Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bobboau on September 16, 2010, 08:40:43 am
-
http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_topstories/~3/01f4imSOMEs/index.html
this and the Roma stuff, it's like France is trying to win some sort of Godwin award.
how are they planning on enforcing this?
oh, this is how
The law imposes a fine of 150 euros ($190) and/or a citizenship course as punishment for wearing a face-covering veil. Forcing a woman to wear a niqab or a burqa will be punishable by a year in prison or a 15,000-euro ($19,000) fine
-
I gotta say, I kinda agree, and wish the rest of the developed world would follow suit.
Simply the fact that it hinders communication is reason enough to abolish it.
-
They should ban skirts too. :wtf:
-
It is not the job of the state to mandate its citizens' clothing. Any state that does such a thing, on such a scale, is not really worth living in.
-
On one hand, I can totally see your point, on the other - the United States doesn't allow you to run around naked. Isn't that a mandate on clothing of sorts?
-
Yes, it is.
But consider the reasons for this particular ban. What threat does someone wishing to wear "concealing clothing" pose? How does it affect you?
Note that the only thing I really disagree with is that potential fine. The second part, about the fine for "forcing someone to wear a niqab or a burqa will be punishable by a year in prison or a 15,000-euro ($19,000) fine", that's just ridiculous, and unenforceable. If you are following a religious mandate, who would be the one "forcing" you?
-
What it comes down to is this: a sacrifice of general liberty in order to protect the freedom of oppressed muslim women. Is it worth the cost? Hard to judge, especially from another culture and continent. I do think that if a similar ban came up for vote where I live in the US, I would vote against it.
-
What it comes down to is this: a sacrifice of general liberty in order to protect the freedom of oppressed muslim women.
If they're even oppressed. Many Muslim women would make the argument that they wear veils of their own volition, for reasons disentangled from control of women.
-
What it comes down to is this: a sacrifice of general liberty in order to protect the freedom of oppressed muslim women.
If they're even oppressed. Many Muslim women would make the argument that they wear veils of their own volition, for reasons disentangled from control of women.
and few people would believe them, due to the rather correct belief that much of compulsion is through threats or social pressure. Which also leads these women to say that it is out of their own volition that they wear this, knowing that if they say otherwise a beating (or worse) is awaiting them.
The ban is good and people who can't accept it are free to leave france.
-
What it comes down to is this: a sacrifice of general liberty in order to protect the freedom of oppressed muslim women.
If they're even oppressed. Many Muslim women would make the argument that they wear veils of their own volition, for reasons disentangled from control of women.
and few people would believe them, due to the rather correct belief that much of compulsion is through threats or social pressure. Which also leads these women to say that it is out of their own volition that they wear this, knowing that if they say otherwise a beating (or worse) is awaiting them.
I agree that many women are probably socially coerced either with or without their knowledge...but at the same time, I'm not sure the law should make the assumption that all women would never want to wear the veil voluntarily. There may be many women, maybe even most, who believe that wearing the veil has meaning that they value independent of the threat of force.
From a human rights standpoint it qualifies as an infringement on the rights of individuals to select a cultural context of choice, as well as (maybe?) freedom of expression.
-
Their piece of world, their rules.
Abide or get out of the way.
That's what rules are made for, right?... in all countries... in all kinds of governments.
-
The only rule that should be completely off limits is disallowing people to leave.
See North Korea and Iran.
-
I agree that many women are probably socially coerced either with or without their knowledge...but at the same time, I'm not sure the law should make the assumption that all women would never want to wear the veil voluntarily. There may be many women, maybe even most, who believe that wearing the veil has meaning that they value independent of the threat of force.
From a human rights standpoint it qualifies as an infringement on the rights of individuals to select a cultural context of choice, as well as (maybe?) freedom of expression.
Agreed. And I know several women whom (I believe -- I don't think it's possible to say definitively) would wear the veil entirely of their own volition. But I don't even think that's a strong enough issue to justify this ban.
I will ask this... should Monks be banned from wearing their concealing robes?
-
If you are following a religious mandate, who would be the one "forcing" you?
maybe your husband or father? this was actually the only part of it I thought was OK cause it makes it a crime to force your religion on others.
The only rule that should be completely off limits is disallowing people to leave.
I do more or less agree with this. as long as people are freely allowed to leave then it's their own fault if they stay in the country.
-
If you are following a religious mandate, who would be the one "forcing" you?
maybe your husband or father? this was actually the only part of it I thought was OK cause it makes it a crime to force your religion on others.
