Burn a Quran day

[catsmate]

Seems you guys are trying to deny the obvious.

In my home state they run pretty graphic advertisments in an attempt to reduce the road toll. When you see them for the first time they are quite shocking but, over time, they gradually have much less shock value untill eventually no one pays any attention any more. Sometimes they can even appear comical from a certain angle.

Such is human nature.
In the recent past, a naked thigh would raise a head of steam.
Now, full frontal nudity barely raises an eyebrow.

Well an erect penis still causes controversy.

 

[FireGarden]

I don't think you'd see the point if it was pushed up your nostril.

Well... He'd need a mirror, at least, wouldn't he?

You think the fundamentalists are not intelligent?
To some extent the moderates - intelligent and unintelligent - have done that.
The problem is....they will not naysay the fundamentalists if their lives depended on it.

You've not read any of those links I gave earlier, have you?

Reality check. There would be no way of demanding rights in a country with sharia law without risking death. So, I ask you again to please think globally. Americans are not at risk but there is a larger world out there.

And, yet, people do demand help. And they get it. Perhaps you should have the humility to recognise that people in a situation may know better than you what they need.

eg: http://www.iranhumanrights.org/about/



Do you really think that burning Qurans will help those people? Maybe you should find more effective means of support. Back in 2004, did you campaign in this lawsuit?:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4235765

Where a human rights activist in Iran, Shirin Ebadi, won the right to publish her memoirs in the USA. Too small an issue for you? Perhaps you supported her in 2009 when the harrasment increased:
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/12/10/iran-stop-harassing-shirin-ebadi

I don't think she's returned to Iran since then, but there are plenty still in Iran. She still campaigns on their behalf. This is the latest from Google News:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52882

See if you can contact her and ask her how many Qurans you should burn.

In case it isn't obvious to you... Shirin Ebadi is a Muslim.

 

[phiwum]

I don't think you'd see the point if it was pushed up your nostril.

I think I can clearly see: you didn't have any point at all.

You said that what I said was false, but you know darn well it wasn't. This is why you won't bother to explain why it was false, but instead ask slight variants of the same question repeatedly.

 

[I Ratant]

I am living proof against that assertion.

.
???
.

Faith is only strengthened from within and can only be weakened from without.

.
Some theologicial geniuses need to get together to cause doubt about the inerrancy of the book.
For Christianity, making the book available to all did that, which weakened the strict interpretation that was the rule, until the book became of little consequence in daily life.
.

You think it's difficult to find a logical chink in Islam?
Is that what you're saying?

.
From what I've read about Islam, the foundation is a childish collection of anecdotes and plagarised excerpts from Christianity and Judaism. Islam could be considered a Jewish sect, at best.
.

You think the fundamentalists are not intelligent?

.
Fundamentalists... the leaders... are usually quite intelligent, and dishonest, and greedy, and sexual deviants, many of them. (our Joseph Smith, Jim Jones and Davic Koresh come to mind)
"Bearded billy goats" was used a thousand years ago to describe the typical mullah and imam by a leading Iranian intellectual.
.

To some extent the moderates - intelligent and unintelligent - have done that.
The problem is....they will not naysay the fundamentalists if their lives depended on it.

.
Their lives DO depend on it, so they remain silent. Salmon Rushdie is an example. Some moron writes a fatwa authorising his death over a -novel- he wrote. Makes the workaday intellectual content to be free of the barbaric side of Islam, by keeping quiet.
Nothing worth noting has come from Islam in over 500 years. The culture has degenerated from leading the world's thought to not having a thought worth thinking since then.

 

[I Ratant]

Well an erect penis still causes controversy.

.
Not here.
Just bring back memories. Sob!

 

[BillyJoe]

Please wake up...

...before we lose even more of our hard won liberty as a consequence of someone else's religious beliefs:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/under-the-coverup-20101008-16c1v.html

A COUPLE of weeks ago a report surfaced about families being ordered to cover up before attending a public event to avoid offending Muslims during next year's Ramadan in August. It involved VCAT approving a bikini ban for a community event to be held at Dandenong Oasis, a municipal pool. Dandenong Council, and pool managers YMCA, successfully sought an exemption from the Equal Opportunity Act to compel ''participants aged 10 and over'' to ''ensure their bodies are covered from waist to knee and the entire torso extending to the upper arms'', and to refrain from wearing ''transparent clothing''.

Freedom of speech and freedom of expression far outweigh any offence, real or imagined, to religious sensibility.


