Bavaria plans burqa ban

522 posts in this topic

16 minutes ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

Oh, he gets it, and so do klubbnika and the rest.  The goal is: drive visible religion, particularly of the Islamic variety, out of public visibility, in the belief that religion, particularly of the Islamic variety, is the source of all the world's evil.  So any question of consistency or social policy or principle is to be avoided: hooray, companies can circumlocute hijab bans into existence.

Now you have really tipped your hand.

All about Islam and the defence of its stuff.

 

The judgement however applies to all religious symbols, not just Islam. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad analogy. The person is not complaining about having to wear the suit. The person would want to cover her hair while wearing the suit. And then the headgear she used to cover the hair should be appropiate with the level of required sharpness in the clothes.

Something like this would be better: The job is as a hair model but she wants to wear a hijab. Not suitable for the job.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

No, it's about driving (some) religious women back into the home, which they will do so that they can maintain their consciences. The religious practice will survive on its own and even thrive under the conditions you want to allow, as it always does.

So you are saying this is being driven by Islamic conservatives elements? You would think they would support it then?

This is about companies being able to decide if they want religious symbolism (and political) in the work place. 

Stop trying to spin it as being anti-islamic as it just might mean a small part of the Islamic world has to change. 

It must be terrible being a women and a Muslim. Either you wear a scarf or your life ends, you cannot leave the house, cannot work, the kids have to come form school by themselves.

One minute you are a kid going along just fine, the next, shit, I'm 16 (or whatever age it kicks in) - time to out the head thing on.

 

How many times does this kick in while they are out shopping? Walking along the street, oh no, tingling, whole body, must get home, must get home, don't have scarf with me, must wear scarf...

Is there some kind of hotline that can deliver a scarf to such a person in an emergency?

 Of course there isn't, as this never happens, it doesn't come on all of a sudden, it is a choice.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Krieg said:

Bad analogy. The person is not complaining about having to wear the suit. The person would want to cover her hair while wearing the suit. And then the headgear she used to cover the hair should be appropiate with the level of required sharpness in the clothes.

Something like this would be better: The job is as a hair model but she wants to wear a hijab. Not suitable for the job.

What if the company uniform was a only thin hairband with the company logo on it?

Looks like the only way to make this fair would be to let companies decide on dress code and exclude religious symbols on a company by company basis...

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a womens rights perspective, it is a purely ideological choice and indeed an oppressive choice sometimes to focus on what a woman wears, her religion etc etc than the choice to focus on how well she is doing in life in terms of work, survival without dependence on anyone, how opportunities for that can be improved. 

 

Others have said many things about these women, how oppressive their husbands are, their families are, their religion is, gender roles. Purely on this basis, if we accept this to be true, can anyone see how much these women have achieved despite our predictions? They have become IT engineers, doctors, manual labourers that put great bodily effort into hard jobs. According to our understanding, it was utterly utterly impossible for them to achieve these things. They have proved us wrong. They have defied the entire system we thought oppresses them.

 

And yet, this is still not enough for us. The moment they have done this, we now want them to do more, change their clothing etc because now we have new standards. Yet, when they were banned elsewhere two decades ago, we didn't have a big problem with opening our private or other universities to them because hey, education is important! What does a woman do with her education?

 

Choice for the secular workplace, OK. And even then, these women are the easiest target, aren't they? (Based on our theories of oppression)

 

Trying to support this with arguments stolen from womens rights movements, bollocks. In women rights circles, it has been termed chauvinist faux feminism for a long time now. 

 

If one believes in secular systems, there are many grounds for that battle in Europe, like constitutions that state God. Yet, noone had a problem with that God until these women arrived in the workplace. 

 

The de facto vision for these women now. They can still wander around freely, spend hours choosing the best tomatoes and courgettes in the market place, that's their "right". The civil right of being completely useless in the society with disproportionate expertise in housework and child rearing. Very advanced. Will even feel more advanced when we start mentioning the incubator theory. 

 

Actually, talking about freeing these women even more than they have freed themselves - despite all our predictions-  how about INTRODUCING QUOTA for these women in the workplace?

 

How about celebrating the fact that they have come thus far and this can be encouraged? Germany does quota. Wow, what a horrendous unthinkable idea when EU unemployment is so high already. Talking about textile is nicer. 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Harold Beckwith said:


It must be terrible being a women and a Muslim. Either you wear a scarf or your life ends, you cannot leave the house, cannot work, the kids have to come form school by themselves.

