Bavaria plans burqa ban

[Eupathic Impulse 335]

7 minutes ago, Krieg said:

Because they bloody like it. I still do not understand why some of you do not get that.

 

Because they have this little movie in their mind that is probably something like media images of Saudi Arabia or the backwaters of Afghanistan, I'm guessing, and are fixated on it and have totally objectified the main characters.

[Eupathic Impulse 335]

21 minutes ago, Erdmann said:

 

The thing that people fail to see is that a cross can be tucked away under a shirt if the work demands it.

A religious symbol that fails to do its required job if it isn't displayed to the people around, is actually more of 'making a statement'.

 

The usual comparison that follows is that of the Sikhs. Again, a flawed argument, because the Sikhs can (as in they are allowed to, without facing social repercussions) make do without their turbans. And second, Sikhs even with their turbans are more socially inclusive in any aspects. They have no problems with alcohol, pork etc etc. Their religion doesn't call upon them being the ultimate religion of all, hence have little to no extra demands to integrate themselves in a foreign culture.

 

By allowing all religious symbols to be banned is an even ground for all religions.

 

Intensely artificial, tendentiously-selected distinctions.  Because (you think) Sikhs have other attitudes you like, you'll let them have their turbans.  And I'm the one accused of playing favorites!

[klubbnika 1,308]

57 minutes ago, Krieg said:

Women wearing the hijab while wearing sexy clothes shows that there are more reasons to wear the hijab than the religious ones.

Then why do they insist they wear it because of their religion?

[Eupathic Impulse 335]

2 minutes ago, klubbnika said:

Then why do they insist they wear it because of their religion?

 

Because it's both?  Because there's more than one reason?  That's why attempting to assign from outside what is "religious" and what isn't is a fool's errand.  What is religious is highly subjective, but nevertheless simultaneously binding on the conscience.

[Krieg 14,941]

Have you actually talked to them?

And even if they did say that, it would be their own interpretation of the religion, which they are totally free to do.

[klubbnika 1,308]

46 minutes ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

No. She is following the ritual of wearing a hijab.  All other reasons ("modesty", etc) that are given by serious practitioners are necessarily post hoc. The ritual purpose of wearing a hijab is to wear a hijab.  It is the ritual.

 

Please, no more nonsense, I am very sensitive to it.

 

Every ritual has a purpose and if it doesn't have that purpose then you are not a true believer, a true muslim.

It's the same as saying that you are a Christian but then go and completely break all the commendments.

[rohit_2543 362]

People cannot end up wearing similar head-scarves without coercion and practising their freedom of choice. It is bit like Left Liberal free thinker who coincidentally end up thinking alike but refuse to admit they are being guided by authority figure dictating how to think and what is zeitgeisty.

[Krieg 14,941]

I think no Christian follows the 10 commandments.

[Erdmann 5,232]

13 minutes ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

Intensely artificial, tendentiously-selected distinctions.  Because (you think) Sikhs have other attitudes you like, you'll let them have their turbans.  And I'm the one accused of playing favorites!

 

I gave arguments in advance, in anticipation that someone would use the "Sikh argument".

And why should everything conform to your likings anyways?

 

[klubbnika 1,308]

6 minutes ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

Because it's both?  Because there's more than one reason?  That's why attempting to assign from outside what is "religious" and what isn't is a fool's errand.  What is religious is highly subjective, but nevertheless simultaneously binding on the conscience.

Both what? Both making yourself attractive and not at the same time?

Do you relaize how absurd it sounds?

[Erdmann 5,232]

The sweet sweet irony.

[zeino 692]

9 minutes ago, Erdmann said:

 

The thing that people fail to see is that a cross can be tucked away under a shirt if the work demands it.

A religious symbol that fails to do its required job if it isn't displayed to the people around, is actually more of 'making a statement'.

 

 

You are spot on in this. This woman wanted to make that statement. That she perceived is within her right to religious freedom and expression, which she didn't put there as a human right herself. I mean if you ask me, I really don't understand why constitutions refer to God (?!?) But once rights are defined in a particular way, it is yes the right of individuals to seek them. Can we turn to them arbitrarily and say "do this instead"? No. That would  be unlawful. The rest will be an interpretation, always. And it will be political to a degree - we cannot escape this. 

 

The problem in work versus human rights, even in these current rulings, is that work place regulations are not legally above human rights. This is because work place/EU equality laws etc are the job of European Court of Justice, not European Court of Human Rights. These current rulings were made in European Court of Justice. But legally, this court also has to comply with ECHR. There is a tension between them (since 2015, Italy suggested to merge them etc, European Commission and everyone got involved) but the political problem is if European Court of Justice is merged with ECHR so ECHR is not necessarily above ECJ, then countries bound by ECHR will have more say or relation to ECJ / European Court of Justice. Turkey and Russia are two of these countries. How wise would that merger be? 

 

So, for the time being, ECJ decisions have to comply with ECHR decisions, which have a precedence in this. (The cross case). The problem with the work based ruling is it did not refer to the ECHR precedent, and thus failed to refer to the higher courts balance between the two. A better ruling would mention the precedent, differentiate itself from the precedent with a clear reason and then there would be standard across the law. As of now, there is a situation where the two clash. 

 

But now there is space for appeal and there "workplace" is not the only criteria. ECHR is about everything that is actually outside that criteria. 

 

This is again the legal aspect of it - from an objective perspective of what exists.

