PDA

View Full Version : Should cultural/religious facial coverings be banned?


spikejones
11-05-10, 20:39
Since the other thread just got locked while I was midway through typing, I'm going to post this anyhow, including the parts that pertained to the other thread, as I feel they are pertinent to my discussion. Feel free to continue here as you wish.


------------------------

storm trooper = costume
some places actually do require you to remove any masks, hoods, etc before entering - especially if they have been subject to robbery or other crime where the purpetrator was wearing a haloween costume etc.

burkha/veil = cultural wear
disallowing the wearing of said items in accordance with the above scenario I can see as acceptable. however to disallow the public wear of such items is, in my opinion, racist and intolerant.

People seem to think that all wome (who do wear) are forced to wear said items. And so, they feel it is their duty to forcibly undermine such "forced" opression by banning it. Yet I wonder do said people stop to consider how many of these women actually choose to wear said item? Case in point... In some countries the reading of the Bible is illegal. For a Christian person, the reading of such material is not a question of being forced to do so.. they do so willingly. Now lets say for arguments sake that one of these countries has a total misunderstanding of the Christian religion and belives that people are forced to read the Bible if they are of the Christian faith. And so this country decides that it is in the best interest of all to ban the Bible, thus freeing people of being forced to read the Bible. What they've just done is essentially make it illegal to study Christianity.

Obviously many people would be in an outrage against such action. Yet how is that any different than banning the cultural/religious wear of another people?

xXhayleyroxXx
11-05-10, 20:42
No. I think its terrible when they are told to remove the veils. To me, its sort of like saying to them they cant supoort their religion at school or whereever they are not allowed to wear the veil. I support freedom, veils or costume should be allowed.

Sgt BOMBULOUS
11-05-10, 20:44
Since the other thread just got locked while I was midway through typing, I'm going to post this anyhow, including the parts that pertained to the other thread, as I feel they are pertinent to my discussion. Feel free to continue here as you wish.


------------------------

storm trooper = costume
some places actually do require you to remove any masks, hoods, etc before entering - especially if they have been subject to robbery or other crime where the purpetrator was wearing a haloween costume etc.

burkha/veil = cultural wear
disallowing the wearing of said items in accordance with the above scenario I can see as acceptable. however to disallow the public wear of such items is, in my opinion, racist and intolerant.

People seem to think that all wome (who do wear) are forced to wear said items. And so, they feel it is their duty to forcibly undermine such "forced" opression by banning it. Yet I wonder do said people stop to consider how many of these women actually choose to wear said item? Case in point... In some countries the reading of the Bible is illegal. For a Christian person, the reading of such material is not a question of being forced to do so.. they do so willingly. Now lets say for arguments sake that one of these countries has a total misunderstanding of the Christian religion and belives that people are forced to read the Bible if they are of the Christian faith. And so this country decides that it is in the best interest of all to ban the Bible, thus freeing people of being forced to read the Bible. What they've just done is essentially make it illegal to study Christianity.

Obviously many people would be in an outrage against such action. Yet how is that any different than banning the cultural/religious wear of another people?

The religion in question has oppression of women as one of it's cornerstones, and they're not even subtle about it. I think this is behind Frances ban.

Lara's home
11-05-10, 20:47
I think coverings etc should be banned at, for example, school, for the same reason that a cap would be. If girls simply wear a hijab(?), because they want to, and not because they are forced too, we, none religious people too, shoul be allowed to wear whatever coverings we wanted too.

aktrekker
11-05-10, 20:47
There is a thread about this.
France moves to ban the Burka (http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showthread.php?t=163924)

I'll leave this one open for now. But please, drop the storm troopers.

Mystery-King
11-05-10, 20:49
I don't find having to remove the burkha racist or intolerant. After all their religion doesn't require them to wear one, they just do if I remember correctly.

TRfan23
11-05-10, 20:49
*Waits for a Muslim to come in and make people realize that head veils in Islam have had no religious significance whatsoever!*

tbh in the quran it actually forbids the use of head veils in religious ceremonies, and that's the closest you get to on the subject of head veils and Islam :)


It all comes down to Government dictation brainwashing the majority of Muslim woman (and people in other countries so it seems) to think it has a religious significance.


btw - I'm referring at ones which completely cover a persons face like the Burkha ;)

Oh wait a veil is what covers a face, lol my bad :o

robm_2007
11-05-10, 20:58
if Muslim women need to wear a Hijab, then let them. i can understand if they are covering thier whole face, it may seem suspicious, but a hijab (AFAIK), dosent cover the face.

but ppl that arent even Muslim, they shouldnt be allowed to wear them in school, if they are doing it to be mocking or *sacreligious (*is that the right word?)

Quasimodo
11-05-10, 21:31
The religion in question has oppression of women as one of it's cornerstones, and they're not even subtle about it. I think this is behind Frances ban.

I've heard the opposite from a lot of Muslims; it seems as though it's more accurate to say certain countries/tribes/cultures within the Islamic community promote the oppression of women.

This is a difficult subject because you run the risk of trying to put Western values over all others. I can respect that people want to express their religion freely, but personally, the Western/feminist side of me finds it hard to reconcile personal and religious freedom with covering yourself up to that degree no matter the weather or the hindrance to your safety if your vision is obscured.

I think one of the main reason France or any other country would ban the veils is because they see such things as refusal by a minority group to integrate with the rest of society.

Chocola teapot
11-05-10, 21:32
We have to uphold their rules in their country, they should In ours.

Nenya awakens
11-05-10, 21:34
We have to uphold their rules in their country, they should In ours.

I actually agree with this.

Quasimodo
11-05-10, 21:35
We have to uphold their rules in their country, they should In ours.

So how far should multiculturalism go? Is it realistic to expect a certain degree of tolerance and compatibility between many different cultures and values?

Mad Tony
11-05-10, 21:36
Depends entirely on the situation and the face coverings in question.

Sgt BOMBULOUS
11-05-10, 21:37
I've heard the opposite from a lot of Muslims; it seems as though it's more accurate to say certain countries/tribes/cultures within the Islamic community promote the oppression of women.

This is a difficult subject because you run the risk of trying to put Western values over all others. I can respect that people want to express their religion freely, but personally, the Western/feminist side of me finds it hard to reconcile personal and religious freedom with covering yourself up to that degree no matter the weather or the hindrance to your safety if your vision is obscured.

I think one of the main reason France or any other country would ban the veils is because they see such things as refusal by a minority group to integrate with the rest of society.

I have a Muslim friend. I've seen her pictures from a family vacation. In those pictures she's dressed in a scarf (not the burka though) and very conservative clothes. Basically the only skin that is showing is her face and her hands... Meanwhile her brothers are both dressed like P-Diddy. That just grinds my gears... Women have to do all this ridiculous crap and the men can wear ANYTHING they want.

Laralissa
11-05-10, 21:45
I think as a matter of security, facial coverings like this are dangerous. Im not saying every single person who wears cultural clothing is a terrorist, but as far as Im concerned, one they're in the UK they should have to abide by the same rules we do. ID photos for instance. How the heck are we meant to identify someone if theyre wearing a veil? Im sure if I tried to apply for a passport with me wearing a hoodie in the photo Id be turned away immediately, and rightly so.

Chocola teapot
11-05-10, 21:45
So how far should multiculturalism go? Is it realistic to expect a certain degree of tolerance and compatibility between many different cultures and values?

Well ofcorse, a certain degree of tolerance is to be expected.
On one hand, a simple religious garment will most likely be perfectly acceptable.
On the other hand, a burka for example, is a sign of opression and obscures the wearers identity.

The person in question should be easily identifiable, for many reasons.

Beans-Bot
11-05-10, 21:45
The religion in question has oppression of women as one of it's cornerstones, and they're not even subtle about it. I think this is behind Frances ban.

