Burn a Quran day

[BillyJoe]

At the very least, an awareness of the problem.

What do you hope to achieve by making people aware of the problem?
...let's cut to the chase: you hope people will not make advertisements such as these. You don't want to outlaw it, you just want them not to do it. On the other hand, I would encourage them. A healthy society needs to criticise, lampoon, and satirise its sacred cows.

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.

I am saying that no idea/opinion expressed in whatever form will be shared by everyone, but that is no reason not to put those ideas/opinions out there, whether they be done in a serious, humourous, critical or satirical manner

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

I do see their point. I just don't think they are making a good case. More importantly, I don't think their opinion should prevent this advertisment from continuing to be aired. Free speech is a valuable commodity.

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?

False analogy.
There is absolutely no point of contact between the thong scenario and the bathers scenario.
If you think so, please point it out.

 

[FireGarden]

What do you hope to achieve by making people aware of the problem?
...let's cut to the chase: you hope people will not make advertisements such as these. You don't want to outlaw it, you just want them not to do it. On the other hand, I would encourage them. A healthy society need to criticise, lampoon, and satirise sacred cows.

And do you think that is the job of government?

I do see their point. I just don't think they are making a good case. More importantly, I don't think their opinion should prevent this advertisment from continuing to be aired. Free speech is at stake.

Free speech is not at stake anymore than it is in any debate.

False analogy.
There is absolutely no point of contact between the thong scenario and the bathers scenario.
If you think so, please point it out.

There is a clear link: dress-code.
Why don't you try answering the questions, for a change? Humour me. Call my bluff, whatever. I think your answers will show how inconsistent your position is.

You mentioned nudists yourself:

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.

Okay, I've gone from swimming pools to beaches. But try answering anyway. I think it's relevent. And if you don't agree, then maybe you will after we discuss your answers to these questions:

Do you campaign for nudists to have rights (to be naked) on state beaches? Should they have universal rights or only on the beaches set aside as 'clothing optional'?

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?

 

[BillyJoe]

There is a clear link: dress-code.

I see, it's apples and oranges but, hey, they're both fruits.
(Where have I heard that before)

The bathers are a group.
The thong wearer is an individal.

That group has strongly held religious beliefs regarding proper dress code.
The thong wearer just likes wearing thongs

The bathers are applying to council for a rule change.
The thong wearer just walks into the pub.

The bathers want others to conform to a new dress code.
The thong wearer is not conforming to an established dress code.

The bathers are applying to a publicly owned facility.
The thong wearer is entering a privately owned facility.

The proper comparison would be:
A group of thong wearers belonging to a religion that specifies thong wearing in pubs and who, as a result of their firmly held religious beliefs which causes them to find shoe wearing offensive, apply to council for a night where all patrons must wear thongs in a publicly owned pub (good luck finding one), so that they, like everyone else, can enjoy a night in the pub (partly paid for by their taxes).

Would you take that proposition seriously?

 

[FireGarden]

I see, it's apples and oranges but, hey, they're both fruits.
(Where have I heard that before)

The bathers are a group.
The thong wearer is an individal.

Oh hell! You're not going to answer the questions, are you? Have you already realised how hopelessly lost your position is once those answers are given?

That group has strongly held religious beliefs regarding proper dress code.
The thong wearer just likes wearing thongs

The bathers are applying to council for a rule change.
The thong wearer just walks into the pub.

The bathers want others to conform to a new dress code.
The thong wearer is not conforming to an established dress code.

The bathers are applying to a publicly owned facility.
The thong wearer is entering a privately owned facility.

And oranges are green while apples are red.
Why can't you answer the questions? They blow you out of the water, don't they? They leave you without a leg to stand on, don't they? I will go on believing that until you answer the questions in some way which shows you can go on speaking the 'intolerant of intolerance' drivel you use as a cover for bigotry.

The proper comparison would be:
A group of thong wearers belonging to a religion that specifies thong wearing in pubs and who, as a result of their firmly held religious beliefs which causes them to find shoe wearing offensive, apply to council for a night where all patrons must wear thongs in a publicly owned pub (good luck finding one), so that they, like everyone else, can enjoy a night in the pub (partly paid for by their taxes).

Would you take that proposition seriously?

I would have no problem with the followers of a Thong-religion seeking an opportunity to use public property in a manner that makes them comfortable. But, unlike you, I don't have a problem sharing things.

