Gnostic Bishop wrote: Indeed. While many other imams on the right wing encourage it.

True, that, especially in Sudan and Somalia, and perhaps Mauritania and Mali. However, the campaign against FGM has included a widely endorsed fatwa, while I am not aware of anything so official supporting the practice. Of course there are probably thousands of Donald Trump wannabes who despise such political correctness.

Harry Marks wrote:

Gnostic Bishop wrote: I see the apparel in question is just the tip of the oppression that Muslim women are subject to and see a ban as us freeing the many while unfortunately oppressing the few who do wear this apparel by choice.
I see nothing vindictive in this. Unfortunate for the few, yes. Vindictive, no.

So if there is any compulsion exercised to restrict people's freedom of choice, then the required thing must be outlawed to protect other potential victims? If many men compel their wives to stay home and not get a job, then all women must have jobs? Unfortunate for those who don't want to, of course, but just the way the cookie crumbles?

I find this reasoning to be hard to follow.

Apples and oranges.

Do you believe that Muslim men should be allowed to continue oppressing their wives and daughters?

If not, I am open to any workable solution.

For evil to grow, all good people need do is nothing.

Regards
DL

Harry Marks wrote:

Gnostic Bishop wrote: Unfortunately I did not save it.

The policy to which you refer is well known. You can find in explained Wikipedia as jizya. It appears to be much higher than the zaqat paid by Muslims.

Gnostic Bishop wrote: Further, one need not seek hard to find where Muslims have definitely targeted and killed many people of the book.

True, but not forced conversions or enslavement as the Yazidis faced. Presumably opposing them makes you subject to punishment whatever your background.

Indeed.

I was motivated to try to find this link again and with your help, I did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp9TTEXOrME

I found it hard to follow so found a transcript on it as well as another explaining the conditions of Omar.

http://counterjihadreport.com/2015/10/2 ... eal-islam/

http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/wes ... s-of-omar/

Regards
DL

I asked D.B. Roy which articles, specifically, would be made illegal. What do people think who favor making illegal some types of garb worn in the Middle East? The hijab usually refers to the hair and neck covering, so I didn't know if this item would be banned as well. Would there be any thoughts on enforcement and penalties, since these are inseparable from law?

mlmooney89 wrote: I agree it's also bigotry but I say racist because you can't tell what a person is thinking, what their religion is, or anything personal when it's just men sitting on a plane.

There's a time for liberal-singing-kumbaya bullshit and there's a time for considering what is prudent in a given situation. If you're driving down a street in Detroit and the sidewalks are crowded with dozens of young black men sitting around congregating (I speak from experience because you WILL see this in Detroit), do you pull over and ask for directions or park there and go into a store based on the assumption that most blacks are not violent and anyone who would be afraid to do so is obviously a racist? Because I KNOW this: you're not getting out of that damn car and I know you're not and YOU know you're not. And if you did, you're an idiot because most blacks would tell you not to get out of your car or pull and try to talk to any of those guys and I also know this by experience. And I live in a predominantly black neighborhood just outside of Detroit where all my immediate neighbors are black except one. And anyone from Detroit will tell you to NEVER stop for gas after dark in Detroit. There's a time for being an annoying liberal dweeb and there's a time for not getting yourself killed doing something stupid because you want to prove how you're not a racist. If a group of Muslims get on my flight and I just don't like the feeling I'm getting from them, I'm getting off. If that makes me a racist--so what? It's not hurting them or anyone and, at worst, inconveniences me. But, once again, talk is EASY but when you find yourself actually faced with that choice--get off the flight or take your chances at 20,000 with a group of people who don't make you feel warm and fuzzy inside--you're getting off whether you think you are or not.

Or what if you're sitting in a bar and you notice it's starting to fill up with white guys with shaved heads. Do you stay? After all, if you leave, you're a racist who thinks just because a white guy has a shaved head that you know what he's thinking. Of course, you're getting out of there.

In order to hate them

I never said I hated anybody. I certainly don't hate blacks or I wouldn't live in this neighborhood but I also know when you're in a place and black guys who look in such a way that it makes you uncomfortable start showing up, you get out of there. You don't tempt fate.

DL is basing all of his presumptions on the fact that those men have dark skin, eyes, and hair.

That's funny because I have dark skin, eyes and hair. I'm not white. I am Japanese and American Indian and I have been mistaken many times for being Arab, Mexican, East Indian and "Turk".

I don't know if I am mistaken but I consider middle eastern a race in itself

Yes, you are mistaken--try looking it up to find out why. So who is the racist here?

and to me if you look at a person that is middle eastern and decide they are dangerous based solely on that fact I consider it racist.

It's not based solely on that and that's a surprisingly stupid thing to say. My racist prejudice again "Middle Easterners" is based more on data as this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1993321/posts

DWill wrote: So you believe, D.B., that had Christianity somehow not existed, we would never have seen a scourge like the KKK--I mean that no group would have arisen that had a core ideology of hatred of blacks and other minorities?

No, that is not what I said. boy, you liberals on this board. You really like setting up straw men. I said there would have been no KKK--period!