EDIT 1:
This quote gets to the heart of my argument here:

Jim Memeti defended the ruling as part of a council strategy to promote ''greater respect, tolerance and understanding of others''. And yet this strategy is directly contradicted by the demand for ''tolerance and understanding'' being made of one side only, namely the non-Muslims.

The intolerant are demanding tolerance.


Edit 2:
The author's comment:

Such ideas run counter to the West's more than 500-year struggle for individual freedom - including both freedom of religion and freedom from religion - and for gender equality. Our public authorities ought to be pushing back hardest when these values are under threat. Yet this is precisely where they've been buckling under pressure.

Precisely!

 

[BillyJoe]

The ad wears a stamp of authority. It comes from our state government, ..." Is that correct? If so, then in what ways do you think the state government should portray religion?

From the secular point of view.

Well... He'd need a mirror, at least, wouldn't he?

That would help, but I fear it would not be enough.

You've not read any of those links I gave earlier, have you?

Enough to see that were not relevant.
I'm not backing "militant" action instead of diplomatic action, but in addition to diplomatic action and I am suggesting that diplomatic action alone will not suffice to promote change.

 

[BillyJoe]

Ratant,

We agree much more than we disagree.

.Their lives DO depend on it,

That's what I was alluding to.
I didn't think I needed to spell it out.

 

[BillyJoe]

And last and least...

I think I can clearly see

The words "think" and "clearly" are clearly antagonistic in this sentence.
And, in case that isn't clear, let me add that I don't think so, I know so.

 

[FireGarden]

From the secular point of view.

Portraying people who get baptised as leading a double life is in tune with the secular point of view? I don't think so. I think it denigrates Christians. That isn't seperation of Church and State.

Enough to see that were not relevant.
I'm not backing "militant" action instead of diplomatic action, but in addition to diplomatic action and I am suggesting that diplomatic action alone will not suffice to promote change.

How can it not be relevant?
You are still saying this: "To some extent the moderates - intelligent and unintelligent - have done that. The problem is....they will not naysay the fundamentalists if their lives depended on it."

When the examples I've linked to indicate that they DO speak out -- even when their lives are at risk. That you seem unable to accept this is utterly daft.

...before we lose even more of our hard won liberty as a consequence of someone else's religious beliefs:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/under-the-coverup-20101008-16c1v.html

But surely appropriate dress at a swimming pool would be, err, bathers?

Why? Surely anything you can swim in would be fine.

Lots of people have different needs and requirements. That you have a problem in accomodating a diversity of opinion is the intolerance. Try being a bit grown up and sharing your toys. This is a public facility paid for through taxes. Every member of the public should have the opportunity to use it. And that is, actually, what has happened.

Your position seems to be that Muslims should pay their taxes but get less back by not being able to make full use of the publicly provided swimming pools. Maybe they should be forced to choose between swimming in private facilities only or giving up parts of their culture. Would they get a tax-rebate under your policy? Or merely be forced to fund the majority's funtime?

To be fair to the author of that article, he does try to give the other side:

But there is another side to this issue because at the centre of this debate are real women whose lives have been improved by these sessions. All very well for the likes of me to lecture about the sanctity of our secular public space, being at perfect liberty to roam through it.

In its 2006 application to VCAT for segregated sessions, Brimbank led evidence about the large number of disadvantaged women in the municipality. Many are refugees and recent arrivals from Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan. They tend to be poor and isolated. The council even produced data showing some residents had a lower-than-average life expectancy. Research had indicated swimming was an activity these women were keen to participate in, and that it would bring health and social benefits. But without segregated sessions, the women would never experience the joys of the pool.

 

[phiwum]

The words "think" and "clearly" are clearly antagonistic in this sentence.
And, in case that isn't clear, let me add that I don't think so, I know so.

I've no idea why you are incapable of clarifying what you meant, but I'm obviously done with this pointless "conversation".

 

[BillyJoe]

I've no idea...

Well, I could help you out, but then again...

 

[BillyJoe]

Portraying people who get baptised as leading a double life...

This is what you think this advertisment is all about? Really?

Come on, surely it's just a light hearted depiction of one fictional woman's potential double life, one of quiet and appealingly innocent restraint and one off carefree friendliness and intimacy.
The advertisement is, in my opinion, very well done and artistic in a way many advertisements are not.

If you cannot appreciate that you really do have a big hang up.

...is in tune with the secular point of view? I don't think so. That isn't seperation of Church and State.

Separation of church and state means simply that the state should show no preference towards any religion and should not show preference towards religion as opposed to no religion. It does not mean not mentioning religion or pretending it's citizens aren't variably religious and non religious or, more generally, a curious combination of the two.