That's about as accurate as using the actions of the KKK to support that Christians oppress women, minorities, homosexuals, etc.

The countries and regions that recognize things like burqas and such belong to a fringe group of the religion as a whole. You're a military man, I expected you to know this.

As for banning facial coverings, I'm against it. While these may be part of a fringe group, the people practicing them consider the coverings to be extremely sacred. It would be like a Christian being told to remove their rosary. I believe it's just as much oppression as is put upon the people being forced to wear them, so it creates a viscous cycle.

IceColdLaraCroft
11-05-10, 21:51
Since the other thread just got locked while I was midway through typing, I'm going to post this anyhow, including the parts that pertained to the other thread, as I feel they are pertinent to my discussion. Feel free to continue here as you wish.
------------------------
storm trooper = costume
some places actually do require you to remove any masks, hoods, etc before entering - especially if they have been subject to robbery or other crime where the purpetrator was wearing a haloween costume etc.
burkha/veil = cultural wear
disallowing the wearing of said items in accordance with the above scenario I can see as acceptable. however to disallow the public wear of such items is, in my opinion, racist and intolerant.
People seem to think that all wome (who do wear) are forced to wear said items. And so, they feel it is their duty to forcibly undermine such "forced" opression by banning it. Yet I wonder do said people stop to consider how many of these women actually choose to wear said item? Case in point... In some countries the reading of the Bible is illegal. For a Christian person, the reading of such material is not a question of being forced to do so.. they do so willingly. Now lets say for arguments sake that one of these countries has a total misunderstanding of the Christian religion and belives that people are forced to read the Bible if they are of the Christian faith. And so this country decides that it is in the best interest of all to ban the Bible, thus freeing people of being forced to read the Bible. What they've just done is essentially make it illegal to study Christianity.

Obviously many people would be in an outrage against such action. Yet how is that any different than banning the cultural/religious wear of another people?

:hug: thank you for bringing this back.

I think making someone reveal their face is just as oppressive as making them wear a veil if they don't want to

The religion in question has oppression of women as one of it's cornerstones, and they're not even subtle about it. I think this is behind Frances ban.

France is banning the veil because it doesn't "conform to French values" it's entirely a racial/religious move. It's isn't being done to "liberate" women it's b/c Paris has more Muslims than any other capital in Europe and they're afraid of loosing their "French identity"

There is a thread about this.
France moves to ban the Burka (http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showthread.php?t=163924)
I'll leave this one open for now. But please, drop the storm troopers.

You completely misunderstood why it was being used as a comparison and that's not fair. Especially since you called me a troll when i was trying to discuss a serious topic of why it's ok for someone in a movie costume to walk around completely covered, but when someone SERIOUSLY covers themselves for their own religious reasons then it's "wrong"

Lara's home
11-05-10, 21:54
You completely misunderstood why it was being used as a comparison and that's not fair. Especially since you called me a troll when i was trying to discuss a serious topic of why it's ok for someone in a movie costume to walk around completely covered, but when someone SERIOUSLY covers themselves for their own religious reasons then it's "wrong"

It is? Could you post whatever source you had/have on this?

Mad Tony
11-05-10, 21:57
It is? Could you post whatever source you had/have on this?Oh stop your trolling...

Lara's home
11-05-10, 22:00
Oh stop your trolling...

Wait, what?

Quasimodo
11-05-10, 22:00
I don't see why people are saying this is a racial thing. It's pretty racist to assume all Muslims have tan skin and dark hair :whi:

Mad Tony
11-05-10, 22:01
Wait, what?He thinks asking people to expand upon their views or statements is trolling.

Check the Gordon Brown thread. Sorry, it's a shame you can't get sarcasm across properly on the internet. :p

Sgt BOMBULOUS
11-05-10, 22:01
That's about as accurate as using the actions of the KKK to support that Christians oppress women, minorities, homosexuals, etc.

The countries and regions that recognize things like burqas and such belong to a fringe group of the religion as a whole. You're a military man, I expected you to know this.

As for banning facial coverings, I'm against it. While these may be part of a fringe group, the people practicing them consider the coverings to be extremely sacred. It would be like a Christian being told to remove their rosary. I believe it's just as much oppression as is put upon the people being forced to wear them, so it creates a viscous cycle.

Perhaps "Religion" was the wrong term as it's too broad. But what about those who do institute the veil/burqa? Anyone who thinks it's being done for the women's best interest can't be taken seriously.

Lara's home
11-05-10, 22:02
He thinks asking people to expand upon their views or statements is trolling.

Check the Gordon Brown thread. Sorry, it's a shame you can't get sarcasm across properly on the internet. :p
So, basically.. I failed you? :(

Quasimodo
11-05-10, 22:03
I wonder why France and Belgium would do such a ballsy thing trying to ban the veil, whereas other Western nations like the U.S. and U.K. wouldn't dare try such a thing?

Mad Tony
11-05-10, 22:04
I wonder why France and Belgium would do such a ballsy thing trying to ban the veil, whereas other Western nations like the U.S. and U.K. wouldn't dare try such a thing?Well I know here the small majority of Muslims who are extreme and violent would cause mass riots if the government even attempted to do that - and they'd probably get away with it (although who knows how this new government will treat extremists). I can't speak for the US.

So, basically.. I failed you? :(What? :p

Quasimodo
11-05-10, 22:07
AFAIK France has had bombings, too :confused:

Mad Tony
11-05-10, 22:08
AFAIK France has had bombings, too :confused:What, as a result of this?

woody543
11-05-10, 22:20
I don't think that they should be banned, as yes that is racist.

I don't agree with the idea behind the burqa, as I feel it's sexist and a way for men to express their control over women. I understand that some women do make the choice to wear them, but the fundamental principle behind them is to cover up themselves as only the men in their family are allowed to see them and no others. Which is an archaic view.

Ward Dragon
11-05-10, 22:22
I wonder why France and Belgium would do such a ballsy thing trying to ban the veil, whereas other Western nations like the U.S. and U.K. wouldn't dare try such a thing?

I think it's partly a response to 2005 when a lot of Muslim youth ran riot (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/04/AR2005110400183.html). Such a significant number of people taking part in that must have emphasized the lack of assimilation of the Muslim population in the country. France is probably trying to force people to become French or leave because this situation with a lot of foreigners living there hating the place is really not working out for the country.

I found an article from January about France's ban which basically explains why they did it:

A parliamentary panel convened six months ago by French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Tuesday issued a much-anticipated, 200-page report recommending that women be banned from wearing the full-face veil in public office buildings, schools, hospitals and while using mass transit. The full-face veil is viewed by many in France as a sign of extremism and a threat to gender equality and secularism.

Sarkozy began the debate in June when he said that the full-face veil was "not welcome" in France, currently home to more than 5 million Muslims, the largest such population in Europe. At present, fewer than 2,000 Muslim women wear the full-face veil in France, according to Interior Ministry statistics.

Lawmaker André Gerin, the president of the 32-person, multiparty parliamentary panel, has called the full-face veil in France "the visible part of the iceberg" and warned that "behind the iceberg is a black tide of fundamentalism."

A group called Ni Putes Ni Soumises (Neither Whores Nor Submissives), which represents French women of North African origin, agrees. On Monday night in Paris, members demonstrated in support of the burqa ban by donning full veils and maintaining silence to indicate suppression.

"We must say no to the burqa," said Sihem Habchi, the group's president. "Women's rights are not merely a matter of a few inches of fabric, but the burqa is a symbol of oppression against women."

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/france-moves-ahead-on-ban-of-full-face-veils-and-burkas/19332042

Mad Tony
11-05-10, 22:22
I don't think that they should be banned, as yes that is racist.How is it racist when there are obviously white western women out there who wear religious facial coverings as well?

