Seanchaidh: I feel this rather (and quite neatly) vindicates my earlier contention that Katatori was treating the religious 'obligation' as something like a disability. Thank you, Batou667. :)
Ehh... if that's what you got from my analogy, then either you misinterpreted it or my analogy wasn't very good. The point that I was trying to make is that what might be a frivolity or luxury for one group might be a necessity for another group, and therefore simply slapping down a one-size-fits-all ruling isn't appropriate.
But a one-size-fits-all ruling is great when it allows wide latitude for many different practices to come together in flowery cultural diversity. And shit.
For the same reason that I mentioned earlier to Katatori, your argument depends on having a religious obligation, as a condition, being a disadvantage in order to make sense. My vegetarian Danny analogy is both closer to what a religious obligation actually is and comes up with the opposite conclusion. It's not breaking your leg. It's much closer to having a desire than breaking your leg.
Sorry, where the hell does anything specify that school dress code is a religious belief? Are you seriously so absurd that you're going to tell me having them follow the dress code is a religious belief? Btw, point out where I said anything should be banned. Can't? That's because I didn't say it. Why don't you do an exercise in not accusing people of things they didn't say? Would it kill you to have some integrity?
Uh, the entire point of your argument is that you think it's unfair to have some people "be able to" wear a hat if their religion requires it. If you want to change that, then yes, you are arguing for hats to be banned. (Yes, I realize that you were actually arguing for everyone to be able to wear hats, but if you wanted to make an argument that you should be able to wear a hat for non-religious reasons, you shouldn't have mentioned religion at all.)
No, that is not arguing for hats to be banned and you even just admitted it. You're being absurd as usual.
Also, why don't you fucking read my actual arguments instead of making shit up for me? You still haven't addressed the other part, you just cut it out. Lack the shred of integrity it requires to admit you were lying about someone? Figures.
And they'll hate you for it. It makes civil society impossible.
Prove it.
It's common sense, obviously. If you were forced to do something against your beliefs, you would hate the school and the government behind it, wouldn't you?
It's common sense that they won't care enough. It's also common sense that saying "common sense" instead of an argument is tantamount to admitting that you have no real reasons and are just bullshitting.
Religious tolerance was the end result of hundreds of years of horrible religious wars in Europe, after which point everyone decided "You know, let's not try to force other people to change their religious beliefs through force of law, it just gets ugly and accomplishes nothing."
No one is being forced to change beliefs.
If a person is required to do X by their beliefs, and you want to say "don't do X or else you don't get to go to school", then you are trying to force them to change their beliefs, and you are doing so by holding their education hostage.
No, you are not forcing them to change their beliefs. This is not rocket science. Action != belief.
gritch: As an Atheist myself I have to say you really sound immature here. Allowing Islamic students to wear head scarfs is done so out of respect for another's culture and beliefs. To deny these people what they consider to be an integral part of their belief just because you think you should be able to wear a beanie as well is extremely disrespectful.
Why should their belief get more respect than someone's desire to wear a ten gallon hat? Just saying "Oh that's not respectful!" is not an argument.
As an atheist, one should still respect and be open to the beliefs of others. Not believing in God does not make one superior another and to act in such a way makes one no better than those "church zealots" they themselves look down upon.
No one was acting superior.
By reducing an entire culture's beliefs to something as trivial as a desire to wear a beanie or a ten gallon hat, you are in fact acting superior. You are equating one's own personal desire to being ordered to wear a Hijab.
No, I am not. Look I can play your idiotic game of making claims without support too. It is not acting superior to put their beliefs that low, it is merely giving them the same respect I do other desires. If you want me to treat them differently give a god damn argument why they should be instead of just complaining that I'm acting superior.
I don't believe in the philosophy behind wearing a Hijab. I think it's archaic and unnecessary but people have a right to follow whatever beliefs they want. But to reduce a Hijab to something a frivolous as a beanie is not valid. The two are simply not the same.
Okay, prove it isn't valid. Give a good fucking argument why the strength of their conviction makes any kind of difference. Or if it's not that whatever else it is you claim makes a different.
Stop acting so superior and maybe deign to actually use reason for a change as opposed to making claims and thinking that since you're so damn superior we just need to accept them at face value.
Why should their belief get more respect than someone's desire to wear a ten gallon hat? Just saying "Oh that's not respectful!" is not an argument.
No one was acting superior.
By reducing an entire culture's beliefs to something as trivial as a desire to wear a beanie or a ten gallon hat, you are in fact acting superior. You are equating one's own personal desire to being ordered to wear a Hijab.
I don't believe in the philosophy behind wearing a Hijab. I think it's archaic and unnecessary but people have a right to follow whatever beliefs they want. But to reduce a Hijab to something a frivolous as a beanie is not valid. The two are simply not the same.
