DominO123 Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 For your enjoyment, Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights : Thus, the banning of azhan is religious discrimination even if it might be practiced based on other fake justifications. Also , so far people were saying secularism is about individual freedom and rights , but now it seems everyone is saying that individual rights are not so important compared to collective safety . Well that was a quick 180 degree shift. As for your last question , the answer is yes . You also know my stance on Saudi Arabia . That section leads to a paradox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassun Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Your wife Hijab is against my personal values!!! I consider men and women as equal? Understand? I have no problem that your wife ear the Hijab, she can even wear it on the street, this is how tolerant I am. But in schools, in hospitals,(beside hospital buildings), on government buildings of any sorts, which are to the collectivity, I don't want to see your wife hijab, those vuildings are as much to your wife as mine, and her system of values contradicts mine. And since those buildings are as much mine as hers, the only solution is that she does not wear her hijab and I do not come with something against her values. We lose a personal freedom, but we acquire a collective one. A rule which is equal for everyone. Common sense? Sure. Her values would insist that women must cover up their hair. Then according to your logic, your wife would have to wear a Hijab to enter the building. But we know that this takes us to square 1 , because neither of our wives would be able to enter the building simultaneously (so there must be separate hours of access to the building for veiled women and hours for non-veiled women ?) , unless you are saying your view is better than mine , and your policies are justified based on your allegedly superior views, in which case , yes, you become , my friend, a fascist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 BTW, I am not, as Yervant clarified, talking about how we are here, but how it SHOULD be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassun Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 The Muslims had theirs to. And I find this an abomination..., but it is a so-called private system in both cases, neither regulating anything which the Canadian penal code includes. Shariah for Muslims has not been applied anywhere in the West, unless I missed something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 (edited) The basic premis here is rather simple. I will use the words of Bill Maher. "We should NOT become tolerant enough to tolerate intolerance." If your religion demands that you smoke cigarettes at 6pm every day, then damnit screw your religion in public places. It comes at the cost of other people's rights to breath fresh air. If your religion demands that my mom wears a hijab in public, then screw your religion in public places. If your religion demands that I have to listen to you screaming your ass off at 6AM, calling people to "prayer", then screw your religion. If your religion demands you sacrifice dog puppies to your God, then screw your religion. If your religion alows you to marry 9 year old girls, then screw your religion. This isn't "forcing my way of life on you." This is ensuring YOU do not FORCE YOUR WAYS on me. This is ensuring fundamental individual freedoms for EVERYONE. Sassun, you are completely out of gas here. You are not making ANY valid arguments against separation of church and state. Edited June 12, 2007 by Sip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassun Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 That section leads to a paradox. I donno man. Is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights an open buffet also ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Her values would insist that women must cover up their hair. Then according to your logic, your wife would have to wear a Hijab to enter the building. But we know that this takes us to square 1 , because neither of our wives would be able to enter the building simultaneously (so there must be separate hours of access to the building for veiled women and hours for non-veiled women ?) , unless you are saying your view is better than mine , and your policies are justified based on your allegedly superior views, in which case , yes, you become , my friend, a fascist. I don't understand this, you are supporting my argument. We can not instore different hours, because that damn building is as much as your wife as mine and both should be able to have access to it at the same hours. So again, which brings me to what I have said. No hijab, no cross nothing which can be viewed by others in those buildings. Everyone lose, no one is above the other. We lose the privilage to have those symbols but we win equality, a collective right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 I donno man. Is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights an open buffet also ? I have faith in humanity, and faith that that section will one day change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassun Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 I don't understand this, you are supporting my argument. We can not instore different hours, because that damn building is as much as your wife as mine and both should be able to have access to it at the same hours. So again, which brings me to what I have said. No hijab, no cross nothing which can be viewed by others in those buildings. Everyone lose, no one is above the other. We lose the privilage to have those symbols but we win equality, a collective right. Excuse me ? My wife is just as attached to her beliefs that wearing the Hijab is a MUST as your wife is attached to hers that wearing the Hijab is OPPRESSIVE. What makes your wife's view better than my wife's view in reality ? In such a case , under secularism, the only solution is to 'live and let live' your wife can go to that building in a bikini if she wants , and my wife will go there wearing a Hijab. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassun Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 I have faith in humanity, and faith that that section will one day change. YOU MEAN THE SAME HUMANITY THAT STOOD BY AND DID NOTHING WHEN MY FRIEND WAS KILLED IN COLD BLOOD BY THE ISRAELIS LAST SUMMER ??? What BS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yervant1 Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 For your enjoyment, Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights : Thus, the banning of azhan is religious discrimination even if it might be practiced based on other fake justifications. Also , so far people were saying secularism is about individual freedom and rights , but now it seems everyone is saying that individual rights are not so important compared to collective safety . Well that was a quick 180 degree shift. As for your last question , the answer is yes . You also know my stance on Saudi Arabia . There is no 180 degrees change please don't say things for the sake of saying. My rights ends when it infringes on someone elses rights. You have no right to have azan audible for others who don't want it simple as that, this also applies to other religions. Everybody is free to practise whatever religion they want as long they all follow the rules of the municipality that they live in. You want change you get elected to the council and change it if you get the majority votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Excuse me ? My wife is just as attached to her beliefs that wearing the Hijab is a MUST as your wife is attached to hers that wearing the Hijab is OPPRESSIVE. What makes your wife's view better than my wife's view in reality ? In such a case , under secularism, the only solution is to 'live and let live' your wife can go to that building in a bikini if she wants , and my wife will go there wearing a Hijab. Why would my wife wear a bikini in a public building? Who the hell does this? You have been mislead about western women. Your wife is losing it, but everyone else lose it. They lose all equally, but they gain equality. If your wife can wear a hijab, another person who's value is that men and women are equal is offended, that person lose it. Your wife considers Islam as the truth, and a cross is fake for her, so some could view it as offending. So, no symbols, that is all, everyone loses equally. Can you find anything more just than that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 YOU MEAN THE SAME HUMANITY THAT STOOD BY AND DID NOTHING WHEN MY FRIEND WAS KILLED IN COLD BLOOD BY THE ISRAELIS LAST SUMMER ??? What BS. No, the humanity which came up with the universal declaration of human right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassun Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 No, the humanity which came up with the universal declaration of human right. Yeah whatever. You know where that 'humanity' can go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassun Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 (edited) Why would my wife wear a bikini in a public building? You are missing the point. She can wear whatever she wants, that is the point. She can wear a cross, if she wants she can even carry a cross on her back into the building. What do I care? Live and let live. This is the most fundamental tenet of secularism. Secularism is not about imposing things on others. It is about removing religion from governance. In the end, it is funny, that I am far more accepting of what secularism entails, than you are. Edited June 12, 2007 by Sassun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 You are missing the point. She can wear whatever she wants, that is the point. She can wear a cross, if she wants she can even carry a cross on her back into the building. What do I care? Live and let live. In the end, it is funny, that I am far more accepting of what secularism entails, than you are. Can I wear a symbol on which there is "fk Islam" writen on it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassun Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 (edited) Can I wear a symbol on which there is "fk Islam" writen on it? You can wear whatever you want, as I said. I have btter things to do with my time than take offense to such things. but it is funny that you equate Hijab to wearing a 'fk Islam' symbol... Edited June 12, 2007 by Sassun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Can I wear a symbol on which there is "fk Islam" writen on it? Only if you want to be killed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 You can wear whatever you want, as I said. I have btter things to do with my time than take offense to such things. but it is funny that you equate Hijab to wearing a 'fk Islam' symbol... What about those who will get offended? What about their rights? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 I have btter things to do with my time than take offense to such things. That is the problem Sassun. You constantly claim to be "muslim" but that is not very Islamic of you. You are implicitly advocating separation of church and state ... getting along, living with each other etc yet you try to claim otherwise. You are one confused dude but that's ok. I wouldn't expect any less from an intelligent young man who is trying to somehow make Islam work in his favor. I'm sure you will eventually reshape Islam to fit your needs ... but as I have said before, there is what you think and then there is real life (and real Islam). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassun Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 (edited) What about those who will get offended? What about their rights? tough luck. you cannot satisfy everyone's whims. i can take offense at a billion things. i cannot make the world revolve around my fancies. if we are to take care of each and every person's sensitivities on each and every issue then human society will auto-destruct. Edited June 12, 2007 by Sassun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 tough luck. you cannot satisfy everyone's whims. i can take offense at a billion things. i cannot make the world revolve around my fancies. if we are to take care of each and every person's sensitivities on each and every issue then human society will auto-destruct. I am a politician, the minister of justice, and I have a belief system which interfer with my judgement because my belief system is there should be no Islam, so I instore a law, in which it makes illegal to practice Islam. Muslims will be offended, but I am practicing my system of thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yervant1 Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 tough luck. you cannot satisfy everyone's whims. i can take offense at a billion things. i cannot make the world revolve around my fancies. if we are to take care of each and every person's sensitivities on each and every issue then human society will auto-destruct. Sassun you are all over the place, you want your cake and eat it too. Some of your posts sounds more secular than the seculars and yet some posts are very anti secular. In a way it's good you are using your common sense and accepting what's right from both sides. But if you have a son and a daughter how would you divide your will to them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassun Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 I am a politician, the minister of justice, and I have a belief system which interfer with my judgement because my belief system is there should be no Islam, so I instore a law, in which it makes illegal to practice Islam. Muslims will be offended, but I am practicing my system of thought. Banning religion is not what secularism is about. But hold on for a minute, what you are sayign in effect means that you will have to ban every tshirt that says 'fk islam' or anything else that might be deemed offensive by anyone , so as to ensure 'equality'. good luck with your mega police recruitment campaign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 Two examples: Algerian "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?": we used to have Algerian TV in Holland. What I found interesting was that the audience and the contestants were all dressed whichever way they felt most comfortable. There were women who were almost entirely covered, but there were also "Westernized" women, make-up and all. Same with the men. Some were dressed in Western-tailored suits, others were wearing jeans, and yet others had turbans on their heads. Moroccan and Turkish girls in Holland: I've seen them very often, walking around in groups of five or six. Some of the girls in these groups cover their heads, and others don't. Those who cover their heads, generally also cover the rest of their bodies. Those who don't cover their heads, also show other parts of their bodies, wear make-up, pluck their eyebrows, and have piercings. Why is it that these girls and Algerians are capable of dealing with these differences, but the far-right Dutch population is incapable of doing so? I quite frankly don't care if the nurse at the hospital is wearing a veil or not, as long as she does her job well. Neither do I pay attention to who is sitting behind the counter in a supermarket. I simply choose the fastest queue. If the girl behind the counter happens to be Muslim, so be it. Same in a court room. As long as her judgment is based on the law, I don't care whether she sentences me with a chador on or a bikini. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.