|
Sethex posted:How does that connect with anything that I have said? I would strongly support banning a separate Christian Legal system as I would any other minority religion variation, your comparison is hyperbolic and terrible. "The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal has no powers to grant a divorce which is valid in English and Welsh law.[5][6] A talaq can be granted to recognise divorce.[5][6] A sharia marriage has no bearing on personal status under UK law.[7] The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal has no jurisdiction on criminal matters but can attempt reconciliation between spouses." "An ongoing e-petition to the UK government to prohibit and criminalise sharia courts has received over 15,000 signatures. The government issued a response, stating that sharia rulings are only permitted if legal in their jurisdiction, and that attitudes contrary to UK law should be eradicated" Ironically, we have the same thing already happen with Christians as well in the US/UK. So, its not special to Muslims, and its not isolated to Sharia. Go ask women trying to leave the Quiverfull movement what its like.
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 09:39 |
|
|
Editout
Sethex fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Considering most of the refugees coming over are moderates fleeing religious extremists, what is your point? To find extremism among the moderates and then label them wholesale? Didn't mention the refugees identity, only that Saudis building their infrastructure is likely a bad thing that has been historically a bad thing. Didn't talk about extremists within the Refugees at all. I'd say they are fleeing a civil war more than fleeing ISIS. Given your clunky calls insinuating racism/genocide or simply misrepresenting everything you've ever quoted I'd say at this point you aren't even connected to what you're reading, I doubt you're even connected to reality enough to have an opinion. Sethex fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Jesus christ you're disingenuous as gently caress. Correct. However; Malaysia, Indonesia, and Turkey are consistently referred to as the poster children of modern "liberal Islam" by the Ben Affleck types (some are in this thread!) when, in fact, they are very conservative with their own arbitrary versions of Sharia implemented as state law. You know, things such as imprisonment for adultery and alcohol. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Given your clunky calls insinuating racism/genocide or simply misrepresenting everything you've ever quoted I'd say at this point you aren't even connected to what you're reading, I doubt you're even connected to reality enough to have an opinion. I misrepresented your post, and for that I am sorry. After further review, your post did not mean what I thought it did  But I stand by what I said in response to others who are flying the 'OMG SHARIA' flag
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Do you mean little people in this thread? Or in the west? It also sucks to be a worker in arbitration against your current or former employer, should that be illegal in the US? ...Well, okay, yeah, maybe it should. But we have employer-  ) tend to be pretty willing to uphold arbitration results including monetary awards.Here's an overview article of sharia arbitration in the US from Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/manage/wp-content/uploads/Sisson_Future_of_Sharia_Law_in_American_Arbitration.pdf An interesting side part of the article of which I was not previously aware is that a really big practical incentive for wives to assent to handling divorce settlements in sharia courts is that US courts do not have a particularly great track record at handling
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Pretending that 9/11 didn't result in a demonstrable erosion of civil liberties an give birth to a surveillance state only serves to demonstrate how bad you are at seeing obvious causal chains because it offends your immature notions of multiculturalism. "Demonstrable erosion of civil liberties" has been the status quo in the US for decades, and the surveillance state predates 9/11 by fifty years or more. Effectronica posted:I don't think that there's anyone in this thread, and far, far fewer people outside of it than those who provide the basis for clobber statistics, who would actually suggest that Muslims be banned from using the ordinary court system. Even spectacular racists are unlikely to do so, I think. In fact, intimating that there's somebody who believes that seems vaguely insulting. What happens if people start being persecuted by the local community if they try to take their case to secular courts? That's a problem not just in radical Muslim communities in the West, but also ultra-Orthodox Jewish and radical Christian groups, where taking complaints to secular authorities is often considered to be not only a violation of religious law but also a dangerous betrayal of the group to secular authorities. Is the system going to be able to protect them?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
The Catholic Church maintains a body of law, which includes penalties like excommunication. The state should not be involved in making those decisions, because that would compromise separation of church and state. But preventing this parallel legal system from operating would require the use of force and the threat of violence at an absolute minimum, along with an intrusive police state. Nevertheless, this should not allow the Church to evade secular penalties for criminal actions. Shari'a is functionally identical. If two people want to use shari'a arbitration to settle a dispute in lieu of small claims court, where's the problem? There are multiple reasons why someone would want to do this without being a fifth-columnist pederast. And you can always prosecute if need be.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
A legal system that works within the framework of state law but can have different handling of situations so long as the state law isn't broken... there's something similar to this that I just can't put my finger on. Something to do with states that are united and some kind of federal government... Nah never mind Muslims are bad and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:where's the problem? Men an women are treated differently under Sharia law and in a much more discriminating way than secular law. I just shared a documentary on this, it is pretty intellectually dishonest to treat common or civil law to having the same outcomes as Sharia. If Christians wanted a separate legal system it would be equally ridiculous. The only benefit i can see to permitting a sexist legal system that is arbitrated by conservative old men and fictional hadiths is so your little multiculturalism hard on is satisfied. Sethex fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 22:12
