Jump to content

Racist kids cant understand woman in veil


Recommended Posts

Clarified something. That, yes, pupils should be free to wear whatever it is they choose. But religion has no place in public life. Faith schools and religious symbols ought not be present within the state education system and that has to include teaching staff. If we want a multi-cultural society (and I think we do) then we must throw children into the melting pot but, and this is where Des and Caruso are right and I was wrong, keeping their inherent differences intact. However I'd like to think that both would agree that we shouldn't allow the issue of faith into public life in order to keep the balance of a secular society in public with the important counter balance of freedom to worship whichever deity you choose in your private life. Education is the place where private meets public and it has to do so with what's best for children foremost in mind.

 

So are you saying that kids should be allowed to display the trappings of faith, but adults not?

 

Society is inherently multicultural. Always will be. I don't think keeping religion out of state schools for both children and adults would harm that. Maybe if kids can see each other away from their, at that age imposed, religious identities they might see that they have a whole lot more in common than they do that makes them different.

 

Who chooses whether the six year old wears a crucifix, a star of david or whatever? Is it the young pupil or the pupil's parents?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Society is inherently multicultural. Always will be. I don't think keeping religion out of state schools for both children and adults would harm that. Maybe if kids can see each other away from their, at that age imposed, religious identities they might see that they have a whole lot more in common than they do that makes them different.

 

Maybe if kids mixed with other kids with the religious paraphernalia they would yadda yadda yadda...

 

For somebody who professes to be liberal, you seem pretty damn determined to control the behaviour of others.

 

This makes for superb reading.

 

"3. Grandiose causes need new-style arguments. For example: hijab must be banned; it is a sign of male power (the father or eldest brother) over young girls or women. So, we’ll banish the women who obstinately wear it. Basically put: these girls or women are oppressed. Hence, they shall be punished. It’s a little like saying: “This woman has been raped: throw her in jail.” The hijab is so important that it deserves a logical system with renewed axioms.

 

In France, Islam is the religion of the poor.

 

4. Or, contrariwise: it is they who freely want to wear that damned headscarf, those rebels, those brats! Hence, they shall be punished. Wait a minute: do you mean it isn’t the symbol of male oppression, after all? The father and eldest brother have nothing to do with it? Where then does the need to ban the scarf come from? The problem in hijab is conspicuously religious. Those brats have made their belief conspicuous. You there! Go stand in the corner!"

 

YES!

 

"10. While we?re on the subject, isn?t business the real mass religion? Compared to which Muslims look like an ascetic minority? Isn?t the conspicuous symbol of this degrading religion what we can read on pants, sneakers and t-shirts: Nike, Chevignon, Lacoste? Isn?t it cheaper yet to be a fashion victim at school than God?s faithful servant? If I were to aim at hitting a bull?s eye here-aiming big-I?d say everyone knows what?s needed: a law against brand names. Get to work, Chirac. Let?s ban the conspicuous symbols of Capital, with no compromises."

Edited by Des
Link to post
Share on other sites

This[/url] makes for superb reading.

What a very interesting site. There is slightly less superb reading to be had elsewhere on it, though.

 

This is a charming synopsis.

 

Madaboutlfc or whoever it was with the gay Muslim friend: you might be interested to know that unless you are consistently warning them about their evil deeds, you are guilty of Fahisha, the condoning of and participation in a grave sin. Bummer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe if kids mixed with other kids with the religious paraphernalia they would yadda yadda yadda...

 

For somebody who professes to be liberal, you seem pretty damn determined to control the behaviour of others.

 

This makes for superb reading.

 

"3. Grandiose causes need new-style arguments. For example: hijab must be banned; it is a sign of male power (the father or eldest brother) over young girls or women. So, we?ll banish the women who obstinately wear it. Basically put: these girls or women are oppressed. Hence, they shall be punished. It?s a little like saying: ?This woman has been raped: throw her in jail.? The hijab is so important that it deserves a logical system with renewed axioms.

 

In France, Islam is the religion of the poor.

 

4. Or, contrariwise: it is they who freely want to wear that damned headscarf, those rebels, those brats! Hence, they shall be punished. Wait a minute: do you mean it isn?t the symbol of male oppression, after all? The father and eldest brother have nothing to do with it? Where then does the need to ban the scarf come from? The problem in hijab is conspicuously religious. Those brats have made their belief conspicuous. You there! Go stand in the corner!"

 

YES!

 

"10. While we?re on the subject, isn?t business the real mass religion? Compared to which Muslims look like an ascetic minority? Isn?t the conspicuous symbol of this degrading religion what we can read on pants, sneakers and t-shirts: Nike, Chevignon, Lacoste? Isn?t it cheaper yet to be a fashion victim at school than God?s faithful servant? If I were to aim at hitting a bull?s eye here-aiming big-I?d say everyone knows what?s needed: a law against brand names. Get to work, Chirac. Let?s ban the conspicuous symbols of Capital, with no compromises."

