The Burqa debate

[Drago]

A recent court case in Australia has called for a Muslim woman to remove her Burqa. (http://m.smh.com.au/national/burqa-decision-ripples-across-world-20100819-12s43.html) The consensus is that this matter will not remain local, and is another addition to the heating debate about burqas, fresh off the heels of the two Muslim women heading through a final gating call in an airport (filmed, hilariously, by a Scot - 'Every single Scottish person does it!!'

So this is clearly an issue that is not going away. Does religion outweigh the law? Are the courts overstepping their boundaries? Let's see what we come up with here! (I'll post my opinions later. Going to climb a mountain first. No seriously.)

[Deadwood_Zen]

What's the problem with a burqa?

[Heald]

Religion never supersedes law. Would you allow someone to wear a balaclava, hockey mask or Richard Nixon mask whilst they gave evidence? Would you let someone hiding their face through airport security or somewhere similar where the face needs to be shown for security or sensitivity reasons?

The answers are, obviously, no. Personally I feel no one should be hiding their face in public anyway.

[Deadwood_Zen]

Oh! I get it. Aren't there the headdresses that don't hide the face, though? Aren't those allowed?

Wait a second. If the law won't allow you to do something like that for your religion, why are you living in that country in the first place?

[Mew Master]

Separation of Church and State. The State should have no say in what religion a person practices, and the person should not force the State to enforce their particular religious view.

However, in this case it's the law to remove head-dressings when entering the court, Correct? This isn't a matter of religious freedom since I suspect even Jews are required to remove their hats when they go into court, the same thing with any Christian wearing a sports cap, or the Pope.

[Heald]

I don't believe any group should be exempt from any law because of their beliefs. What if my belief states that I shouldn't pay taxes and should be allowed to punch people I disagree with in the face? That wouldn't be allowed. So why any other group should receive special treatment because of some misinterpretation of a really old document is beyond me.


Oh! I get it. Aren't there the headdresses that don't hide the face, though? Aren't those allowed?
The hijab and its variants cover the head and hair but leave the face and perhaps the neck, throat or chin visible. The burka, niqab and their variants cover the face and head except for the eyes, and some just leave a mesh screen in front of the eyes too.

I have no problem with a veil that lets the face be seen, at least from a civil and security point of view (since they're really no different from those scarves grandmothers wear over their heads), although personally I feel all the veils that are imposed on women because of modesty or other religious reasons pertaining to specifically being a woman are terrible, since it makes women second-class, subservient and basically nothing better than property of their male relatives or husbands.

Wait a second. If the law won't allow you to do something like that for your religion, why are you living in that country in the first place?
Because a lot of cultures would rather live in a country that is better than their homeland and then try and change the laws or customs there than either live in their country or move to a better country and even attempt to assimilate or adapt to the country's culture. These people are known simply as 'parasites'.

[Deadwood_Zen]

If they want to 'adapt', then follow the laws. And I'm all for religious freedom(it's all bullshit in my opinion), but laws are laws. The Burqa should have to be removed.

Women in Muslim/Islamic(don't know which one is grammatically correct), are perceived as property, which I disagree with. What's worse is that they don't do anything to get away from that. Hurray for brainwashing with religion! :D

>,<

[Mew Master]

Don't forget the stoning of witches, which was on You Tube a few months ago... and rapie's the stoning of a woman who got raped.

[Heald]

Islam is about 500 years younger than Christianity, and 500 years ago there was shit like witch-burnings, heresy executions, inquisitions etc. so don't worry guys, we only have to wait 500 more years for these people to evolve into civilised, normal human beings.

[Telume]

Islam is about 500 years younger than Christianity, and 500 years ago there was shit like witch-burnings, heresy executions, inquisitions etc. so don't worry guys, we only have to wait 500 more years for these people to evolve into civilised, normal human beings.

Nah, usually when it comes to those religions everything they do usually doubles, remember we're still talkin' about people who live in the desert.

So I predict 1000.

