|
Tei posted:Unlike you, I think Sharia Law has not place anywhere in the world. You should tell those people that are opposing refugees.
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:53 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Hmm, I wonder if there's a reason for that. Are you telling me it isn't or I'm Not Left Enough?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Average Bear posted:Are you telling me it isn't or I'm Not Left Enough? No, I'm saying there's a deliberate trend towards highlighting the negative actions/aspects of Muslims and other minorities while suppressing similar aspects from more favored groups. Eg, the whole "can white people be terrorists" thing. A white guy crashed his plane into a government building & no one called it terrorism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Squalid posted:It's brought up because the radical right wing is looking for every possible means through which to attack Islam specifically. The fact that many self-proclaimed secularists blithely join them as they attempt to erode the separation of church and state is a symptom of the Islamophobia that has crept into the modern discourse. I see where you're coming from, but I think avoiding supporting secularism because it could help the religious right is ironic. But avoiding opposing religious arbitration is also playing into the hands of the religious right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No, I'm saying there's a deliberate trend towards highlighting the negative actions/aspects of Muslims and other minorities while suppressing similar aspects from more favored groups. Oh, I see. I'm not doing that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Average Bear posted:Oh, I see. I'm not doing that. It just did it unconsciously last page when you said Average Bear posted:Just because politics makes for strange bedfellows doesn't mean you have to support sharia law arbitration in America. If you oppose anything because an rear end in a top hat supports it, you're being reactionary and irrational. You targeted Islamic arbitration specifically, rather than religious arbitration generally for opposition. When you realized the hypocrisy of this you rightly broadened your criticism. Unfortunately the real-world debate is not about banning religious arbitration in general, but about whether we should target Muslims alone. We should rightly oppose all attacks on sharia specifically for being hypocritical and incompatible with secular values.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You should tell those people that are opposing refugees. This part is easy. Dear anti-immigration people. I agree with you, immigration is bad. Immigration is how rich people attract more poors, so they can lower wages. More people competing for the same low paid jobs. The alternative is poor people having more childrens. This is normally achieved trough religion. But it don't work well in modern countries because modern countries need a higuer education level, so the poors in modern countries know too much about family planification. When poors can plan parenthood, they don't have childrens when they can't give them a good life. So rich people must open the doors for poor people to enter, and compete for wages. But I ask you something. Who own a country? If you say, these that have born in it, the second generation immigrants will own it has much you current own it. Do people that pay taxes own a country? the legal immigrants will start to pay taxes as soon they put their house there. Is a race the one that own the country, a culture? What is your culture but a melting pot of other cultures, comedic errors and random historic artifacts? Who owns a country? These that live in it, pay taxes in it, hare born in it, work in it and are willing to defend it?. Immigrants are going to do all these things. So go and stop immigration if you can. You will only achieve one thing: a society of old people that can't pay retired guys, that can't pay unemployeed, that can't pay a army, that can't pay smart kids in the university. Immigrants is blood, and immigration is a blood transfusion. You live in this country, but you don't own it. You never did. You rent it, for your lifetime, but it will still exist when you die, and other people will live in it. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Squalid posted:We should rightly oppose all attacks on sharia specifically for being hypocritical and incompatible with secular values. I don't understand this part.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Average Bear posted:I don't understand this part. undermining the rights of muslims to peacefully practice their religion in the us undermines the 1st amendment rights of everyone, and atheists are likely to lose their rights next
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
But sharia law also has laws and punishments completely obsoleted by modern secular law. Like, all of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Squalid posted:You targeted Islamic arbitration specifically, rather than religious arbitration generally for opposition. When you realized the hypocrisy of this you rightly broadened your criticism. Unfortunately the real-world debate is not about banning religious arbitration in general, but about whether we should target Muslims alone. We should rightly oppose all attacks on sharia specifically for being hypocritical and incompatible with secular values. I feel like this is taking things a bit far. I think it's reasonable to oppose religious tribunals, including sharia tribunals, while still emphasizing that the fear of sharia law being imposed on non-Muslims in America is a silly distraction. That doesn't mean we should refrain from any criticism of another person's beliefs, it just means that we should be conscious about what the impact of our criticisms will actually be. And more generally, the point I keep harping on and which most people are reluctant to engage with is that there's