Exactly. A person raised in a culture/religion all their life to believe that they must wear something (or just feel a personal obligation) is entirely different than me just wanting to wear my Atlanta Falcons cap to a place where it is banned. You insult the religious person in question by saying the two things are the same.
Entirely different how? All I see is a difference in their head, with no reason as to why I should respect or value that difference in any way.
An insult? It's an insult to me to make bullshit claims like that. You know, if we're totally into baselessly declaring things to be insults.
By reducing an entire culture's beliefs to something as trivial as a desire to wear a beanie or a ten gallon hat, you are in fact acting superior. You are equating one's own personal desire to being ordered to wear a Hijab.
I don't believe in the philosophy behind wearing a Hijab. I think it's archaic and unnecessary but people have a right to follow whatever beliefs they want. But to reduce a Hijab to something a frivolous as a beanie is not valid. The two are simply not the same.
Exactly. A person raised in a culture/religion all their life to believe that they must wear something (or just feel a personal obligation) is entirely different than me just wanting to wear my Atlanta Falcons cap to a place where it is banned. You insult the religious person in question by saying the two things are the same.
Entirely different how? All I see is a difference in their head, with no reason as to why I should respect or value that difference in any way.
An insult? It's an insult to me to make bullshit claims like that. You know, if we're totally into baselessly declaring things to be insults.
If you can't tell the difference between someone feeling a deep personal obligation and someone wanting to wear a cap (or just the right to wear a cap) than we having nothing to discuss.
Exactly. A person raised in a culture/religion all their life to believe that they must wear something (or just feel a personal obligation) is entirely different than me just wanting to wear my Atlanta Falcons cap to a place where it is banned. You insult the religious person in question by saying the two things are the same.
Entirely different how? All I see is a difference in their head, with no reason as to why I should respect or value that difference in any way.
An insult? It's an insult to me to make bullshit claims like that. You know, if we're totally into baselessly declaring things to be insults.
If you can't tell the difference between someone feeling a deep personal obligation and someone wanting to wear a cap (or just the right to wear a cap) than we having nothing to discuss.
If you can't make a real argument for why they should be treated differently by someone else, then please go ahead and concede. I didn't say they were the same, but that does not mean that the difference that exists warrants different treatment. I noted there is a difference, but as I said there is no given reason for why I should respect or value it based on that difference. You're not even making a real argument.
By reducing an entire culture's beliefs to something as trivial as a desire to wear a beanie or a ten gallon hat, you are in fact acting superior. You are equating one's own personal desire to being ordered to wear a Hijab.
Wait. Wait. Wait.
Dafuq?!
The problem is not "Muslims are allowed to wear a hijab and I'm not allowed to wear a cap". That's a situation that can occur very often and can be reasonable very often.
The problem is that the rule is "Headgear is banned, unless you're motivation to wear headgear is religious". That was very clear in the OP. I suggested better solutions for headgearbans/hijab-allowances.
That rule is discriminatory, and I suggested one way to improve that rule.
And now we, who defend everyone's freedom to wear headgear, are trivializing "an entire culture's beliefs"? You just reduced all non-religious motivations to "wanting to wear a beanie". And now WE are acting superior?
Religious headgear=/=being ordered to wear a hijab Non-religious headgear=/=a trivial desire to wear a beanie Questioning the superiority of religious headgear and asking for equality=/=acting superior
RedEyesBlackGamer: Exactly. A person raised in a culture/religion all their life to believe that they must wear something (or just feel a personal obligation) is entirely different than me just wanting to wear my Atlanta Falcons cap to a place where it is banned. You insult the religious person in question by saying the two things are the same.
And you should read the above too.
Religious headgear=/=being raised all your life in a religion/feel personal obligation Non-religious headgear=/=you wanting to wear an Atalanta Falcons cap Questioning the superiority of religious headgear=/=insulting
Katatori-kun: I'm not. That's a strawman argument someone here invented about me that honestly I couldn't be bothered to address because I have far too many people demanding responses as it is. But I have never said the government should decide what is a sincerely held religious belief and what isn't.
Okay then, when the stoner kid walks into school wearing a beanie and declares that it's required of him because of his new religion (420ism), you don't get to tell him to take it off. And when a "Pastafarian" struts into class in full pirate regalia, you aren't allowed to do anything about it. Anyone can come up with a bullshit reason and call it religion. Regardless of what you personally think, religious belief isn't (for lack of a better word) sacred. All that separates a religious person from the stoner or the edgy atheist is the strength of their conviction, which, to be frank, means nothing.
Your comment will be relevant when you can tell me of a country that outlaws atheists wearing headgear.