Also, yes you are allowed religious freedom but you must also respect the customs of the country you are living in, "We'll accomodate you to a point but you have to give a little up as well."

There has to be a compromise in this case.

[Katie]

Um, I hate religion as much as the next internet-member but I do not agree with forcing a woman to remove clothing required by her religion. The idea behind a burqa is ass backwards IMO but her religion is her own choice, and believe it or not many Muslim women actually believe strongly in their religion. There's no reason to force her into the thought of eternal damnation because you want "to see her facial expressions" - using vocal inflections is probably more telling anyhow.

Example: Western culture has demonized tits and exposing them in public is seen as indecent, so it'd be like requiring all women to go topless (before you get excited, this includes fatties and grannies too). Many MANY women would feel extremely uncomfortable because that is how they grew up - hiding their tits from any men except their husbands, even if there's no really no harm in it it's still horrible making a woman go through that mental trauma.

[Oslo]

If the law won't allow you to do something like that for your religion, why are you living in that country in the first place?

To escape oppression, to gain basic rights, to have access to education, to seek financial opportunities, because you were born there, because you already have family there, because you lack the wealth to get up and leave, because you've developed friendships, because you feel a newfound sense of patriotism and community and acceptance in this land, etc., etc...


Because a lot of cultures would rather live in a country that is better than their homeland and then try and change the laws or customs there than either live in their country or move to a better country and even attempt to assimilate or adapt to the country's culture. These people are known simply as 'parasites'.

But that's part of the democratic process, right? That all citizens, even immigrants, are entitled and encouraged to combat the laws or customs that they deem unfit? An immigrant with a newly-acquired American citizenship possesses the same rights to protest a law as anyone else and should be able to do so without being stigmatized as a parasite. Really, this kind of lobbyism makes them no different from the homosexuals taking a stand against anti-gay marriage laws.

It's this kind of logic that gave way to residential schools or that keeps the English-only movement from dying away. The sort of "we were here first; become like us" ideology lends itself to cultural genocide, plain and simple.

(And for the record, burqas disgust me.)

[Deadwood_Zen]

But then you go to that country, and not only are you picked on and sometimes singled out for your religion, generally on a more communital level, but then something like this happens. Your religious rights are subject to government law, which arouses this kind of situation.

This all seems stupid to me...

[Blademaster]

(filmed, hilariously, by a Scot - 'Every single Scottish person does it!!'

http://foodcourtlunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/groundskeeper-willy.gif

Anyway, here in America, the so-called land of the free, I believe that if a Muslim woman wants to take her ninja suit off, then she should be able to. If she wants to leave it on, that's her choice as well.

However, if you're in a court room - American or Australian - and everyone else has to take off their yamakas, turbans, baseball caps, and beanies, then you aren't exempt. Off with the balaclava like the rest of us. Your religion doesn't get special treatment just because your husband might threaten to blow up the courtroom if it doesn't.

I support the judge's decision. Every religion has its fundies and nutjobs, but the Muslim ones have been getting a lot of attention this past decade, and they're using it to their advantage. Muslims deserve to be offended just as much as every other religion, and making such a huge highlight out of one woman having to take her ski mask off isn't going to help in that endeavor.

[Mew Master]

Muslims deserve to be offended just as much as every other religion, and making such a huge highlight out of one woman having to take her ski mask off isn't going to help in that endeavor.

Tell that to the UN when they decided to amend and uphold an Anti-Muslim Critisizing Law to their charter.

[Asilynne]

Id think she could still cover her hair, but when testifying come on, show the face. I understand in their religion not wearing the burqua would make her uncomfortable, but this is the same religion that is perfectly ok with killing a woman who dishonors her family so the family can save face, and thats an aspect of that religion that definately SHOULDNT be compromised with, so if theyre going to live in a different country than theirs they cant have everything the way they want it.