Laralissa
11-05-10, 22:27
How is it racist when there are obviously white western women out there who wear religious facial coverings as well?

I have to ask that question too. You can't just call it racist without first knowing the circumstances.

I for instance would prefer foreigners/religious people didnt wear facial coverings as a simple matter of security. Like it or not, people should be identifiable. If they have something covering their face thats near impossible.

woody543
11-05-10, 22:32
^^What?
Wait.... sorry.
Perhaps the wrong use of racist? - I think I meant religous intollerence. - Although some of that is covered in racism - the definitition needs clearing up.

Anyway. What I meant is that I don't agree that they should ban religous veils, as this goes against their religous views, which should be respected. Even though I disagree with women wearing the garment (as explained in my previous post.

TRfan23
11-05-10, 22:35
Where's Cataphract when you need him? :(

aktrekker
11-05-10, 23:22
I would like to apologize to everyone who has taken an interest in this thread and the previous one.
I have never heard of anyone dressing up like a storm trooper. No mention of it anywhere in the news and nothing I've noticed here either. It seems absolutely ridiculous. So I assumed that this "serious" question was a joke.
Apparently I was wrong. People really do dress up like storm troopers. The question was, in fact, serious.
Once again, I apologize to everyone for this mistake.

robm_2007
11-05-10, 23:25
I don't see why people are saying this is a racial thing. It's pretty racist to assume all Muslims have tan skin and dark hair :whi:

Wouldnt it be Religionist, and not racist?

or does the term Racist apply to both a person's race and/or their religion?

Ward Dragon
11-05-10, 23:29
Wouldnt it be Religionist, and not racist? i think i made up a word....:p

or does the term Racist apply to both a person's race and/or their religion?

I think people tend to use the word "racism" too loosely. I'm pretty sure racism applies to hating a person's race or ethnicity, basically their genetic heritage that they had no control over. This law governs how people choose to express their religious beliefs in public places. It's a valid debate whether or not the law infringes on freedom too much, but it doesn't seem racist at all to me.

Quasimodo
12-05-10, 00:03
I would like to apologize to everyone who has taken an interest in this thread and the previous one.
I have never heard of anyone dressing up like a storm trooper. No mention of it anywhere in the news and nothing I've noticed here either. It seems absolutely ridiculous. So I assumed that this "serious" question was a joke.
Apparently I was wrong. People really do dress up like storm troopers. The question was, in fact, serious.
Once again, I apologize to everyone for this mistake.

I love, love, love this response.

Lemmie
12-05-10, 00:10
I think that if you ban women from wearing the burkha or the niqab in public, it won't help them from a point of view of ending oppression. They simply won't leave the house, which is hardly liberating.

For all formal identification, the face should be visible though. Passports, driving licenses, all this kind of thing. Forcing a blanket ban on full face coverings seems to me to be in violation of a person's right to freedom of expression.

As far as the actual wearing of the burkha or niqab goes, it has to be a matter of individual choice; not anyone else's.

IceColdLaraCroft
12-05-10, 01:15
I would like to apologize to everyone who has taken an interest in this thread and the previous one.
I have never heard of anyone dressing up like a storm trooper. No mention of it anywhere in the news and nothing I've noticed here either. It seems absolutely ridiculous. So I assumed that this "serious" question was a joke.
Apparently I was wrong. People really do dress up like storm troopers. The question was, in fact, serious.
Once again, I apologize to everyone for this mistake.


Thank you :hug:

I have to ask that question too. You can't just call it racist without first knowing the circumstances.

I for instance would prefer foreigners/religious people didnt wear facial coverings as a simple matter of security. Like it or not, people should be identifiable. If they have something covering their face thats near impossible.

What if someone past a law forbidding you to wear something you wanted to wear? Not out of decency or religion, but because they felt threatend by "your people?"

Mad Tony
12-05-10, 01:17
What if someone past a law forbidding you to wear something you wanted to wear? Not out of decency or religion, but because they felt threatend by "your people?"As far as I know that isn't why the law was passed. Why do you have this obsession that these countries have some sort of anti-Muslim or anti-Arab agenda?

IceColdLaraCroft
12-05-10, 01:20
The law was passed to protect "French values," Paris has Europe's largest Muslim population.

Did you not read the rest of the thread?

Mad Tony
12-05-10, 01:25
The law was passed to protect "French values," Paris has Europe's largest Muslim population.That's completely different from feeling threatened by foreigners.

TRL2009
12-05-10, 01:30
No, I find that racist and unfair, everyone should do what there religion, beliefs, race or country says to do and everyone should leave them alone:mad:
Sorry Got a new avatar

Uzi master
12-05-10, 01:33
I beleive the "values" refer to equality, though eventually they will need to balance it out with men too...

In core value I beleive the burka is meant to protect women, as is other things such as "men" and "family" sections seperate, for example. though it tends to get out of hand and oppresssive after protected.

honestly religoin has changed with the times before, remember prodestants? that religion changing. some people are too focussed on keeping onl values that they forget whats happening and why religoin took these turns, orthodox jewish people seem to come to mind as well.

IceColdLaraCroft
12-05-10, 01:35
That's completely different from feeling threatened by foreigners.

:confused: what?

Mad Tony
12-05-10, 01:37
:confused: what?Protecting French values and feeling threatened by foreigners are two entirely different things.

Uzi master
12-05-10, 01:39
French value's, its what they beleive right and wrong to put it simply.

Like its WRONG to opress women, for example...

aktrekker
12-05-10, 01:52
I may be wrong, but I believe most of the muslims in France emigrated there from other countries. Why did they move to France? What were they looking for?
While it is good to remember your culture and traditions, you must also respect the culture and traditions of the country you move to. If there is a disagreement between them, you must side with the country you now live in. If this is a problem, you need to go to another country that has traditions and values more in line with your own.

Otherwise things like this will happen.

IceColdLaraCroft
12-05-10, 01:56
^ France colonized parts of Northern Africa and Middle east some of the Muslim immigrants are from those countries others are there for economic opportunities or trying to get to the UK

Ward Dragon
12-05-10, 02:40
According to the article I posted earlier, France has approximately 5 million Muslims living there but only around 2000 women wear burkas -- that's less than a tenth of percent of Muslim women in France if I did my math correctly. That tiny fraction is associated with the more extreme fundamental interpretations of the religion which is why people are more suspicious of burkas. There were many Muslims in support of this law banning burkas because they felt it was a way to help oppressed women.

LaraLuvrrr
12-05-10, 02:42
I'm against Burkas. People aren't allowed to walk around naked because it's considered indecent exposure well Burkas to me are the other extreme.

Can you imagine if you are wanted but you go around with a burka? Instant anonymity. You can also conceal all the weapons you want under one. Plus it turns women into walking voids why don't men wear one? It's just ridiculous.

And I'm all for religious freedom of expression but please if a religion allowed female circumcision for example I wouldn't tolerate it. Wear your burka at home just like you can be nude in your own home.

Alpharaider47
12-05-10, 02:47
I'm against Burkas. People aren't allowed to walk around naked because it's considered indecent exposure well Burkas to me are the other extreme.

Can you imagine if you are wanted but you go around with a burka? Instant anonymity. You can also conceal all the weapons you want under one. Plus it turns women into walking voids why don't men wear one? It's just ridiculous.

And I'm all for religious freedom of expression but please if a religion allowed female circumcision for example I wouldn't tolerate it. Wear your burka at home just like you can be nude in your own home.

I don't think that's a fair stance. It's religious/cultural garb. Not all women wearing Burkas are suicide bombers or terrorists either, they're not all carrying weapons/bombs etc.. To assume that is, in my opinion, foolish.
Many of the people who wear them choose to wear them and want to wear them. It really makes me upset when people assume that all Islamic women hate wearing them, it's not true.
It'd be like me making jeans illegal because I think their restricting your freedom. To use your own words, "It's just ridiculous."