I think it denigrates Christians.

Really?

To me that religious girl is every bit as appealling as her more liberated alter ego. An innocent looking girl dressed in a simple white dress, without makeup, walking through the countryside viewing the interesting country folk she meets along the way to attend Sunday church service. I mean how cute is that! Counterspliced by her potential other self, all make up and flashy dress, dancing carefree through the evening and into the night where we find her similarly stripped to the bare essentials in the arms of her beau.
This is not about denigrating Christians.
And tell me you don't find that song appropriately and appealingly artistic.

 

[BillyJoe]

...the examples I've linked to indicate that they DO speak out -- even when their lives are at risk. That you seem unable to accept this is utterly daft.

I did not mean to speak in absolutes. Sorry if you misunderstood. Of course there are moderates who risk their lives to speak out against the fundamentalists. But they need to speak out as a group. This they refuse to do. The moderate church leaders have to speak out loud and clear that the fundalmentalist view is completely unacceptable.

Lots of people have different needs and requirements. That you have a problem in accomodating a diversity of opinion is the intolerance. Try being a bit grown up and sharing your toys.

As I said before, the only intolerance I have is for those who demonstrate intolerance.
Please stop mischaracterising my view.

This is a public facility paid for through taxes. Every member of the public should have the opportunity to use it. And that is, actually, what has happened.

Public money should not go to the exclusive use of any particular group.
To kowtow to one sector's particlar religious belief is to promote that belief. This is not the business of government. People are free to privately fund their private religious beliefs if that is what they wish to do.

Your position seems to be that Muslims should pay their taxes but get less back by not being able to make full use of the publicly provided swimming pools.

They are completely free to use the facilities any time they wish.
They are not free to exclude others when they do use them.

Maybe they should be forced to choose between swimming in private facilities only or giving up parts of their culture.

What a good idea!
Yes, maybe that might just bring home to their children that there is another view - besides the one in which they have been indictrinated - from which they are being sheltered.
What a brilliant idea!
Congratulations, FireGarten, for the suggestion.

Would they get a tax-rebate under your policy? Or merely be forced to fund the majority's funtime?

No public funding of private religious or religiously motivated activities.
That is separation of church and state.
And while we're at it, could we please have a refund of all those private school subsidies!

 

[FireGarden]

This is what you think this advertisment is all about? Really?

Come on, surely it's just a light hearted depiction of one fictional woman's potential double life, one of quiet and appealingly innocent restraint and one off carefree friendliness and intimacy.
The advertisement is, in my opinion, very well done and artistic in a way many advertisements are not.

If you cannot appreciate that you really do have a big hang up.

What it's all about? No. But you did read the tag-line, didn't you? It actually asks you to lead a double life. Christians are free to be offended that they were chosen as the example. Do you really think that the advert couldn't have been made without a baptism?

And I certainly can appreciate the message the ad was getting across. That you can't appreciate the other message which can be inferred from the ad is not surprising to me. You do seem very blinkered -- only able to see things from your point of view.

Separation of church and state means simply that the state should show no preference towards any religion and should not show preference towards religion as opposed to no religion. It does not mean not mentioning religion or pretending it's citizens aren't variably religious and non religious or, more generally, a curious combination of the two.

Have you seen the way you phrase that first sentence? What about bias against religion?

Really?

To me that religious girl is every bit as appealling as her more liberated alter ego. An innocent looking girl dressed in a simple white dress, without makeup, walking through the countryside viewing the interesting country folk she meets along the way to attend Sunday church service. I mean how cute is that! Counterspliced by her potential other self, all make up and flashy dress, dancing carefree through the evening and into the night where we find her similarly stripped to the bare essentials in the arms of her beau.
This is not about denigrating Christians.
And tell me you don't find that song appropriately and appealingly artistic.

Like I said, you have a problem seeing things form another point of view. You don't seem able to imagine what other people might think. You don't seem able to even acknowledge that another interpretation can be just as valid as your own.

You like the girl the way she is portrayed, so there can't be anything wrong with the portrayal. That seems to be your argument.

The problem with the portrayal has already been described: it's the 'double-life' tag. Not everybody likes to be portrayed that way. You do? Fine. Good for you. But not everyone agrees.

I did not mean to speak in absolutes. Sorry if you misunderstood. Of course there are moderates who risk their lives to speak out against the fundamentalists. But they need to speak out as a group. This they refuse to do. The moderate church leaders have to speak out loud and clear that the fundalmentalist view is completely unacceptable.

