• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Anti-Muslim Terrorist Attack in... NZ?

I don't see you guys actually criticizing Islam as a religion.

Only because you haven't looked is my guess. Nobody's giving any religion a free pass. I despise all religions equally, as my world-famous avatar might tell you. Note it does include an islamic icon, and I personally run a site which has both Mary, Mother of Grace porn and Muhammad pig porn alongside Guru Nanak porn.

All religion is equally idiotic, but just as I wouldn't go to a friend's kid's funeral and go "LOL, you know heaven is a big joke, eh?", I'm not going to turn a discussion on 50 grieving families and another 50 deperately hurt families into a discussion on whether islam is good, bad or indifferent.

If it had been a synagogue (yes, we have plenty in NZ, with a strong Jewish contingent), a church, a Buddhist Temple or a even a Scientology church, I doubt anyone would be too bothered about the doctrine involved, aside from bigots.
 
Only because you haven't looked is my guess. Nobody's giving any religion a free pass. I despise all religions equally, as my world-famous avatar might tell you. Note it does include an islamic icon, and I personally run a site which has both Mary, Mother of Grace porn and Muhammad pig porn alongside Guru Nanak porn.


That is just childish. It has nothing to do with criticizing anything. You probably succeed in offending a couple of believers, but it's no argument against any religion. It reminds me of a counter demonstration in Copenhagen a couple of days ago: Hizb ut-Tahrir, a pretty fundamentalist Islamic group, met in front of the Danish parliament to pray for the victims of the NZ massacre, and a group of bigots used the opportunity to taunt them by 'cooking' the Quran "like bacon" and later setting fire to another copy of the book. They were only a very small handful and the police were there to protect them and their 'freedom of speech,' i.e. their right to be complete tossers.
Demonstration alert: US embassy Copenhagen
Islam critic gathers very few for his demonstration at Christiansborg

All religion is equally idiotic, but just as I wouldn't go to a friend's kid's funeral and go "LOL, you know heaven is a big joke, eh?", I'm not going to turn a discussion on 50 grieving families and another 50 deperately hurt families into a discussion on whether islam is good, bad or indifferent.


Well, nowadays all religion doesn't appear to be "equally idiotic". Nowadays alleged atheists distinguish between good religions and bad religions, but they seem to have lost the ability to distinguish between ordinary believers and extremists.

If it had been a synagogue (yes, we have plenty in NZ, with a strong Jewish contingent), a church, a Buddhist Temple or a even Scientology church, I doubt anyone would be too bothered about the doctrine involved, aside from bigots.


No, and the bigots were the ones I was talking about and to.
 
Last edited:
While visiting a monastery in Greece, men were required to cover their bare legs. Light trousers were provided if you only had shorts.

Women were required to cover bare shoulders.



This was not optional.



I guess the Greeks are more progressive and feel both sexes as inferior.
The Vatican still insists on covered shoulders and knees, unless you are a female world leader visiting the Pope then you have to wear black and cover your head. Those damn Muslims in the Vatican!
 
That is just childish.

It's actually nothing to do with how I feel about religion and everything to do with an idiotic law NZ still has that makes blasphemy a criminal act.

As it happens, that law should be changed shortly and I'll file it all in #13.

Well, nowadays all religion doesn't appear to be "equally idiotic". Nowadays alleged atheists distinguish between good religions and bad religions, but they seem to have lost the ability to distinguish between ordinary believers and extremists.

If you amend that to "some alleged atheists", I'd have to agree with you, because Sam Harris alone proves that point, but I do believe he's very much in the minority.
 
If you amend that to "some alleged atheists", I'd have to agree with you, because Sam Harris alone proves that point, but I do believe he's very much in the minority.

I don't think Sam Harris proves that point in the way that dann made it. He certainly thinks that some ideas are worse than others, and given that religions are composed of ideas, some religions are, in agregate, better than others, that doesn't mean he thinks some are good and others are bad, because he still thinks all are false. He also does distinguish between extremists and ordinary believers.

He certainly does view different religions differently, but that's different from saying that he thinks some are good and others are bad.
 
The Vatican still insists on covered shoulders and knees, unless you are a female world leader visiting the Pope then you have to wear black and cover your head. Those damn Muslims in the Vatican!


Now you've encouraged the next anti-Muslim shooter to attack the pope! :)
 
The Vatican still insists on covered shoulders and knees

Don’t want an unnecessary derail, but are you sure of this? When I visited the Vatican (Sistine Chapel and St Peters) I saw no such restrictions. Are you referring to audiences with the Pope? If so, perhaps you should have specified this.
 
I'm not seeing the point of this post. The assertion doesn't really help the conversation. Maybe if you explained in what way his view is lacking in nuance or balance that would be more helpful.

OK

The motivation was good, but the means were poorly chosen. Shoulda worn crescent brooches, or something green, carried placards etc, but not a symbol of oppression or subservience.

If this is not bludgeoning the issue with a hammer, then its a bad case of tone deafness. There is nothing "nuanced" or "balanced" about suggesting that the national leader should take a placard into a place of worship on an occasion such as this.

What seems foolish, is for non-Muslim women to cosplay a subservient garb (even a more mild one like a headscarf).

More tone deafness (and ignorance). This guy doesn't even understand the difference between hijab and burkha. A burkha is subservient garb, hijab is not.