Melonie Tomb Raider
12-05-10, 02:58
I believe in freedom of religion, and for some people, veils and things of the like are a big part of their belief. It's nobody's business to ban them from wearing their religious garments.

I could understand a school doing so if said garments were overly flashy and attention grabbing, but as long as they are reasonable, there is no need for a ban.

LaraLuvrrr
12-05-10, 03:48
I don't think that's a fair stance. It's religious/cultural garb. Not all women wearing Burkas are suicide bombers or terrorists either, they're not all carrying weapons/bombs etc.. To assume that is, in my opinion, foolish.
Many of the people who wear them choose to wear them and want to wear them. It really makes me upset when people assume that all Islamic women hate wearing them, it's not true.
It'd be like me making jeans illegal because I think their restricting your freedom. To use your own words, "It's just ridiculous."

I know not all women with burkas are terrorists. And I'm sure many Islamic women don't mind wearing them. I actually used to be pro burkas in the sense that it was an expression of freedom of religion. It wasn't until I heard of a woman who wanted to have her Driver's license picture taken with her burka that I realized why France wants to ban them. I think it's fine to wrap your head or wear the gown but covering the entire face and leaving a little slit to look through can make one completely anonymous.

Imagine if a police officer pulls a woman over with a burka and she refuses to show her face. Or if she wants to walk through security in airports but because of her religion she refuses to remove her burka. I just don't find them practical.

However if a woman wearing one is willing to comply with all the laws every other citizen has to follow then fine I don't mind what they choose to wear. I'm only concerned about safety and identification.

Ward Dragon
12-05-10, 03:52
^ Exactly. The article I found said that the ban is only for "public office buildings, schools, hospitals and while using mass transit." So basically crowded places which would be vulnerable to a terrorist attack due to how many people there are and how difficult it is to check on everyone. By making everyone show their face, that makes it possible to identify people on security footage or make sure they match their ID's.

IceColdLaraCroft
12-05-10, 12:13
^ Exactly. The article I found said that the ban is only for "public office buildings, schools, hospitals and while using mass transit." So basically crowded places which would be vulnerable to a terrorist attack due to how many people there are and how difficult it is to check on everyone. By making everyone show their face, that makes it possible to identify people on security footage or make sure they match their ID's.

But that's paranoia. France hasn't had a terrorist attack let alone one by a Muslim woman.

Should they ban full motorcycle helmets too? You can't ID someone if they have one of those on.

Dennis's Mom
12-05-10, 12:43
A person wearing a motorcycle helmet takes it off when the ride is over.

To me this is a cultural issue, not a religious one. In the west, people wearing masks are hiding something, that's the cultural tradition. We distrust people who aren't willing to identify themselves. We feel rejected, distrusted in return. Insulted might not be too strong a word because the burka and naqib presuppose evil intent on the part of the viewer, do they not? "You can't see me because you're not worthy."

Couple that with the newer layer of security issues, it should be banned in public places.

IceColdLaraCroft
12-05-10, 12:55
Orthodox christian women wear a head covering, as do nuns in the catholic church. banning the veil *should* in essence mean these two groups of women shouldn't be allowed to wear theirs either.

it isn't a "you're not worthy" it's an act of humility and has become more of protection. it's only worn outside the home and many women CHOOSE to wear it while others do not.

But for a DEMOCRACY to limit the religious freedoms of a practitioner is not right.

Rai
12-05-10, 13:25
In public places, such as schools, shopping centers, airports etc, where security could be an issue, then yes, anything that obscures the face should be removed. It is not religious discrimination if the rule in place is for everyone.

Andyroo
12-05-10, 14:22
In public places, such as schools, shopping centers, airports etc, where security could be an issue, then yes, anything that obscures the face should be removed. It is not religious discrimination if the rule in place is for everyone.

I agree with this.

Just lately people were robbed in a carpark by people wearing burkas. With a 'get away free guaranteed' ticket, by not possibly being identifiable.

Anywhere security requires to be able to be identifiable, like a bank, shops/servos, should obviously require them removed, like motorbike helmets etc - As is the law here.

If I go to pay for petrol wearing my motorbike helmet, which doesn't even cover my face at all, I will be 'asked' to remove it before they'll let me pay for the petrol. Just so the cameras can see my face from all angles as I move around the shop etc.

Whereas if I where to walk in with a full burka I'd not have a problem. The cameras wouldn't catch a single speck of my face.

People have to be identifiable, that's all there is to it.

Reggie
12-05-10, 14:59
Ideally, women wouldn't be forced to wear or NOT wear the veil/burkha. In reality, I agree with Rai, there has to be limits for the sake of security as opposed to any religious/cultural discrimination. This still leaves the possibility for a hijab to be worn if that is the woman's personal choice to do so.

Dennis's Mom
12-05-10, 16:03
I don't have a problem with head coverings, but I think wearing a mask in a culture where masks connote something negative is counter-productive.

I think any behavior that makes a society uncomfortable should be examined.

tomblover
12-05-10, 16:33
I don't really care, but as for immigrants wanting to change laws and whatnot in a country they've immigrated to:

It's our country, not theirs. If our ways of life are so terrible and needs changing, can't they just go elsewhere?

I don't mean to come across as racist, but... :/

spikejones
12-05-10, 17:29
I agree with this.

Just lately people were robbed in a carpark by people wearing burkas. With a 'get away free guaranteed' ticket, by not possibly being identifiable.

Anywhere security requires to be able to be identifiable, like a bank, shops/servos, should obviously require them removed, like motorbike helmets etc - As is the law here.

If I go to pay for petrol wearing my motorbike helmet, which doesn't even cover my face at all, I will be 'asked' to remove it before they'll let me pay for the petrol. Just so the cameras can see my face from all angles as I move around the shop etc.

Whereas if I where to walk in with a full burka I'd not have a problem. The cameras wouldn't catch a single speck of my face.

People have to be identifiable, that's all there is to it.

I agree with the security aspect of things. but just as easy it is to commit a crime wearing a veil of some sort, so too could a ski mask be used. I wonder how the perpetrators managed to make their getaway? Did they all pile into a car? If so, they could be tracked down by the tags and aprehended. Even if the officers arent able to make an easy identification on the perp if they are in a household filled with others similarly dressed, they have ways of manipulating the truth out of people (non violent of course) with threats of levying charges on others for things such as interfering with an investigation.

Interesting you are actually required to remove your helmet though. I too ride a bike, but I can't say as I've ever actually been requested to remove my helmet on the times when I was in a bit of a rush and didn't take it off before entering the gas station. And I actually wear a full helmet.

Dark Lugia 2
12-05-10, 19:24
Where's Cataphract when you need him? :(

Haha :p

I'm disgusted (sadly, as usual whenever muslims are brought up here) with the amount of members in this topic who are so mis-informed about Islamic coverings. Urgh...
First of all islam gives a choice whether to wear them or not. If you see someone whos forced to wear one by their husband, dont blame islam.
And men expressing control over women? Islam having misttreatment of women as a cornerstone? :| excuse me?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Islam

Islam has only done good for women for the time that the religion was around. And its teachings are relevant today for muslim women i.e. Giving them rights when women had fewer than men.

most people complain about the world being ignorant, ha. Hypocrites, when it comes to their 'knowledge' on islamic veils which are optional.

What you hear isnt always true, but when its about muslims it must be right. :rolleyes: (/sarc)

MsRedFoxx
12-05-10, 19:47
I think for security purposes Yes, and in public places, but they can wear them if they want in their own homes :)

I think that unfortunatly extremists have afected peoples view on Islam :( My friend is a muslim (and a very proud one at that) and she tells me the ins and outs of it. I so think though that quite a lot of muslim girls are pressured into wearing the burka by their families at times as a lot of muslim families are strict so its not just the husband. I don't disagree that Islam isn't good for women but I still think they can have more rights and not have to cover themselves up.