Oh please. If you don't mean to speak in absolutes, then don't. There is an edit button if you forget yourself. And please read on about how these people not only form groups of their own, but reach out to other groups for help -- like HRW and Amnesty, etc.

As I said before, the only intolerance I have is for those who demonstrate intolerance.
Please stop mischaracterising my view.

That soundbite does not cover your ass. The people who are asking for use of the swimming pool are not being intolerant. Any more than the author of the article you linked was being intolerant when he said: "Banishing thongs in pubs is about preserving decorum."

Public money should not go to the exclusive use of any particular group.
To kowtow to one sector's particlar religious belief is to promote that belief. This is not the business of government. People are free to privately fund their private religious beliefs if that is what they wish to do.

Public money isn't going to the exclusive use of one group. It is being used by everyone in turn.

They are completely free to use the facilities any time they wish.
They are not free to exclude others when they do use them.

What a good idea!
Yes, maybe that might just bring home to their children that there is another view - besides the one in which they have been indictrinated - from which they are being sheltered.
What a brilliant idea!
Congratulations, FireGarten, for the suggestion.

Right. Your way or the high way.
Your tolerance shines through, again.

You want their tax money but not their culture.

 

[BillyJoe]

What it's all about? No. But you did read the tag-line, didn't you? It actually asks you to lead a double life.

It's just a friggin' advertisment to encourage people to come to Daylesdford. That is the purpose and intention of the ad.

Christians are free to be offended that they were chosen as the example.

Free to be offended?
What on Earth do you mean by free to be offended?
Certainly the author is offended. But consider that the ad has been airing for over a year now and this is apparently the first complaint.
And so what if she is offended? Let her be offended. With free speech comes freedom to attack people's sacred cows and the inevitablility that people will be offended. If you don't want people to be offended, you don't get to have free speech.

Do you really think that the advert couldn't have been made without a baptism?

You don't get to chose what other's decide to do with their creativity. And you don't get to censor it. Free speech is far more important than someone's sacred cow.

Have you seen the way you phrase that first sentence? What about bias against religion?

Here is my sentence: 'Separation of church and state means simply that the state should show no preference towards any religion and should not show preference towards religion as opposed to no religion."
Where is the bias against religion.
Perhaps you misinterpreted something.

Like I said, you have a problem seeing things form another point of view. You don't seem able to imagine what other people might think. You don't seem able to even acknowledge that another interpretation can be just as valid as your own.

What you don't see is that no one can seem do or say a single damned thing without someone somewhere being offended. This ad took 12 months before it found someone who was offended. Life goes on. People will continue to do and say things regardless of the fact that somewhere someone eventually will be offended.

Public money isn't going to the exclusive use of one group. It is being used by everyone in turn.

Good one. Perhaps homosexuals could have their own private sessions as well. And scientologists. And maybe nudists would like a day for themselves. If every group decided they wanted their own special day to the exclusion of all others, the general public would soon be having to book years in advance.
This is a public pool.
If you want a private pool, do some fund raising and build one.

Yes, maybe that might just bring home to their children that there is another view - besides the one in which they have been indictrinated - from which they are being sheltered.

Right. Your way or the high way.

No actual argument then?

There are muslim children in Australia who go to muslim schools and attend social functions attended only by muslims. Now their parents want to complete their indoctrination and isolation from alternative views and lifestyles by having separate swimming sessions from the rest of the population.

You want their tax money but not their culture.

We have parks that are free to everyone who wishes to enjoy them. These parks are built and maintained by taxes. If there are taxpayers who do not avail themselves of these parklands, they are paying tax and not getting the services. That's life.
Perhaps we should also set aside a park day for muslims only.
Way to go. Let's just see what this does for tolerance in our society.

 

[FireGarden]

It's just a friggin' advertisment to encourage people to come to Daylesdford. That is the purpose and intention of the ad.

And we're not allowed to consider the way they did that? We must only consider the intention? Sorry, but no.

You don't get to chose what other's decide to do with their creativity. And you don't get to censor it. Free speech is far more important than someone's sacred cow.

I don't get to decide, but I do get to complain about a government sponsored ad which makes an unflattering reference to baptism.

Here is my sentence: 'Separation of church and state means simply that the state should show no preference towards any religion and should not show preference towards religion as opposed to no religion."
Where is the bias against religion.
Perhaps you misinterpreted something.

You didn't mention bias against religion. That's the point. The government shouldn't be biased against religion. It's not just your rights which are protected.