Yeah I do agree with this.
-
The only rule that should be completely off limits is disallowing people to leave.
I do more or less agree with this. as long as people are freely allowed to leave then it's their own fault if they stay in the country.
I don't agree. Many people are incapable, or at best, not properly equipped, to leave their country in a feasible manner and strike out a new life elsewhere. What do you say to those people? Tough luck?
The mindset of "Hey these are the new rules, if you don't like it you can get the **** out" troubles me. It vaguely reminds me of people who blame those who died in Katrina for not getting out in time.
-
hence "more or less agree" and not "completely".
-
I think the real issue arises when people wearing veils want to get drivers licenses and IDs.
It's unrealistic to expect that someone will take your picture for an ID if you're covering your face.
-
how do you know who exactly is behind the veil?
maybe its the serial rapist with the strength of 10 men but with womanly eyes.
the slackest I'd say ot go with this is its okay to wear it, BUT you must show face for ID and then remove the veil in situations where you have to show ID such as border crossing or possibly bars.
-
how do you know who exactly is behind the veil?
maybe its the serial rapist with the strength of 10 men but with womanly eyes.
the slackest I'd say ot go with this is its okay to wear it, BUT you must show face for ID and then remove the veil in situations where you have to show ID such as border crossing or possibly bars.
this.
-
Their piece of world, their rules.
Abide or get out of the way.
That's what rules are made for, right?... in all countries... in all kinds of governments.
Ummmmmm. Whose piece of the world exactly? Surely you're not claiming that people born in France who choose to wear a veil are somehow less French due to ethnic origin?
This basically racism, pure and simple. You've basically said that the majority can pass laws and if the minority don't like it, they should leave. Would you express such a view if it was white people being treated this way?
-
Ummmmmm. Whose piece of the world exactly? Surely you're not claiming that people born in France who choose to wear a veil are somehow less French due to ethnic origin?
of course not, I couldn't care less about that.
This basically racism, pure and simple. You've basically said that the majority can pass laws and if the minority don't like it, they should leave. Would you express such a view if it was white people being treated this way?
THIS I said.
So life is fair for everyone, that's what you are saying?
We can start arguing about what's being racist, about who's got the right to impose stuff on other people but we would eventually hit the bottom.
I'll take the short road here, I'm with the majority... just because of simple plain numbers.
If I find myself on the other side sometime, then I'll reconsider.... if it's not between my capabilities/desires to abide to the community request, then I shall depart or find a way to adapt myself.
And I'm not saying this law is ok, I'm just saying that I'll not commit myself to a "change the world" campaign, nor I'll hate everyone for thinking different than me (I would probably do that at first), this is just knowing your rights end where mine start, and trying to adapt that to a way of thinking and reacting that will not cause more troubles than it solves.
-
Ummmmmm. Whose piece of the world exactly? Surely you're not claiming that people born in France who choose to wear a veil are somehow less French due to ethnic origin?
This basically racism, pure and simple. You've basically said that the majority can pass laws and if the minority don't like it, they should leave. Would you express such a view if it was white people being treated this way?
first off people using the word racism for any and all forms of discrimination is a bit of a peeve of mine "veil wearer" is not a race, it's a minority, not all minorities are races, throwing racist around like this is about as intellectually diligent as calling someone a Nazi. it just says to me "I am a group thinker, this is what I have been trained to think"
second, the people effected by this law may not be less French but we are, and I think this was the persons point.
-
Fine. Bigoted.
Massively, Massively bigoted.
And I still don't believe this crap would be said if we were dealing with Christianity cause Christianity is a white religion. I find it very hard to believe Rodo or yourself would agree to a law discriminatory to you with a simple claim that you could leave the country if you didn't like it.
And I'm not saying this law is ok, I'm just saying that I'll not commit myself to a "change the world" campaign, nor I'll hate everyone for thinking different than me (I would probably do that at first), this is just knowing your rights end where mine start, and trying to adapt that to a way of thinking and reacting that will not cause more troubles than it solves.
Who's asking you to commit yourself to changing the world? You jumped into this thread and volunteered your opinion. If you had no opinion on the matter you could have simply kept your mouth shut :p
Incidentally I find it hilarious that you go on about rights while simultaneously claiming that the right of the minority is to put up or leave.