It doesn't matter, does it, that the group wouldn't be specifically the KKK.

Actually, it does since that's the specific group we're talking about. None other was mentioned.

You've acknowledged (haven't you?) that Christianity is not a racist religion, so why do you say that Christianity was so essential to the rise of the KKK?

If I said Christianity is not a racist religion then I spoke wrongly. I should have said, Christianity is not necessarily a racist religion because it does contain racism (Ezra) but a Christian who reads it isn't necessarily going to become a racist. But the rationale is there for anyone who is a racist. And in itself answers the second part of your question.

You seem to be placing too much importance on what groups use as an identity. Anyone can wrap themselves in the mantle of Christianity or any other religion, cite or interpret some scriptures, and say that they're acting in strict accordance with that faith. It's a great opportunity for any wayward group to claim legitimacy, by co-opting the dominant respected religion. But we need at least to be cautious when approaching the matter of whether the religion itself was truly enabling of the resulting ideology. Reza Aslan said, in the video geo linked us to, that people bring a bunch of notions and dispositions to the religion they adopt, and I generally agree with that. Religions are more plastic than many critics are willing to admit.

I don't understand what any of that has to do with the idea that Christianity spawned the Klan. The people in the Klan are Christians, you cannot join most, or probably any, Klan groups unless you are a Christian. And Christianity plays a huge role in their racist view of the universe. No need to make this harder than it is.

In the rest of your post, you seem to be implying that I'm ignoring or denying that people who identify as Muslim have done a whole lot of terrible things, especially recently. I'm not. But I don't agree, as you seem to be claiming, that being Muslim means that inevitably they will act in these destructive ways, because that element in encoded into anyone who says he or she is Muslim.

I wasn't aware that I said that anyone who is a Muslim will commit violence. Thank you for pointing out that erroneous statement in my postings.

I'm well aware of the problem passages in the Koran and that currently Islam is undergoing a dangerous and threatening phase on the part of a significant number of its adherents. We simply need to avoid letting emotions ruin an analysis of the larger picture. This is especially important in not playing into the hands of ISIL, which wants us to marginalize Muslims in general so that more will be driven into the radical ranks and will flock to the IS, which will then be the scene of Armageddon.

I would say that Muslims have largely isolated themselves. That's generally what happens when you speak an argot and impose on yourself a dress code that runs counter to the prevailing fashions of the society in which you live--you marginalize yourself. If that's what you want to do, that's fine, just don't turn and complain about being marginalized.

Gnostic Bishop wrote:

Harry Marks wrote:

Gnostic Bishop wrote: I see the apparel in question is just the tip of the oppression that Muslim women are subject to and see a ban as us freeing the many while unfortunately oppressing the few who do wear this apparel by choice.

So if there is any compulsion exercised to restrict people's freedom of choice, then the required thing must be outlawed to protect other potential victims?

Apples and oranges.Do you believe that Muslim men should be allowed to continue oppressing their wives and daughters?

As you observe, the apparel is a small part of the oppression. Forcing apparel the men see as shameful in public is hardly the same as liberation, though it may make some small contribution. My father tried to insist that my mother should not wear trousers ("pantsuits"). I hardly see that requiring trousers for women would solve the problem of the relationship.

Such attitudes and systems are difficult to change, and require time and education. In general, applying discussion and persuasion seems to me a more likely approach than pretending to have created assimilation by requiring the outward appearance of it.

When there is a question of physical harm, it makes perfect sense to sanction violent behavior. That is a neutral, universal standard. And even when it has been made to be the law, and bigoted lack of enforcement has been addressed, it has not stopped all such behavior. These things change slowly.

DWill wrote:I asked D.B. Roy which articles, specifically, would be made illegal. What do people think who favor making illegal some types of garb worn in the Middle East? The hijab usually refers to the hair and neck covering, so I didn't know if this item would be banned as well. Would there be any thoughts on enforcement and penalties, since these are inseparable from law?

There are a number of countries now who have laws that ban such apparel, Chad and France come to mind, as well as a number of countries working on legislation. We can look at those models and then let our own governments work out the details.

The Qur'an and Mohamed preached to cover the bosom, not the head or face. That bit was instituted by misogynous men to oppress women. So is their rape law and child bride policy.

Regards
DL

Harry Marks wrote:[
So if there is any compulsion exercised to restrict people's freedom of choice, then the required thing must be outlawed to protect other potential victims?

Apples and oranges.Do you believe that Muslim men should be allowed to continue oppressing their wives and daughters?
[/quote]
As you observe, the apparel is a small part of the oppression. Forcing apparel the men see as shameful in public is hardly the same as liberation, though it may make some small contribution. My father tried to insist that my mother should not wear trousers ("pantsuits"). I hardly see that requiring trousers for women would solve the problem of the relationship.

Such attitudes and systems are difficult to change, and require time and education. In general, applying discussion and persuasion seems to me a more likely approach than pretending to have created assimilation by requiring the outward appearance of it.