Good one. Perhaps homosexuals could have their own private sessions as well. And scientologists. And maybe nudists would like a day for themselves. If every group decided they wanted their own special day to the exclusion of all others, the general public would soon be having to book years in advance.
This is a public pool.
If you want a private pool, do some fund raising and build one.

It's still open to the public, only with a different dress code.

Regarding your list, a quick google finds that nudists are indeed campaigning for rights to use things like beaches.
http://www.mynews.in/News/nudists_in_california_asked_to_cover_up_N28399.html

Nude sunbathers in California have been asked to cover up.Refusing to hear a case brought by a local nudist group, the state's top court has upheld a ban on nudity at state beaches, including those that have been informally designated as "clothing-optional." The court Thursday unanimously denied review of a lower-court ruling upholding a May 2008 decision by State parks director, Ruth Coleman, to allow officers to cite nude sunbathers on a portion of San Onofre State Beach in Orange County where they had previously been undisturbed.

[...] The latest ruling favoured state officials, who last spring decided to crack down on a more than 20-year tradition of nude sunbathing at the 1,000-foot stretch of beach known as Trail 6

[...] park rangers could enforce the ban at traditionally clothing-optional state beaches such as Gray Whale Cove south of Pacifica and Red Rock Beach in Mount Tamalpais State Park

Seems Nudists were losing rights back in 2009. Why don't you join their campaign?

No actual argument then?

There are muslim children in Australia who go to muslim schools and attend social functions attended only by muslims. Now their parents want to complete their indoctrination and isolation from alternative views and lifestyles by having separate swimming sessions from the rest of the population.

The swimming sessions are open to non-Muslims. Only the dress code has changed.

Do you agree with the author of the article you linked?: "Banishing thongs in pubs is about preserving decorum." Or do you think it's yet another infringement of your human rights? Why no complaints about the author's intolerance to those who wish to wear thongs in pubs?

 

[westprog]

The swimming sessions are open to non-Muslims. Only the dress code has changed.

Any public facility involves a considerable degree of compromise. There are no mixed changing rooms, for example - so there might be an issue with parents of different-sex children. It seems reasonable to cater for the needs of a minority when it can be done without ruining the facility for everyone else. It's always a judgement call, not a matter of principle.

 

[BillyJoe]

And we're not allowed to consider the way they did that? We must only consider the intention? Sorry, but no.

The intention is the important thing.
Photographers often take well intentioned photos of children that others consider pornographic or as an incitement to paedophilia. That was not the intention of the photographer and he cannot be held responsible how others may interpret them. For that I suspect you'll need to look into the complainer's psyche.

I don't get to decide, but I do get to complain about a government sponsored ad...

What do you hope to achieve by your complaint?

...which makes an unflattering reference to baptism.

What unflattering reference to baptism?
All I saw was positivity on both sides.

You didn't mention bias against religion. That's the point. The government shouldn't be biased against religion. It's not just your rights which are protected.

What bias?
What rights are not being protected?
I think when you look for something you're inclined to find it.

It's still open to the public, only with a different dress code.

Oh well, I suppose I'll just mosey on down to the pool in my coveralls then.

Seems Nudists were losing rights back in 2009. Why don't you join their campaign?

I think you've lost sight of what side of the argument I'm on.

Do you agree with the author of the article you linked?: "Banishing thongs in pubs is about preserving decorum."

Here you go with your false analogies again.
No, I don't think thong wearers should have a pub night all to themselves.

 

[FireGarden]

The intention is the important thing.
Photographers often take well intentioned photos of children that others consider pornographic or as an incitement to paedophilia. That was not the intention of the photographer and he cannot be held responsible how others may interpret them. For that I suspect you'll need to look into the complainer's psyche.

What do you hope to achieve by your complaint?

At the very least, an awareness of the problem.

What unflattering reference to baptism?
All I saw was positivity on both sides.

It was explained in the article you linked: baptism is associated with double lives. You may still see that positively, but your taste isn't shared by everyone.

What bias?
What rights are not being protected?
I think when you look for something you're inclined to find it.

And when you close your mind to other people's interpretation of the same event, you tend not to see their point.

Oh well, I suppose I'll just mosey on down to the pool in my coveralls then.


I think you've lost sight of what side of the argument I'm on.

No I haven't. Do you campaign for nudists to have rights on state beaches? Should they have universal rights or only on the beaches set aside as 'clothing optional'?

Here you go with your false analogies again.
No, I don't think thong wearers should have a pub night all to themselves.

Not my anology. The anology is given in the article you linked.

Do you think that thong wearers should be allowed to turn up in nothing but a thong on any pub night? Or do you think that it's a matter of decorum, as the article stated?