-
In the US, you're not allowed to go into most places with your face covered. It's one of those "'fire' in a crowded theater" cases. The law isn't generally enforced on women in burqas, though, because we have this moronic "but it's their *religion!!*" mindset.
All these girls walk around campus in long pants, long-sleeved shirts, and scarves in 95 degree heat, and I wonder what kind of brain disease the women who "choose" to wear all the unnecessary clothing have. ****, if it's winter, whatever, but this stupid fad came around in the desert.
-
IIRC it stops the sun, so it is actually not that bad in the dry heat of a desert, IIRC (which I might not).
OK, so if we turn this around, it would be like an Islamic nation making it a law that all women had to ware a burka?
that doesn't seem like an accurate analogy. or new.
-
Fine. Bigoted.
Massively, Massively bigoted.
:p
not so far into that, I must admit I have my preferences though.
And I still don't believe this crap would be said if we were dealing with Christianity cause Christianity is a white religion. I find it very hard to believe Rodo or yourself would agree to a law discriminatory to you with a simple claim that you could leave the country if you didn't like it.
I'm not Christian, my mother is Jehova's wittiness and I was "forced" (not forced, but you know... she took me because she thought it was the best thing for me) to join her until I grew a brain (say... 12 years old) and realized religion was not the kind of thing that moves my will, so I left.
So far I've found all religions to be lacking something else, to get my interest drives back on line.
Who's asking you to commit yourself to changing the world? You jumped into this thread and volunteered your opinion. If you had no opinion on the matter you could have simply kept your mouth shut :p
That was just an example of the POV of someone in that position, I'm surely not committing to change the world.
Also note that my opinion on the matter is there, but now that I read it again, it seems somewhat.... over the top, sorry.
Incidentally I find it hilarious that you go on about rights while simultaneously claiming that the right of the minority is to put up or leave.
It is in their rights, they can react as they see fit (its their right, it's my right), but for everything they do there's a possible reaction and a responsibility for the result of said action.
So my point is, the sensitive thing to do in this case (where the majority seems to be clearly taking a power stand and a no back down resolution) is to either abide or leave.
There's is a third option, but the look for the "win-win" here is almost nullified because of the majority's power stand.
-
IIRC it stops the sun, so it is actually not that bad in the dry heat of a desert, IIRC (which I might not).
OK, so if we turn this around, it would be like an Islamic nation making it a law that all women had to ware a burka?
that doesn't seem like an accurate analogy. or new.
Maybe if burqas were mostly white. They also hinder vitamin D absorption.
-
In the US, you're not allowed to go into most places with your face covered.
Heh. I remember back in high school--this was a few years after Columbine--some kid walked through the quad at lunch with a ski mask on. Everyone eating and hanging out more or less kept doing what they were doing, but it was apparent their attention was on him and there was a palpable air of tension. It was a little weird.
Don't think he was reprimanded or anything, though.
-
How does this sound:
All public use/display of clothing articles or accessories that are enforced/required by a religion or ideology and discriminate against sex, age or person otherwise are not to be used.
Now, to be fair this includes:
-outfits of the priests outside their work (should be indistinguishable from other clothing)
-traditional robes of muslims, in all forms (for both males and females)
-Hindu caste tattoos must be removed. Government will front the removal treatment costs.
-religious jewelry (crosses, crusifixes etc. are to be kept under other clothes and out of sight)
-full beards worn for religious reasons are to be shaven. Full beards worn for aesthetical reasons can be submitted to the board of aesthetics which judges if your mug will look better or worse with or without full beard; as a default they are not to be tolerated since they discriminate against women who in most cases can not grow one.
-Sikh turbans must not be worn and their hair must be shaven to a practical length (determined by the board of aesthetics to which you can appeal for permission to have longer than practical length hair
-Same applies to other traditional religious headgear.
The board of aesthetics has published a list of approved, secular, neutral clothing articles and accessories (includes acceptable jewels). Consult the list of generally acknowledged religious and ideological symbols and check that the canvas patterns do not have them and that your jewelry does not have them either. Unauthorized use of religious or ideological symbols will result in legal action and confiscation of the contraband goods. Appeal to Board of Aesthetics for a permission to use a religious or ideological symbol for non-religious, non-ideological reasons.
These rules are for your own good, and the Board of Aesthetics urges you to report any offending symbols or clothing you might see; it is for their good as much as yours. We wouldn't want all those silly symbols all over the place again, now would we?