So basically I think the head covering aspect of their religion should be compromised with, but the face should be left uncovered as is required by law. Both sides may not be totally happy but thats the only way I can see that will at least partially satisfy both :S

[Roy Karrde]

http://foodcourtlunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/groundskeeper-willy.gif

Anyway, here in America, the so-called land of the free, I believe that if a Muslim woman wants to take her ninja suit off, then she should be able to. If she wants to leave it on, that's her choice as well.

However, if you're in a court room - American or Australian - and everyone else has to take off their yamakas, turbans, baseball caps, and beanies, then you aren't exempt. Off with the balaclava like the rest of us. Your religion doesn't get special treatment just because your husband might threaten to blow up the courtroom if it doesn't.

I support the judge's decision. Every religion has its fundies and nutjobs, but the Muslim ones have been getting a lot of attention this past decade, and they're using it to their advantage. Muslims deserve to be offended just as much as every other religion, and making such a huge highlight out of one woman having to take her ski mask off isn't going to help in that endeavor.

Jesus Fucking Christ I agree with Blade! EVERYONE RUN SAVE YOURSELVES THE WORLD IS GOING TO FUCKING END!

[crown34]

Jesus Fucking Christ I agree with Blade! EVERYONE RUN SAVE YOURSELVES THE WORLD IS GOING TO FUCKING END!

You're over reacting.

[Mew Master]

That's pretty much Roy....

[Lady Vulpix]

I don't appreciate the general bashing against religion as a whole and religious people in particular that's been going on. I agree that, if all people are required to show their face in court, or at the airport, then they must do so. No religion should require people to obstruct legal procedures or to threaten the security of others. But aside from that, they should be allowed to wear it elsewhere, if that's what they want.

As for women being considered possessions in Muslim religion, why don't we ask a Muslim whether that's true or not? Say, darktyranitar, for example.

[Heald]

I don't appreciate the general bashing against religion as a whole and religious people in particular that's been going on. I agree that, if all people are required to show their face in court, or at the airport, then they must do so. No religion should require people to obstruct legal procedures or to threaten the security of others. But aside from that, they should be allowed to wear it elsewhere, if that's what they want.
This is basically my sentiment. I disagree with burqas and veils and their place in Islamic Law but I'll defend the right of a person to follow what they believe. What I dislike is when people feel they are exempt from sensible, necessary laws just because of what they believe. It's a slippery slope that can be used to justify anything. At the moment, because of the way Islamic Law is interpreted, a judge in Saudi Arabia is attempting to get a man medically paralyzed as punishment for a grievous assault on another man. That's barbaric and inhumane.


As for women being considered possessions in Muslim religion, why don't we ask a Muslim whether that's true or not? Say, darktyranitar, for example.
It differs. It's like Christianity and whether homosexuality is compatible with their religion, or whether females can be clergy or priests, depends how fundamentalist the country or area is. Likewise, liberal Jews don't observe kosher (or just don't observe it strictly) and ignore the Sabbath. I have several liberal Muslim friends who aren't observing Ramadan, plus they drink alcohol and don't pray. On the other hand, theocracies in the Middle East have laws that prohibit women from leaving the house by themselves and they are treated more like property than human beings in law.

[Katie]

However, if you're in a court room - American or Australian - and everyone else has to take off their yamakas, turbans, baseball caps, and beanies, then you aren't exempt.
How about we just let everyone wear those, as well? Rules against baseball caps are pointless. You'll look like an idiot if you're testifying in one, and you'll probably hurt your case, but you should have every right to wear one if you like. I mean our founding fathers were allowed to wear those awesome powdered wigs in courtrooms back in the day.


I understand in their religion not wearing the burqua would make her uncomfortable, but this is the same religion that is perfectly ok with killing a woman who dishonors her family so the family can save face, and thats an aspect of that religion that definately SHOULDNT be compromised with
Ahaha, who the hell said we should compromise on that? HOLY GIANT LEAPS OF LOGIC, BATMAN.

[Roy Karrde]

You're over reacting.

