If in your world requiring women to show their face (nothing else!) is the equivalent of requiring women to completely cover themselves like in Saudi-Arabia... then you have an "interesting" view of the world.
I have a question. You say it is "preferable" over the spreading of the ideology. This implies that you think the ideology will cease to exist or be negatively impacted. Can you show me why you think this will happen? I will leave you and Mr Sarkozy with a thought from a Muslim scholar of their ideology: I ask you in all sincerity. Do you think these women are going to do anything other than stay home which in turn leads to less integration, less education, less information and more oppression? ATW, you have to trust me. I know this. I live amongst these people. I studied in the same countries, and I went to the same classes, malls, restaurants, campuses, etc. These people are going to do one of two things. They will either sit at home in a vegetative state (what a cruel end to an oppressed woman's life) or, more unlikely, they will leave the country to go to........................ the place where they are revered for doing this. The kids are brainwashed. Rinse and repeat. Safe to say, we agree to disagree. We've talked about this several times. For me, unless France can justify that this action will stop the spread of the ideology, it is a massive failure. All it takes is a fatwa saying "it is now ok to remove the veil, but you must strengthen your faith and belief in the veil in your heart. Never let them infiltrate your beliefs." I swear to you I know these people. This is a horrendous idea. As I said, whether it's an implosion or an explosion, this will end up being a mess IMO. Force has never worked. Every example of failed force in history is identical to your view: "Just in this specific case, it's unfortunately necessary. Just this time." For me, force is the opposite of freedom. They are opposites. Using it carelessly is a grave error. IMO, in this case, Sarkozy has categorized these people as sub-human. Thanks for the dialogue. I understand your views and, frankly, I don't care which one of us is right as long as EVERYONE is better off.
Mathloom, I also want to thank you for the discussion. I understand where you are coming from and I can respect it. Maybe you are right. But like you, I am unsure what the perfect solution would be. It is just such a sad state of affairs that people preach hate and isolation to gain power.
Though I wouldn't be surprised if it was true, you have to admit that there is absolutely no proof that the money is coming from Saudi. On top of that, money from Saudi is very vague. Al Waleed Bin Talal's money is very different than the Al Saud Royal Family's money. Furthermore, money coming into America is not an easy thing. If it wasn't clean, it wouldn't be cleared. Finally, there is no difference between Saudi money building a mosque and Saudi oil feeding the country. In both cases, there should be filters to protect the sovereignty of the U.S> and filter out the undesired interests of "Saudi". To be fair, probably admit that this one is pure speculation and the money could be coming from the tons of wealthy Muslims in America. Just a suggestion.
Agreed, ultimately, we want the same outcome and it's just a matter of opinion as to what is the best way to reach it. Thanks again.
Question to everyone who participated in the thread: What do you think about the suggestion by the Rabbi? It sounds very good to me.
(1) Its not clear to what extent this law will help those women who are forced by fanatical husbands/families to wear a burka or face physical abuse. If the consequence is that they are not allowed to go out in public at all, then their situation has been worsened. (2) What about all those women who prefer to wear a burka? What right does the government have to punish them for the clothing they choose to wear? What are the rules/customs in Indonesia that should be respected?
DaDa This does not pertain to your country has nothing to do with you What happened to live and Let Live? Let them run their country the way they want too? OH . . I forgot . .a religion is involved at that point you want to 'cram' you beleifs on them Rocket River
I answered this question in the paragraph you quoted just below your question. Apparently so far not "not wearing pants":
Good straw man. Man, I have never meant anyone as disingenuous as you that engages in this many logical fallacies. No wonder have the people on this site think you are a raving idiot.
Why are you so angry? Every single one of your posts contains a very angry insult. Reminds me of this guy:
If that's your answer, then we should accept Indonesia enforcing Sharia Law on the same basis. Sorry, but your answer is not a satisfactory one.
Maybe not to you, but you were the same guy arguing in the epic beard man thread until you were blue in the face. As I said, I really like many of your other posts, but quite frankly, just because something is not satisfactory to you doesn't mean all that much. And equating sharia law with all its cruelties with one law requiring people not to cover their faces pretty much discredits any other argument you would like to make.
You basically said that people should respect the customs of a country or get the hell out. Now you are adding the qualification "so long as those customs aren't excessively cruel". OK, so who decides what's cruel and what isn't? I guess you think not being allowed to wear tight jeans is cruel, while being forced to expose your face/hair in public is not. But the only reason you see it that way is that's what you are used to in your culture. Even if its nothing to you, many Muslim women probably would not be comfortable going out in public uncovered. To force them to do so is cruelty from their standpoint.
durvasa, you strike me as a guy who has a very rigid way of thinking. Are you a programmer? Just out of curiosity. The interesting aspect here is that like in the epic beard guy thread, you see one part of the argument, but not all sides to it. Fascinating.
I'm open to considering all sides of your argument, so long as they are consistent with each other. I think laws should be grounded in moral principles that we are committed to applying consistently. I disagree with the ban on revealing clothing in Indonesia because women should be free to wear whatever makes them comfortable. That's it. It has nothing to do with my dislike for other aspects of Sharia Law, or Islamic terrorism, or 9/11. On this basis, I also disagree with the French ban on the burqa.
I fully understand your logic. The arguments you present are always logical - in themselves. They are fully consistent and logical within themselves. That's why I asked if you are a programmer. Deconstructing the way you put together your arguments, it appears that at some point you come to the conclusion that 2 things are equal and then you solve it like a mathematical equation, with a lot of the emphasis on "consistency". I already observed that in the epic beard guy thread. It's interesting. To respond on the merits to your post: Once again, there is no equality between the French ban on the burkha and the Indonesian forced ban on pants. I question the underlying assumption in your logic that it's about "women should be allowed to wear whatever makes them feel comfortable". It is about more than that. The burkha and the veil are symbols of oppression, and as such, they deserve to be banished in a free western country. It is not about being comfortable. I question the freedom of choice for women to wear these symbols of oppression. You keep ignoring that point because it would mess up your "consistent application of logic".
RR, I am amazed by how someone like you, who is my age and who is apparently a native speaker, can write and spell like a 5-year old kid. That aside, sometimes you do offer an interesting perspective - but sometimes that perspective is that of a 5-year old kid.