-
How does this sound:
All public use/display of clothing articles or accessories that are enforced/required by a religion or ideology and discriminate against sex, age or person otherwise are not to be used.
Now, to be fair this includes:
-outfits of the priests outside their work (should be indistinguishable from other clothing)
-religious jewelry (crosses, crusifixes etc. are to be kept under other clothes and out of sight)
-full beards worn for religious reasons are to be shaven. Full beards worn for aesthetical reasons can be submitted to the board of aesthetics which judges if your mug will look better or worse with or without full beard.
-Sikh turbans must not be worn and their hair must be shaven to a practical length (determined by the board of aesthetics to which you can appeal for permission to have longer than practical length hair
-Same applies to other traditional religious headgear.
The board of aesthetics has published a list of approved, secular, neutral clothing articles and accessories (includes acceptable jewels). Consult the list of generally acknowledged religious and ideological symbols and check that the canvas patterns do not have them and that your jewelry does not have them either. Unauthorized use of religious or ideological symbols will result in legal action and confiscation of the contraband goods. Appeal to Board of Aesthetics for a permission to use a religious or ideological symbol for non-religious, non-ideological reasons.
These rules are for your own good, and the Board of Aesthetics urges you to report any offending symbols or clothing you might see; it is for their good as much as yours. We wouldn't want all those silly symbols all over the place again, now would we?
/me can hear that time bomb ticking from where he sits
-
/me can hear that time bomb ticking from where he sits
Hey, I'm just trying to discriminate equally here.
Of course, the solution to the problem presented with traditional gender-specific garments required by the religion is not to ban the offending articles of clothing, but to create an adequately safe environment where anyone willing to abandon their tradition if they so want to do can do so without having to fear for their safety.
This would ideally include ban on brainwashing children to simply adopt their parents' religious views, but let's not drop too many fire bombs at one go...
-
How does this sound:
All public use/display of clothing articles or accessories that are enforced/required by a religion or ideology and discriminate against sex, age or person otherwise are not to be used.
Now, to be fair this includes:
-outfits of the priests outside their work (should be indistinguishable from other clothing)
-traditional robes of muslims, in all forms (for both males and females)
-Hindu caste tattoos must be removed. Government will front the removal treatment costs.
-religious jewelry (crosses, crusifixes etc. are to be kept under other clothes and out of sight)
-full beards worn for religious reasons are to be shaven. Full beards worn for aesthetical reasons can be submitted to the board of aesthetics which judges if your mug will look better or worse with or without full beard; as a default they are not to be tolerated since they discriminate against women who in most cases can not grow one.
-Sikh turbans must not be worn and their hair must be shaven to a practical length (determined by the board of aesthetics to which you can appeal for permission to have longer than practical length hair
-Same applies to other traditional religious headgear.
The board of aesthetics has published a list of approved, secular, neutral clothing articles and accessories (includes acceptable jewels). Consult the list of generally acknowledged religious and ideological symbols and check that the canvas patterns do not have them and that your jewelry does not have them either. Unauthorized use of religious or ideological symbols will result in legal action and confiscation of the contraband goods. Appeal to Board of Aesthetics for a permission to use a religious or ideological symbol for non-religious, non-ideological reasons.
These rules are for your own good, and the Board of Aesthetics urges you to report any offending symbols or clothing you might see; it is for their good as much as yours. We wouldn't want all those silly symbols all over the place again, now would we?
This legislation has now been added to the Constitution of Happy Fun Land. Have a good day, Citizen.
-
yer I know what you mean, we have a situation where religious and social freedom is causing social unrest which is prompting the desire to clamp down on the elements representing a focal point for that unrest, which in tern is an unjust and unequal system which denies freedom of expression of which both are fundamentally against the "principles" most of the western world is supposed to hold to their core so for equality all symbols must be abolished which hits right at the histories and traditions of all peoples of the planet.
Idealistic answer eliminate ignorance from the human race. hmmmmm........ for give me for being sceptical about that in my lifetime.
/me apologises if his ramblings are completely wide of the mark, i should really have gone to bed a couple of hours ago
-
No, you're pretty much on the mark.
The crux of the question is, should a discriminating religion be allowed to stay discriminating in the name of tolerance and religious freedom?
If answer is no (as the predecent set by burqa ban would seem to suggest) then I eagerly expect to see the first female catholic priests in France in near future. And, same actually with female imams. Because, hell, if a religion can't be allowed to discriminate on things like clothing on public areas, why should they be allowed to discriminate on big things like career selection?