Maybe you are new here, but Blade and I have a long, very very long, history of disagreeing with eachother on almost every topic and this usually involved very bloody debates, so finding something that he wrote that I completely agree with him on and endorse, is a pretty freaking rare thing.

[Mew Master]

Maybe you are new here

You should really see the "Posts: ##" there Roy and you'd know...

[Lady Vulpix]

It differs. It's like Christianity and whether homosexuality is compatible with their religion, or whether females can be clergy or priests, depends how fundamentalist the country or area is. Likewise, liberal Jews don't observe kosher (or just don't observe it strictly) and ignore the Sabbath. I have several liberal Muslim friends who aren't observing Ramadan, plus they drink alcohol and don't pray. On the other hand, theocracies in the Middle East have laws that prohibit women from leaving the house by themselves and they are treated more like property than human beings in law.
I'm a liberal Jewish, but dt is a very dedicated Muslim, and he's always been very respectful to me and others. That's why I'd like to hear his thoughts.

I know women are treated like that in some countries, but their religion doesn't say it should be that way. It's the governments that commit those atrocities.

[Mew Master]

I know women are treated like that in some countries, but their religion doesn't say it should be that way. It's the governments that commit those atrocities.

This is true in some sense, but you cannot say the governments are sole to blame when the framework from which they operate is based on a religious text. This is what a theocracy is. The Quran does say things about woman that make them less than men, but it's the extremity of what one is willing to believe and take those practices. For example:


Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

An extremist Muslim may take this to mean that women are objects because the man pays for their keep, food, ect, because Allah made men better than women.

Or this?


4:98 Except the feeble among men, and the women, and the children, who are unable to devise a plan and are not shown a way.

Again, a literalist may take this to mean that women are feeble and unable to think of a plan or such. Moderates/Liberal Muslims may not see that and instead think that it refers to the feeble of men, women, and the children are not able to plan.


Ye will not be able to deal equally between (your) wives, however much ye wish (to do so). But turn not altogether away (from one), leaving her as in suspense. If ye do good and keep from evil, lo! Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.

This can basically be interpreted that you can't treat your wife (wives) fairly or equal. One will be the head, and the others will always be below. As a side-note, there is a contradiction here.

Can a man treat his wives fairly?

Yes: 4:3 Marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hands possess.

No: 4:129 Ye will not be able to deal equally between (your) wives, however much ye wish (to do so).

What about other equality?


As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves; let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies, (swearing) by Allah that he is of those who speak the truth;

Well this doesn't seem fair does it? So how much is a man compared to a woman?


Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if there be women more than two, then theirs is two-thirds of the inheritance, and if there be one (only) then the half. And to each of his parents a sixth of the inheritance, if he have a son; and if he have no son and his parents are his heirs, then to his mother appertaineth the third; and if he have brethren, then to his mother appertaineth the sixth, after any legacy he may have bequeathed, or debt (hath been paid). Your parents and your children: Ye know not which of them is nearer unto you in usefulness. It is an injunction from Allah. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.

Notice the bold? What about this passage?


O ye who believe! When ye contract a debt for a fixed term, record it in writing. Let a scribe record it in writing between you (in terms of) equity. No scribe should refuse to write as Allah hath taught him, so let him write, and let him who incurreth the debt dictate, and let him observe his duty to Allah his Lord, and diminish naught thereof. But if he who oweth the debt is of low understanding, or weak, or unable himself to dictate, then let the guardian of his interests dictate in (terms of) equity. And call two witness from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not at hand, then a man and two women, of such as ye approve as witnesses, so that if one erreth (though forgetfulness) the other will remember. And the witnesses must not refuse when they are summoned. Be no averse to writing down (the contract) whether it be small or great, with (record of) the term thereof. That is more equitable in the sight of Allah and more sure for testimony, and the best way of avoiding doubt between you; save only in the case when it is actual merchandise which ye transfer among yourselves from hand to hand. In that case it is no sin for you if ye write it not. And have witnesses when ye sell to one another, and let no harm be done to scribe or witness. If ye do (harm to them) lo! it is a sin in you. Observe your duty to Allah. Allah is teaching you. And Allah is knower of all things.