One minute you are a kid going along just fine, the next, shit, I'm 16 (or whatever age it kicks in) - time to out the head thing on.

 

 

Some Muslim women believe in it.  The question is, once again, that you keep avoiding in trying to see secret motives in what I am saying, whether they should have to give up their belief in order to have access to the workplace or not, and if so, why that would be a good idea, whether it would help them emancipate themselves, etc, etc.  It is either beyond your understanding, or you are writing in bad faith.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

No, not every Muslim believes in or practices the same set of rituals, the same with Jews, different sects of Christianity, etc.

A religion is, among other things, a collection of rituals that a believer has to follow, otherwise they are not what they say they are.

If tell you now that I am a Muslim, would you consider me such? I don't think so.

What you are saying is, in fact, that there is no precise definition of what a certain thing is while I am saying, yes, there is an agreement among the people what definition a thing should fall under.

 

Wearing makeup, with or without hijab, is a contradition to the islamic rule that a woman should not try to attract attention to her looks.

 

3 hours ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

That is one way to understand hijab, but clearly that is not how all hijab-wearers understand it.  The evidence for this is that some women wear hijab with attractive makeup and fashionable clothes!

Then it's a fashion item, not a religious one.

 

3 hours ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

As the reasons for wearing the hijab are necessarily subjective (ie, based on individual religious understandings, among other things), the concept of a "real reason", as in an authoritative reason binding on all hijab-wearers, is meaningless unless all hijab-wearers consider themselves so bound.  You were trying to push the burden of proof onto me, but it resides with you.

The reasons can be as subjective as they like, but don't tell us you wear it for religious reasons in order to get a preferential treatment.

If I want to wear a huckle (a kind of head scarf) in the office, I don't think the employer would let me unless I tell them it is in my religion.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Krieg said:

It is OK. Here in the west we are all "indoctrinated" to not to show our genitals all the time. Some should free us all from such oppression.

Of course the rebuttal to that is "But that's different".

LOL, ReBUTTal !

 

It's not only because we are indoctrinated, it's also because of the weather. Who wants to show their genitalia when it's -10 outside?

And then there are nudists too, those form Germany are pretty well-known. :)

 

Then we also have places and printed materials where people show their genitalia for money.

So genitalia is pretty special. But not the hair.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having second thoughts here. Since Islam is a political ideology disguised as a religion, I do think that women (exceptions excluded of course) actually take it upon themselves to actually make that statement by sporting the *insert hair covering gear*. When an Ideology is indoctrinated into people, both the men and women fight hard to protect it.

 

It's difficult to take the spin of 'not a choice they made' forward because they are hardwired into believing that they are doing good for the religion by displaying it.

 

Banning it is actually agitating them not because they are deprived of spirituality in the process of banning, but rather they are deprived of the act of making a statement.

It's the theory that has more clarity, since oppression seems to be conveniently subjective to many here.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, klubbnika said:

Wearing makeup, with or without hijab, is a contradition to the islamic rule that a woman should not try to attract attention to her looks.

 

Then it's a fashion item, not a religious one.

 

 

No, because it is kerahat (?) that can go all the way to haram depending on intention but then you are just a Muslim who has committed haram. Doing something haram does not take all your rights as a Muslim and renders you non-Muslim or your headscarf invalid or anything - unless one is from ISIS, Taliban etc and is dictating these crazy things on people, seriously. That's the problem, we are evaluating these women with very fundamentalist views that we ourselves are probably against in other contexts. And if women have committed haram, then "the punishment" or categorical exclusion like this logic exists only in very archaic forms. At the moment, our views about evaluating these is somewhere between Afghanistan, maybe Iran and is definitely way behind Erdoğan and his wife for instance. Why on earth do we wish to posit ourselves in such a fundamentalist position when we actually have a problem with it and consider ourselves secular?  Since when have we become unintentional spokepersons for fundamentalists? Theroretical trap and defeat. 

 

Haram happens a lot. There is a whole area of formal logic about it, that goes to distinguishing between this crustation and that crustation. This is also known as the most superficial understanding of Islam, focusing on these instead of deeper stuff that is connected to faith. 

 

Now, if we have chosen to be a fundamentalist wise person that believes women are Muslims only when they live in tents, and the rest does not exist, then we can only suggest these, advise these but we actually have no fixed, essential right to punish these people by discussing who they are. That's ISIS or close. And is an area of politics, not theology. That is the de facto embodiment of an idea, a faith on this planet as produced by some humans. We have the ideological choice to not do it.  let's not. 