-
I think the answer should be now, but it should not be legislated against either, if a minority has unpopular views then, so long as they do not translate into destructive action, their is nothing the majority can do other than say as loudly as possible "we don't like you" and they are completely in their right to do so in the same respect that the minority is allowed to continue to do what ever it is that they are doing. no one has the right to never be offended, which means if you are offended you can offend right back.
-
I think the answer should be now, but it should not be legislated against either, if a minority has unpopular views then, so long as they do not translate into destructive action, their is nothing the majority can do other than say as loudly as possible "we don't like you" and they are completely in their right to do so in the same respect that the minority is allowed to continue to do what ever it is that they are doing. no one has the right to never be offended, which means if you are offended you can offend right back.
Exactly. Do your thing as long as it doesn't infringe on other peoples rights to do their thing as well.
I still maintain my point that adequate safety should be provided that people who wish to abandon their family's views on religion or ideology could do so without fear of being hurt, maimed or killed by said family as a matter of family's "honour".
The problem, of course, is that you can't really detect if someone is coerced into wearing these things or if they do it voluntarily, but that is not grounds to banning the clothing object - it's a good reason to try to prevent and stop the possible coercion from happening in the first place.
In other ways, burqa ban is treatment of a perceived symptom, not the illness (patriarchal discriminatory ideology).
-
Of course, the solution to the problem presented with traditional gender-specific garments required by the religion is not to ban the offending articles of clothing, but to create an adequately safe environment where anyone willing to abandon their tradition if they so want to do can do so without having to fear for their safety.
Bingo. Now, how do you create such an "adequately safe environment?" :)
-
Squashing religion entirely would be easier than taking out all the bits that don't jive with modern society.
-
Yes it might, but you can't force ateism on someone.
-
Squashing religion entirely would be easier than taking out all the bits that don't jive with modern society.
You're joking, right? Faith always finds a way.
-
Squashing religion entirely would be easier than taking out all the bits that don't jive with modern society.
You're joking, right? Faith always finds a way.
We got rid of smallpox and polio, faith should be up after we nab AIDS and cancer.
-
Faith is not a disease, no matter how much you want to think of it as one.
The fact that you do, frankly, is insulting.
-
Faith is not a disease, no matter how much you want to think of it as one.
The fact that you do, frankly, is insulting.
infectious, self-perpetuating, leading to deficiency in a major organ. Sounds like a disease to me.
-
infectious, self-perpetuating, leading to deficiency in a major organ. Sounds like a disease to me.
So now all ideas are disease and we must stamp them out?
-
did i say all ideas? I was just talking about the ones that make people believe in fake things as if they are real, even with the amazing lack of evidence.
-
did i say all ideas? I was just talking about the ones that make people believe in fake things as if they are real, even with the amazing lack of evidence.
You don't realize how silly you sound when you say that.
-
I don't particularly care if someone subscribes to a religious belief. Faith with regards to religion isn't necessarily a bad thing--but like everything with religion, applying it to the secular side of society is a bad thing.
Faith is belief in the absence of proof. While this isn't a bad thing when it comes to believing in salvation and unconditional forgiveness, it does become a problem when people apply the "absence of proof" to the law and science. "God said so" doesn't work when it comes to the rights of man ("homosexuality is wrong"), or to the causes of diseases (plagues being the wrath of God, etc.).
We live in a world where everything we do needs to be grounded in proof--faith is inherently contradictory to this. If we lived in a world where everyone was able to distinguish between their spiritual need for faith and the real world need for reason and proof, religion wouldn't be such a problem. Unfortunately, a fair number of people can't--and they usually end up getting their way in the world.
But when secular movements gain ground anywhere--teaching evolution in schools, legalizing gay marriage, separating church and state--religious groups have a tendency to get fussy and play the persecuted, even when secular movements want nothing more than to coexist.
So the combination of all of this--people's sensitivity to religious groups, a belief that one doesn't need proof to believe something, and people's inability to separate their spiritual and secular lives--makes religion dangerous.
-
Excellent post, Nuclear. I wish more people in the world thought like that.
-
did i say all ideas? I was just talking about the ones that make people believe in fake things as if they are real, even with the amazing lack of evidence.
Now you're upgrading it to suspension of disbelief being an inherent Moral ThreatTM.
You heard it here first folks: any kind of fiction is bad.