*reads the OP*
I'll explain in case you aren't following. The school disallowed headgear unless you have a religious reason. By definition, an atheist (or more accurately an irreligious person, since there can be atheistic religions) has no religion and therefore no religious beliefs. Therefore the irreligious are de facto banned from wearing headgear unless they betray their convictions. Is this really that hard to process?
Exactly my point. It is all about privilege. Here you have a secular majority that is so privileged in a society that they perceive merely letting religious people follow their religion gives them an an advantage over themselves. Or at least, that's how Danyal and you and others have fought tooth and nail to portray the issue. I suspect the majority of Dutch aren't quite this islamaphobic/theophobic.
So apparently your Modus Operandi is to accuse me of constructing a strawman and then turn around and throw ad hominem attacks at me? I am neither an Islamophobe nor a theophobe. I simply acknowledge that religion does not deserve special recognition. As far as the government is concerned, religious belief should be equally as valid as any secular opinion because, as I said above (and as you allegedly agree), the government shouldn't be in the business of deciding which religions are "serious." That means any kook can create his own religion. Treating it as something special devalues secular philosophies.
Yup, you've definitely lost the plot here. You're trying to portray permitting a religious group to practice its beliefs as aiding the group. Your perspective is so skewed there's no point in continuing the discussion. Come back when you've calmed down, thought about it, and aren't so eager to declare things that aren't the same to be the same.
Uh, yeah, it is aiding the group. They get a privilege that others don't get because they really, honestly think that their indemonstrable deity wants them to. Frankly, I don't understand why that gets them any special treatment. If there's a good reason to get rid of headgear, get rid of it for everyone. If, however, the headgear ban is so pointless that "I honestly think it shouldn't apply to me" is a good enough reason to circumvent it, perhaps it shouldn't exist at all.
Seanchaidh: But a one-size-fits-all ruling is great when it allows wide latitude for many different practices to come together in flowery cultural diversity. And shit.
I love the 'flowery cultural diversity - and shit' :P
Mortai Gravesend: Entirely different how? All I see is a difference in their head, with no reason as to why I should respect or value that difference in any way.
An insult? It's an insult to me to make bullshit claims like that. You know, if we're totally into baselessly declaring things to be insults.
Thank you for 'helping my side of the debate'!
Godavari: They get a privilege that others don't get because they really, honestly think that their indemonstrable deity wants them to. Frankly, I don't understand why that gets them any special treatment. If there's a good reason to get rid of headgear, get rid of it for everyone. If, however, the headgear ban is so pointless that "I honestly think it shouldn't apply to me" is a good enough reason to circumvent it, perhaps it shouldn't exist at all.
That made me lol. Actual, real 'laugh out loud'. :P
Danyal: That made me lol. Actual, real 'laugh out loud'. :P
I wasn't really going for funny, but thanks!
I'm sorry but...
Godavari: If, however, the headgear ban is so pointless that "I honestly think it shouldn't apply to me" is a good enough reason to circumvent it, perhaps it shouldn't exist at all.
...still makes me a smile :P I've got an active imagination and I can just imagine hundreds of different situations where you can just politely tell the police that "I honestly think it shouldn't apply to me" xD Sorry, it just makes me happy :P I haven't had any alcohol or drugs, believe me!
Katatori-kun: I'm not. That's a strawman argument someone here invented about me that honestly I couldn't be bothered to address because I have far too many people demanding responses as it is. But I have never said the government should decide what is a sincerely held religious belief and what isn't.
Okay then, when the stoner kid walks into school wearing a beanie and declares that it's required of him because of his new religion (420ism), you don't get to tell him to take it off.
Sure I do, because 420ism is obviously not a real religion.
And when a "Pastafarian" struts into class in full pirate regalia, you aren't allowed to do anything about it.
Sure I am, because Pastafarian isn't a real religion either. We don't have to determine the sincerity of a belief to know when someone is claiming a religion just to be a bit of a dick.
Regardless of what you personally think, religious belief isn't (for lack of a better word) sacred. All that separates a religious person from the stoner or the edgy atheist is the strength of their conviction, which, to be frank, means nothing.
For you to say this suggests you don't understand what a religion is.
Your comment will be relevant when you can tell me of a country that outlaws atheists wearing headgear.
*reads the OP*
I'll explain in case you aren't following. The school disallowed headgear unless you have a religious reason. By definition, an atheist (or more accurately an irreligious person, since there can be atheistic religions) has no religion and therefore no religious beliefs. Therefore the irreligious are de facto banned from wearing headgear unless they betray their convictions. Is this really that hard to process?
You appear to be confused- this is taking place at a school. It's a rule. It's not a law. It's not a national ban.