So depending on the interpretation, this would mean that a woman would equal half a man. When looking at the social structure, this could bring them down a lot farther in the cultural ladder. Anyone remember the 3/5th law that was part of American Law?

When those that take the extreme literal interpretation are in power, it can bring about the worst. In their religion, in their beliefs, and their actions. They view anything not in accordance or agreement with their particular view to be an attack or threat against them in the form of blasphemy.

And the Quran's kinda strict when it comes to blasphemiers and disbelievers:


And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

To be fair, however,the passage is talking about how to deal with their enimies, so long as the followers of Allah don't start the fighting themselves.

Oh, and this:


And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.

Before anyone goes off on me about using out of context quote-mining "trying to prove that Islam is evil," I'm Not. I'm just citing examples of scripture where the extremists would/could get their stance from in their own form of Quote Mining to try and justify their own prejudice stance, cherry-picking the things that back them up and conveniently ignoring the passages that don't.

An extremist could take 2:193 to mean "Kill everyone untill all follow Allah" and yet off-handidly forget the second part about ceasing hostilities. Or they may also take the meaning to be "War with everyone," until of course Islam is no longer being criticized, which means that they're going to be at war with free speech for a while.

Now, I'm not saying that this is how all Muslims take the above passages, I'm just stating that the theocratic governments in control are taking a literal extremist view of their holy documents which can easily bring about such degradation onto women, because it is the only social structure they know. But this is the nature of interpretation. Even if the scripture doesn't say it explicitly, the interpretation of said scripture in any sense (literal or moderate) can determine how it's viewed and enforced. The same can be said for Jewish, Christian, Hindu, ect, and their innumerable different denominations/sects based upon specific interpretations of the scripture and which of those happens to be in power.

Just so it's clear I'm not trying to pick on the Muslims on the board (which I hope I've made it clear I'm not) by saying they can be extreme, I present an example of a Christian Extremist group that every sane person should be appalled at: The Westburough Baptist Church.

Whatta bunch of crazy fucktards.

[kazr]

Because a lot of cultures would rather live in a country that is better than their homeland and then try and change the laws or customs there than either live in their country or move to a better country and even attempt to assimilate or adapt to the country's culture. These people are known simply as 'parasites'.

Holy fuck this thread is outstanding.

[Zak]

Hmm, all these years, this surely cannot be the first time ever that a religious Muslim woman had to testify while living in a Western-cultured country? They make it sound like this has never been an issue before.

Now I'm not familiar with the whole Muslim religion and their set of customs... but as Heald mentioned, yes a lot of Orthodox Jews observe the Sabbath and other religious holidays, keep kosher and wear yamacas all the time, among other stuff.
But, there are certain laws in the system (there's a special fancy word for them) for various certain situations, that not only permit one to make exceptions and break those rules in certain situations, but require them to. For instance, even in the most religious neighborhoods in Jerusalem, ambulances always function on the Sabbath.
I'm not sure what the initial root of the whole yamaca-wearing custom comes from, but seeing as a lot of said above laws do mention court and judicial situations (I remember from taking a class on the Jewish law system three years ago), I wouldn't doubt there would somehow be a mention in the system that would make them feel comfortable uncovering their head.

Surely Islam doesn't have a similar thing?

[darktyranitar]

Whoops, it seems that I end up being mentioned, even if I'm not that pious haha (compared to other Muslim, I'm more of a fiend, heheh)

Anyway

I might be mistaken, but I think that niqab/burqa is more of an Arabic culture than a religious obligation (where I'm from, only a tiny minority of the Muslim woman wear them, and most of them are from oversea as well). I personally think those Muslim women are, well, just being extreme (tho they'd probably say I'm liberal, heh).