-
I don't particularly care if someone subscribes to a religious belief. Faith with regards to religion isn't necessarily a bad thing--but like everything with religion, applying it to the secular side of society is a bad thing.
Faith is belief in the absence of proof. While this isn't a bad thing when it comes to believing in salvation and unconditional forgiveness, it does become a problem when people apply the "absence of proof" to the law and science. "God said so" doesn't work when it comes to the rights of man ("homosexuality is wrong"), or to the causes of diseases (plagues being the wrath of God, etc.).
We live in a world where everything we do needs to be grounded in proof--faith is inherently contradictory to this. If we lived in a world where everyone was able to distinguish between their spiritual need for faith and the real world need for reason and proof, religion wouldn't be such a problem. Unfortunately, a fair number of people can't--and they usually end up getting their way in the world.
But when secular movements gain ground anywhere--teaching evolution in schools, legalizing gay marriage, separating church and state--religious groups have a tendency to get fussy and play the persecuted, even when secular movements want nothing more than to coexist.
So the combination of all of this--people's sensitivity to religious groups, a belief that one doesn't need proof to believe something, and people's inability to separate their spiritual and secular lives--makes religion dangerous.
This is the best, most concise explanation I've ever seen!
-
did i say all ideas? I was just talking about the ones that make people believe in fake things as if they are real, even with the amazing lack of evidence.
Now you're upgrading it to suspension of disbelief being an inherent Moral ThreatTM.
You heard it here first folks: any kind of fiction is bad.
For that matter, any kind of abstract idea whatsoever. Do you believe in the existence of truth? Justice? Prove it. Betcha 20+ centuries of philosophy you can't. :)
-
did i say all ideas? I was just talking about the ones that make people believe in fake things as if they are real, even with the amazing lack of evidence.
Now you're upgrading it to suspension of disbelief being an inherent Moral ThreatTM.
You heard it here first folks: any kind of fiction is bad.
For that matter, any kind of abstract idea whatsoever. Do you believe in the existence of truth? Justice? Prove it. Betcha 20+ centuries of philosophy you can't. :)
That's because, like deities, we made those things up. They don't exist naturally, they only exist in our heads. Duh.
The difference being that truth and justice are ideas that are meant to make the world a better place for everyone. Religions only create ingroups and outgroups.
-
Do I need to keep posting about how religious people are more charitable than non-religious people?
-
Religion causes charity. Also holy wars, planes into buildings, largescale slavery, genocide, widespread torture, you name it!
-
Do I need to keep posting about how religious people are more charitable than non-religious people?
I question the proposed cause-effect chain.
-
Do I need to keep posting about how religious people are more charitable than non-religious people?
Maybe if you can find any proof. :P
-
Do I need to keep posting about how religious people are more charitable than non-religious people?
Meaningless. Too methodologically confounded to be good science.
I'm not anti-religion but those sorts of claims are not empirically valid.
-
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577 (http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577)
-
Interesting that the age group 42-49 is considered 'young' by that piece...
My problem with that report is that many churches require a donation for 'church-run charities', was this differentiated from truly voluntary donations rather than 'someone's handed me the donation tin in the middle of a church, I'm going to look bad if I don't put money in'. Also, it's a common problem with any scientist performing studies on people that physics doesn't lie, people do. Some religions require a percentage of the persons' wages, they would consider that as a 'charitable' donation, because it sits more easily with their phsyche than thinking the money is taken from them.
Frankly, the whole idea you can define charitability from Social, Religious or Political leanings is a pretty iffy bit of spin-doctoring, apparently, if you are a secular liberal, you are a tight fisted bastard according to that report, I have to question the neutrality of the person creating it. I suspect there is a certain amount of bitterness amongst secular people in the US, when you have Fox News claiming that appealing to atheists is 'offensive' in Obamas inauguration speech, I don't expect they really feel all that welcome in the US. But the US is not the world, it's a very strange society in a lot of ways, constantly at war with itself over what 'Freedom' is, and who it applies to in what way. It's very difficult to set a religious 'standard' of behaviour from the US because many people say they are religious purely to avoid being persecuted for not being so.
Edit: Look at it this way, we've got the Pope here in the UK at the moment attempting to re-write history and Hitlers motives behind WW2, purely for the sake of demonizing atheists. I don't think it will work, because he picked the wrong country to say it in, the UK is pretty aware of the history behind WW2, but there are countries where that kind of claim would have taken a hold because people wanted to believe it. I would include the US on that list.