 

And in reality, 

 

no matter what the formalities and principles are, there is historicity to religion, isn't there? Don't all practices evolve? The Jewish notion of justice is pretty harsh, are we now not Jews for not practising those? How else is progress possible for any subject? Yes, there may be contradictions but that is also because of progress itself as people have started defying things. 

 

And from a proper theological perspective, these purist opinions have been actually challenged since around the 13th century, with entirely different formulations of lslamic law making and society building. If one likes, one can even attempt to define makeup from utilitarian perspectives. The debate does not end. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Erdmann said:

I'm having second thoughts here. Since Islam is a political ideology disguised as a religion, I do think that women (exceptions excluded of course) actually take it upon themselves to actually make that statement by sporting the *insert hair covering gear*. When an Ideology is indoctrinated into people, both the men and women fight hard to protect it.

 

 

Islam can be a political ideology, like Christian Democrats probably have an ideology - they should actually. Is there anything in western democracy that prevents the formation of a party as Muslim Democrats for instance? Or Atheist Democrats? What's the problem? Can't people have thee worldviews with our without faith? 

 

And when people exist in the social sphere, with their faith, no-faith, ideologies etc, is there a way to compartmentalize these in terms of ideas? 

 

And sure people fight to protect what they believe. That's the same for everyone, isn't it? 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, zeino said:

Islam can be a political ideology, like Christian Democrats probably have an ideology - they should actually. Is there anything in western democracy that prevents the formation of a party as Muslim Democrats for instance? Or Atheist Democrats? What's the problem? Can't people have thee worldviews with our without faith? 

 

Wait wait, this is so mixed up, I can't even formulate a reply to it. What are you comparing right now - Islam, the religion and CDU, the political party? You do know that though it's called "Christian" Democrats, they don't have an agenda based on the Bible. There is always the separation of Church and State ("Church" by definition includes mosques and synagogues). Sure, Merkel has her opinions on Homosexuality, but it's not her opinions that becomes the law of the land.

What exactly would a "Muslim Democratic Party" offer to the public in Germany, in your example? A Sharia inclusive Constitution? 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, zeino said:

 

Islam can be a political ideology, like Christian Democrats probably have an ideology - they should actually. Is there anything in western democracy that prevents the formation of a party as Muslim Democrats for instance? Or Atheist Democrats? What's the problem? Can't people have thee worldviews with our without faith? 

 

And when people exist in the social sphere, with their faith, no-faith, ideologies etc, is there a way to compartmentalize these in terms of ideas? 

 

And sure people fight to protect what they believe. That's the same for everyone, isn't it? 

 

 

 

@Erdmann is just parroting a formulation that is popular on the internet, that because Islam has prescriptions for day-to-day behaviour, Islam supposedly does not belong in the category to which Christianity, Judaism, Shintoism, etc, belong, but rather to the category of Communism, Fascism, etc. Again, the thought pattern is mostly exemplified here: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/16/the-making-of-islamophobia-inc/ That is to say, "real" religion is merely a set of optional rituals or "spiritual beliefs" that you practice like a hobby on your own time and in your own head.

 

Of course, Christianity, Judaism, Shintoism, etc all have aspects or versions or sects that actually prescribe public behaviour.  The very word, "religion" comes from the Latin word for "that which continuously binds" -- not some kind of faith in your head, but a set of binding practices that set up a transactional relationship between yourself and God (or, to the Romans, the Gods).  In fact, in many religions, including the Roman one from which one gets the name, you didn't actually have to believe in the practice you were doing -- as I said, the purpose of the ritual is the ritual.  

 

In that sense, if you believe that to bind yourself as a matter of moral conscience to a set of outward practices is to adopt a political ideology, then almost all religion is political ideology, and the CDU is equivalent in that sense to Islam, Buddhism, etc, in that the CDU contains a set of religiously motivated (it's in the name!) outward practices

 

Erdmann, as above, finds this confusing, because it's not the outcome he wants when calling Islam a political ideology.  He wants it to mean that Muslim practices are not entitled to protection as religion, because they're really something equivalent to fascism.  But real religion has necessarily to do more with outward practices than with actual faith, like it or not.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

@Erdmann is just parroting a formulation that is popular on the internet, that because Islam has prescriptions for day-to-day behaviour, Islam supposedly does not belong in the category to which Christianity, Judaism, Shintoism, etc, belong, but rather to the category of Communism, Fascism, etc. Again, the thought pattern is mostly exemplified here: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/16/the-making-of-islamophobia-inc/ That is to say, "real" religion is merely a set of optional rituals or "spiritual beliefs" that you practice like a hobby on your own time and in your own head.