But I gotta disagree on the part where someone mentioned that it is OK for killing to save face tho - I'm pretty sure it's an Arab culture rather than a Muslim law, 'cause I know how they can be pretty hotheaded and overtly emotional at times. Just because I'm a Muslim doesn't mean I 100% approve the Arab Muslim culture, right?

(By the way, Muslim =/= Arabs, yeah?)


I'm never interested in these kind of debates in the first place, if you want to know the truth, since it's the same thing on either side. Here you get a few people who would use the opportunity to bash religions (I'd say Islam, but apparently others get the same treatment as well). And then, on the other side of the internet, you get all those religious extremists bashing the other side for their infidelity, being impious, and godlessness (familiar with the term 'militant atheist'?). Yeah, it's the whole 'us and them' in either case.

...well, never mind that rambling. I'm a wishy washy, I know =P

[Mew Master]

I might be mistaken, but I think that niqab/burqa is more of an Arabic culture than a religious obligation (where I'm from, only a tiny minority of the Muslim woman wear them, and most of them are from oversea as well). I personally think those Muslim women are, well, just being extreme (tho they'd probably say I'm liberal, heh).

I think I got the passage where it's mentioned that women should be modest and cover themselves, hence where the covering of the body would originate from.


And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed.


Here you get a few people who would use the opportunity to bash religions (I'd say Islam, but apparently others get the same treatment as well).

Despite the fact that I don't agree with any kind of religious practice, you can see that I'm openlly against the extremist practice and governmental endorsement of a specific denomination/sect of religion. While the religion itself is relatively harmless, certian passages in the scripture and their interpretation can lead to some very dangerous groups. And when those groups are in power, it makes the religion look very bad.


And then, on the other side of the internet, you get all those religious extremists bashing the other side for their infidelity, being impious, and godlessness (familiar with the term 'militant atheist'?). Yeah, it's the whole 'us and them' in either case.

I thought the internet was mostly atheistic. Although YouTube does have it's fair share of crazy religious nut-jobs. It really doesn't help when they stack all atheists into one bag and then make all kinds of crazy straw man arguments, then then gets 20-40 responses about how they're wrong. Admittedly atheists make this mistake too.

[Lady Vulpix]

I guess the interpretation of that passage depends on what you understand as 'adornment' and 'nakedness'.

And no, the Internet is not mostly atheistic, there are all kinds of people online (all except those who lack the means). I've even seen some religious sites and forums where EVERYONE is devouted to a certain religion (and I've seen them for several religions, not just one).

[Heald]

I thought the internet was mostly atheistic. Although YouTube does have it's fair share of crazy religious nut-jobs. It really doesn't help when they stack all atheists into one bag and then make all kinds of crazy straw man arguments, then then gets 20-40 responses about how they're wrong. Admittedly atheists make this mistake too.
I would say this is far from true. Atheism as defined as completely rejecting the existence of a god, gods, or other spiritual beliefs (such as a soul, reincarnation etc.) is still very much a minority compared to those who are either actively religious, those who consider themselves religious but don't practice it and agnostics.

If we only include countries that have medium-to-high internet usage and access in this sample, atheism is still very much a minority compared to theism, deism and agnosticism.

Personally, militant atheists are just as bad, if not worse than fundamentalist religious types. At least fundamentalists have some sort of belief that they appear to be defending (this doesn't justify it at all, of course) whereas militant atheists just seem to be screaming at people they disagree with. What are they defending? Well essentially that you're going to end up dead in the ground and no god is going to save you or whatever. A fundamental pillar of atheism is accepting that the existence of a god or any other kind of spiritual belief is impossible to either prove or disprove in a rigorous scientific way. All atheists have done is chosen to believe there is no higher power or purpose and that we simply came from the dirt and will return to the dirt, unless that immortality potion is round the corner. This is one of the reasons why I hate Richard Dawkins, he's wasting his life and deluding others with his incoherent rants.