I'd hate to be told what to wear but thats just me :)

Blackmoor
12-05-10, 20:06
When I see men wearing these items then I'll support their use.

It's funny isn't it how it's always women who "voluntarily" want to cover their entire faces, with just slits for their eyes to look through, and cover their bodies from head to foot in black shapeless sacks.

Never the men, hmmmm.

It's said there is a choice - that women want to wear these items - and maybe (technically) it's true, but no woman brought up in an environment without this kind of thinking suddenly volunteers to wear these kind of things.

People don't have to be literally "made" to do things to be oppressed. Belief structures in cultures and societies can do that perfectly well.

LaraLuvrrr
12-05-10, 20:31
Orthodox christian women wear a head covering, as do nuns in the catholic church. banning the veil *should* in essence mean these two groups of women shouldn't be allowed to wear theirs either.

They don't shield their entire face. You can tell nuns apart by looking at their faces. A burka is practically having a giant black sheet thrown over you so you are nothing but a walking black material. There's no way to identify anyone.

I know a girl that wears a burka in my university but she always has her face showing.

MsRedFoxx
12-05-10, 21:19
I am a Christian Orthodox and I never want to wear no head covering, anywayz only mega religious ones wear them in church we don't walk around wiv them everywhere.

Uzi master
12-05-10, 22:26
you also appear not to want to use proper grammer, (beyond the useual screwups anyway) at any rate there are always exceptions anyway and That statement is a little pointless if you ask me.


Religion should not be a part of public places such as schools none the less (unless we lets say learn about various religions in social studies, for example)

P.S. Athiesm isn't technicly a real religion, so science = okay:D

Gregori
12-05-10, 22:29
i think its silly tbh

Mad Tony
12-05-10, 22:32
P.S. Athiesm isn't technicly a real religion, so science = okay:DNot this again.

TRfan23
12-05-10, 22:36
P.S. Atheism isn't technically a real religion, so science = okay :D

Islam has some pretty scientific stuff you know ;) Yes I know it's 1388 years old, but still it's valid :)

Uzi master
12-05-10, 22:38
Not this again.

loosen up!
you seem uptight, notice the smilie:D

just saying since athiesm is based on science:(

Azerutan
12-05-10, 22:39
I have serious problems about a country banning cultural symbols from public places, but I have already argued this in this forum so no need to repeat myself again.

In my work area, this is quite controversial. The basis of current international relations is the Middle East, seriously, this has quite a lot to argue as a matter of debate.

Mad Tony
12-05-10, 22:41
just saying since athiesm is based on science:(Atheism is the belief, or lack thereof, of a higher power or God. Atheism isn't "based" on anything.

I just hate it when people bring science into it to try and argue that religion and science are somehow two opposite ends of a spectrum - they're not.

x2crazyidiot
12-05-10, 22:43
We have to uphold their rules in their country, they should In ours.

I agree. IMO the main reason their cultures have worn them is because of the environmental conditions (sand mostly), and it's just become a standard piece of clothing in society. However when it comes to a woman teaching a class of children in a British school wearing the full on burka (covering the face aswell), then a line has definitely been crossed in my books. I just think it's wrong in a school environment. I mean, not to sound offensive, but how can the child be expected to put their trust in a woman who won't even allow her students to see her face?

Uzi master
12-05-10, 22:44
actually, a black robe isnt very suitable for hot dessserts

TRfan23
12-05-10, 22:46
I agree. IMO the main reason their cultures have worn them is because of the environmental conditions (sand mostly), and it's just become a standard piece of clothing in society. However when it comes to a woman teaching a class of children in a British school wearing the full on burka (covering the face aswell), then a line has definitely been crossed in my books. I just think it's wrong in a school environment. I mean, not to sound offensive, but how can the child be expected to put their trust in a woman who won't even allow her students to see her face?

That's completely wrong, no offense lol. The head veils aren't for that!

Wait... Am I missing something?

Gregori
12-05-10, 22:50
Atheism is the belief, or lack thereof, of a higher power or God. Atheism isn't "based" on anything.

I just hate it when people bring science into it to try and argue that religion and science are somehow two opposite ends of a spectrum - they're not.

they're opposite ends of the spectrum...

The only reason for believing anything existing in science is because of evidence from the real world.

Religion is different. It tells you that you should believe in an invisible man based on no actual evidence from the real world, just because somebody said so. There is no logic in it.

Belief in the scientific method has wonderful things to show for it. The embracing of science and logic has resulted in the last 200 years of incredible advances in medicine, technology, transport, computers, space travel and understanding our place in the universe....

Belief in religion in contrast, resulted in a fantastic time called "The Dark Ages"!!!!

x2crazyidiot
12-05-10, 22:50
That's completely wrong, no offense lol. The head veils aren't for that!

Wait... Am I missing something?

What's wrong? My perception on why they wear the robes in the Middle East? Yes it probably is wrong :p I'm not sure why they actually wear it but the environmental conditions seemed like a logical choice


The sole reason the UK would never even dare anything like banning the veil is because there would be riots everywhere. Everyone would draw the race card, which I hate. It's not about race at all, it's about security. As a previous poster said, how is it fair and safe that a woman with a veil is able to step onto a plane or do anything that requires a passport, we have absolutely no idea if she is who she says she is, and if we question her we're automatically a dirty racist.

TRfan23
12-05-10, 22:51
What's wrong? My perception on why they wear the robes in the Middle East? Yes it probably is wrong :p I'm not sure why they actually wear it but the environmental conditions seemed like a logical choice

But the men don't wear it :p

x2crazyidiot
12-05-10, 22:59
But the men don't wear it :p

....Touche :pi: :p


I may be wrong, but I believe most of the muslims in France emigrated there from other countries. Why did they move to France? What were they looking for?
While it is good to remember your culture and traditions, you must also respect the culture and traditions of the country you move to. If there is a disagreement between them, you must side with the country you now live in. If this is a problem, you need to go to another country that has traditions and values more in line with your own.

Otherwise things like this will happen.

:tmb:

I just hate the word racism with a dire passion. It gets thrown around more than a tennis ball.

Mad Tony
12-05-10, 22:59
they're opposite ends of the spectrum...

The only reason for believing anything existing in science is because of evidence from the real world.

Religion is different. It tells you that you should believe in an invisible man based on no actual evidence from the real world, just because somebody said so. There is no logic in it.

Belief in the scientific method has wonderful things to show for it. The embracing of science and logic has resulted in the last 200 years of incredible advances in medicine, technology, transport, computers, space travel and understanding our place in the universe....

Belief in religion in contrast, resulted in a fantastic time called "The Dark Ages"!!!!They're not I'm afraid. The opposite of theism is atheism. The opposite of science is... well, I don't know what it is but it certainly isn't religion. The key difference between religion and science and why they shouldn't be taken as part of the same scale is what they attempt to explain. Science doesn't explain why things happen, it explains how. Religion is different - it explains how things happen but not why.

Religion wasn't the cause of the Dark Ages - we as people were. As far as I can remember actually Islam and Christianity were driving scientific progress centuries ago. I'm not sure on the details but I know Cataphract knows a lot about this.

So please, stop referring to science and logic and religion on the same level when they're completely different things. Scapegoating religion for things like the Dark Ages is silly.

Ward Dragon
12-05-10, 23:10
you also appear not to want to use proper grammer, (beyond the useual screwups anyway) at any rate there are always exceptions anyway and That statement is a little pointless if you ask me.