Exactly my point. It is all about privilege. Here you have a secular majority that is so privileged in a society that they perceive merely letting religious people follow their religion gives them an an advantage over themselves. Or at least, that's how Danyal and you and others have fought tooth and nail to portray the issue. I suspect the majority of Dutch aren't quite this islamaphobic/theophobic.
So apparently your Modus Operandi is to accuse me of constructing a strawman and then turn around and throw ad hominem attacks at me?
I've not used a single ad hominem attack. Perhaps you need to re-read my posts since you appear to be confused by them.
As far as the government is concerned, religious belief should be equally as valid as any secular opinion because,
Validity is irrelevant. It doesn't have a thing to do with this argument.
as I said above (and as you allegedly agree), the government shouldn't be in the business of deciding which religions are "serious."
No, you talking about beliefs. Beliefs are not the same as religions. Governments can and do recognize which religions are serious or not all the time. You should read up on the history of various countries' relationship to Scientology.
Treating it as something special devalues secular philosophies.
I'd take that seriously if there was evidence of any secular philosophy being discriminated against.
You're trying to portray permitting a religious group to practice its beliefs as aiding the group. Your perspective is so skewed there's no point in continuing the discussion. Come back when you've calmed down, thought about it, and aren't so eager to declare things that aren't the same to be the same.
Uh, yeah, it is aiding the group.
I'm tired of repeating myself. If all you're going to do is just ignore what I write and repeat yourself over and over, then we are done. There is absolutely no value in continuing the discussion. Have a nice day.
Or at least, that's how Danyal and you and others have fought tooth and nail to portray the issue. I suspect the majority of Dutch aren't quite this islamaphobic/theophobic.
So apparently your Modus Operandi is to accuse me of constructing a strawman and then turn around and throw ad hominem attacks at me?
I've not used a single ad hominem attack. Perhaps you need to re-read my posts since you appear to be confused by them.
Oh really? Are you serious?
You suggest that I'm islamaphobic (whatever that is, maybe you meant 'islamophobia') or 'theophobic'.
A phobia is, when used in the context of clinical psychology, a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia
Disagreeing with the rule that religious motivations are valid while non-religious motivations aren't means I've got an irrational fear of Islam/religion.
A disorder. Irrational, disproportional fear. I can't be taken serious while talking about this subject because I've got a mental disorder.
But sure. You've not used a single ad hominem attack. I'm the insane one.
A disorder. Irrational, disproportional fear. I can't be taken serious while talking about this subject because I've got a mental disorder.
"Islamophobia," in the colloquial sense, does not mean that you're crazy; it means you just don't like Muslims.
However, in this case, it appears that you're so anti-religion that you're pitching a shitfit over a hat, which is a remarkably pointless thing to get so bent out of shape about. You're seeing any minor concession offered to a religious group as an attack on your personal lack of belief. Just goes to show that atheists (which I am) can have irrational persecution complexes too, I guess.
Donuthole: "Islamophobia," in the colloquial sense, does not mean that you're crazy; it means you just don't like Muslims.
1. Islam=/=Muslims. Why are people constantly confusing them? 2. So it's not an ad hominem attack to call people "commonsensophobic" or "rationalthoughtophobic"? Seems rather insulting.
Donuthole: However, in this case, it appears that you're so anti-religion that you're pitching a shitfit over a hat, which is a remarkably pointless thing to get so bent out of shape about.
So if whites were allowed to wear hats and black weren't, it would be 'anti-white' to ask for equal treatment? It seems that 'skin color' is at least as trivial as 'religiosity'.
Donuthole: You're seeing any minor concession offered to a religious group as an attack on your personal lack of belief.
Danyal: An atheist is not necessarily a person who declares there's no god: an atheist is a person who doesn't believe in God. 'A-theist" - No God, without God. "A-theist" headgear is headgear that isn't connected to a religion or mentions God in another existence-affirming way.
Right, slight miswording on the first part. It should have been 'God probably doesn't exist'. Though technically, 'there is no god' does apply to gnostic atheists.
But the second part, no. To be with or without god you first have to have a choice in the matter. A blank piece of clothing is just that, blank. It's neither for nor against a position. so it's neither atheist nor theist.
Donuthole: "Islamophobia," in the colloquial sense, does not mean that you're crazy; it means you just don't like Muslims.
1. Islam=/=Muslims. Why are people constantly confusing them? 2. So it's not an ad hominem attack to call people "commonsensophobic" or "rationalthoughtophobic"? Seems rather insulting.
Donuthole: However, in this case, it appears that you're so anti-religion that you're pitching a shitfit over a hat, which is a remarkably pointless thing to get so bent out of shape about.