|
|
Sethex posted:Men am women are treated differently under Sharia law and in a much more discriminating way than secular law. Okay. Can you address the exact scenario instead of squealing about how we need a strong Führer to deal with the Dolchstoss of multiculturalism and eliminate the Bolshevist-capitalist complex of international Islamry? That way, we can see you come around to saying that you'd totally blow a nun's head off rather than allow the Catholic Church to have ecclesiastical laws of its own.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Men am women are treated differently under Sharia law and in a much more discriminating way than secular law. If you want to use state violence to force revolutionary gender equality, I'm all for it, but it seems laughable not to start at home, with the native white Christian Euros, instead of panicking over some impoverished war-refugees from a desert hellhole icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The views of the minority does not essentially reflect the views of the majority. By your standard, should we then ban Christianity because a few Christians are members of the KKK or other Christian Extremist groups? I can go assault people all I want and claim to be part of the Atheist Militant movement, doesn't mean my views represent the majority of atheists nor that my actions should be used to represent them in their entirety. There is actually some middle ground between "let's ban Islam forever" and "we need to have sharia courts so Muslims can follow their own rules instead of the laws of the land". This middle ground can be summed up by a few principle, most importantly one that is called "separation of church and state". If you want to go "but Christianity bad!", then it's not Europe that's going to disagree. After all, do you want to know why we came up with separation of church and place in the first place? Look here for a start. After a lot of horrible bloodshed, people one day came up with the at the time completely outlandish idea that it was really stupid to slaughter each other because of minute differences in their daily "praise the lord" rituals, and so they decided that religion was a private, personal thing, that everyone was free to have whatever faith they want, and that clerics wouldn't dictate the law anymore. Fast forward to nowadays, there are people slaughtering each other because of minute differences in their daily "praise the lord" rituals just a bit to the south and east of Europe, and there are refugees fleeing the horrible bloodshed over there, and then there are people here arguing that what Europe needs is to welcome these refugees by abolishing the separation of church and state.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:If you want to use state violence to force revolutionary gender equality, I'm all for it, but it seems laughable not to start at home, with the native white Christian Euros, instead of loving panicking over some impoverished war-refugees from a desert hellhole Wow, those native white Christian Euros (Europe is predominantly atheist FYI) sure do have a problem with female heads of state, burqas, FGM, and forced marriages, don't they? I'm sure you're mistaking them for the the native white christians in the U.S., who've systematically prevented a female from becoming POTUS for the last 50 years. But continue, forums poster icantfindaname, indulge us with your redundant strawmen some more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:If you want to use state violence to force revolutionary gender equality, I'm all for it, but it seems laughable not to start at home, with the native white Christian Euros, instead of panicking over some impoverished war-refugees from a desert hellhole The fact that you're trying to even remotely equate gender 'inequality' in Europe with the hellscape that is the middle east makes me think you're just trolling. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Uh, restricting the wearing of burkas is quite misogynist actually.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Immortan posted:Wow, those native white Christian Euros (Europe is predominantly atheist FYI) It is now. Maybe you forgot just how many bloody wars we had over Christianity over the years? Between the pogroms, the Crusades and the Protestants a lot of blood was shed by the Christians over the years. Atheism has surged simply because so much chaos and bloodshed has been waged in the name of the Christian God that Europe as a whole has become disillusioned. Given that the Middle East had been relatively (NB: I'm saying RELATIVELY - all countries had wars in those centuries) peaceful and prosperous in that time under Sharia, you can forgive them for not seeing too much of a problem with theology. Immortan posted:sure do have a problem with female heads of state, burqas, FGM, and forced marriages, don't they? Do you know what a burka is called in Christianity? A Nun's Habit. Women weren't allowed to vote until the 1900s, women were sold into marriage until the 20th century: google 'dowry'. How are you this loving bad at the history of the culture you're trying to claim is brilliant? And FGM? It's loving rampant in Christian nations in Africa.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:It is now. Maybe you forgot just how many bloody wars we had over Christianity over the years? Between the pogroms, the Crusades and the Protestants a lot of blood was shed by the Christians over the years. Atheism has surged simply because so much chaos and bloodshed has been waged in the name of the Christian God that Europe as a whole has become disillusioned. Given that the Middle East had been relatively (NB: I'm saying RELATIVELY - all countries had wars in those centuries) peaceful and prosperous in that time under Sharia, you can forgive them for not seeing too much of a problem with theology.  But we were talking about Europe in 2015. Try to keep up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz are live at Harvard discussing "Islam and the future of tolerance." Stream is here if anyone is interested. https://forum.iop.harvard.edu/content/islam-future-tolerance
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Uh, restricting the wearing of burkas is quite misogynist actually.  My right to dehumanization!
