Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sheb]

E: Though to be clear, the devil's in the details and exceptions more than commonalities. Only problem there is we legislated various degrees of acceptance or protection for a lot of those exceptions long before muslim was a word most of the population even really knew the basic nature of. Harping on a lot of them (if not all) kinda' falls flat when stuff like 14 year old marriages and crap were legalized for christian denominations.

Just read this, and that reminds me that you guys in the US really have an issue with child marriage and you should fix that crap. I mean, you guys have 11 years old being forced to marry their rapists for Christ sake (Although that was in Florida, so maybe I should be surprised).

[martinuzz]

Holy shit, that is disgusting. Boycot the US, until they change their pedo ways.

[Frumple]

For what very, very little it's worth, sexual activity with a minor is illegal, period, married or not. Or supposed to be, anyway. If there's exceptions it's not many jurisdictions or only in relation to Romeo and Juliet laws or somethin', near as I can recall.

... though as that article notes, florida may be a main perpetrator (and yeah, knowing a fair bit about our religious landscape in particular I'd say that is completely unsurprising), but it's hardly the only one.

Actually kinda' odd, though. Could have sworn it was only a few states that allowed marriage to someone below the age of consent even in extraordinary circumstances. Almost entirely sure that's what is being taught on the subject, so far as relevant laws and academic/educational settings are concerned. Which may help explain why the hell it's still being let slide.

[Rolan7]

And let's just ignore that any time muslims in the West are surveyed, there's way more for making homosexuality illegal than any other Abrahamic religion. I guess that's their sense of "justice".

Ok this is the creepiest thing people bring up whenever they want to argue against immigrants or multiculturalism is that immigrants aren't in favor of homosexuality...

Yet, does this REALLY matter?

i mean it does if you're in favor of lgbt rights.

luckily i'm not, so I don't have to deal with the dilemma.

I can respect not supporting a position that doesn't affect you or people you care about.  It's not like my votes are altruistic.  I vote for, in rough order:  A non-toxic environment in the long term, reasonable job opportunities, permission to do consensual things in private with other people, and (bizarrely) government approval of a religious ceremony that my family cares about.

I'm totally cool with people not caring about the last two.  There are so many issues I have a vague uninformed opinion on, and basically ignore.  I do resent people who actively try to fight against those two positions, though, even if they're relatively low on my priority list.  It's so private that I have to take it personally.  It's not economic policy like the first two, it's just... belief.  Belief that I'm evil, and should be legally restrained.

That's probably enough said, I need to sleep.
Sharia law is horrible though.  It makes me sick when people mistakenly defend it as if it's liberal or progressive.  It's literally the opposite.

[scriver]

If it wasn't so fucking tragic I would find it mind breakingly hilarious to see how the once progressive left has been reduced to useful idiots for supremacist and imperialist ideology.

Your solidarity should not be with muslims. Your solidarity should be with those Islam oppress. By being wilfully ignorant and just arbitrarily choosing not to see how these power structures works you are helping those power structures establish themselves further in your country.

As for Sharia law in Muslim nations, well, I firmly believe that you don't hate people for their own sake.  "I hate you because you hurt me" can be a consistent view.  "I hate you because you hurt others" can be a consistent view.  "I hate you because you hurt yourself" is a ridiculous standard.  That's why mainstream feminism is no longer against Hijabs, for example, because any anger over that and any change is going to have to come from the people who are actually effected.

Just look at this. Here we have someone I assume identifies as on the left making the argument that people should not show solidarity with the vast amount of Muslim and middle-eastern women (and men) who decry the shawl as patriarchal and oppressive, and not take stand with them against it's use. A leftist saying we should let these people stand alone against all the wealth, influence, and tradition of one of the biggest religions in the world because "it's not our business". Women fled from Muslim countries to get away from that oppression, and now you are completely fine with it following them here. I guess this is yet another example of American "fuck you got mine" mindset in practice.

[TheBiggerFish]

Forcing people to not wear the shawl is just as bad as forcing people to wear the shawl.

Also, listening to NPR, looks like Maryland and DC actually did go and do it.

E:Not yet, apparently.  I'm not exactly awake, so I wasn't paying very good attention.

[Frumple]

... scrive, that you seem to think that muslims aren't among those that islam oppresses says more than a little. Talking about the religion as some kind of monolith adds to it, too, really.

