Anti-Muslim Terrorist Attack in... NZ?

[Max_mang]

Provide links to/evidence of this happening in New Zealand.

The pics of Catholics bowing used as examples were not in NZ. Are you certain that all muslim women in NZ have free will over their actions given that this is happening, in Iran, in 2019? -

https://nypost.com/2019/03/14/famed-lawyer-sentenced-to-38-years-prison-148-lashings-in-iran/

Any of us could also post tons of examples of state-instituted muslim female oppression from any number of countries.

Muslim women in non-theocratic countries get a break from the state but they know what's up.

 

[Darat]

The pics of Catholics bowing used as examples were not in NZ. Are you certain that all muslim women in NZ have free will over their actions given that this is happening, in Iran, in 2019? -



https://nypost.com/2019/03/14/famed-lawyer-sentenced-to-38-years-prison-148-lashings-in-iran/



Any of us could also post tons of examples of state-instituted muslim female oppression from any number of countries.



Muslim women in non-theocratic countries get a break from the state but they know what's up.

Only one of those women were RC, the other two were merely respecting the religion of the state they were visiting.

(Had to check, surprised that Melania is RC as she wasn't married in a RC service and it doesn't look like she is bringing up her child in the RCC faith.)

ETA and it wasn't the bowing I was illustrating, it was how they adopted the head covering the state they were visiting as a sign of respect...

 

[Samson]

Utter bollocks!

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

Kneejerk response without reading the post, and frankly insulting.

 

[angrysoba]

I thought it went without saying, that in cases where it's not a show of solidarity, it's not a show of solidarity. You seem to have gotten the right end of the stick here, but grabbed entirely the wrong stick for some reason.

Oh, if you are talking about general members of the public wearing the hijab as a show of solidarity then I think criticizing them for “submitting to the patriarchy” or whatever else is a slightly dickish sneer at a well-meaning yet not well-thought-through attempt at being nice. The people criticizing it are the ones engaging in identity politics, not the women who think, “oh, they’ll love it if we do this...”

I find a similar thing happens when Donald Trump writes his ham-fisted attempts at showing condolences on Twitter for any particular tragedy if he manages to keep politics out of it. They are not masterpieces of empathy but the guy is doing the decent thing in those cases and shouldn’t be sneered at, in my humble opinion.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Kneejerk response without reading the post, and frankly insulting.

Seemed spot on to me.

 

[Stout]

You're applying your Judeo-Christian standards to others of a different religion and culture. Some might call that judgemental.

Have you ever been to places like Thailand, or India, or Sri-Lanka, or Fiji or Japan? If not, then if you should ever manage to find you way out of your comfortable white middle-classed privileged existence and go there, you are in for a very rude shock!

Yea so ? I got an opinion.

Yes, I've been somewhere else before and it doesn't serve as any sort of an excuse for misogyny. Are you trying to make a misogyny is widespread so it's OK type of argument here ?

 

[Stout]

I wonder if Stout is just as shocked that Women are not allowed to be Priests and say Mass in the Catholic church, or that many Protestents Denominations do not allow Women Ministers.......

Not commeting about the right or wrongness of this, but methinks somebody might have a double standard.

My good sir, might you be under the impression that I'm going to defend the cultural practices of the Christian faith ? If you are, I'm going to be sorry to disappoint you.

I'm an athiest and equally critical of all cockamamy belief systems equally. You should try it.

 

[dudalb]

Oh, if you are talking about general members of the public wearing the hijab as a show of solidarity then I think criticizing them for “submitting to the patriarchy” or whatever else is a slightly dickish sneer at a well-meaning yet not well-thought-through attempt at being nice. The people criticizing it are the ones engaging in identity politics, not the women who think, “oh, they’ll love it if we do this...”

I find a similar thing happens when Donald Trump writes his ham-fisted attempts at showing condolences on Twitter for any particular tragedy if he manages to keep politics out of it. They are not masterpieces of empathy but the guy is doing the decent thing in those cases and shouldn’t be sneered at, in my humble opinion.

You can accuse nuns of the same thing people are accusing those who wear the Habib of doing.