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:44
|
|
Miltank posted:
Agreed, let's ban high-heeled shoes, makeup, decolletage...
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Lol ok sounds good bro 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Miltank posted:
Many women choose to wear it. The hijab especially is a very common thing that women wear as they feel very strongly about modesty. If you want to call that dehumanizing, you will be arguing with women about it, and you will be denying women their right to act as they wish to it if you try to ban it. I tend to think this is the real "dehumanizing" issue involving it.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/05/muslim-woman-hijab-delta_n_6616806.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:50
|
|
Miltank posted:Lol ok sounds good bro What differentiates high heels from a niqab, in terms of dehumanization? Are we to take it that sexual objectification is better than non-sexual objectification? That seems rather, um, sexist.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:What differentiates high heels from a niqab, in terms of dehumanization? Are we to take it that sexual objectification is better than non-sexual objectification? That seems rather, um, sexist. women wear high heels by choice you see
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Hijab is not burka or nikab. You can make the argument that high heels are the same thing as as a mask that completely covers the face, but I disagree- its almost completely different.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Miltank posted:
Let me tell you about how I support a woman's freedom to choose her outfit by telling her you cannot wear these particular outfits.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Immortan posted:
And my point was that we're at a period of post-theology in Europe due to the sheer numbers of human deaths caused in the name of religion. Some are suggesting that the situation in the Middle East is potentially the 'enlightenment' period for Islam but I'd personally disagree for reasons this post is not about. What I'm saying is that talking about Europe being a bastion of enlightened folks is because millions died so that others could see the futility. The Middle East had not seen such barbarity until the West got involved. The situations are not comparable by any sensible metric.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:57
|
|
Miltank posted:Hijab is not burka or nikab. You can make the argument that high heels are the same thing as as a mask that completely covers the face, but I disagree- its almost completely different. Both of them are, in a historical context, about male control over women. Both of them are also targets of reclamation by feminism. Both of them involve policing sexuality, and reclamation has involved reclaiming the sexual element and making it anew.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Hijab is not burka or nikab. You can make the argument that high heels are the same thing as as a mask that completely covers the face, but I disagree- its almost completely different. What's wrong with wanting to wear a mask that forces people to consider you as something other than a pair of tits and a nice arse? There are arguments against forced wearing of the different articles of clothing, but actually if you talk to the real women who choose to wear them you might find it's not just 'I HATE MY BITCH SELF SO I WEAR THIS TO REMIND PEOPLE I'M A WHORE.'
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
One is an article of clothing a woman may choose to wear. The other is an article of clothing a woman may choose to wear. Personally I've seen both worn at the same time. (To clarify thats the niqab and high heel, really tall stillettos more often than not.) If its explicitly the womans choice to wear the niqab or the burka or the high heel who are you to deny her that? Rigged Death Trap fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
And yet one functions by turning its wearers into semi-anonymous symbols of feminine otherness and the other is an uncomfortable patriarchal norm. High heels have more in common with neckties than burkas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
The necktie was a Croatian invention originally placed around the necks of soldiers going off to war by their wives; it symbolizes the hold the gynocracy has over mens' very lives. Oh wait that sounds ridiculous and so does comparing high heels to burkas ----------------
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
From a non western, Arabic viewpoint that distinction is reversed. E:@ Miltank
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Narciss how come you've spent like $100 to keep posting stupid poo poo in this forum? Asking for a friend.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Miltank posted:High heels have more in common with neckties than burkas. In that both are comfortable to Western society, yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Narciss how come you've spent like $100 to keep posting stupid poo poo in this forum? Asking for a friend. We're friends now? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Miltank posted:And yet one functions by turning its wearers into semi-anonymous symbols of feminine otherness and the other is an uncomfortable patriarchal norm. So the burqa isn't a patriarchal norm? Or is it a comfortable one?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:So the burqa isn't a patriarchal norm? Or is it a comfortable one? I have been told that they are generally not uncomfortable. They are undoubtably patriarchal though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 09:39 |
|
|
Even the idea that they keep women from being ogled is rooted in their original patriarchal purpose.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:19
|
|