 

Yep, and you seem increasingly determined to wilfully misinterpret what I say. I was talking about banning kids from wearing certain things at school. That's hardly totalitarian, Des.

 

I don't really have a problem with schoolkids wearing uniforms, if it means that they're not wearing brand names and designer labels. I'm not a massive fan of consumerism either.

 

If people want to believe in any of the various gods, then they're free to do so. I just don't think religion has a place in public life.

 

Hence, they shall be punished. It?s a little like saying: ?This woman has been raped: throw her in jail.?

 

Not as extreme as saying this woman claims she's been raped but she can't provide four male witnesses. Therefore she's commited adultery so she has to be stoned to death.

 

here

 

That's as nuts as this - women and the bible.

 

and this

Edited by £440,000
Link to post
Share on other sites

"10. While we’re on the subject, isn’t business the real mass religion? Compared to which Muslims look like an ascetic minority? Isn’t the conspicuous symbol of this degrading religion what we can read on pants, sneakers and t-shirts: Nike, Chevignon, Lacoste… Isn’t it cheaper yet to be a fashion victim at school than God’s faithful servant? If I were to aim at hitting a bull’s eye here-aiming big-I’d say everyone knows what’s needed: a law against brand names. Get to work, Chirac. Let’s ban the conspicuous symbols of Capital, with no compromises."

 

 

Killing and oppressing more people (and destroying more buildings) every day than any religion, not just Islam.

 

Physician, heal thyself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't even read the link but I'll bite to annoy Des: what is the relevant teaching from the mainstream catechism, the articles of faith that actually apply?

 

I don't know the catechism, but I'm sure that anything good in it, such as be a good human being, could as easily be taught outside the framework of the church.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the catechism, but I'm sure that anything good in it, such as be a good human being, could as easily be taught outside the framework of the church.

Absolutely true and indubitable and it can and it is and most people are great but I'm pointing out that the mainstream Christian churches' current interpretation of their 'Word of God' for their flock -- i.e., that contained in the catechisms, is what should be compared with Islam's current interpretation of the Qur'an.

 

Comparing Islam's literalist version of sin and punishment to pre-Dark-Ages Old Testament is misleading. We have already agreed that there are loopers who claim to follow every mistranslated word of the Christian Bible and that they are mad.

 

I just think that the constant invoking of the Old Testament needs to be qualified very clearly with the 'modern catechism' caveat. We're talking about the basic requirements of faith in the modern era and the Bible is no longer the literal laying-down of Judaeo-Christian punishment by a long chalk and it's disingenuous to imply it is.

 

Which is not what you were doing at all, qui va sans dire.

Edited by Coyler
Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely true and indubitable and it can and it is and most people are great but I'm pointing out that the mainstream Christian churches' current interpretation of their 'Word of God' for their flock -- i.e., that contained in the catechisms, is what should be compared with Islam's current interpretation of the Qur'an.

 

Comparing Islam's literalist version of sin and punishment to pre-Dark-Ages Old Testament is misleading. We have already agreed that there are loopers who claim to follow every mistranslated word of the Christian Bible and that they are mad.

 

I just think that the constant invoking of the Old Testament needs to be qualified very clearly with the 'modern catechism' caveat. We're talking about the basic requirements of faith in the modern era and the Bible is no longer the literal laying-down of Judaeo-Christian punishment by a long chalk and it's disingenuous to imply it is.

 

Which is not what you were doing at all, qui va sans dire.

 

It seems obvious that Islam has similar shades of interpretation.

 

Just out of interest, what's the modern catechism's take on some of the subjects we've discussed here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fair to a point Coyler, but you can't dismiss Paul's instruction to the Corinthians to keep their wives silent in church as a pre-Dak Age Old Testament irrelevance.

 

In terms of the Christian church's attitude to homosexuals as well, you'd do well to remember that for every wishy-washy anglican glosing over biblical teaching there's an evangelical or pentecostal minister preaching that it is absolutely a sin and anyone gay is damned.

Edited by Gilps
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems obvious that Islam has similar shades of interpretation.

 

Just out of interest, what's the modern catechism's take on some of the subjects we've discussed here?

On the homosexuality one, as I said up above somewhere, the Catholic catechism makes horrible inferences about the nature of homosexuality. It instructs, though, treating the poor unfortunate freak with love and compassion and not so much with stoning and fire and brutal murder.

 

I'm under no illusions whatsoever about the Catholic Church's official stance on homosexuality, by the way, (and brace myself for further exile with forthcoming declarations ex cathedra from the incumbent homophobe) but it is aeons ahead of the treatment recommended for homosexuals in Islam. In that way what the two faiths demand of their footsoldiers differs vastly.