 

[smartcooky]

The pics of Catholics bowing used as examples were not in NZ. Are you certain that all muslim women in NZ have free will over their actions given that this is happening, in Iran, in 2019? -

https://nypost.com/2019/03/14/famed-lawyer-sentenced-to-38-years-prison-148-lashings-in-iran/

Any of us could also post tons of examples of state-instituted muslim female oppression from any number of countries.

Muslim women in non-theocratic countries get a break from the state but they know what's up.

I ask you to post evidence of this happening in New Zealand (after all, this thread is about the Mosque attacks here) and you post a link from Iran.

I guess that means you have no evidence.

But if you want to go the Iran way, then how about this

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-18/domestic-violence-church-submit-to-husbands/8652028

In predominantly Judeo-Christian countries, there are;

1. People who believe in God and who are regular and frequent churchgoers
2. People who believe in God and who are infrequent churchgoers
3. People who believe in God and who do not go to church at all.
4. People who don't believe in God at all (Atheists)

Would it surprise you to learn that the same situation exists in predominantly Islamic countries. I have a number of friends who are immigrants or descendants of immigrants from various Islamic countries (I know them through sports, education and business). A number of them are atheists, some of them are not, but do not go to a mosque. To me, they are just Kiwis, like me, friends I talk to and socialise with. Some of them even speak with Kiwi accents so broad that if you had never met them, and were talking to them on the phone, it would never occur to you that they were from Pakistan or any other country.

The problem I see with posters like you and Stout and others is that you are all ready and willing to post horror stories, opinions and links to the worst of Islam, and purport that to be representative of ALL of Islam. Its like posting about all the most heinous disgusting people in the United States and claiming the are representative of everyone in America.

 

[angrysoba]

You can accuse nuns of the same thing people are accusing those who wear the Habib of doing.

I could accuse them of having filthy habits!

I’m not particularly trying to give Islam a free pass and neither would I do so for Catholicism. I just think give New Zealand women a break, for they know not what they do. Ha ha!

 

[theprestige]

Provide links to/evidence of this happening in New Zealand.

It happens elsewhere. By wearing the headscarf, people in New Zealand are showing solidarity with those who do it elsewhere.

 

[Stout]

The problem I see with posters like you and Stout and others is that you are all ready and willing to post horror stories, opinions and links to the worst of Islam, and purport that to be representative of ALL of Islam. Its like posting about all the most heinous disgusting people in the United States and claiming the are representative of everyone in America.

So all those women at the call to prayer in Hagley Park, sitting at the back of the bus Isn't representative of all Islam then ? Is it just a New Zealand thing ?

That bit about women not being permitted to sing the call to prayer, that's just a small isolated thing ?

Good to know that these "horror stories" are not as widely practiced as the Internet has led me to believe.

 

[cmikes]

I think Peterson is full of crap, but I don't consider him dangerous.

And THAT is another concern I have. Labelling anybody whose political opinions you don't like as being somehow "dangerous" can censoring them.
And, yes, I have little confidence that politicians would not stoop to such measures givne the opportunity.

Yeah, I don't get the whole anti-Peterson thing. Do people protest against Tony Robbins or was there an anti Norman Vincent Peale movement back in the day? There certainly have been con men that positioned themselves as self-help gurus but I haven't seen any evidence that Peterson doesn't honestly believe his positions. I personally don't subscribe to his philosophy, but it's not for me to say if other people find it useful.


ETA: On further reflection, I should word it that I don't know enough about Peterson's positions to say whether I would find them useful or not.

 

[cmikes]

May one point out that women are meant to have their hair covered in a RC church, and no one could claim that the RCC is anything but a patriarchal organisation in which you won't find a women presiding over mass....

Here is an example of someone bowing to the patriarchal RCC leader:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40030668 but perhaps a better example as she was known to be so submissive to the patriarchy... https://goo.gl/images/uPckA9

ETA: The more I've looked the more I am astonished at all these weak willed women so willing to bow down to a religion that considers them 2nd class https://goo.gl/images/Ci2zZv

I know you didn't mean it that way, but it really looks like you're saying because the RCC doesn't allow women priests, it's alright for Iran to lash and imprison an activist for 38 years or to stone women to death for the "crime" of being raped.

Can we not just conclude that both the RCC and Iran's theocracy are both wrong and need reforms?

 

[Steve]

Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ! I have seen some utter bollocks posted on this forum, but some of the crap posted in the couple of pages in this thread makes Trump look like a truthsayer.