The internet probably seems mostly atheist because most people don't actively practise their faith (or lack of faith), or at least haven't bothered to even make a choice on whether or not there is a god, and thus wouldn't advertise that they either are or not, and it is easy to assume someone is an atheist just because you never observe them practising any sort of belief or faith (after all, why the hell would you state your religious beliefs on a forum based around Pokemon, or Quake, or Michael Bay movies, or snakes etc.). Hell, even I do this and then I am surprised if I discover a friend or person to be religious a few months down the line after first meeting them. I guess it's just natural to assume on the lack of information. Having a religious belief can also be heavily stigmatised in modern cultures, no matter how small, even though it is completely irrational to be so certain that there is no chance whatsoever there is some kind of spiritual or theological significance, no matter how small. Some people are religious, some people aren't, that's basically the long and short of it. What people shouldn't do is make judgements of people's character based on their beliefs. If you find out one of your friends converted to Christianity or, if he/she was already a Christian (or whatever the dominant religion in your country is, or whatever) and he/she becomes an Atheist, would you think any differently of him/her? I know I wouldn't.

[Deadwood_Zen]

There are quite a few laws in the Bible, that most Christians don't follow either. Stoning people for adultery(though that happened last week overseas), stoning those who don't believe in their God, etc. You never see those mentioned and debated about. DT's right, about people using this as an opportunity to bash religion.

[Heald]

Meh, anything that has stupid laws is open to ridicule, whether it be a law that forces women to wear masks or a law that forbids eating shrimp. Hell, even real-life laws, such as anti-gay laws and those that criminalise perfectly legitimate behaviour are stupid. Just because it's a religious law rather than a federal or civil law doesn't make them any less open to ridicule.

[Mew Master]

If you find out one of your friends converted to Christianity or, if he/she was already a Christian (or whatever the dominant religion in your country is, or whatever) and he/she becomes an Atheist, would you think any differently of him/her? I know I wouldn't.

I know I wouldn't either. My GF of 9 years is a Christian, and I found out recently one of my best friends was actually Jewish, it hasn't affected my opinion of them or our friendship.

I suppose my comment was supposed to be more of a "there seem to be more skeptical opponents of Creationism" than "more atheist."


A fundamental pillar of atheism is accepting that the existence of a god or any other kind of spiritual belief is impossible to either prove or disprove in a rigorous scientific way.

Actually the basis of atheism is "a disbelief in a god or gods," the fact that the supernatural cannot be proven or disproven is an aspect of science and materialistic methodology.


Personally, militant atheists are just as bad, if not worse than fundamentalist religious types.

Except the fact that militant atheists don't go around bombing abortion clinics, or flying planes into buildings, trying to prove something.

However, we're getting off topic with this tangent.

[Heald]

I suppose my comment was supposed to be more of a "there seem to be more skeptical opponents of Creationism" than "more atheist."
Creationism isn't widely accepted outside of the USA anyway and in fact Evolutionary Theory has been largely accepted by most Christians since the days of Darwin. Creationism is in no way a party of traditional Christianity.



Actually the basis of atheism is "a disbelief in a god or gods," the fact that the supernatural cannot be proven or disproven is an aspect of science and materialistic methodology.
I didn't say basis, I said pillar, so we're still both right.



Except the fact that militant atheists don't go around bombing abortion clinics, or flying planes into buildings, trying to prove something.
Again, this in no way reflects even 99.99% of the people who practise religion in one form or another and it really is a stupid point that would look idiotic even on a YouTube comment page. Likewise, atheists like Pol Pot who caused the genocide of millions of people because they practised a religion doesn't represent the population of atheists. Neither group is better or worse than the other and trying to argue otherwise is completely pointless.

[Ipwnyou]

I don't really see the point of covering your face in public, but if someone wants to do it, then I have no problems with it, as long as it's not hurting anyone else.

Being able to dress how you want in public is a part of free speech, and I would never oppose someones right to do so.
If they decided that they all wanted to run around in batman costumes, I would stand behind them, because they have every right to do so.
I support the separation of religion and governemnt 100%, and they have no business telling people how to worship, or what to wear for that matter.