So if whites were allowed to wear hats and black weren't, it would be 'anti-white' to ask for equal treatment? It seems that 'skin color' is at least as trivial as 'religiosity'.
Donuthole: You're seeing any minor concession offered to a religious group as an attack on your personal lack of belief.
No, I just don't like discrimination, that's all.
1: Please do tell me what the difference between Islam and Muslims is then. As as far as I know 'Muslim' is the description of an individual following Islam as a religion.
2: Is it right to let religious people wear religion-specific headgear and not let others wear headgear? No. But it depends on the school being public or not whether it's allowed. A public school isn't allowed to do such a thing. A private school is.
3: It's indeed discrimination. No matter how small it is it's still wrong, and if a public school, also against the law.
Danyal: An atheist is not necessarily a person who declares there's no god: an atheist is a person who doesn't believe in God. 'A-theist" - No God, without God. "A-theist" headgear is headgear that isn't connected to a religion or mentions God in another existence-affirming way.
Right, slight miswording on the first part. It should have been 'God probably doesn't exist'. Though technically, 'there is no god' does apply to gnostic atheists.
... should I really make clear to people that atheists may slightly believe in God? Aren't you just nitpicking now?
sanquin: But the second part, no. To be with or without god you first have to have a choice in the matter. A blank piece of clothing is just that, blank. It's neither for nor against a position. so it's neither atheist nor theist.
Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[7][8] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[8][9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist
I don't know anything about Inuit-religion, but if they have nothing that resembles religion and all lack a belief that any deities exist, they're all atheist, whether they've had a choice in the matter or not.
But indeed, the title of this thread isn't very nuanced.
Katatori-kun: Sure I do, because 420ism is obviously not a real religion.
What standard sets it apart?
It has a rather standardized ritual (with maybe the most specific timing of any religion whatsoever...) and says some things about (lack of) respect for authority and the importance of a certain substance for having a set of experiences which I'm not really qualified to describe. Maybe it's a bit more orthoprax than orthodox, but that doesn't make it not a religion. So what sets it apart?
sanquin: 1: Please do tell me what the difference between Islam and Muslims is then. As as far as I know 'Muslim' is the description of an individual following Islam as a religion.
2: Is it right to let religious people wear religion-specific headgear and not let others wear headgear? No. But it depends on the school being public or not whether it's allowed. A public school isn't allowed to do such a thing. A private school is.
3: It's indeed discrimination. No matter how small it is it's still wrong, and if a public school, also against the law.
1.
Islam is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion articulated by the Qur'an, a text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God, and by the teachings and normative example (called the Sunnah and composed of Hadith) of Muhammad, considered by them to be the last prophet of God. An adherent of Islam is called a Muslim.
According to a lot of people on this forum, the views of 'a Muslim' aren't articulated by the Quran or the teachings and normative example of Muhammad, nor do they necessarily consider the Quran the verbatim word of God.
I think there's a big dissonance between what the Quran and Muhammad like and demand and what actual Muslims like and demand.
Donuthole: Muslims are people who practice the religion of Islam. This is not complicated.
Oh no of course, the views of a desert warlord that has been dead for 1400 years and his revelations are exactly the same as the billion people who ended up in something called 'Islam'.
Islam is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion articulated by the Qur'an, a text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God, and by the teachings and normative example (called the Sunnah and composed of Hadith) of Muhammad, considered by them to be the last prophet of God. An adherent of Islam is called a Muslim.
Are the views of normal, regular (or to make it even less 'original Islamic', westernized immigrants) Muslims articulated by the Quran and the teachings and normative example of Muhammad?
Should it be a 'phobia' and strange to dislike that desert warlord and the patriarchal, dogmatic ideology he created?
Imagine Islam is a YouTube video.
4:34
Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.
9:29
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
Is it strange to click 'dislike' instead of 'like'?
Why should their belief get more respect than someone's desire to wear a ten gallon hat? Just saying "Oh that's not respectful!" is not an argument.
No one was acting superior.
By reducing an entire culture's beliefs to something as trivial as a desire to wear a beanie or a ten gallon hat, you are in fact acting superior. You are equating one's own personal desire to being ordered to wear a Hijab.
No, I am not. Look I can play your idiotic game of making claims without support too. It is not acting superior to put their beliefs that low, it is merely giving them the same respect I do other desires. If you want me to treat them differently give a god damn argument why they should be instead of just complaining that I'm acting superior.
I don't believe in the philosophy behind wearing a Hijab. I think it's archaic and unnecessary but people have a right to follow whatever beliefs they want. But to reduce a Hijab to something a frivolous as a beanie is not valid. The two are simply not the same.
Okay, prove it isn't valid. Give a good fucking argument why the strength of their conviction makes any kind of difference. Or if it's not that whatever else it is you claim makes a different.