 

 

OK. Even so, like let's for a moment accept that Christianity is one such religion. When I form a Christian Democrat party, what does it mean? That we are a group of people who have democratic ideals but at the same time happen to follow Christianity in our free time. Well, the moment we mention this, it is ideological even if it's hobbyism? Otheriwise, dmeocratic should suffice. So, we have defined our way of democracy, even if with what we are doing at home, while others are doing something else?  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, zeino said:

 

OK. Even so, like let's for a moment accept that Christianity is one such religion. When I form a Christian Democrat party, what does it mean? That we are a group of people who have democratic ideals but at the same time happen to follow Christianity in our free time. Well, the moment we mention this, it is ideological even if it's hobbyism? Otheriwise, dmeocratic should suffice. So, we have defined our way of democracy, even if with what we are doing at home, while others are doing something else?  

 

Oh, it doesn't have to be logical, it just has to set Islam apart as Special Bad, Not A Real Religion, etc.  Any stick, you know.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Erdmann said:

 

Wait wait, this is so mixed up, I can't even formulate a reply to it. What are you comparing right now - Islam, the religion and CDU, the political party? You do know that though it's called "Christian" Democrats, they don't have an agenda based on the Bible. There is always the separation of Church and State ("Church" by definition includes mosques and synagogues). Sure, Merkel has her opinions on Homosexuality, but it's not her opinions that becomes the law of the land.

What exactly would a "Muslim Democratic Party" offer to the public in Germany, in your example? A Sharia inclusive Constitution? 

 

Christian does not mean follow the Bible, but likewise, I don't think they will be able to deny the Bible? 

Same for Muslims. 

 

I'm not the source of this confusion (although I can pretend that we are mutually confusing each other :) ) 

 

The differentiation is between democratic and antidemocratic, I think. Not religious, non-religious. I have written before that I believe a very religious Germany would still be more democratic than some strictly laicist country because democracy occurs elsewhere, outside these decsriptions. 

 

It is your choice to associate Islam with a sheria that you accept as rule - what can Islam or any religion do if we choose those the Iranian model or whatever as fixed? I have tried to mention this by saying "the de facto embodiment" but I see I have failed. But yes, there is an anticapitalist anarchist movement Islam movement here for instance. There are so many things. Why sheria, theroretically? They reject enclosement and money :)  (at this point, we will talk about de facto I guess, not ideology.) Other than that, how can I know what it will offer to Germany? That's again de facto. We started with a question about the theoretical differentiation that you yourself brought but now we have swang to its opposite. 

 

As far as I understand, the so-called separation of the Church and State in Germany is built on partnership, as recognized by God in the constitution - the church tax/income for instance. And I never understood that Church to include mosque. Are they intercangeable, with church as a term not privileged? Lİke can we say the mosque and the state are separate :) I mean if it's a neutral term :) (Check out Radwan's Bavarian mosque tax suggestion for instance.) In proper separation, the state needs to have equal distance to all). 

 

Turkey for instance. Political Islam is here as ideology but because it is a laicist regime, you cannot even open a party with the name of a religion as part of your party's name. That is formal separation - ideologically or practically defunct though. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual, al-Impulse tries to distract us from the fact that he won't say the same things to his co-religionists that he does to non-Muslims on this forum. He knows he would risk his life if he were to tell his co-religionists that he has no problem with a Christian or Hindu majority in Islam's holiest cities (if he actually believes that). Actually I suggested he come to Munich so we could shoot the shit, see if there is a person there and not just a robot, and maybe, just maybe, find some common ground but since he isn't sincere, there's no loss.

 

I don't make the rules for Islam, and those who do say/said the Five Pillars are mandatory, so if even the Five Pillars are optional and anything goes, there are no more specious claims of something being against a Muslim's religion/mandated by it when they feel like making non-Muslims play a figurative game of Twister to "accomodate" them, and it raises the question whether Islam is even a religion (all religion is BS anyway).

 

Impulse, you of all people know that Political Islam, and all its ugliness, is a reality, as political movement(s).

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-03-17, 10:02:30, Conquistador said:

Actually I suggested he come to Munich so we could shoot the shit, see if there is a person there and not just a robot, and maybe, just maybe, find some common ground but since he isn't sincere, there's no loss.