If you're going to pick apart someone else's grammar, at least make sure yours is right :ton:

Seriously though, I'm not sure about other web browsers, but Firefox has a built-in spell checker so that should make things a lot easier for everybody :)

Religion should not be a part of public places such as schools none the less (unless we lets say learn about various religions in social studies, for example)

It's a tricky issue. The government shouldn't support one particular religion over others. At the same time, people should be free to follow their religions and they can't be expected to abandon their beliefs every time they enter a public place.

I think the issue with the burkas is that a very small minority of Muslims in France wear them but they really stand out and make people uncomfortable because of the security risks involved. Someone wearing a burka is unidentifiable and they could literally have a bomb or an AK-47 hidden under their clothes without anyone being able to tell. It's an issue of safety. The police need to be able to identify people from security footage and confirm their identities face-to-face.

There's also the cultural aspect to consider. After incidents like the bombings in other countries or the riots in France, the general public is very uncomfortable around someone who wears a burka. The burkas are worn by a fraction of a percent of Muslim women in France, but it represents the more fundamentalist and extreme interpretations of Islam and emphasizes to everyone that the person wants to be isolated from general French culture rather than contributing to it. That breeds resentment because it emphasizes the differences between the two cultures. If the French government encourages Muslims to become a part of the French culture rather than remaining separate from it, then that will go a long way towards eliminating anti-Muslim sentiments from people who currently associate the Muslim community with the riots or terrorist attacks.

P.S. Athiesm isn't technicly a real religion, so science = okay:D

Not sure what point you were trying to make, but many important scientists were religious. The important thing is that someone has an open mind and is willing to change their beliefs if new evidence comes along which contradicts the current theory :)

aktrekker
12-05-10, 23:14
you also appear not to want to use proper grammer, (beyond the useual screwups anyway)
How about spelling?

P.S. Athiesm isn't technicly a real religion, so science = okay:D
The logic of that statement amazes me.
Oh, and more spelling.......

actually, a black robe isnt very suitable for hot dessserts
Studies have proven that in hot environments, black robes keep you just as cool as white robes. It's the layer of air they create around your body that serves as insulation. It works no matter what the color of the robe.

Didn't mean to pick on you. I didn't realize the posts were both yours when I picked them.

Gregori
12-05-10, 23:16
They're not I'm afraid. The opposite of theism is atheism. The opposite of science is... well, I don't know what it is but it certainly isn't religion. The key difference between religion and science and why they shouldn't be taken as part of the same scale is what they attempt to explain. Science doesn't explain why things happen, it explains how. Religion is different - it explains how things happen but not why.

They're are opposites in many important respects. Religion says the explanation of the world is written in a book, no need to look at any evidence, and an invisible man is responsible.

Science says, There has to be evidence from the natural
world to make such claims and theories. They're completely
opposing ways of viewing the world. If you look at world scientifically,
you see there is little evidence of this invisible man (or anything else
that i can make up with my imagination) and you could be forgiven
for being also an atheist.

Religion wasn't the cause of the Dark Ages - we as people were. As far as I can remember actually Islam and Christianity were driving scientific progress centuries ago. I'm not sure on the details but I know Cataphract knows a lot about this.

So please, stop referring to science and logic and religion on the same level when they're completely different things. Scapegoating religion for things like the Dark Ages is silly.

Religion wasn't the cure for the dark ages either. Belief in an invisible man and magic didn't improve the world at all. Scientific progress did. The fact
that Islam and Christianity were involved in progress has nothing to with those religions being a good thing. Its primarily because science actually works, but both those faiths don't really work. They could both be fighting about who had the REAL God....but science really works no matter what you believe.

You're right though. Science and logic are completely different to things to Religion. Religion is illogical.

Uzi master
12-05-10, 23:17
:( I'm starting to think mods don't like me... :p


at least I tried to use better grammar, though:p Laptops have small keyboards...

and about the thing about science, since its not a religion it doesnt limit where its used, but Athiesm uses science as it gives solid proof, I never said that people of religions don't use science,:p

Mad Tony
12-05-10, 23:22
and about the thing about science, since its not a religion it doesnt limit where its used, but Athiesm uses science as it gives solid proof, I never said that people of religions don't use science,:pAs far as I know atheism doesn't "use" anything. It's not a religion - it's a lack of religion.

They're are opposites in many important respects. Religion says the explanation of the world is written in a book, no need to look at any evidence, and an invisible man is responsible.

Science says, There has to be evidence from the natural
world to make such claims and theories. They're completely
opposing ways of viewing the world. If you look at world scientifically,
you see there is little evidence of this invisible man (or anything else
that i can make up with my imagination) and you could be forgiven
for being also an atheist.You don't seem to have grasped what I was saying. Summed up in a sentence - science explains how and religion why. If you look at how the creation of the Earth is written in the Bible it bears some similarities to the big bang theory. Many Christians believe that the big bang theory as described by scientists is correct and that that was how God created the universe. That's just one example.

Religion wasn't the cure for the dark ages either. Belief in an invisible man and magic didn't improve the world at all. Scientific progress did. The fact
that Islam and Christianity were involved in progress has nothing to with those religions being a good thing. Its primarily because science actually works, but both those faiths don't really work. They could both be fighting about who had the REAL God....but science really works no matter what you believe.Umm, I never said religion was the "cure" for the dark ages. All I said was that Christianity and Islam, or members of those religions, did drive scientific progress. That is also a fact. I think perhaps Cataphract would be better at explaining all this.

Again, science and religion are not on the same spectrum and it's ludicrous to compare them like you would compare atheism and theism.

Ward Dragon
12-05-10, 23:23
:( I'm starting to think mods don't like me... :p

Nah, that was pure chance :p Yours was the last reply when I started typing my post. This thread is moving quickly :p

at least I tried to use better grammar, though:p Laptops have small keyboards...

I find Firefox's spell check quite convenient. It underlines spelling mistakes in the post window as I type so it's easy to catch and fix errors :)

and about the thing about science, since its not a religion it doesnt limit where its used, but Athiesm uses science as it gives solid proof, I never said that people of religions don't use science,:p

But science doesn't give solid proof. The whole point of science is that we can never be 100% sure of anything and we can never stop looking for evidence which might prove the current theories wrong. When someone says that a scientific theory is 100% true and there's no need to look for more evidence, then they've left the realm of science and entered the realm of dogmatic belief (I'm thinking of Al Gore speaking about global warming :p).

Uzi master
12-05-10, 23:26
I dont like firefox:o

not everything in science is ever 100% proven but some things are, we know how we digest food, we can actually change genes of animals ourselfs and have found extensive evidence of evolution, so though maybe we may learn more about how things really work some things just are proven, but not all things about them.

Alpharaider47
12-05-10, 23:33
I dont like firefox:o

not everything in science is ever 100% proven but some things are, we know how we digest food, we can actually change genes of animals ourselfs and have found extensive evidence of evolution, so though maybe we may learn more about how things really work some things just are proven, but not all things about them.

Just be careful in dealing in absolutes, something could come along and change how we view that.
Kind of like how we view this issue now, since 9/11, I've noticed a lot of fear towards people of Arabic backgrounds, this changes how we view their culture/beliefs, and I think the French law reflects that. Now we look at it as an issue of security, when years ago we probably wouldn't have reacted like this.

Gregori
12-05-10, 23:40
You don't seem to have grasped what I was saying. Summed up in a sentence - science explains how and religion why. If you look at how the creation of the Earth is written in the Bible it bears some similarities to the big bang theory. Many Christians believe that the big bang theory as described by scientists is correct and that that was how God created the universe. That's just one example.


Oh, I grasp it quite fine.

Religion doesn't even explain why!!! It dictates and proclaims it knows why, based on no evidence. There is reasons to believe the big bang happened,
but no evidence that any "God" caused it to happen, or any other being.
The account of the bible for the creation of the world bears no resemblance
to the big bang, and is likely the product of the imaginations of biblical people, who didn't understand how the world works.