-
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577 (http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577)
It's a good effort, but it doesn't say what you want it to. Page through it and check out why he thinks religious people give more to charities than non-religious people. It doesn't support your implied argument that being religious makes you more charitable.
To actually demonstrate what you're trying to demonstrate, you need to run probit regressions on two groups of people that gather weekly to discuss social ills and community spirit and are then asked by a leader to give charitably. One group needs to be secular, the other religious (which religion doesn't matter.) Only then could you start getting some meaningful data, but it still wouldn't be as good as an experimental intervention.
Moreover, his finding that the actual religion doesn't matter seems to support the hypothesis that it's the congregational gathering that may promote charitable behavior, not any socially exogenous traits.
As he himself says, and as you should have read:
On the other hand, the connection between religiosity and generosity might be more earth-bound: It might be that religion simply has a strong pedagogical (endogenous) influence over giving and volunteering. Houses of worship might teach their congregants the religious duty to give, and about both the physical and spiritual needs of the poor. Simply put, people may be more likely to learn charity inside a church, synagogue, or mosque than outside. If charity is indeed a learned behavior, it may be that houses of worship are only one means (albeit an especially efficacious one) to teach it. Secularists interested in increasing charitable giving and volunteering among their ranks might spend some effort thinking of alternative ways to foster these habits.
So in summation, it could well be that constantly being told to care for your fellow humans makes you more charitable. (He also advances the hypothesis that secular individuals are more likely to support social intervention via government rather than via private charity.)
Learning to think critically about social science methodology is a long and Byzantine process, and the man who wrote this paper is good at it; he recognizes the limits of his own findings. Don't over interpret the abstract.
-
Didn't get to the bottom of the paper there, yeah, he does cover some of my concerns later in the piece.
-
In short what I'm hypothesizing is that if a bunch of secular people went to sit together in a building every day and hear some lectures about community and helping people out (which is what my congregational church was like), and then they were asked to give to charity, they'd behave like religious folk.
My church had an offering plate every service to give to the poor, and I gave even though I was never a believa.
-
Exactly, I find myself wondering whether the term 'give' really applies here, since give requires a totally self-produced decision, whereas there is a great deal of social pressure on church attendees to do so, so it's not so much giving as keeping up appearances.
Edit: Not that there aren't some very charitable and generous religious people, but doing it 'by the numbers' is probably not the best way of getting a feel of the situation.
-
And I still don't believe this crap would be said if we were dealing with Christianity cause Christianity is a white religion. I find it very hard to believe Rodo or yourself would agree to a law discriminatory to you with a simple claim that you could leave the country if you didn't like it.
I'm not Christian, my mother is Jehova's wittiness and I was "forced" (not forced, but you know... she took me because she thought it was the best thing for me) to join her until I grew a brain (say... 12 years old) and realized religion was not the kind of thing that moves my will, so I left.
So far I've found all religions to be lacking something else, to get my interest drives back on line.
I never said you were a Christian. Guess what, whether you are or not has nothing to do with whether I am correct or not.
Your "If they don't like it, they can leave the country" comment is rather too close to the "If they don't like it, they can go back to their own country" espoused by Jean Marie Le Pen and his ilk. You would never hear that kind of comment about a similar law affecting Christianity because Christianity is a white religion and therefore the people affected by that law would be viewed as being ethnically French. But when it is Muslims, well we're dealing with people who are immigrants or descendants of immigrants so it's fine to say that they should get out if they don't like it.
It is in their rights, they can react as they see fit (its their right, it's my right), but for everything they do there's a possible reaction and a responsibility for the result of said action.
So my point is, the sensitive thing to do in this case (where the majority seems to be clearly taking a power stand and a no back down resolution) is to either abide or leave.
There's is a third option, but the look for the "win-win" here is almost nullified because of the majority's power stand.
Or you can challenge it.
I'm still of the opinion that you wouldn't roll over quite so quickly for something that affected you.
-
I never said you were a Christian. Guess what, whether you are or not has nothing to do with whether I am correct or not.
Your "If they don't like it, they can leave the country" comment is rather too close to the "If they don't like it, they can go back to their own country" espoused by Jean Marie Le Pen and his ilk. You would never hear that kind of comment about a similar law affecting Christianity because Christianity is a white religion and therefore the people affected by that law would be viewed as being ethnically French. But when it is Muslims, well we're dealing with people who are immigrants or descendants of immigrants so it's fine to say that they should get out if they don't like it.