And holy shit, decrying someone as being useful idiots for supremacist and imperialist ideology in that face of that? Shitting on muslims as a whole for the actions of a few of them is exactly the message supremacist and imperialist ideology is banging like a bloody drum. Talking about useful idiots when you're outright espousing the creed you're haranguing them over is just what.

Pretty sure you are misreading the hell out of EH, too, but I won't try to clarify for 'em. But bloody hell, were you even able to type that with a straight face?

[Rolan7]

Personally I wouldn't ban headcoverings.  I don't have any problem with BDSM, as long as it's actually consensual.

[TheBiggerFish]

Personally I wouldn't ban headcoverings.  I don't have any problem with BDSM, as long as it's actually consensual.

Non sequitur much?

[Rolan7]

Not really.  The various coverings bind women to nullify their attractiveness and individual characteristics.  The onus is on the woman to be covered, rather than the man to control himself, because men are dominant.  If they don't comply, the expected reactions are various levels of sadistic.
But maybe it doesn't take a masochist to go out in the sun in full black.

It's actually more cultural than religious (at least, originally).  It's still BDSM, and should be treated like any other public display of kinkiness (or sexual slavery).  Not forbidden, but not accepted as normal (or for the latter, help should be offered).

[TheBiggerFish]

Not really.  The various coverings bind women to nullify their attractiveness and individual characteristics.  The onus is on the woman to be covered, rather than the man to control himself, because men are dominant.  If they don't comply, the expected reactions are various levels of sadistic.
But maybe it doesn't take a masochist to go out in the sun in full black.

It's actually more cultural than religious (at least, originally).  It's still BDSM, and should be treated like any other public display of kinkiness (or sexual slavery).  Not forbidden, but not accepted as normal (or for the latter, help should be offered).

:/
I'm still not getting it.

[scriver]

... scrive, that you seem to think that muslims aren't among those that islam oppresses says more than a little. Talking about the religion as some kind of monolith adds to it, too, really.

If you think that after a post which's latter half literally focuses on women of Muslim origin wanting to escape Muslim oppression then you are seeing what you want to see.

And holy shit, decrying someone as being useful idiots for supremacist and imperialist ideology in that face of that? Shitting on muslims as a whole for the actions of a few of them is exactly the message supremacist and imperialist ideology is banging like a bloody drum. Talking about useful idiots when you're outright espousing the creed you're haranguing them over is just what.

It's not "the actions of a few". It's mainstream Islam. Not decrying Islam as a whole for the actions and ideals of mainstream Islam is like crying "not all Nazis are bad! Don't shit on nazist as a whole just for the actions of a few!".

And yes, people are being useful idiots for supremacists and imperialist ideology - they should be taking a stand against both, not accepting foreign ones simply because their homebred ideologies are opposing it out of xenophobia. Doing that not only gives the xenophobes a monopoly on criticism of Islam but also paints all critics of Islam as xenophobes - something that will immediately be seized upon to silence all criticism of Islam. EnigmaticHat said "the people who are actually affected should be the ones who fight", well, that article is literally one who was affected being prevented from fighting that good fight because of our establishment choosing to side the oppressive Muslim establishment instead of standing up for the progressivists who oppose it.

Forcing people to not wear the shawl is just as bad as forcing people to wear the shawl.

An argument that completely disregards the place of the shawls in Muslim cultures and societies. It's not a choice to begin with - it's a patriarchal mandate forced upon women from childhood and up.

It's actually more cultural than religious (at least, originally).

Religion and culture and not easily separable ideas. Culture is religion, religion is culture, there are cultural religions, and religious culture.

[Arx]

Forcing people to not wear the shawl is just as bad as forcing people to wear the shawl.

An argument that completely disregards the place of the shawls in Muslim cultures and societies. It's not a choice to begin with - it's a patriarchal mandate forced upon women from childhood and up.

...how? TBF never suggested it was a choice to wear the shawl. He just said that preventing someone from practicing a religion is just as bad as forcing them to.

[smjjames]

Lets re-rail this back towards politics, guys....

[TheBiggerFish]

@scriver: `:\
Aaaaand I also said what you said was bad is bad, too.  But you shouldn't take that as license to suppress someone's right to decide for themself to follow a religion.