And I have no problem taking your scenario seriously -- for the sake of argument. It allows me to see where you're going with this idea. It's called a conversation. Care to answer my questions? Or have you seen how purile your dress-code hang-ups are? Nudists pay their taxes -- I have no problem with them gaining access to public beaches where they can indulge their preference for nudity. People who don't like nudity won't be able to enjoy those public beaches at the same time. But heck... That's life. We all have to share.


Here are the questions again:
Do you campaign for nudists to have rights (to be naked) on state beaches? Should they have universal rights or only on the beaches set aside as 'clothing optional'?

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?

 

[BillyJoe]

Oh hell! You're not going to answer the questions, are you? Have you already realised how hopelessly lost your position is once those answers are given?

Right after you show me how the question is relevant.
(I have shown you how it is not relevant but, instead of responding to that, you simply ask the question again!)

...drivel you use as a cover for bigotry.

Crying "bigotry" again FG?
(I think that's the third time now and it's still sounds like a bad argument)

I would have no problem with the followers of a Thong-religion seeking an opportunity to use public property in a manner that makes them comfortable.

You are well on your way to discrediting your opinion in my opinion.
(And while you're at it please find a spot for all the other groups. But, hey, why only one night? Surely all of these groups should have a pool built specially for them so that they can enjoy swimming all year round like the rest of us.)

But, unlike you, I don't have a problem sharing things.

You call having separate bathing times sharing?
(Sounds more like segregation to me but, hey, I'm just a bigot)

 

[westprog]

You call having separate bathing times sharing?
(Sounds more like segregation to me but, hey, I'm just a bigot)

How about separate changing rooms? Is that acceptable, or a surrender to moralising blackmail?

 

[FireGarden]

Right after you show me how the question is relevant.
(I have shown you how it is not relevant but, instead of responding to that, you simply ask the question again!)

A waste of time, is it? After all these days telling me that it's not relevent. Your time must be variably precious. Or are the answers top secret? Have you been sworn to secrecy regarding policy on nudists? You only divulge the data on a need to know basis.

Crying "bigotry" again FG?
(I think that's the third time now and it's still sounds like a bad argument)

Yes. I am claiming you are a bigot. And not just against Muslims. Against anyone with a dress-code you don't want them to be able to apply in a non-private location. Nudists included.

I reckon your policy is that nudists should pay for public beaches but then only be allowed to meet other nudists in private. People who like to wear thongs -- but no shoes -- should pay for public places but then only socialise with like minded people in private (or while keeping to a different dress-code). Just as you believe Muslims should pay for public swimming pools but only be able to comfortably use a private swimming pool -- because there can only be one dress-code tolerated by BillyJoe in public places.

You are well on your way to discrediting your opinion in my opinion.
(And while you're at it please find a spot for all the other groups. But, hey, why only one night? Surely all of these groups should have a pool built specially for them so that they can enjoy swimming all year round like the rest of us.)

You call having separate bathing times sharing?
(Sounds more like segregation to me but, hey, I'm just a bigot)

Fortune favours the tolerant, it seems. Because there is a thread regarding the destruction of art in a public museum:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188337

The relevant posts are Scott Haley's and Aitch's response, which indicates one way to share publicly funded facilities.

A similar event was regarding people who don't want to watch, say, 'Jerry Springer, the Opera' but who, nevertheless, had to pay for it to be on the BBC. Was that fair? While JSTO was on, they couldn't watch anything else on that particular channel. But those who wanted to watch JSTO also pay their license fee, so they should get their turn. It's not segregation. It's tolerance, allowing diverse people to share a publicly funded facility.

 

[BillyJoe]

Yes. I am claiming you are a bigot.

Well then I'm claiming you're an idiot.

And not just against Muslims. Against anyone with a dress-code you don't want them to be able to apply in a non-private location. Nudists included.

In fact, I would not object at all if someone wanted to swim in coveralls. I might be somewhat amused, but I would not object. And if someone wanted to swim naked at my beach, well welcome (especially the naked opposite sex )
I just don't want them locking me out because of my choice in bathers.

I reckon your policy is that nudists should pay for public beaches but then only be allowed to meet other nudists in private.

In Victoria we have "clothes optional" beaches. And we have an enormously long coastline. There are beaches where no one goes because there are closer ones. No one misses out because one group wants to go naked privately at a public beach.