 

I meet and have enduring friendships with people I met online, with some of whom I have deep differences in political philosophy.  Same for friends I know from offline.  They come from numerous and very diverse personal and cultural backgrounds.  But they have one very important thing in common with each other: they respect personal, individual space, both physical and "virtual", in their actions and words.   This is normal human decency that stretches across societies and languages and countries, in my direct personal experience.

 

I have requested many times in many ways -- directly, obliquely, politely, less politely, etc -- that you stop encroaching on my on personal, virtual space, through constant speculation about my person, probing attempts to connect my political positions to some hypothesized life story, personal attacks in which you were always only joking, very predictable reversals in which the targets of your "jokes" are characterized as "oversensitive" when they object, and you proceed anyway, etc etc.   These are not the signs of someone who respects the virtual "space" of others.

 

I am expected to endure being "humanized" by you, willingly or not, and then to proclaim I enjoyed it, on pain of being declared a "robot" and "insincere", and presumably to be treated to more rounds of assumptions that my objections are due to some exotic cultural conditioning or personal wound I experienced in the past, or some other speculation that can only come from someone who does not have that basic decency.  Pro tip: any thing you want to do to someone that can be referred to by a verb ending in "-ize", you should probably ask for consent!

 

But you've proven you will never do something very easy: respect the way I present myself and stick to the political discussion.  So yes, there's no loss.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, having said that, on the matter at hand:

 

On 2017-03-17, 10:02:30, Conquistador said:

 

As usual, al-Impulse tries to distract us from the fact that he won't say the same things to his co-religionists that he does to non-Muslims on this forum. He knows he would risk his life if he were to tell his co-religionists that he has no problem with a Christian or Hindu majority in Islam's holiest cities (if he actually believes that).

 

Three points:
 

1. By very simple logic, stupid, vacuous hypotheticals are for free.  I don't actually believe that e.g. Mecca would become overrun with Christians in an open-border world, any more than I believe that European cities would become overrun with Muslims in an open border world (hint: Muslims are a minority in planetary terms too, as are all other religious groups...).  So if you give me a stupid "gotcha" hypothetical, I can respond to it however I like with a perfectly clear conscience.  Do I support the Earth being overrun with immigrant "greys" from Zeta Reticuli?  Sure, as long as they clean up after themselves.  All sentient beings have the natural right to free galactic movement!

 

2. Nevertheless, I really don't have a problem with it, if it happens by the peaceful, personally-motivated movement of individuals.  They merely have to continue to respect the holiness of the site.  I know that people, Muslims included, have in the past had a lot of difficulty with that.  We're going to have to find a way to get over it.

 

3. I am fully aware that there are a lot of politically and religiously intolerant Muslims.

 

Quote

 

I don't make the rules for Islam, and those who do say/said the Five Pillars are mandatory, so if even the Five Pillars are optional and anything goes, there are no more specious claims of something being against a Muslim's religion/mandated by it when they feel like making non-Muslims play a figurative game of Twister to "accomodate" them, and it raises the question whether Islam is even a religion (all religion is BS anyway).

 

The Five Pillars are a ritual office, the Ten Commandments are a moral code.  The Jewish ritual office is specified elsewhere, not in the Ten Commandments, but via traditions and the interpretation of scholars.  The Muslim moral code stems from exegesis of passages of the Qur'an and the life of the profit.  The Jewish moral code stems from exegesis of Biblical and other traditional texts, of which the Ten Commandments are only a part.

 

Islam is interpreted individually and through community norms, with (often) the assistance of scholarly experts (`ulema), but primarily individually, as there is an unmediated relationship between the individual and God (unlike Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, where there is a concept of priestly intercession).     So what individuals practice is on the individual conscience -- what is considered compulsory can differ individually.  No game of "Twister" is required for "accommodation" -- in the case of headscarves, you are generally not required to do anything, in relation to the person that thinks their religion tells them to wear a headscarf. I have never heard of a game of Twister in which the object of the game was to do nothing.  This is religion in the classical sense.  And the answer is to permit where it does not directly harm others.

 

Quote

Impulse, you of all people know that Political Islam, and all its ugliness, is a reality, as political movement(s).

 

 

"Political Islam" is a reality in the sense that "Political Christianity" and "Political Buddhism" is a reality -- ie, any religion or cultural unit can be instantly transformed into a political demand.  There are definitely different movements, some of them more dangerous than others, that have construed political demands based on the interpretation of Islamic texts.  And?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now