Umm, I never said religion was the "cure" for the dark ages. All I said was that Christianity and Islam, or members of those religions, did drive scientific progress. That is also a fact. I think perhaps Cataphract would be better at explaining all this.

An atheistic society could have easily driven progress (probably even more)! !!

Any society who embraced the scientific method would have driven progress. This is in spite of religion. Religion on its own has driven very little in new technology, medicine, transport etc etc Its mostly held back progress. The church accused Galileo of heresy for discovering that Earth orbited the Sun.

Again, science and religion are not on the same spectrum and it's ludicrous to compare them like you would compare atheism and theism. They can be compared as ways of explaining the world. One is based on things humans have written in a book. The other requires logical
observations of the natural world.

Ward Dragon
12-05-10, 23:44
The church accused Galileo of heresy for discovering that Earth orbited the Sun.

Copernicus made the discovery but didn't publicly draw attention to it. Galileo publicly supported the theory after Copernicus' death and then was placed under house arrest by the church.

They can be compared as ways of explaining the world. One is based on things humans have written in a book. The other requires logical
observations of the natural world.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way. Science is logical and religion is emotional. Both aspects of humanity are important. People need to feel like they are not alone and their lives have purpose, which is why they turn to religion.

aktrekker
12-05-10, 23:44
Just like we thought we knew the appendix was useless, something left over from "evolution".
Now they know that it manufactures the good bacteria in the intestines that helps digest your food.

Yeah, we know 100% how digestion works :p

Gregori
12-05-10, 23:54
Copernicus made the discovery but didn't publicly draw attention to it. Galileo publicly supported the theory after Copernicus' death and then was placed under house arrest by the church.



My Bad..... but it does show how religion has tried to stop scientific progress.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way. Science is logical and religion is emotional. Both aspects of humanity are important. People need to feel like they are not alone and their lives have purpose, which is why they turn to religion.

Emotions can be logical!!!

And you're definitely not alone. There is plenty of people around!! I'm here.
So are you!!!

I can understand the need to have purpose in life, but believing in a invisible entity because some book says so.... well, that seems crazy to me!!!
It doesn't seem like the best turn to make! Life can be purposeful without going off the deep end.

If you're gonna pick a religion, which one do you pick?
There are so many, making different claims to be the
right one. And they all have equal evidence to being the right one (zero)

Mad Tony
12-05-10, 23:54
Oh, I grasp it quite fine.

Religion doesn't even explain why!!! It dictates and proclaims it knows why, based on no evidence. There is reasons to believe the big bang happened,
but no evidence that any "God" caused it to happen, or any other being.
The account of the bible for the creation of the world bears no resemblance
to the big bang, and is likely the product of the imaginations of biblical people, who didn't understand how the world works.Ok then, if you're going to be pedantic, religion attempts to explain why, just like how science attempts to explain how.

An atheistic society could have easily driven progress (probably even more)! !!I was merely saying that the idea religion was the cause of the Dark Ages is false.

My Bad..... but it does show how religion has tried to stop scientific progress.I think you mean religious people.

What exactly is it you have against religion anyway? Everyone entitled to their own opinions but you definitely seem very hostile towards it.

Gregori
13-05-10, 00:03
Ok then, if you're going to be pedantic, religion attempts to explain why, just like how science attempts to explain how.

I was merely saying that the idea religion was the cause of the Dark Ages is false.

It held people back from moving past the dark ages quick enough. People believed in a crazy superstitious explanations of the world, alchemy.
We owe it to the Greeks and Romans for the great lost knowledge that was rediscovered that helped us get out of the dark ages.
Compare the progress in the last 100 years, which has been based on science, and compare it to the Dark Ages,
which was based on superstition and the difference between the two is incredible.

Had people in the dark ages had a more scientific approach to the world, we would probably have gotten away from that backward thinking A LOT quicker.

What exactly is it you have against religion anyway? Everyone entitled to their own opinions but you definitely seem very hostile towards it.


It could be something to do with it being totally crazy....based on nothing...
just bizarre!! But I think people can have an crazy unfounded beliefs they want. Its up to them. They're adults.

Ward Dragon
13-05-10, 00:08
Emotions can be logical!!!

I think usually people can control what they do but not how they feel.

And you're definitely not alone. There is plenty of people around!! I'm here.
So are you!!!

Thanks :)

I can understand the need to have purpose in life, but believing in a invisible entity because some book says so.... well, that seems crazy to me!!!
It doesn't seem like the best turn to make! Life can be purposeful without going off the deep end.

If you're gonna pick a religion, which one do you pick?
There are so many, making different claims to be the
right one. And they all have equal evidence to being the right one (zero)

This is why I said religion is emotional. I get the impression that people don't exactly pick a religion. Rather something about a particular religion speaks to them in an emotional way and they have faith in it because it feels right to them, not because of analyzing evidence.

Mad Tony
13-05-10, 00:11
It held people back from moving past the dark ages quick enough. People believed in a crazy superstitious explanations of the world, alchemy.
We owe it to the Greeks and Romans for the great lost knowledge that was rediscovered that helped us get out of the dark ages.
Compare the progress in the last 100 years, which has been based on science, and compare it to the Dark Ages,
which was based on superstition and the difference between the two is incredible.I think you need to see that there's a difference between the actual religions themselves and the people who use religion to control others and enforce their own agenda.

It could be something to do with it being totally crazy....based on nothing...
just bizarre!! But I think people can have an crazy unfounded beliefs they want. Its up to them. They're adults.How tolerant and open minded. I have absolutely no problem with you not believing in God or religion - that's your choice. However, I hate that kind of belittling attitude. What's the point in mocking somebody else's beliefs like that? It's just pathetic.

Why is it that when it comes to discussions on religion here (and on the internet as a whole) it seems it's almost always the religious person on the back-foot merely defending themselves form aggressive militant atheists? Thank God most atheists do seem mature enough to be able to disagree with religion without acting all holier-than-thou and condescending.

Live and let live I say. It's a shame the immature people from both sides can't subscribe to that.

Gregori
13-05-10, 00:30
I think you need to see that there's a difference between the actual religions themselves and the people who use religion to control others and enforce their own agenda.

Somebody invented those religions, to enforce their own agenda!!!



How tolerant and open minded. I have absolutely no problem with you not believing in God or religion - that's your choice. However, I hate that kind of belittling attitude. What's the point in mocking somebody else's beliefs like that? It's just pathetic. I'm very tolerant and open minded. Like I said, Adults are free to have any crazy ideas they want. I don't have to agree with it but its a free world!!

Why is it that when it comes to discussions on religion here (and on the internet as a whole) it seems it's almost always the religious person on the back-foot merely defending themselves form aggressive militant atheists? Thank God most atheists do seem mature enough to be able to disagree with religion without acting all holier-than-thou and condescending.

Live and let live I say. It's a shame the immature people from both sides can't subscribe to that

Oh, I live and let live. It doesn't mean I have to agree to crazy beliefs.
It doesn't mean those beliefs should go without criticism. I think people
should be at least mature enough to defend what they believe through
logical arguments and evidence. Otherwise, I'll continue to disbelieve it.
Just like i disbelieve Barnie the Dinosaur created the universe.

Quasimodo
13-05-10, 00:34
Oh, I live and let live. It doesn't mean I have to agree to crazy beliefs.
It doesn't mean those beliefs should go without criticism. I think people
should be at least mature enough to defend what they believe through
logical arguments and evidence. Otherwise, I'll continue to disbelieve it.
Just like i disbelieve Barnie the Dinosaur created the universe.
Sounds fair to me. Seems like a lot of religion discussions go awry when folks get upset because they run out of defenses.

Gregori
13-05-10, 00:38
I wouldn't actually call myself an atheist... more agnostic.

The truth is, I don't know why I'm here, how the universe happened, why life exists. There could be a billion reasons for it!!!