People who like to wear thongs -- but no shoes -- should pay for public places but then only socialise with like minded people in private (or while keeping to a different dress-code).

(Sorry, that's the only response I could think of to this one)

Just as you believe Muslims should pay for public swimming pools but only be able to comfortably use a private swimming pool...

Muslims are completely free to use coveralls in public pool whenever they wish. A "muslim only" night is unacceptable because it excludes most of the public which is a recipe for anti-muslim feeling. Inviting the general public provided they wear coveralls is also unacceptable and risky, because the general public simply will not attend by and large, except possibly for a small contingent bent on sabotage.

... because there can only be one dress-code tolerated by BillyJoe in public places.

Do you never tire of mischaracterisation.
Muslims in coveralls and nudists are all welcome at my beach. I'm just that sort of guy. Giving and sharing

It's not segregation. It's tolerance, allowing diverse people to share a publicly funded facility.

It's, at best, sharing separately. Almost an oxymoron. But, as I said before, it "sounds more like segregation to me". No. Everyone come down to my beach - clothed, naked, in bathers or coveralls. But please don't lock me out of your beach. I will be most upset at your lack of tolerance for my preference in swimming attire.

 

[FireGarden]

Well then I'm claiming you're an idiot.

In fact, I would not object at all if someone wanted to swim in coveralls. I might be somewhat amused, but I would not object. And if someone wanted to swim naked at my beach, well welcome (especially the naked opposite sex )
I just don't want them locking me out because of my choice in bathers.

While this gives some infomation, it doesn't answer the questions:
Do you campaign for nudists to have rights (to be naked) on state beaches? Should they have universal rights or only on the beaches set aside as 'clothing optional'?

In Victoria we have "clothes optional" beaches. And we have an enormously long coastline. There are beaches where no one goes because there are closer ones. No one misses out because one group wants to go naked privately at a public beach.

What's that about 'privately'? That doesn't answer the questions.

Muslims are completely free to use coveralls in public pool whenever they wish. A "muslim only" night is unacceptable because it excludes most of the public which is a recipe for anti-muslim feeling. Inviting the general public provided they wear coveralls is also unacceptable and risky, because the general public simply will not attend by and large, except possibly for a small contingent bent on sabotage.

It isn't a Muslim only night. And the general public has the opportunity to attend, provided they keep to the dress code. There are often trouble makers at football matches, that doesn't stop us from having football matches.

Do you never tire of mischaracterisation.
Muslims in coveralls and nudists are all welcome at my beach. I'm just that sort of guy. Giving and sharing.

That doesn't refute the characterisation. It merely states that you have a dress code with an 'anything goes' policy. You clearly DO have a problem with other dress codes -- you've stated that problem with regards to an Islamic dress codes at events at public swimming pools. And you've not answered the questions regarding nudists. Do all beaches have to be 'clothing optional'? What about beaches which are 'nude only'? ie: do all public beaches have to adhere to you dress code?

It's, at best, sharing separately. Almost an oxymoron. But, as I said before, it "sounds more like segregation to me". No. Everyone come down to my beach - clothed, naked, in bathers or coveralls. But please don't lock me out of your beach. I will be most upset at your lack of tolerance for my preference in swimming attire.

The funny thing is... You don't see how you are keeping people away from your beach with its 'anything goes' dress code. You ARE excluding people.

And the fact is, you can't have everyone using a service at the same time. Not just for logistics, but because different people like different things. So the only option is to take turns -- like we have to at the BBC between 'Songs of Praise' and 'Jerry Springer the Opera', 'Top of the Pops' and 'Later with Jules Holland'.

 

[BillyJoe]

Not a lot of time right now but just these bits:

It isn't a Muslim only night. And the general public has the opportunity to attend, provided they keep to the dress code.

The funny thing is... You don't see how you are keeping people away from your beach with its 'anything goes' dress code. You ARE excluding people.

Firstly, you pose a question in that first quote that I've already answered:
"Inviting the general public (answereing your "It isn't a Muslim only night") provided they wear coveralls is also unacceptable and risky, because the general public simply will not attend by and large (because they must "keep to the dress code")"

Secondly, the two quotes together exposes your double standards. My dress code (wear whatever you like) excludes people whilst muslim dress code (wear coveralls) somehow does not.