Ohhh I see, you are right, that's what I'm saying, but wait, it's not because I hate Muslims or something like that.
I'll expand my pov and the why to that way of thinking:
Quoting the article:
"Given the damage it produces on those rules which allow the life in community, ensure the dignity of the person and equality between sexes, this practice, even if it is voluntary, cannot be tolerated in any public place"
The marked part, don't give me that ****!
I know some stuff CAN be tolerated, some other stuff cannot, this one falls WELL in the first category.
Humans can tolerate inequality quite well, you and I can come across some poor homeless person in the street and keep on walking like nothing has happened and the world will keep on spinning just the same.
Also remember this?: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2435.2006.00362.x/abstract
Another thing:
You could think that the French gov is going to the rescue of some poor enslaved woman saving them from their mean husbands and/or religions, but I can't help but to think that this law is not about equality.
1) Woman living in France, I bet they can go to authorities and ask for some kind of help if they are being mistreated, right?... so, that's one less reason.
2) There's the case where woman use that willingly, so we'll just assume this law is not for them either. (although they'll have to pay some $$ now :( )
3) Ensuring the dignity of the woman??... well if they don't feel bad about using a burqa, why would French feel bad at all?
4) "Given the damage it produces on those rules which allow the life in community" ... well what can I say... so this law is more for everyone else to feel better than for the poor little woman using the burqas, is that?
I can't think of any more now, I bet you can find some good points on this law as well as I found bad ones, but.... I'll just explain why I think they should leave France:
I think that law is a message, I think they don't like Muslims living with them, and so they are putting this marvellously saving law to pressure some of them.
It's like... We will not kick you out, but BOY... your life will suck if you stay.
The article says a pool was made, majority of civilians backed this law!
And I bet the few that voted against it actually knew Muslims or where friends with one, and realised that this law was pointless and a nuisance to them.
So see, it's not me saying they should get out of France just because they are Muslims, it's them saying that, even if they don't say it out loud... they are saying it.
So I say, It would be "sensitive" of them to leave France now... just because they are Muslims.
This is just a personal opinion on the matter, I took the intel I've got and got a resolution, I can be completely wrong, and just for the record... no, I don't hate French people.
-
So you're claiming that because the majority of the French are quite happy to pass a bigoted and possibly racist law, those affected should leave?
-
Isn't the usual explanation for burqas the metaphor with the dogs and the uncovered plate of raw meat? What a stupid tradition. I have no sympathy. I hope they ban sunglasses indoors as well.
-
From my pov that's the sensitive thing to do in this case, there's a certain tension in that matter that I just don't like.
From a perspective, this law is definitely bad for their way of life, but I guess they can go to court and ask for permition to use burqas, but until they get the permition (if that's even possible), what will they do?
Will women live locked inside just because they can't use burqas? (Ironical, for a law that's supposed to be for the best of the community)
Will they give up on their believes until that permit?
It's their call ultimately, I bet most will just go for the court option and/or abide, the others well... I don't know, might leave or just pay $$.
I'll drop it now, and oh I just forgot about this:
I'm still of the opinion that you wouldn't roll over quite so quickly for something that affected you.
Guilty as charged, don't you see that huge post I just wrote? :p
Ohh, sorry about the length btw.
I'll drop the subjet now If you don't mind, I have said just about everything I think about the matter by now.
-
Isn't the usual explanation for burqas the metaphor with the dogs and the uncovered plate of raw meat? What a stupid tradition. I have no sympathy. I hope they ban sunglasses indoors as well.
I dislike the idea of women wearing them too but I feel that a law making them illegal is an invasion of civil liberties that shouldn't be tolerated. Especially when accompanied with calls that people should simply leave the country if they don't like the rule.
For the cost of passing this dumb law (and that of the first test case that will be brought as soon as they attempt to enforce it) they could have simply filmed a dozen pornos involving women in burkas and shown them in public. The resulting sexualisation of the burka would have completely undermined it's entire raison d'etre. :p
-
Ooh baby, your tent-covered body makes me soooooo hot.
-
You only need to look at the amount of porn involving nuns to know that there's probably someone out there already jacking off to that. :p
You'd just need to mainstream it a little more. :D
-
Ooh baby, your tent-covered body makes me soooooo hot.
A little mystery can be powerfully attractive believe it or not.
-
So now all ideas are disease and we must stamp them out?
With fire.
-
So now all ideas are disease and we must stamp them out?
that's a great idea!