For Jacinda to wear a head scarf to these events is NOT a sign of submission, NOT a sign of solidarity, NOT a sign of subjugation and NOT a sign of deference,

Its protocol!

ITS A MARK OF RESPECT FOR THE DEAD VICTIMS AND THEIR FAMILIES AND RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

I am an atheist. When I go to a funeral of a Christian friend, I wear a black armband; I recite the prayers, I sing the hymns, I close my eyes and bow my head at the request of the cleric. I do these things NOT because I believe any of it, but out of respect for my passed friend and what he believed in.

In the one occasion that my partner and I have been to a funeral of a Muslim friend, I, like everyone else, took my shoes off. My partner did also, and she also wore a head scarf. However, before doing to, we checked with his family to see if this was what they would normally expect. They said it was optional for us.

Anyone who thinks Jacinda just turned up wearing a headscarf has no bloody idea about politics. I can assure you the she or members of he staff will have checked first, with an Imam, to find what their preference was.

Just because you choose to do the things you describe does not place any obligation on others to follow your lead. When I attend a funeral service I do none of the things you describe. My presence at the service is sufficient respect for the dead person. Paying lip service to a religion that I do not believe in is not showing respect.

The shootings in your country's mosques were a tragic event. I have much sympathy for the surviving famiies and friends. I sincerely hope that they are able to deal with their grief and are eventually able to move on with their lives. I have much respect for the individuals. I have no respect for their religion. The facts that the victims were Muslims and were killed in a mosque has no positive or negative effect on my feelings of sympathy and respect. I would feel exactly the same if someone shot up a crowd at a sporting event. As a nonbeliever I view wearing of religious symbols and participating in the rites of a religion as hypocritical and not at all respectful. Respect can easily be shown without any pretending at all.

 

[Steve]

I know you didn't mean it that way, but it really looks like you're saying because the RCC doesn't allow women priests, it's alright for Iran to lash and imprison an activist for 38 years or to stone women to death for the "crime" of being raped.

Can we not just conclude that both the RCC and Iran's theocracy are both wrong and need reforms?

I am having trouble parsing the relevance of the discussion about women in religion. All major religions are patriarchies where women are second class and their participation in their own religion is limited. What relevance does it have to the NZ shootings?

 

[smartcooky]

So all those women at the call to prayer in Hagley Park, sitting at the back of the bus Isn't representative of all Islam then ? Is it just a New Zealand thing ?

That bit about women not being permitted to sing the call to prayer, that's just a small isolated thing ?

Good to know that these "horror stories" are not as widely practiced as the Internet has led me to believe.

Some religions do things differently from other religions shocker! Pictures at 6.00

You are applying YOUR standards (women should be allowed to sing the call to prayer because YOU think they should) to others.

Its their religion, and they are entitled to adhere to their practices, so long as those practices do not violate human rights. Sexual equality in religion is not a human rights issue. If it was, then the RCC would have been called to task for their failure to allow women to be ordained as priests a long, long time ago.

And if you think its all one way traffic, were you aware the Muslim women are allowed to wear gold or silk, but Muslim men are not?

OH MY GOD, THIS RELIGION OPPRESSES MEN...MORE SHOCK/HORROR!

 

[smartcooky]

Just because you choose to do the things you describe does not place any obligation on others to follow your lead.

Do you think it is within my rights to do so?

 

[Darat]

I know you didn't mean it that way, but it really looks like you're saying because the RCC doesn't allow women priests, it's alright for Iran to lash and imprison an activist for 38 years or to stone women to death for the "crime" of being raped.



Can we not just conclude that both the RCC and Iran's theocracy are both wrong and need reforms?

I brought up the examples because it was being said women in NZ at the moment wearing a head covering is supporting the terrible status of women in some Muslim countries not a mark of respect. I was hoping that they would see that people can show respect to one another even if they don't agree with the whole kaboodle of a particular religion.

 

[AnonyMoose]

I am having trouble parsing the relevance of the discussion about women in religion. All major religions are patriarchies where women are second class and their participation in their own religion is limited. What relevance does it have to the NZ shootings?

Thanks for saying exactly what I was thinking... and in a far more tactfully diplomatic way than I probably would have.