a world of difference between saying "this belief system is problematic" and concluding that the best way to deal with said belief system is to persecute or demonize its adherents. As I said above: religious toleration is a strategy for integrating cultural minorities. If anything it's an approach that shows a great deal more faith in western secularism than the people who ironically think that western society is on the verge of being over run by scary alien beliefs like sharia law. mrbradlymrmartin posted:undermining the rights of muslims to peacefully practice their religion in the us undermines the 1st amendment rights of everyone, and atheists are likely to lose their rights next Banning prayer in schools is undermining the rights of Christians to peacefully practice their religion but it's still a good idea. It's possible to oppose religious practices while continuing to recognize that religious believers are actual human beings and treating them as deserving of dignity and respect. We don't need to choose between either sweeping demonizations of Muslims or a policy of absolutely never criticizing anything they do or believe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Tei posted:Apparently the turks are well integrated in germany, but many muslims seems to be alienated in france. I just seems is not has clear as you say. lol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_in_Germany#Integration_issues http://www.todayszaman.com/anasayfa_identity-dilemma-pushes-young-turks-to-leave-germany-for-turkey_369997.html love that article, by the way: "According to Yurdakul, these problems are not related to integration but to social inequality" lol to the power of rofl Cat Mattress fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Banning prayer in schools is undermining the rights of Christians to peacefully practice their religion but it's still a good idea. But that's not what's happening, it's banning faculty-led prayers as an official function. You can pray all you want to. You just can't have faculty use the school's resources for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Tei posted:Apparently the turks are well integrated in germany, but many muslims seems to be alienated in france. I just seems is not has clear as you say. At most, that statement should read "slightly less badly integrated".
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 00:42
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:But that's not what's happening, it's banning faculty-led prayers as an official function. You can pray all you want to. You just can't have faculty use the school's resources for it. It amounts to the same thing as far as I'm concerned. Remember that if you're following most American variations of Christianity then it's your obligation to actively preach to the unsaved about the dangers of Hell and the urgent need for them to redeem themselves by accepting Christ. Telling a Christian teacher they can't minister to children is directly interfering with that teacher's ability to follow through on their beliefs as a Christian. Luckily for us most religious people are just like secular people, i.e. they're hypocrites.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Remember that if you're following most American variations of Christianity then Predestination, baby. The reprobates are predestined to go to Hell, so preaching is useless. The elect are predestined to find God's grace, so preaching is also useless. What's handy is that you can quickly tell the reprobates from the elect apart, because God's favor shines on the elect. Suppose someone is very rich: obviously God wanted him to live a blessed life, which proves that he is among the elect, and therefore a paragon of virtue. Now, instead, someone is very poor: this proves she is cursed by God for her sinfulness, so you know that she's going to Hell and that she deserves it. We're talking about American Christianity here. The one where Jesus is a blond surfer with a gun and he really hates communism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Helsing posted:If you don't support things like Sharia Law (and I would agree that Sharia law has no place in a secular country) then what are you actually proposing to do about it? Sharia is vastly more than what people think of it as ("Law" is pretty much a misnomer when it comes to Sharia.) Trying to ban it from secular countries would be like trying to ban James Dobson's "Questions and Answers." I mean, "are fish halal by default or do you have to say bismillah first?" is a question of Sharia and that's strictly a question of practice and not of punishment / reward.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Helsing posted:As I said above: religious toleration is a strategy for integrating cultural minorities. If anything it's an approach that shows a great deal more faith in western secularism than the people who ironically think that western society is on the verge of being over run by scary alien beliefs like sharia law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
Average Bear posted:To clarify, I didn't know religious arbitration was common in America. The issue of sharia being used as well was brought up, so that's why it catches flak. it catches flak because your average american is ignorant and irrationally scared of muslims. jewish and christian religious arbitration happens every day in this country and nobody cares, because those are white people religions Average Bear posted:But sharia law also has laws and punishments completely obsoleted by modern secular law. Like, all of them. do you think sharia is like written down somewhere on a stone tablet and it says "in situation x you must do y"
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