 

[FireGarden]

Not a lot of time right now but just these bits:

Too little time to answer these questions:
Do you campaign for nudists to have rights (to be naked) on state beaches? Should they have universal rights or only on the beaches set aside as 'clothing optional'?

Do all beaches have to be 'clothing optional'? What about beaches which are 'nude only'? ie: do all public beaches have to adhere to you dress code?

Firstly, you pose a question in that first quote that I've already answered:
"Inviting the general public (answereing your "It isn't a Muslim only night") provided they wear coveralls is also unacceptable and risky, because the general public simply will not attend by and large (because they must "keep to the dress code")"

Secondly, the two quotes together exposes your double standards. My dress code (wear whatever you like) excludes people whilst muslim dress code (wear coveralls) somehow does not.

At first glance: we both seem to be in that pickle, though, don't we? How does your dress code keep people from opting out anymore than the Muslim dress code?

But the thing is, I didn't say people wouldn't opt out of attending a public event with a Muslim dress code. I said they would have the opportunity to attend. And they do. Just like they have the opportunity to attend yours, but many won't because of the 'anything goes' dress code. So, if one counts as an exclusion then surely the other is too.

So what's the difference between us?
Given that people have different tastes, I think that the way to serve them is by having a variety of events. You don't seem to allow for a variety of events, because you only seem to allow for your preferred 'anything goes' dress code.

 

[BillyJoe]

Do you campaign for nudists to have rights (to be naked) on state beaches?

How is it relevant whether or not I campaign for those rights?
Wouldn't it be sufficient to know whether or not I support those rights?
And I'm not sure why we've switched from pools to beaches.
Pools are only so long, but beaches go on forever, so there's penty of space for everyone.

What's that about 'privately'?

Well, you know...they display their privates to a private group (ie excluding those who do not display their privates publicly...er...in private) of others displaying their privates on a public beach.
I hope that clears that up.

There are often trouble makers at football matches, that doesn't stop us from having football matches.

So you answer to increased bigotry andviolence against muslims, as a result of having to wear muslim approved bathing attire at the pool or be excluded, is that there are trouble makers at football matches?
You certainly do have a way with analogies.

It merely states that you have a dress code with an 'anything goes' policy.

Well, yes, "you can wear whatever you like" is, strictly speaking, a dress code. But perhaps not exactly in the same sense as "you must wear coveralls"

You clearly DO have a problem with other dress codes -- you've stated that problem with regards to an Islamic dress codes at events at public swimming pools.

I have no problem with people who want to wear coveralls on my beach.
I do have a problem when I have to wear coveralls in their pool.

And you've not answered the questions regarding nudists. Do all beaches have to be 'clothing optional'? What about beaches which are 'nude only'? ie: do all public beaches have to adhere to you dress code?

That would be good.

But, unfortunately, and inexplicably, my personal preference is not shared by all. Apparently some people are bothered by nude bodies on the beach. Apparently some are bothered by coveralls on their beach. Some are even bothered by burkas and turbans in the street.
(I must admit, though, that I feel for the women in the burkas)
The solution is not to segregate these people.
That serves only to accentuate the divisions that already exist.

The funny thing is... You don't see how you are keeping people away from your beach with its 'anything goes' dress code. You ARE excluding people.

And you don't see how you are keeping people away from your pool with its 'coverall' dress code.

But here's the difference:
On my beach, everyone can come dressed however they like, but some won't come because they don't like what other people wear.
In your pool, some won't come because they must come dressed in coveralls because someone else doesn't like what they normally wear.

And the fact is, you can't have everyone using a service at the same time.

Come on down to my beach. Welcome in your coveralls. Welcome in your noveralls. Hey, you can even come in your shorts.

...different people like different things. So the only option is to take turns..

There's another option.
Different people can do their different things whilst other different people do their different things.

-- like we have to at the BBC between 'Songs of Praise' and 'Jerry Springer the Opera', 'Top of the Pops' and 'Later with Jules Holland'

There's that analogy problem again.
You have can have lots of different groups together at the pool but you cannot have lots of different shows on the BBC at the same time.

 

[BillyJoe]

So what's the difference between us?

On my beach, everyone can come dressed however they like, but some won't come because they don't like what other people wear.
In your pool, some won't come because they must come dressed in coveralls because someone else doesn't like what they normally wear.