Stop acting so superior and maybe deign to actually use reason for a change as opposed to making claims and thinking that since you're so damn superior we just need to accept them at face value.
Oh, dear. I do believe may have struck a nerve. Perhaps I failed to phrase my last post properly but I will certainly not back down from my view.
Wearing a hat is NOT the same as someone being forced to wear a hijab. Honestly yes, it does come down to the strength of their convictions. If you were utterly convinced that wearing a tin-foil hat all the time was the only way to prevent the aliens from reading your mind - if you truly believe this - I or anyone else have no right to deny your right to wear or do whatever you truly believe. People have the right to believe whatever the hell they like. If you don't like what they believe you are within your right to attempt to convince them otherwise but never force them.
And I believe this is what this issue truly boils down to. The hijab is more than a simple headgear, it's not just a silly piece of fabric one wraps around their head. It is their beliefs and their culture.
Equating someone's entire belief system to a beanie that you rather like to place up top your head is at best ignorant and at worse arrogant. I apologize for assuming the later.
Now, I'd like to preface this by saying that I think religion is bullshit. However, I'm curious to see how many out-of-context Quran quotes Danyal will pull out of his asshole, while simultaneously ignoring some of the Bible's shittier material, in his attempt to flame Islam.
By reducing an entire culture's beliefs to something as trivial as a desire to wear a beanie or a ten gallon hat, you are in fact acting superior. You are equating one's own personal desire to being ordered to wear a Hijab.
No, I am not. Look I can play your idiotic game of making claims without support too. It is not acting superior to put their beliefs that low, it is merely giving them the same respect I do other desires. If you want me to treat them differently give a god damn argument why they should be instead of just complaining that I'm acting superior.
I don't believe in the philosophy behind wearing a Hijab. I think it's archaic and unnecessary but people have a right to follow whatever beliefs they want. But to reduce a Hijab to something a frivolous as a beanie is not valid. The two are simply not the same.
Okay, prove it isn't valid. Give a good fucking argument why the strength of their conviction makes any kind of difference. Or if it's not that whatever else it is you claim makes a different.
Stop acting so superior and maybe deign to actually use reason for a change as opposed to making claims and thinking that since you're so damn superior we just need to accept them at face value.
Oh, dear. I do believe may have struck a nerve. Perhaps I failed to phrase my last post properly but I will certainly not back down from my view.
Your last post was arrogant and ignorant rubbish that failed to make a proper argument and instead asserted your values without reason.
Wearing a hat is NOT the same as someone being forced to wear a hijab. Honestly yes, it does come down to the strength of their convictions. If you were utterly convinced that wearing a tin-foil hat all the time was the only way to prevent the aliens from reading your mind - if you truly believe this - I or anyone else have no right to deny your right to wear or do whatever you truly believe. People have the right to believe whatever the hell they like. If you don't like what they believe you are within your right to attempt to convince them otherwise but never force them.
You say you have no right. I disagree. I say that their strength of conviction doesn't matter. So go on, make an argument for why it should instead of just saying it matters. Otherwise it's worthless garbage, merely you asserting your beliefs are true with jack shit to back them up except your attitude.
And for someone who likes to accuse others of ignorance, why the hell can't you get the difference between belief and action straight?
pquote] And I believe this is what this issue truly boils down to. The hijab is more than a simple headgear, it's not just a silly piece of fabric one wraps around their head. It is their beliefs and their culture. [/quote]
You have failed to give a reason to think their beliefs and culture are at all something I should consider more valuable than someone's mere desires. All you have is strength of conviction and a claim that it is important. Why don't you back it up?
Equating someone's entire belief system to a beanie that you rather like to place up top your head is at best ignorant and at worse arrogant. I apologize for assuming the later.
It is neither ignorant nor arrogant. It's kind of pathetic how you throw out the word ignorant when you utterly fail to back up your opinion with much. That's definitely arrogant and hints at a huge amount of ignorance.
gritch: Oh, dear. I do believe may have struck a nerve. Perhaps I failed to phrase my last post properly but I will certainly not back down from my view.
Wearing a hat is NOT the same as someone being forced to wear a hijab. Honestly yes, it does come down to the strength of their convictions. If you were utterly convinced that wearing a tin-foil hat all the time was the only way to prevent the aliens from reading your mind - if you truly believe this - I or anyone else have no right to deny your right to wear or do whatever you truly believe. People have the right to believe whatever the hell they like. If you don't like what they believe you are within your right to attempt to convince them otherwise but never force them.
And I believe this is what this issue truly boils down to. The hijab is more than a simple headgear, it's not just a silly piece of fabric one wraps around their head. It is their beliefs and their culture.