rudatron posted:This has been true historically, but part of the problem is that insular groups are adapting to this strategy. Part of that adaption is the creation of exclusive religious schools, gated communities, etc that create a closed loop of control. The best example is evangelical christians, but it's not exclusive to them. Uh, that's been a thing for over a hundred years with the Catholic school programs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:That is a really ugly and bigoted thing to say. I am not right wing, in fact I am a communist. My church took me in when I came out of the closet as a lesbian. I am going through homelessness now and my pastor is helping to connect me to the right people. We're participating in the black lives matter protest too. I'm glad you found some help! It sounds like your particular church isn't particularly mainstream or a member of the Evangelical bloc that is bedwetting over edited Planned Parenthood videos and crusading to destroy women's reproductive rights. It'd be cool if we could have a public discussion about how to protect members of religious communities from the abuse that backwards Iron Age morality propagates without stepping on their first amendment rights. It's a shame we can't because our homegrown fuckwit fundamentalists have to defend their turf from Islam. Banning Sharia is an asinine kneejerk response that accomplishes nothing. There's plenty of abuse in Evangelical, Amish, Jewish Orthodox, and Catholic communities that needs to be exposed, prosecuted, and stopped.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:it catches flak because your average american is ignorant and irrationally scared of muslims. jewish and christian religious arbitration happens every day in this country and nobody cares, because those are white people religions I think religious arbitration is bad because I'm pretty far left. No, but if it wasn't what's the point of it? What does sharia have that common law doesn't? (It's stoning and selling daughters)
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Average Bear posted:But sharia law also has laws and punishments completely obsoleted by modern secular law. Like, all of them. There was never any chance of these being instituted in America, and I doubt there was a chance in any western nation. These things are already illegal. So why do we need to make them double illegal? In reality, Islamic laws are most often used for incredibly mundane things in the U.S, like settling a divorce amicably. As of the last article I read, there were no actual organized sharia courts anywhere in the United States, although Imams do sometimes play a role in arbitration of personal matters like divorce. as Helsing pointed out I may have taken my point a little too far. Not all aspects of governance in Islamic countries is necessarily right, and we don't have to go to bat for customs that we find immoral. However we should be careful not make quick judgments in fear or ignorance. I also think fears about integration are overblown. We in the United States often forget there are dozens or even hundreds of insular religious communities scattered throughout our country. Many have existed for hundreds of years, retaining extreme religious beliefs and sometimes even refusing to adopt the English language. In particular I'm thinking of the various Anabaptist denominations including the Amish and Mennonites. Many Anabaptist communities have retained German as the language of common expression since their arrival in the 17th century. Their culture is highly distinct and heteronormative. Yet nobody is terrified about the Amish menace to American culture, they keep to themselves and do nobody harm. Neither have I ever suffered from the ultra-Orthodox Jew's insistence on wearing furry hats. As far as I'm concerned these people can stay particular forever, and it is hard to argue the United States has suffered from this multiculturalism. Admittedly you could to argue members of these cultures pay a price themselves, but that's a slightly different argument.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
The Amish, Mennonites, and Orthodox Judaism do not proselytize which makes them easy to ignore. They still have an awful habit of abusing women and children but manage to keep their regressive ideas and habits to themselves. Evangelicals go out of their way to get into government and certain schools of Islam seem to mandate involvement in governance. Again, banning Sharia is a stupid kneejerk response but religious courts, insular or not, need oversight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
Average Bear posted:To clarify, I didn't know religious arbitration was common in America. The issue of sharia being used as well was brought up, so that's why it catches flak. Hmm yes the well known issue of fundamentalist Muslim lawmakers dominating America
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Average Bear posted:I think religious arbitration is bad because I'm pretty far left. those things are also in the bible yet you don't seem to think that christian arbitration involves selling daughters there might be some uh gaps in your factual understanding of the topic that produces some let's say less than well considered opinions
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I also think fears about integration are overblown. We in the United States often forget there are dozens or even hundreds of insular religious communities scattered throughout our country. Many have existed for hundreds of years, retaining extreme religious beliefs and sometimes even refusing to adopt the English language. In particular I'm thinking of the various Anabaptist denominations including the Amish and Mennonites. This seems to exist in USA, Israel and Argentina. For whatever reason, these 3 countries work less like a country and more like a federation of individuals. But is not true anywhere else in the world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 10:11
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:those things are also in the bible yet you don't seem to think that christian arbitration involves selling daughters Do the USA actually have "Christian arbitration courts"? Apparently so. How backward!