 

[FireGarden]

How is it relevant whether or not I campaign for those rights?
Wouldn't it be sufficient to know whether or not I support those rights?
And I'm not sure why we've switched from pools to beaches.
Pools are only so long, but beaches go on forever, so there's penty of space for everyone.

You mean for those who want the 'clothing optional' dress-code and those that don't? So public facilities can vary the dress-code, just so long as there are enough facilities to go round? Who has been unable to swim since Muslims had a slice of time when there dress-code is in place? It seems to me that there is plenty to share, even when considering swimming pools.

So you answer to increased bigotry andviolence against muslims, as a result of having to wear muslim approved bathing attire at the pool or be excluded, is that there are trouble makers at football matches?
You certainly do have a way with analogies.

Is your answer to football violence the same as your answer to potential Islamophobia? No it isn't. So I think my point is made.

Well, yes, "you can wear whatever you like" is, strictly speaking, a dress code. But perhaps not exactly in the same sense as "you must wear coveralls"

Well let's speak strictly, then: It's a dress-code.

That would be good.

But, unfortunately, and inexplicably, my personal preference is not shared by all. Apparently some people are bothered by nude bodies on the beach. Apparently some are bothered by coveralls on their beach. Some are even bothered by burkas and turbans in the street.
(I must admit, though, that I feel for the women in the burkas)
The solution is not to segregate these people.
That serves only to accentuate the divisions that already exist.

Your preferences aren't shared by all. But the public facilities need to be. So sometimes your preferences are met. And sometimes they are not.

If you insist on calling that 'segregation' then there is nothing to do about it other than wait for everyone to have the same tastes. People who are bothered by nude bodies aren't going to go to a 'clothing optional' beach.

And you don't see how you are keeping people away from your pool with its 'coverall' dress code.

What makes you say that? Especially after I have clarified my position in post 591 -- a position I put forth in post 589: you can't have everyone using a service at the same time. Not just for logistics, but because different people like different things. So the only option is to take turns -- like we have to at the BBC between 'Songs of Praise' and 'Jerry Springer the Opera', 'Top of the Pops' and 'Later with Jules Holland'.

Come on down to my beach. Welcome in your coveralls. Welcome in your noveralls. Hey, you can even come in your shorts.

Thanks. But, actually, I don't like beaches -- or even hot weather.

There's another option.
Different people can do their different things whilst other different people do their different things.

That seems to be my option of taking turns -- unless you are supposing that there is a swimming pool for every group of people.

There's that analogy problem again.
You have can have lots of different groups together at the pool but you cannot have lots of different shows on the BBC at the same time.

Only if the pool is very, very large. And only if you don't mind people swimming through your polo match. etc, etc.

On my beach, everyone can come dressed however they like, but some won't come because they don't like what other people wear.
In your pool, some won't come because they must come dressed in coveralls because someone else doesn't like what they normally wear.

If every beach was like your beach, then some people would only be able to go if they changed their attitudes to nudity, coveralls, etc. You don't seem to be demanding that -- you've acknowledged different preferences (and you didn't make a demand) in answer to the question "Do all public beaches have to adhere to you dress code?"

If every pool was like my pool, then people would know which dress-code applied when. And they'd be able to attend the sessions which they are comfortable to attend -- without changing their attitudes to nudity, coveralls, etc.

 

[BillyJoe]

FireGarten,

You said analogies are not perfect, but what I'm trying to point out is that your analogies are sufficiently flawed that the extrapolation that you want to make from one situation to the other fails. The analogies are sufficiently flawed, and that my acceptance of one situation, but not the other, does not necessarily imply bigotry.

Beaches are not pools. My beach stretches as far as the eye can see in both directions. Most parts are completely deserted. It is simply not an issue if a few spots are appropriated by nudists. Everyone can still go to the beach whenever they like. Nobody misses out.

However, appropriating a public pool does mean that others miss out.

But that's not the only flaw in the analogy. There is really no issue with nude bathing. Nudists are not harming anyone. They are not compelling anyone. It's actually something most people would like to do even if they don't actually do it. Tell me if you haven't gone skinny dipping with your girlfriend on a deserted beach. Most of us would not actually feel sufficiently confident and sufficiently unihibited enough to bathe nude in public.

