please elaborate.

The fact that I am trying talk about is that countries have religion as a patriotic symbol and the countries people emigrate to are Christian.
Indeed there are many Christians in the U.S. but I fail to see what that has got to do with anything. Just because the majority of people in the U.S. are Christian is absolutely no reason to presume that those who aren't Christian should be. That is a logical fallacy, you are attempting to derive a normative principle from a descriptive one, which is not at all sound.

Sorry mate, but Muslim people having more rights than Christian people in a CHRISTIAN COUNTRY, thats ****ing insane.
It's is indeed unfair, but that doesn't mean that Muslim people should not have a right to practice their own culture, which is what you advocated.
 

Maxim

Beyond repair
Well. Since this is an English forum overridden by Americans I can already tell what kind of crap this thread is full of even without reading it.

Someone has admitted that the burkas should be banned and now political correctionists throw rotten tomatoes at him, amirite?

Really, you people have to understand that so called "White Straight Christian Males" are NOT the culprit of all the evil of this world. You must understand that they haven't always been here. It's NOT biased to say that they invaded the Europe. They already settle here and multiply, overriding our two-thousand year old Christian-based (and Pagan-based in Roman and Greek times) culture with their own one. What helps them doing so? Political correctness. Because of it, we're just letting ourselves lose our own culture.

You must understand that "White Straight Christian Males" should also have their place on the Earth and that they ARE sometimes right after all. Feminazis, Muslims, Gays and whatnot AREN'T always right.

And what's even more sad? That people who advocate burkas so much are mostly the same people who say that crosses should be forbidden. What a hypocrisy...

And no, I'm not forbidding anyone to wear his own culture/religion symbols. That'd be unfair, as I'm a Christian and I'm all for Christian symbols. But when you're in a different country, you must obey its law. What the politically correct governments of some European countries strive to do now is pretty much giving Muslims more rights than Christians.

If we ditch the crosses, we'll see crescents in their place very soon.

Political correctness is the worst thing that exist on the Earth. It destroys everything - culture, beliefs, national consciousness. That's what changes the EU into some artificial, cultureless being without any spirit. Not to mention that the definition of neutrality is misunderstood by most. Atheism is by no means neutral. It's just another belief (yes, it's also a belief, there's no proof that God doesn't exist) that contradicts with all other beliefs. And it's not that true that atheising everything doesn't offend anyone. Lack of Christian symbols offends me strongly. It's like forging Europe's history. That's what EU does.

Sure, we should be open for guests. But we can't let them do just everything. Because of political correctness, Europe is being "peacefully conquered". And this process is gonna be complete in not-so-far future. That's because political correctness has practically no limits, it always develops further and further. Not to mention that Muslims are VERY OFTEN aggressive against the majority. But everybody seems to think that they're discriminated, poor and such.

No, I actually don't expect the Americans to understand that. I know that I'll be flamed, called a troll and quoted with zillions of moot arguments. So, why did I post here at all? I've no idea.
 

willpower

Add my FC
Well. Since this is an English forum overridden by Americans I can already tell what kind of crap this thread is full of even without reading it.

Someone has admitted that the burkas should be banned and now political correctionists throw rotten tomatoes at him, amirite?

Really, you people have to understand that so called "White Straight Christian Males" are NOT the culprit of all the evil of this world. You must understand that they haven't always been here. It's NOT biased to say that they invaded the Europe. They already settle here and multiply, overriding our two-thousand year old Christian-based (and Pagan-based in Roman and Greek times) culture with their own one. What helps them doing so? Political correctness. Because of it, we're just letting ourselves lose our own culture.

You must understand that "White Straight Christian Males" should also have their place on the Earth and that they ARE sometimes right after all. Feminazis, Muslims, Gays and whatnot AREN'T always right.

And what's even more sad? That people who advocate burkas so much are mostly the same people who say that crosses should be forbidden. What a hypocrisy...

And no, I'm not forbidding anyone to wear his own culture/religion symbols. That'd be unfair, as I'm a Christian and I'm all for Christian symbols. But when you're in a different country, you must obey its law. What the politically correct governments of some European countries strive to do now is pretty much giving Muslims more rights than Christians.

If we ditch the crosses, we'll see crescents in their place very soon.

Political correctness is the worst thing that exist on the Earth. It destroys everything - culture, beliefs, national consciousness. That's what changes the EU into some artificial, cultureless being without any spirit. Not to mention that the definition of neutrality is misunderstood by most. Atheism is by no means neutral. It's just another belief (yes, it's also a belief, there's no proof that God doesn't exist) that contradicts with all other beliefs. And it's not that true that atheising everything doesn't offend anyone. Lack of Christian symbols offends me strongly. It's like forging Europe's history. That's what EU does.

Sure, we should be open for guests. But we can't let them do just everything. Because of political correctness, Europe is being "peacefully conquered". And this process is gonna be complete in not-so-far future. That's because political correctness has practically no limits, it always develops further and further. Not to mention that Muslims are VERY OFTEN aggressive against the majority. But everybody seems to think that they're discriminated, poor and such.

No, I actually don't expect the Americans to understand that. I know that I'll be flamed, called a troll and quoted with zillions of moot arguments. So, why did I post here at all? I've no idea.

My god you are simply brilliant. I totally agree with you. You said everything that is in my mind, too bad I am not that good expressing myself.

Good to know that I am not alone thinking that way :)
 
Top