Equating someone's entire belief system to a beanie that you rather like to place up top your head is at best ignorant and at worse arrogant. I apologize for assuming the later.
Religious headgear =/= being ordered to wear a hijab Non-religious headgear =/= a trivial desire to wear a beanie Religious motivation =/= strong conviction Non-religious motivation =/= lack of a strong conviction Utterly convinced that you have to wear a tin-foil hat =/= religious motivation
gritch: I or anyone else have no right to deny your right to wear or do whatever you truly believe.
NO.
If I truly believe that I need to sacrifice people to the Sungod, I'm not allowed to do it. If I truly believe that I have to fight unbelievers to force them to submit to religious law, I'm not allowed to do it. If I truly believe that I have to kill all Jews to save the world, I'm not allowed to do it.
By the way, I truly believe that I should steal all religious headgear until non-religious headgear is allowed too. What now?
Equating all non-religious motivations to "a beanie that you rather like to place up top your head" is at best ignorant and at worse arrogant.
Katatori-kun: Sure I do, because 420ism is obviously not a real religion. ... Sure I am, because Pastafarian isn't a real religion either. We don't have to determine the sincerity of a belief to know when someone is claiming a religion just to be a bit of a dick.
I find this hard to reconcile these with this:
Katatori-kun: But I have never said the government should decide what is a sincerely held religious belief and what isn't.
Which is it? Do you think that a school administrator, while performing his or her duties as an agent of the government, should or should not exercise his or her judgement over which religious beliefs are sincere and which aren't?
For you to say this suggests you don't understand what a religion is.
Besides strength of conviction, demonstrate to me in what way a religious belief is different from a secular opinion. And more importantly, why it should be given more consideration as an excuse for ignoring the rules. Why does "my god said so" trump self-expression and "it's really not disrespectful at all"?
You appear to be confused- this is taking place at a school. It's a rule. It's not a law. It's not a national ban.
Are you seriously getting hung up on the fact that this is a school and not a state? Really? Because I honestly don't see how that's relevant at all. A government entity has given a privilege to one group and denied it to another based on their religious status. The scale doesn't matter.
I've not used a single ad hominem attack. Perhaps you need to re-read my posts since you appear to be confused by them.
Katatori-kun: Or at least, that's how Danyal and you and others have fought tooth and nail to portray the issue. I suspect the majority of Dutch aren't quite this islamaphobic/theophobic.
Validity is irrelevant. It doesn't have a thing to do with this argument.
Of course it's relevant. It's the most relevant thing in the debate. We're talking about whether or not religious reasons are a valid excuse to ignore rules. If you ask me, the government shouldn't consider religious reasons more valid than secular reasons. And make no mistake, that is exactly what is happening in this case.
No, you talking about beliefs. Beliefs are not the same as religions. Governments can and do recognize which religions are serious or not all the time. You should read up on the history of various countries' relationship to Scientology.
And I'm very against that practice. The government of the USA, to use your example, originally didn't allow Scientology status as a religion, denying them things like tax incentives. That violates Scientologists' freedom of religion. In an ideal world, the government just wouldn't care what your religion is. It would afford religion no special treatment and consider religious justifications to be on par with secular ones. That's what it means to live in a truly secular state.
I'd take that seriously if there was evidence of any secular philosophy being discriminated against.
Okay, that comment was a little off-topic I admit. There's no secular philosophy I know of that mandates headgear. I was getting at the underlying problem of, in a very general sense, preferring religious reasons to secular reasons. The government should not prefer religion to irreligion (or vice-versa). All personal reasons and philosophies should be on equal footing. This applies to the debate at hand because the policy in question precludes the existence of any possible secular reasons for an exception. Perhaps one does not exist. It's still wrong to cut them off on principle.
I'm tired of repeating myself. If all you're going to do is just ignore what I write and repeat yourself over and over, then we are done. There is absolutely no value in continuing the discussion. Have a nice day.
I'm tired of repeating myself. If all you're going to do is just ignore what I write and repeat yourself over and over, then we are done. There is absolutely no value in continuing the discussion. Have a nice day.
sanquin: Right, slight miswording on the first part. It should have been 'God probably doesn't exist'. Though technically, 'there is no god' does apply to gnostic atheists.
... should I really make clear to people that atheists may slightly believe in God? Aren't you just nitpicking now?
Um...atheists never 'slightly believe in god'. gnostic/agnostic deal with knowledge, not belief.
I'm not nitpicking, you were. So I decided to use full, correct terminology. Yet now you're complaining about me doing what you did? =/
Now, I'd like to preface this by saying that I think religion is bullshit. However, I'm curious to see how many out-of-context Quran quotes Danyal will pull out of his asshole, while simultaneously ignoring some of the Bible's shittier material, in his attempt to flame Islam.