Religious practices, on the other hand, are another matter entirely. It cannot be denied that parents attempt to indoctrinate their children into their own religion, and to protect them from other religious and secular views to a greater of lesser extent. They take them to their churches and mosques and send them to religious schools where they mix only with like minded individuals.
And, it seems, they want to shield them further by having muslim only evenings at the pool (or coveralls only, if you will)

What ever you may think about the rights of parents over the rights of their children in this situation, you cannot pretend it is no different from nude bathing.

Finally, what does it mean to be a secular society. It simply means that the government shows no preference for one religion over another, or for religion over non-religion. This does not mean it has to be neutral about religion. It does not mean it has to pretend relgion doesn't exist. It does not mean the goverment cannot mention religion. But it does mean that the government must ensure that no one's freedom is being compromised because of someone else's religious beliefs.

There is obviously a limit. Do we allow clitoridectomy. No. Do we allow parents to indoctrinate their children. Well, however much we may wish it to be otherwise, from a pragmatic point of view, we have no choice but to allow it. From a practical point of view, we have no choice but to allow husbands to subjugate their wives. We have to allow their wives to wear burkas. Hey, I know some actually want to, but what does it say about the power of indoctrination that someone is willing spend their entire lives looking at the world through a veil covered slit in fornt of their eyes?
And there are nuns and priests who remain celebate their entire lives, and monks who flagellate themselves.

I agree that it is problematic, even impossible, to legislate against this.
But I'm saying that we should not encourage it either.
I'm saying that, although governments are powerless to prevent these abuses in the name of religion, they should, at the very least, not encourage them.

If this is bigotry, by your defintion, then I wear it with pride.

I do undertstand your point of view, but I obviously don't agree with it. And I am not attempting to persuade you that my view is correct. All I have tried to do here is point out that there is another point of view, different from your own, that is at least as justifiable as your own.

 

[FireGarden]

FireGarten,

You said analogies are not perfect, but what I'm trying to point out is that your analogies are sufficiently flawed that the extrapolation that you want to make from one situation to the other fails. The analogies are sufficiently flawed, and that my acceptance of one situation, but not the other, does not necessarily imply bigotry.

Beaches are not pools. My beach stretches as far as the eye can see in both directions. Most parts are completely deserted. It is simply not an issue if a few spots are appropriated by nudists. Everyone can still go to the beach whenever they like. Nobody misses out.

Not all parts of the beach are equal. Some are harder to get to. Some have ice-cream sales nearby, some don't have anything but sea and sand. etc.

The point is, you are still willing to let people have various dress codes. The difference being the dress-code changes from beach to beach rather than time to time. Would you change your mind if there were fewer beaches? I don't think there are that many in Britain.

But that's not the only flaw in the analogy. There is really no issue with nude bathing. Nudists are not harming anyone. They are not compelling anyone. It's actually something most people would like to do even if they don't actually do it. Tell me if you haven't gone skinny dipping with your girlfriend on a deserted beach. Most of us would not actually feel sufficiently confident and sufficiently unihibited enough to bathe nude in public.

Religious practices, on the other hand, are another matter entirely. It cannot be denied that parents attempt to indoctrinate their children into their own religion, and to protect them from other religious and secular views to a greater of lesser extent. They take them to their churches and mosques and send them to religious schools where they mix only with like minded individuals.
And, it seems, they want to shield them further by having muslim only evenings at the pool (or coveralls only, if you will)

Where do you think those inhibitions you talked about in the first paragraph come from? We're all indoctrinated.

As we've both agreed, the swimming event wasn't a Muslim only event. So it's not about segregation.

However, appropriating a public pool does mean that others miss out.

Finally, what does it mean to be a secular society. It simply means that the government shows no preference for one religion over another, or for religion over non-religion. This does not mean it has to be neutral about religion. It does not mean it has to pretend relgion doesn't exist. It does not mean the goverment cannot mention religion. But it does mean that the government must ensure that no one's freedom is being compromised because of someone else's religious beliefs.

And it has done that as best it can. What is the alternative? To not let some people swim -- in a pool they helped pay for -- unless they change their attitudes to exposing certain parts of the body? You're not telling the public at large to change their attitudes to nudity so that all beaches can become 'clothing optional' -- you accept that indoctrination. (As asked before: Would you change your mind if there were fewer beaches?)