An entity called "God" could be the reason. I don't know the answer.

I also think nobody else knows the answers to those questions
either.

Quasimodo
13-05-10, 00:42
I wouldn't actually call myself an atheist... more agnostic.

The truth is, I don't know why I'm here, how the universe happened, why life exists. There could be a billion reasons for it!!!

An entity called "God" could be the reason. I don't know the answer.

I also think nobody else knows the answers to those questions
either.

Maybe, maybe not. If God exists, and he spoke to people, perhaps someone does know the answer.

Ward Dragon
13-05-10, 00:48
Maybe, maybe not. If God exists, and he spoke to people, perhaps someone does know the answer.

Yeah, but unless God tells me personally which people got it right I've got no way of knowing who to believe :p My basic view is that I've got a very strong moral compass built into my brain so I'd best follow it. If god does exist, then either my morals match god's or they don't. If they match then I should be okay because I've been a relatively good person. If they are significantly different, then I'm ****ed no matter what I do anyway.

Gregori
13-05-10, 00:59
Yeah, but unless God tells me personally which people got it right I've got no way of knowing who to believe :p My basic view is that I've got a very strong moral compass built into my brain so I'd best follow it. If god does exist, then either my morals match god's or they don't. If they match then I should be okay because I've been a relatively good person. If they are significantly different, then I'm ****ed no matter what I do anyway.

God could be pretty immoral!!! Maybe God is the Devil himself!! He supposedly created the world the way it is, so I think he is responsible for all the suffering in the world :D

aktrekker
13-05-10, 01:32
Somebody invented those religions, to enforce their own agenda!!!
unless you were there when those religions were "created" then you are only voicing your beliefs about them.

I'm very tolerant and open minded. Like I said, Adults are free to have any crazy ideas they want. I don't have to agree with it but its a free world!!
Yes, very tolerant. Crazy ideas. When in fact you admit you don't know, so you must admit the possibility they are not crazy ideas.

I wouldn't actually call myself an atheist... more agnostic.

The truth is, I don't know why I'm here, how the universe happened, why life exists. There could be a billion reasons for it!!!

An entity called "God" could be the reason. I don't know the answer.

I also think nobody else knows the answers to those questions
either.
So you have no excuse for calling the ideas crazy.

God could be pretty immoral!!! Maybe God is the Devil himself!! He supposedly created the world the way it is, so I think he is responsible for all the suffering in the world :D
God did not create the world the way it is. WE made it the way it is.

Gregori
13-05-10, 01:36
God did not create the world the way it is. WE made it the way it is.


Humans didn't invent cancer, death, disease and all that misery. If there is a God, he should probably put on trial for malignant design. He created the universe, and we as his creations are what we are, because he made us that way.

Ward Dragon
13-05-10, 01:37
God did not create the world the way it is. WE made it the way it is.

Didn't God make us the way we are?

Note I'm approaching this from a detached philosophical viewpoint. I tend to analyze things a lot. It's an attempt to understand, not an attack.

Paddy
13-05-10, 01:38
Humans didn't invent cancer, death, disease and all that misery. If there is a God, he should probably put on trial for malignant design. He created the universe, and we as his creations are what we are, because he made us that way.
Thats not a fact, thats just opinion.

Alpharaider47
13-05-10, 01:38
Humans didn't invent cancer, death, disease and all that misery. If there is a God, he should probably put on trial for malignant design. He created the universe, and we as his creations are what we are, because he made us that way.

I think he was referring to some of the arguably "man made" problems such as issues that only came about/became problems after or around the Industrial Revolution.

]{eith
13-05-10, 01:39
Thats not a fact, thats just opinion.

True. I guess that's what the 'if' and 'probably' was for. :)

Gregori
13-05-10, 01:40
Thats not a fact, thats just opinion.

You're right. The idea of a God in the first place isn't really a fact. I am just speaking hypothetically

But follow the logic of the bible, and it follows that if god created us in his image, then he is somewhat responsible for how we are!

Paddy
13-05-10, 01:41
You're right. The idea of a God in the first place isn't really a fact. I am just speaking hypothetically

But follow the logic of the bible, and it follows that if god created us in his image, then he is somewhat responsible for how we are!
Yes but being I dont believe in God and will never turn religious, I personally avoid any logic the bible comes up with.

{eith;4592595']True. I guess that's what the 'if' and 'probably' was for. :)
Exactly :p

aktrekker
13-05-10, 01:42
Going by the bible, God made us in his image. Then we rebelled against God and went our own way. We created this hell we live in.

Ward Dragon
13-05-10, 01:48
Going by the bible, God made us in his image. Then we rebelled against God and went our own way. We created this hell we live in.

But why would God create human beings with such a strong sense of curiosity and then expect them to avoid learning? Surely an omniscient God would have known that under those circumstances humans would end up eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, so what was the purpose of the test? It seems like a parent putting a cookie jar in front of a child, telling the child those are the most delicious cookies in the world but he can't have any, and then acting surprised that the child ate a cookie when he was left alone. It doesn't make sense to me. I really feel like something was lost in the translation.

Gregori
13-05-10, 01:49
Damn. This thread is making me hungry for cookies....

MMMMMMMMM Sacrilicious!!!!

Paddy
13-05-10, 01:58
Damn. This thread is making me hungry for cookies....

MMMMMMMMM Sacrilicious!!!!
:vlol: now I want friggin cookies.
And I see the Homer reference you did there :p

aktrekker
13-05-10, 01:59
It wasn't the temptation of the fruit. It was the lies of Satan. God is holding you back. Break away, disobey him and you can become like him.
It's the ultimate lie that many people fall for today. You can become God.

]{eith
13-05-10, 02:00
Exactly :p

Mmmmhmmm

http://i35.************/29c8mcx.jpg

aktrekker
13-05-10, 02:04
I think if another mod looks at this thread they will probably close it :p
We appear to be completely :off:

Gregori
13-05-10, 02:05
The mods shouldn't have the power of gods!!!

Paddy
13-05-10, 02:07
{eith;4592633']Mmmmhmmm

http://i35.************/29c8mcx.jpg
Love your Gifs :p
And no they shouldnt be banned, if its part of their culture then it should be respected.

aktrekker
13-05-10, 02:17
The mods shouldn't have the power of gods!!!
We don't. Administrators do.

Gregori
13-05-10, 02:18
okay.... Demi Gods!!!

Mad Tony
13-05-10, 10:20
Somebody invented those religions, to enforce their own agenda!!!That's something we'll never find out. I don't think we'll ever know whether or not that statement is actually true.

I'm very tolerant and open minded. Like I said, Adults are free to have any crazy ideas they want. I don't have to agree with it but its a free world!!

Oh, I live and let live. It doesn't mean I have to agree to crazy beliefs.
It doesn't mean those beliefs should go without criticism. I think people
should be at least mature enough to defend what they believe through
logical arguments and evidence. Otherwise, I'll continue to disbelieve it.
Just like i disbelieve Barnie the Dinosaur created the universe.The way you're acting isn't very tolerant. Not one bit.

Nobody said you had to agree to "crazy beliefs". All I'm saying is that you should stop being so damn militant about it.

No offense, but I'm finding it quite hard to believe you're agnostic. Agnostics largely sit on the fence when it comes to religion - you haven't been doing this at all. To me you seem miles away from the fence in the thorny fields of militant atheism.

If you really are agnostic, you're contradicting yourself by making such bold and one-sided statements.

Ward Dragon
13-05-10, 10:32
We've taken the discussion of religion itself to a new thread. Please continue there and I really hope that the discussion remains civil without any personal insults :)

http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showthread.php?t=168281

Uzi master
13-05-10, 18:47
erm, hello?

anyone heeeeere?

well religion may be a corosive subject, but is sure does draw a crowd:p.