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 10:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Uh, that's been a thing for over a hundred years with the Catholic school programs. Though to an extent, even Fox news/Right wing radio does this. You got this impenetrable bubble being set up, where no contradicting evidence gets in. Merely advocating 'tolerance' cannot work in this kind of environment. Not really sure what the solution is though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 11:03
|
|
|
Tei posted:This seems to exist in USA, Israel and Argentina. For whatever reason, these 3 countries work less like a country and more like a federation of individuals. But is not true anywhere else in the world. Unlike homogeneous countries like Sweden which only had some five different indigenous languages and a messy smattering of different cultural and religious identities before immigration "began" in the '70s.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 11:29
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Have you read the Prester John threads here on SA? It's a very different world, a lot more extreme. Can you prove that? Specific examples, comparing what Prestor John said with historical notes about the Catholic system of yesteryear. Tei posted:This seems to exist in USA, Israel and Argentina. For whatever reason, these 3 countries work less like a country and more like a federation of individuals. But is not true anywhere else in the world. I'll let the Basques know that they're officially Spanish and/or French now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'll let the Basques know that they're officially Spanish and/or French now. Well, they actually are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
In India there are different family courts for different religious communities. Imposing a single national one is hugely controversial and typically advocated by Hindu nationalists, from what I've read. Relevant!
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Well, they actually are. Yeah, I don't think you're getting the point. Spain is a very culturally pluralistic society. I don't think you can really ignore that, even if everyone from each autonomous community are officially Spanish citizens for the time being. All people from the US, or naturalized, are likewise US citizens even if they are culturally distinct.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
I don't know exactly what Tei meant by "a federation of individuals", so I'm not sure how Basque citizenship is a valid counterpoint.Swan Oat posted:In India there are different family courts for different religious communities. Imposing a single national one is hugely controversial and typically advocated by Hindu nationalists, from what I've read. Relevant! Could it be that a single national system of family court is controversial it is pushed by Hindu nationalists who'd use it to force everyone to use a Hindu inspired system? And that this therefore shouldn't be compared with secular single systems devised by people who advocated for a strict separation of church and state? Nah, it can't be. The universality of the law is an oppressive construct; true respect means that different people, depending on their ethnic and religious background, should be treated differently in the eye of the law. I am a progressive. Cat Mattress fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
I have been living in the basque country for a short period. I don't know what the hell you guys are talking about. El Pais Vasco, Euskadi is not a group of "insular religious communities". What the hell is wrong with you guys? The post in this thread are everywhere. Tei fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:I don't know exactly what Tei meant by "a federation of individuals", so I'm not sure how Basque citizenship is a valid counterpoint. Presumably that people don't conform to the "national ethnicity" or whatever that traditional nation-states try to band around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Tei posted:El Pais Vasco, Euskadi is not a group of "insular religious communities". What the hell is wrong with you guys? Where was it claimed they were? I'm just saying they're cultural distinct from Spanish people, who themselves are culturally distinct from Catalan people, etc. Having a nation-state composed of many different ethnicities or cultures is not unusual or wrong by any stretch of the imagination.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:I don't know exactly what Tei meant by "a federation of individuals", so I'm not sure how Basque citizenship is a valid counterpoint. There are also leftist and feminist groups that are in favor of a uniform code, for different and better reasons. The point I was making was that in many cases, such as in the West and among right wing Indian Hindus, talk about sharia law is anti Muslim signalling and little else. Especially in the West.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:53 |
|
|
PT6A posted:Where was it claimed they were? I'm just saying they're cultural distinct from Spanish people, who themselves are culturally distinct from Catalan people, etc. Eeek... this comment is gay. Can we rewind the comment history? I was talking about alien communities in a country. Stuff like whole-german towns in Argentina. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Argentine It seems theres similar things this in USA. Whole spanish towns with the street indicators in spanish, the shops in spanish, people talking in spanish. Maybe I am 100% wrong here. It seems this also happens in Israel, you have whole towns of Bedouins that are pro-israel, they identity themselves as part of israel and nothing with palestina. I could be completely wrong here, like 210% wrong here. Lets rewind a bit more to the original comment: quote:I also think fears about integration are overblown. We in the United States often forget there are dozens or even hundreds of insular religious communities scattered throughout our country. Many have existed for hundreds of years, retaining extreme religious beliefs and sometimes even refusing to adopt the English language. In particular I'm thinking of the various Anabaptist denominations including the Amish and Mennonites. This thread is a joke. Every commenter read only the last post without trying to understand whats going on, and reply to it trying to find a angle to criticize. This is the worst. Like that people that post in aggregation blogs and only read the titles and never read the articles themselves. I may not have anything interesting to say (Helsing is right), but I pay attention to what you guys say and I try to reply honestly. My theory is that insular communities can exist in USA because nobody care how you dance or how you celebrate Xmax in USA. USA really is serius about every human being being free to be and do whatever he please. So people is free to be part of a culture. This tolerance that exist in USA don't exist in other countries. USA is really the land of freedom, is not propaganda, is a real thing. That what my line "federation of individuals" means. Tei fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:22
|
|