When there is a question of physical harm, it makes perfect sense to sanction violent behavior. That is a neutral, universal standard. And even when it has been made to be the law, and bigoted lack of enforcement has been addressed, it has not stopped all such behavior. These things change slowly.[/quote]

You ignore the psychological factor.

If you act free, even if forced to by law, eventually you start to believe you are free and you become free.

Do you recall reading of this social experiment?

They ended it early when the professor saw that the role players were becoming what they were pretending to be.

http://wn.com/zimbardo's_stanford_prison_experiment

Regards
DL

There's a time for liberal-singing-kumbaya bullshit and there's a time for considering what is prudent in a given situation. If you're driving down a street in Detroit and the sidewalks are crowded with dozens of young black men sitting around congregating (I speak from experience because you WILL see this in Detroit), do you pull over and ask for directions or park there and go into a store based on the assumption that most blacks are not violent and anyone who would be afraid to do so is obviously a racist? Because I KNOW this: you're not getting out of that damn car and I know you're not and YOU know you're not. And if you did, you're an idiot because most blacks would tell you not to get out of your car or pull and try to talk to any of those guys and I also know this by experience. And I live in a predominantly black neighborhood just outside of Detroit where all my immediate neighbors are black except one. And anyone from Detroit will tell you to NEVER stop for gas after dark in Detroit. There's a time for being an annoying liberal dweeb and there's a time for not getting yourself killed doing something stupid because you want to prove how you're not a racist. If a group of Muslims get on my flight and I just don't like the feeling I'm getting from them, I'm getting off. If that makes me a racist--so what? It's not hurting them or anyone and, at worst, inconveniences me. But, once again, talk is EASY but when you find yourself actually faced with that choice--get off the flight or take your chances at 20,000 with a group of people who don't make you feel warm and fuzzy inside--you're getting off whether you think you are or not.

Or what if you're sitting in a bar and you notice it's starting to fill up with white guys with shaved heads. Do you stay? After all, if you leave, you're a racist who thinks just because a white guy has a shaved head that you know what he's thinking. Of course, you're getting out of there.

I’ve made it quite clear that I own a gun and that I carry it on me (not in my person but actually on me). I’m not afraid of getting gas after dark anywhere please don’t tell me what I would and wouldn’t do. I live in Austin and while it is no Detroit it isn’t safe either. My fiancé works 24 hour shifts (meaning I spend most nights alone) and I go to work at 445am in the black of morning. Just recently I had to walk out to my truck past a man that was running around the building. He was black but that isn’t what spurred me to make sure my gun was ready. It was the fact that he was naked and popped up around the corner next to me.

I get if the men on the plane were acting shady then yes perhaps get off the plane but I can’t agree with just ‘a feeling’ causing issues. I didn’t get warm and fuzzy feeling from the naked man next to me but I didn’t run, scream, or shoot him just for putting me into watch mode. I continued to my truck and he went the opposite direction. The men on the plane I assume are just sitting there because you didn’t give specifics and made it seem that they just –looked- shady.

I wouldn’t say that I would be cautious as a result of common sense racism in a bad part of town because all races have a bad side of town. My logic isn’t ‘oh look a group of black men I should be careful’. It’s more of a ‘this has a high crime rate area and there are a lot of people looking at me like I could be lunch’. This is simply because they could be any color and my thoughts wouldn’t be any different based on where I am standing/parking. I don’t know about Detroit but here in Texas a group of Mexicans are no less scary than a group of black people. I’ve grown up and lived on military posts until just 3 years ago and because of the diversity of the army I have seen thugs in every color.

As for the race; alright I looked it up (and while I find it hard to comprehend since a lot of them do not actually have white skin and resemble more of the dark skin African’s are usually stereotyped with… and then Asian gets its own race but they look whiter than the middle easterns. ((Side side note is that my coworker is from South Africa and while many people assume she is British she is a quarter Chinese and growing up any Chinese at all would have labeled her as ‘black’ in her country so her mother didn’t tell her that her father was half Chinese until the law changed when she was already grown. Apparently she was ‘lucky’ in that she looked ‘white’)) middle easterns are indeed considered white. So I will recant the racism remark and figure out another. Bigotry I reckon does work best. Could we say sectarianism? I mean it is one particular group in a wide selection. Being white they fall into the same category as I do but I’m not hated or thought suspicious. Alas though my much older and wiser coworker (the above mentioned) says that word isn’t really the right one so perhaps ant is correct in just using bigotry. I suppose it just doesn’t seem hard enough for what a lot of people are doing to these people.

That's funny because I have dark skin, eyes and hair. I'm not white. I am Japanese and American Indian and I have been mistaken many times for being Arab, Mexican, East Indian and "Turk".

I didn’t literally mean simply dark skin and such. I should have been more specific in that it was simply based on looks and that they most likely are from the Middle East. Also I meant DB so I need to go back and correct that part.

Yes, you are mistaken--try looking it up to find out why. So who is the racist here?

I don’t think it’s racism if one doesn’t realize that a person is a different race than suggested. It was simply ignorance. Which I have fixed- thank you for alerting me so that I would be provoked into acquiring the true information. It was naïve and childish for me not to research that first.