There is obviously a limit. Do we allow clitoridectomy. No. Do we allow parents to indoctrinate their children. Well, however much we may wish it to be otherwise, from a pragmatic point of view, we have no choice but to allow it. From a practical point of view, we have no choice but to allow husbands to subjugate their wives. We have to allow their wives to wear burkas. Hey, I know some actually want to, but what does it say about the power of indoctrination that someone is willing spend their entire lives looking at the world through a veil covered slit in fornt of their eyes?
And there are nuns and priests who remain celebate their entire lives, and monks who flagellate themselves.

I agree that it is problematic, even impossible, to legislate against this.
But I'm saying that we should not encourage it either.
I'm saying that, although governments are powerless to prevent these abuses in the name of religion, they should, at the very least, not encourage them.

If this is bigotry, by your defintion, then I wear it with pride.

Governments -- if there really is going to be freedom of religion -- shouldn't discourage the parts of religion which really aren't that tough for you to live with. So you lose a bit of pool time -- just like some British TV license payers lost some TV time when 'Jerry Springer, the Opera' was on.

I do undertstand your point of view, but I obviously don't agree with it. And I am not attempting to persuade you that my view is correct. All I have tried to do here is point out that there is another point of view, different from your own, that is at least as justifiable as your own.

I'll admit that 'bigot' is too strong a word.
But I think there is a part of you that has a reflexive reaction to religion.

 

[Belgian thought]

Governments -- if there really is going to be freedom of religion -- shouldn't discourage the parts of religion which really aren't that tough for you to live with. So you lose a bit of pool time -- just like some British TV license payers lost some TV time when 'Jerry Springer, the Opera' was on.

Governments in the UK create the laws, and these are secular laws and do not discriminate. To add, there are no laws restricting religious belief in the UK so the freedom to believe exists, it does not follow that it implies freedom to act upon such beliefs – An extreme example being a mad devil Worshipper believing that sacrificial offerings of a child would benefit his/her faith - the law would not allow this, and quite rightly too.

However, many are trying to involve religion in law making in the UK, it is not just the Muslims, Sikhs, Hindi etc...

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/291393

This attempted inclusion of religious sensitivities into law is what is causing the problems, not the other way round.

Therefore, if people feel aggrieved that a public pool, which is subject to UK secular law, and does not fit their religious/moral sensitivities, then that is their problem, and not a legal one, or one justifying special treatment. They may wish to lobby their MP to make amendments to the existing laws if need be, but it must be done within the correct procedures, and not based on discrimination – either for or against.

In keeping, the analogy with ‘Jerry Springer’ is false. The show was relayed, and people could choose whether to watch it or not, and remain offended on both counts. But, the programme fell within the BBC Charter and Agreements, otherwise it could not have been shown. We might not all agree with what is being shown on the Beeb, and we may indeed complain, but any complaints based on sensitivity or offence do not change the fundamentals of the said Charter, and nor should they.

 

[BillyJoe]

Belgian thought,

Thanks for your contribution:

Governments in the UK create the laws, and these are secular laws and do not discriminate. To add, there are no laws restricting religious belief in the UK so the freedom to believe exists, it does not follow that it implies freedom to act upon such beliefs

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/291393

This attempted inclusion of religious sensitivities into law is what is causing the problems, not the other way round.

Therefore, if people feel aggrieved that a public pool, which is subject to UK secular law, and does not fit their religious/moral sensitivities, then that is their problem, and not a legal one, or one justifying special treatment. They may wish to lobby their MP to make amendments to the existing laws if need be, but it must be done within the correct procedures, and not based on discrimination – either for or against.

And thanks for that link.
Let me quote from the actual judgment in this case which can be found here:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/B1.html

In a free constitution such as ours there is an important distinction to be drawn between the law's protection of the right to hold and express a belief and the law's protection of that belief's substance or content. The common law...offer vigorous protection of the Christian's right (and every other person's right) to hold and express his or her beliefs. And so they should. By contrast they do not, and should not, offer any protection whatever of the substance or content of those beliefs on the ground only that they are based on religious precepts.
These are twin conditions of a free society.
.

It's a relief to me to know that the law backs up this sensible position.
(At least in the UK)

 

[FireGarden]

Governments in the UK create the laws, and these are secular laws and do not discriminate. To add, there are no laws restricting religious belief in the UK so the freedom to believe exists, it does not follow that it implies freedom to act upon such beliefs – An extreme example being a mad devil Worshipper believing that sacrificial offerings of a child would benefit his/her faith - the law would not allow this, and quite rightly too.