Go.
Of course, because hitting disobedient women in context is fine. And of course I ignore the Bible's shittier material, because we were talking about Islam. I talked with a Christian girlfriend of mine just a few hours ago and back then I didn't ignore the Bible's shittier material.
Am I only allowed to say 'I dislike Islam' when I immediately follow up with "But I dislike all other religions too"?!
By the way, I don't dislike all other religions nor do I think they're all bullshit.
Now, I'd like to preface this by saying that I think religion is bullshit. However, I'm curious to see how many out-of-context Quran quotes Danyal will pull out of his asshole, while simultaneously ignoring some of the Bible's shittier material, in his attempt to flame Islam.
Go.
Of course, because hitting disobedient women in context is fine. And of course I ignore the Bible's shittier material, because we were talking about Islam. I talked with a Christian girlfriend of mine just a few hours ago and back then I didn't ignore the Bible's shittier material.
Am I only allowed to say 'I dislike Islam' when I immediately follow up with "But I dislike all other religions too"?!
By the way, I don't dislike all other religions nor do I think they're all bullshit.
So are you claiming that, because there are passages in the Quran (as well as the Old Testament) that authorize the striking of women, that all adherents to Islam (or Christianity, or Judaism) beat their wives?
Donuthole: So are you claiming that, because there are passages in the Quran (as well as the Old Testament) that authorize the striking of women, that all adherents to Islam (or Christianity, or Judaism) beat their wives?
No, you were the one who was like "Muslims follow Islam, there's no difference between the two" and I was the one who claimed that there's a big difference between what Islam wants and what Muslims do. Remember?
Danyal: 1. Islam=/=Muslims. Why are people constantly confusing them?
Muslims are people who practice the religion of Islam. This is not complicated.
Danyal: According to a lot of people on this forum, the views of 'a Muslim' aren't articulated by the Quran or the teachings and normative example of Muhammad, nor do they necessarily consider the Quran the verbatim word of God.
I think there's a big dissonance between what the Quran and Muhammad like and demand and what actual Muslims like and demand.
Islam is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion articulated by the Qur'an, a text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God, and by the teachings and normative example (called the Sunnah and composed of Hadith) of Muhammad, considered by them to be the last prophet of God. An adherent of Islam is called a Muslim.
According to a lot of people on this forum, the views of 'a Muslim' aren't articulated by the Quran or the teachings and normative example of Muhammad, nor do they necessarily consider the Quran the verbatim word of God.
I think there's a big dissonance between what the Quran and Muhammad like and demand and what actual Muslims like and demand.
1: I still don't see a difference. Just because people don't ACT like they follow Islam/Muhammed, doesn't mean they aren't Muslims. Just like how most Christians don't act according to Jesus' teachings but they're still all Christians. (I'm getting the feeling that you're a Muslim?)
2&3: Oh it happened in my country. Well, the constitution is slightly different here. Here, the constitution states that everyone is free to exercise their religion, as long as those actions don't go against the country's laws. And since 'You can't wear headgear in schools' isn't an actual law, schools can make that up themselves, pretty much. As long as they keep in line with actual laws of course.
sanquin: 1: I still don't see a difference. Just because people don't ACT like they follow Islam/Muhammed, doesn't mean they aren't Muslims. Just like how most Christians don't act according to Jesus' teachings but they're still all Christians. (I'm getting the feeling that you're a Muslim?)
Where did I say that those who don't ACT like they follow Islam aren't Muslims...? But if you don't distinguish between 'Islam' and 'Muslims' you get stuff like this...
Donuthole: because there are passages in the Quran (as well as the Old Testament) that authorize the striking of women, that all adherents to Islam (or Christianity, or Judaism) beat their wives?
sanquin: 2&3: Oh it happened in my country. Well, the constitution is slightly different here. Here, the constitution states that everyone is free to exercise their religion, as long as those actions don't go against the country's laws. And since 'You can't wear headgear in schools' isn't an actual law, schools can make that up themselves, pretty much. As long as they keep in line with actual laws of course.
In Stage four (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dictums and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would-thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones. Most active members of society remain at stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force.[2]
But a one-size-fits-all ruling is great when it allows wide latitude for many different practices to come together in flowery cultural diversity. And shit.
For the same reason that I mentioned earlier to Katatori, your argument depends on having a religious obligation, as a condition, being a disadvantage in order to make sense. My vegetarian Danny analogy is both closer to what a religious obligation actually is and comes up with the opposite conclusion. It's not breaking your leg. It's much closer to having a desire than breaking your leg.
Also, your check is in the mail.
:p