 

I mean my individual perspective is more about social problems, not religion. I come from a country that had these bans brought about very strongly. They didn't solve anything. To the contrary, they created social problems - not just ideological. And then we pay with our taxes to solve - patch up the leaks basically- these problems that could be prevented with more balanced solutions. That it is a "choice" to wear this or that does not solve this. It is also a choice to prioritize access to work over to company/workplace profits or the business world. When noone change their choices, which is again a choice, I as a citizen don't want my taxes to go to te solution of problems created by preferences of the business world basically. There are many other places where I would like my money to go to in principle. 

 

 

[klubbnika 1,308]

6 minutes ago, Krieg said:

Have you actually talked to them?

And even if they did say that, it would be their own interpretation of the religion, which they are totally free to do.

So their interpretation of religion is completely contradictive then.

 

[klubbnika 1,308]

5 minutes ago, Krieg said:

I think no Christian follows the 10 commandments.

100% sure? ;)

[Eupathic Impulse 335]

4 minutes ago, klubbnika said:

Please, no more nonsense, I am very sensitive to it.

 

Every ritual has a purpose and if it doesn't have that purpose then you are not a true believer, a true muslim.

It's the same as saying that you are a Christian but then go and completely break all the commendments.

 

Nope that is a very modern view.  Most rituals don't, from the perspective of the believer, have a primary material purpose. They exist to fit a spiritual narrative, and therefore are, in material terms, justified in and of themselves.  Read, for example, the Hasidic explanation for Kosher meat rules -- it is a purely self-contained justification about "holiness", little attempt at claiming any kind of health or economic justifications for them.  Material benefits of kosher laws are mostly given post hoc.  "Ritual because ritual", ritual as self-justifying, is the basic form of Semitic religion. 

 

Same with hijab.  The purpose of a woman wearing a hijab is the wearing of the hijab, because that is the divine order.  Other reasons, post hoc. 

[yourkeau 7,719]

15 minutes ago, Krieg said:

I think no Christian follows the 10 commandments.

Errm, because it's not Christian, rather Judaism. For example, Christians do not celebrate sabbath.

 

P.S. It's not that I disagree, that modern German Christians are very relaxed on the bible etc...

[Krieg 14,941]

It is impossible go through your life without saying any lie. And it is probably impossible not to coveat the wife of the neighbor (and women got it easy on this one, not fair), probably not easy not to coveat the house of the neighbor either.

Anyway, no Christian can follow the 10 commandments but you you expenct all Muslims to follow all their "rules", which it is ever more difficult because such rules do not explicitly exist, it is up to you to do your own interpretation of the sacred texts.

[zeino 692]

That's also the VERY perspective of extremists (religious or other), defining people as "true x" on the basis of some archaic purist category and then they kick everyone else from that category. They are now the owners and the judges of that category. This isi how extremism expands and silences others. Where do they get the entitlement really? 

 

The point, IMHO, is to reject this and reclaim those categories that one is excluded from.

 

Example. Modern Turkish woman. Defines herself as Muslim as she believes in God and this was the religion around her. Drinks alcohol, wears a bikini, may fast at Ramadan, may cover her head during funerals, probably has not read the entire Quran but culturally has an idea. There are also things in her life transferred from her ancient shamanic culture, rituals like that about the arrival of spring this and that. Practising all these in a mix produced by history, this woman feels completely Muslim no matter what anyone evaluates her to be.

 

What now? Who decides if she is a "true" something? Why is that important? If she has an idea of religion in her own life, she can criticize what she finds conservative purely on this basis, and not from an outside position. It is important to reclaim these spaces because the other argument usually comes from conservatives who define and define people according to purist ideologies and kick everyone out of purist categories. There is no reason why this woman should be kicked outside the category of Muslim because some bigot demands that to be so. Why stuck in extremist choices between becoming a "true" something (whatever it is) and being purely outside a faith category - which many people don't feel like doing. There is life in between.

 

This is exactly how Wahhabis and ISIS declared jihad on Turks centuries ago and then again and again. Why does a Turkish woman have to become "non-Muslim" because of them now, just because they say so?      

 

Books are about interpretation anyway. Truth can be built in many ways. 

 

 

 

[programdirector 1,334]

4 hours ago, Krieg said:

Women wearing the hijab while wearing sexy clothes shows that there are more reasons to wear the hijab than the religious ones. I do not even understand why people here make a big deal about it when you can find numerous analogies in the western world. The first one to come to mind are bikini tops that are extremely small that only cover the nipple and do not have any functional reason to be there, they offer no support and it only covers a tiny small part of the breasts. Well the women wear it because you are supposed to wear something and at least covering the nipples is what it is considered the minimum requirement and because that's the one they like. Same thing.

 

But can they wear that to work

[klubbnika 1,308]

5 hours ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

Nope that is a very modern view.  Most rituals don't, from the perspective of the believer, have a primary material purpose. They exist to fit a spiritual narrative, and therefore are, in material terms, justified in and of themselves.  Read, for example, the Hasidic explanation for Kosher meat rules -- it is a purely self-contained justification about "holiness", little attempt at claiming any kind of health or economic justifications for them.  Material benefits of kosher laws are mostly given post hoc.  "Ritual because ritual", ritual as self-justifying, is the basic form of Semitic religion. 

 

Same with hijab.  The purpose of a woman wearing a hijab is the wearing of the hijab, because that is the divine order.  Other reasons, post hoc. 

Would please stop this nonsense.

Do you think throwing phrases with a collection of "academic words" will make them less absurd?

What "spiritual narrative" does hijab fit? It has a specific purpose - to make oneself sexually unattractive and therefore protect from the assaults.

HIjab is not a ritual, it's a protective gear.

Ritual would be to wash one's feet before praying.