Hijab is the principle of "modesty" and includes behaviour and dress for both males and females. Female hijab is the covering of the head, male hijab is the covering of legs down to at least the knees.... you never see devout Muslim men wearing shorts in public.*

If you are going to claim that Muslim women being expected to cover their heads somehow makes them oppressed and subservient, then the fact that Muslim men are supposed to cover their legs UNDER THE SAME RULES, means that you are by default claiming the the men are oppressed also. You cannot have it both ways.

*Note that exceptions are allowed for sportsmen and sportwomen participants in football codes, and bat & ball codes such as cricket...

PWC.jpg

The Pakistan Women's Cricket team
 
Last edited:
Hijab is the principle of "modesty" and includes behaviour and dress for both males and females. Female hijab is the covering of the head, male hijab is the covering of legs down to at least the knees.... you never see devout Muslim men wearing shorts in public.*

I have very devout Muslim friends who wear shorts all the time, and not only when engaging in sports, but just walking around.

ETA: This shouldn't be interpreted as an attempt to suggest that such rules don't exist, and I don't live in a Muslim country. But it does suggest to me that, among devout Muslims, the stigma attached to men wearing shorts is less than that attached to women going without their head covered.

ETA2: This reminds me of a conversation I had with a very good friend of mine. He is from Turkey, and he was telling me about having lunch at his cousin's home. His cousin's wife was preparing lunch while they sat in conversation. His cousin was telling him about his business trips to Russia, and at the same time exchanging text messages with his mistress in Russia. Meanwhile every few minutes the cousin's wife would say something from the kitchen and the cousin would exchange some words with her. So my friend started to have an odd reaction: he felt vaguely disgusted at his cousin's behaviour, but he noted that he wasn't really motived to do anything other than make a joke about how he was an ass. He then thought about how he would feel if the same situation happened with his sister. He told me, "If it were my sister, I would kill her." He started to tell me about how she would be dirtying the name of their family, etc. but at the same time expressing a strange cognitive dissonance saying "It's the same situation with my cousin, so why don't I do something about him?" He had this sort of eye opening experience about the unbalanced view he had toward male and female indiscretions within his family, and yet, as he said, his emotional reaction hadn't changed, though he did at least think there was a discrepancy that he couldn't defend.
I basically listened to the story, and we laughed about it. I made a few jokes about how, yes, it doesn't make sense, hopefully with the implication that he might think about changing his views, but that was about the end of it.
I might perhaps add that he's one of my best friends and a person that I find to be kind, intelligent, trustworthy, well intentioned and motived to try to be a good person. He's also very willing to have conversations and listen to people that he doesn't agree with. And yet he said upfront that he would literally murder his sister if she had an affair.
 
Last edited:
I have very devout Muslim friends who wear shorts all the time, and not only when engaging in sports, but just walking around.

The rules exist for both, it's just that the rule for men is more of a suggestion than the life and death situation it can be for women. Islam supports equality of genders, after all.

McHrozni
 
I beg to differ

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/v2mgb3k0o4nn547/VaticanDressCode.jpg?raw=1[/qimg]

Okay. It was largely ignored when we were there on a hot spring day. I saw people using the holy water fonts to splash water on their faces to cool down.

But point conceded. Thanks.
 
In Stockholm, Sweden, a human wall formed around a mosque during friday's prayers to symbolically shield the worshippers inside. The manifestation was organized by a Jewish man who said he wanted to reciprocate the similar action of Norwegian Muslims after an attack against a synagogue.
 
The rules exist for both, it's just that the rule for men is more of a suggestion than the life and death situation it can be for women. Islam supports equality of genders, after all.

McHrozni

We cross posted, but, yeah, that agrees pretty well with my edit(s).
 
In Stockholm, Sweden, a human wall formed around a mosque during friday's prayers to symbolically shield the worshippers inside. The manifestation was organized by a Jewish man who said he wanted to reciprocate the similar action of Norwegian Muslims after an attack against a synagogue.

That's pretty cool. :)
 
When did headscarves become "a subservient garb"? When Christian women stopped wearing them? And is it because Christian women used to wear them that you consider them to be only mildly subservient?

Yes, until relatively recently, women were subservient in Christian/western societies.

You know what protesters against trump donned, to protest his “anti-women” policies? Hoods (based off handmaids tale).

Apparently, red hoods are a symbol of oppression but black hoods are empowering.
 
It makes me sad that such a large portion of this thread has come to be about criticism against the support and solidarity shown towards Muslims after a terror attack by a white supremacist against Muslims.

I would have thought people here were better than that.
 
It makes me sad that such a large portion of this thread has come to be about criticism against the support and solidarity shown towards Muslims after a terror attack by a white supremacist against Muslims.

I would have thought people here were better than that.

People are supporting the goal, but just not sure about whether the form could have been better.

“The motivation was good, but the means were poorly chosen. Shoulda worn crescent brooches, or something green, carried placards etc, but not a symbol of oppression or subservience.”
 
People are supporting the goal, but just not sure about whether the form could have been better.

“The motivation was good, but the means were poorly chosen. Shoulda worn crescent brooches, or something green, carried placards etc, but not a symbol of oppression or subservience.”

Maybe chose another time for that?

I mean, for decency's sake if nothing else?
 

Back
Top Bottom