However, many are trying to involve religion in law making in the UK, it is not just the Muslims, Sikhs, Hindi etc...

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/291393

That article is about this:

Gary McFarlane worked for Relate, formerly the Marriage Guidance Council, but he refused to provide therapy for same-sex couples, citing his Christianity.

So it is about an employee's responsibilities not a tax-payer's rights to enjoy the facilities they help pay for. Indeed, Relate is a national charity which says about itself:
http://www.relate.org.uk/about-us/index.html

In 1988, we re-launched as Relate in recognition of our widened access to same sex couples, single people, children and young people and families. Today we have evolved into a modern, thriving organisation providing innovative responses to the needs of the communities we serve.

So they lived up to their own mission statement. A mission statement they are allowed to have. So I have no problem with the ruling in the article you linked.

Therefore, if people feel aggrieved that a public pool, which is subject to UK secular law, and does not fit their religious/moral sensitivities, then that is their problem, and not a legal one, or one justifying special treatment. They may wish to lobby their MP to make amendments to the existing laws if need be, but it must be done within the correct procedures, and not based on discrimination – either for or against.

I don't think that there is a need to make ammendments to the existing law. The pool was in Australia, btw, and opening it to the public with an Islamic dress code doesn't seem to have been ruled illegal.

In keeping, the analogy with ‘Jerry Springer’ is false. The show was relayed, and people could choose whether to watch it or not, and remain offended on both counts.

But that isn't the point of the analogy. The point was that those who didn't want to watch Jerry Springer had helped pay for it to be on the BBC. The point was to illustrate that other people also fund the BBC and so, since they don't all have the same tastes, the only way to share the channel is for them to take turns: sometimes it's 'Songs of Praise', and sometimes it's 'Jerry Springer the Opera'. (There are 4 BBC TV channels, but you get the point).

That you seem to think I believe the programme shouldn't have been shown, indicates how you have misunderstood my intention with the analogy.

But, the programme fell within the BBC Charter and Agreements, otherwise it could not have been shown. We might not all agree with what is being shown on the Beeb, and we may indeed complain, but any complaints based on sensitivity or offence do not change the fundamentals of the said Charter, and nor should they.

I agree that the BBC should have shown it. Many Licence-fee payers wanted to watch it. And, even if it wasn't many, catering to small tastes is one of the points of the BBC Vs commercial channels.

Here's another issue with sharing the BBC:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...ndus-accuse-bbc-of-promuslim-bias-922482.html

Ashish Joshi, the chairman of the Network of Sikh Organisation's (NSO) media monitoring group, which obtained the numbers, said many Hindu and Sikh licence-fee payers felt cheated. "People in our communities are shocked," he said. "We are licence-fee payers and we want to know why this has happened. The bias towards Islam at the expense of Hindus and particularly Sikhs is overwhelming and appears to be a part of BBC policy."

They pay their licence-fee and expect to get something back in terms of programmes on the BBC. Why shouldn't they get such programmes? They are forced to pay the licence-fee, btw. Everyone with a TV set that can receive the BBC is -- even if you have no intention of watching it.

There's also this, regarding BBC radio (also paid by the TV licence):

The latest row over the BBC's cultural output follows a dispute raging at the BBC's Asian Network radio service, where more than 20 former and current employees have written a letter of complaint alleging that the station ignores Muslim listeners and plays less Pakistani and Bangladeshi music than it should.

What do you think?

 

[BillyJoe]

They pay their licence-fee and expect to get something back in terms of programmes on the BBC. Why shouldn't they get such programmes?

In Australia, the ABC is paid for out of taxes. About 10% of Australians ever watch the ABC. Catering to all tastes and religions on the ABC would ruin it. The ABC caters to the more critical and intellectual section in our society. But everyone pays for it in their taxes. There are four private stations that cater for the lowest common denominator. They are barely watchable. The ABC should continue to set itself apart. Most serious political dicussions, for example, are carried out on the ABC. Same with serious art and nature programes. However, it could not survive as a private industry dependent on private funding.

Government programs paid for by taxes should be about more than just making sure everyone gets a fair share. After all, many do not pay their fair share in taxes and no one pays the same amount of tax. So it's not really about fairness is it?