 

On top of that, not one Catholic I know does not have grave issues with the disgusting way that homosexuals are described. I know that Catholic priests in my experience treat the subject with much more human decency than they are instructed to.

 

Compare that to the Muslim equivocation and constant explication and, indeed, support for the much harsher instructions they are given.

 

That's fair to a point Coyler, but you can't dismiss Paul's instruction to the Corinthians to keep their wives silent in church as a pre-Dak Age Old Testament irrelevance.

 

In terms of the Christian church's attitude to homosexuals as well, you'd do well to remember that for every wishy-washy anglican glosing over biblical teaching there's an evangelical or pentecostal minister preaching that it is absolutely a sin and anyone gay is damned.

That's true as well.

 

On that instruction of St. Paul I have to say I have never heard of it, which speaks volumes. I would be surprised to learn that it formed part of the current teaching of the Church. My late gran, for one, wouldn't stick it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure it's practiced in any church, even those evangelical nutters claiming it's the literal world of God. But it is part of the New Testamanet and I've never heard any christian suggest that Paul epistles are anything other than a corestone of christian belief. So on that basis, it should be practiced in our enlightened christian churchs ;)

Edited by Gilps
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems obvious that Islam has similar shades of interpretation.

Sorry, on matters FABulous it really doesn't seem obvious to me at all. All I want is an assurance that nothing like a majority of Muslims supports or beats around the bush about death punishments. I want to be educated and disabused of the notion that it is a non-negotiable condition of being a Muslim. I'm still in shock that that is not forthcoming.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

 

1 Corinthians was a production of the Paul's Letters for Religious Nutters Corp. No?

 

In Timothy he was a bit of a prat too:

 

1 Timothy 2:11-15:"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent"

Edited by DanielS
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure it's practiced in any church, even those evangelical nutters claiming it's the literal world of God. But it is part of the New Testamanet and I've never heard any christian suggest that Paul epistles are anything other than a corestone of christian belief. So on that basis, it should be practiced in our enlightened christian churchs ;)

:D Ah, sure the whole Church has gone to the dogs these days.

 

Seriously, though, have you ever heard a Christian explaining at length why he or she really has to believe it or else that's it for him and Jesus? Cornerstone teachings they may be but I can't remember them as being represented as immune to the passage of time and the changing social facts.

 

It probably survived as an instruction to kids not to play loudly with toys during the sermon, or something. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

 

1 Corinthians was a production of the Paul's Letters for Religious Nutters Corp. No?

 

Timothy was a bit of a prat too:

 

1 Timothy 2:11-15:"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent"

Testify. Mad statements.

 

But once again, the actual catechism probably reflects current teaching more accurately:

 

369 Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. "Being man" or "being woman" is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator. 240 Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity "in the image of God". In their "being-man" and "being-woman", they reflect the Creator's wisdom and goodness.

 

Any eejit who thinks Timothy or Corinthians supersedes that is mad.

 

 

I don't want to sit here and defend the f*cking catechism beyond saying that IT DOESN'T LAY DOWN DEATH AS A PUNISHMENT FOR GAY PEOPLE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Testify. Mad statements.

 

But once again, the actual catechism probably reflects current teaching more accurately:

 

369 Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. "Being man" or "being woman" is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator. 240 Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity "in the image of God". In their "being-man" and "being-woman", they reflect the Creator's wisdom and goodness.

 

Any eejit who thinks Timothy or Corinthians supersedes that is mad.

I don't want to sit here and defend the f*cking catechism beyond saying that IT DOESN'T LAY DOWN DEATH AS A PUNISHMENT FOR GAY PEOPLE.

 

"Papist whore worshipers can believe what they fecking want - the bible is the bible and can't be contradicted by dress wearing paedos in Rome."

 

Is what Paisley would say. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to the gay issue the problem for me is that in this instance both the Bible and the Qur?an were written at a time when there was very little ?true? understanding of the subject. Times have since changed and as a result, for the most part, have our views of gay people and they whys and wherefores.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You really haven't got to go back that far Coyler to see women uniformly wearing hats to church and staying pretty silent whilst there.

So what? I'm not defending the recent past of the Christian bollicking Church. I'm not even defending the Irish society of 20 years ago.

 

I'm saying that the current teaching of Islam on homosexuals and the punishments recommended is disgraceful and barbaric and no Muslim is saying it isn't. People have drawn comparisons with former teachings of the Christian Churches and that's perfectly fine. I contended then that current teaching is vastly different, but that the Christians or anybodywho still believes in the principles is a c*nt.

 

With regards to the gay issue the problem for me is that in this instance both the Bible and the Qur?an were written at a time when there was very little ?true? understanding of the subject. Times have since changed and as a result, for the most part, have our views of gay people and they whys and wherefores.

BINGO

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...