However, there are real concerns about it, such as the security issues, (of people being able to hide their identities at all times) and I support banning it on those grounds, and those grounds alone.

[Razola]

Explain how atheism got Stalin or Polly Olly Pot to murder people.

There is literally NOTHING in atheism that can drive you to murder. It HAS to come from a flawed personal philosophy. Atheism isn't a religion: it doesn't have any rules, regulations or doctrine beyond a lack of belief in deities. Religion DOES, and that is what can fuel terrible acts against humanity. It's not the only thing that does, but a fucked-up world-view holds less weight when you can't invoke an infallible asshole to back you up on your craziness.

The way I like to put it is that atheism contributes as much to Stalin's slaughters as his mustache. To be fair, once you hit the "bloody tyrant" stage, you're just grabbing anything you can to justify being a monster. Christianity probably didn't make Hitler...Hitler. That's just what happened to work for him.

Religion's true failings tend to be more subtle (not to mention it's totally superfluous).

[kazr]

Explain how atheism got Stalin or Polly Olly Pot to murder people.

There is literally NOTHING in atheism that can drive you to murder. It HAS to come from a flawed personal philosophy. Atheism isn't a religion: it doesn't have any rules, regulations or doctrine beyond a lack of belief in deities. Religion DOES, and that is what can fuel terrible acts against humanity. It's not the only thing that does, but a fucked-up world-view holds less weight when you can't invoke an infallible asshole to back you up on your craziness.

The way I like to put it is that atheism contributes as much to Stalin's slaughters as his mustache. To be fair, once you hit the "bloody tyrant" stage, you're just grabbing anything you can to justify being a monster. Christianity probably didn't make Hitler...Hitler. That's just what happened to work for him.

Religion's true failings tend to be more subtle (not to mention it's totally superfluous).

No religion has it as one of their rules to kill people. I'm actually fairly positive that at least all of the world's major religion's #1 philosophy is love, peace, and the bettering of the individual through helping others. It's up to somebody to twist those words into something perverted that fuels people's hate for the unknown and what's different than them.

China is pretty good at suppressing religion to try and keep their state secular and I will bet good money that they have a lot of religious political prisoners locked up who have been tortured and murdered on those grounds alone. The Xinjiang province is in the news a lot with riots and violence, with the government trying to suppress the local Uighurs from practicing Islam. Also: Tibet.

What I'm trying to get at is people who argue for athiesm sound just as moronic as people who try and argue for a religion. Nobody will ever change their minds from reading words from some jack ass on the internet.

[kazr]

I'm the jack ass in this post btw

[Heald]

Explain how atheism got Stalin or Polly Olly Pot to murder people.
Oh, I forgot those famous passages in the Bible that told European kings to send forces to invade the Middle East.

Or that one at the end of the Qur'an that mentions that if fixed-wing flight became a technological reality, then someone should totally fly a couple of planes into some skyscrapers.

You're making a strawman out of my argument. My argument was that it isn't just religious people who are driven to commit atrocities, and in fact a large number of atrocities of the 20th century were committed by godless people targeting members of either a specific religion or just religious people in general.

The fact is blaming religion for the world's problems and strife is a poor argument that holds no water. It just happens to be a convenient scapegoat, like African Americans were before the 1970s (and some people (Fox News) still use them as a scapegoat) and gays and Mexicans are now.

A belief in the supernatural, the spiritual or god isn't enough to drive people to do terrible things. Strictly following the reinterpretation of the mad rantings of a 6th-century cultist by a backwards, inhumane theocracy, on the other hand, is probably more to blame, but then again, radical Islam as a political, religious, and social philosophy (which it is now, rather than simply a religion) nowadays has about as much in common with its Abrahamic roots as Pol Pot's genocides have to do with atheism. Likewise, cultist off-shoots of the Christian Church like the WBC and the Children of God are hardly valid representations of that particular religion's beliefs.