Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Tagged under: ,

Defending The Multiplicity In Islam

Frank O'Brien defends Islam against its many detractors. Frank O'Brien is a long time resident of Troy, NY, USA, and former head of Clan na Gael in same city area.

Too many Westerners are caught up on images of Daesh fighters beheading some poor unfortunate prisoners, whose only crime was that they fell into the wrong hands for not so fair and equitable treatment. I'm here to tell you that there are a multitude of interpretations of Islam, this coming from a still strict Roman Catholic. But even so I have had the pleasure, the distinct pleasure, of coming to know two friends, one in Islamabad, Pakistan, and the other who is Tunisian, yet lives in sunny California. They both have taught me the true wisdom of not falling into the trap of ignorance, bias or of pigeonholing an entire religion over some gruesome interpreters of the same religion.

Certainly the most glaring, and recent example of Islamophobia is the treatment Muslim women in France, have gotten for merely wearing what is termed a burkini, and their being ridiculously fined for wearing what is only a swim suit that is modest. In some Islamic societies such swim suits would be looked down upon or worse, yet in the supposed open and secular Western country of France it is an actual crime, which is the height of stupidity on the part of the French government authorities.

This particular example of imposing Western secularism to the extreme is an outrageous form of secularism, bordering in on the religious rights of a minority, smacks of a prejudice gone completely mad. Islam as any other religion has adherents who desire the fullness of their religious expression, not to be confined in their expression by wrong minded, and completely ludicrous laws. To insult Muslim women, as these French authorities have, is enough of a wrong to demand an answer in kind that Western authorities should be very weary of indeed. Nobody dares bother Catholic nuns who choose to wear the full length habits that cover their bodies, so why go after Muslim women in particular, if unless you are some prejudiced bigot who differentiates as to which religion is superior to the other?

The very act of Western citizens not being outraged by the violence visited upon peaceful tribes in Waziristan, Pakistan speaks volumes as to the level of elitist, racist snobbery that passes for reason nowadays. If Westerners want their freedoms undisturbed than they ought to leave the most innocent of peaceable Muslims to wear whatever style swim suit they so desire any where in the Western world. This kind of misogyny is at best deplorable, and indicative of an evil that has creeped in slowly from the several terrorist attacks in Paris, and Belgium, that just happened to be done by Sunni extremists. What next, is there to be a ban on wearing a kaffiyeh by politically minded Palestinians?

Somewhere some reasonable people need to step in and demand a retraction of such bigoted actions shown to those, whose only crime is to be either a Muslim, or refugee from a war torn part of the world. And who is most responsible for the fleeing masses from these God forsaken regions of the world? That would be courtesy of Uncle Sam and his NATO allies who think that fighting terrorism equates into throwing an area elsewhere in the world into chaos. There are over 1 million, or to be more realistic, 1,000,000 dead Iraqis thanks to Uncle Sam, John Bull, and some others, invading and throwing a match with gasoline at many innocent, God fearing Muslim families. Women, children, elderly and disabled were some of those that died during the balkanization of Iraq, with a former Colonel James Steele having taught death squad tactics to the Iraqi elite forces. Things became divided up along Shiite and Sunni religious lines, all of it being driven by the US Army brass, who were getting their orders from an equally repugnant American political elite. This is from where hatred and ignorance were birthed, having been hatched by an African-American president, who neither acted no better than some street thug, or some murdering marauder, who is out to rape and pillage a people who've done nothing to him, or his people.

Just because we think that there are terrorists out there wanting to blow us all to kingdom come, doesn't translate into doing whatever the hell we want to in response, which frankly is the kind of behavior expressed best by John Bull in the North of Ireland. If we are a freedom loving people than we don't go around invading countries willy nilly for whatever reason we may cook up. Also we have no business interfering with mosques, unless we have a damn good reason to be doing so, and not on hearsay either. Arab, Pashto and other predominantly Muslim tribes have as much right to be the way they are without big minded Westerners interfering with a thousand and more years of societal norms.

That simply is a left over from an imperialist, neocolonialist past that is best thrown in the dust bin of history, not to be revisited in the now 21st century, when gay marriage is legal, but we still persecute those of the Muslim faith as if the Crusades were back on again. W. used that very word by accident, or not so much by accident, back during his term in the Oval Office, and ever since there are ignorant Americans of every stripe who have shown the uglier side of American white supremacy, or its adherents in even the minority communities. As long as a religious minority doesn't impinge on the rights of another religion, than it is in the realm of okay, but not when one tries to dominate the other, or others that share the same space. Sean Christopher Stone would agree with this concept, especially when he has accepted Islam into his life, though of a different kind of background himself, insofar as his not having been brought up Muslim.

We of the intelligentsia need to draw the distinctions for the smaller minded, who don't necessarily have the politically correct model down pat. If we also allow our government and military to draw these distinctions, we are setting ourselves up for a huge fall, since there are 1.5 billion Muslims in this world that have no problem in blowing themselves up, or doing some other kind violence in response to such Neanderthal, and misanthropic thoughts and actions. As shown in The Empire Files, with Abby Martin, the lengths that the American empire has stretched to, far exceed its actual reach in as much as that it is only going to be accepted to only a certain degree, before it gets pushed back upon.

As amply demonstrated on The Corbett Report, the state players have reached to lengths that most decent law abiding people would say is having gone over despicable. Those prejudices, biases and bigotry that have enveloped us all in the West would fast melt away if we were dropped into Waziristan, without any guns, grenades or rocket launchers. You'd learn to swim fast or be eaten up by a populace that has had a belly full of sectarian, and racist behavior shown by the ugly American.

There have been disturbing things such as the West's deliberate engineering of an extremely sectarian, and prejudiced promotion of religious supremacy by certain Salafists and Wahhabists, actually exacerbating tensions that haven't existed in a large form since the early Caliphates. To the average American who's intelligence quotient doesn't go beyond watching Judge Judy, or the empty mindedness engendered by Dancing with the Stars, such distinctions are lost upon them given the moronic level of stupidity already present. To reach a sense of equilibrium one must force this section of society that is entrenched in stereotypes to accept the other, much like Carl Gustav Jung did concerning the dysfunctional brain or personality.

Ours is a cultural malady that manifests itself in needing to have an enemy, or other, that is so foreign to us that we feel repelled by it, literally in our very bones. We must learn to integrate this other into our own mode of thinking if we are to fully appreciate it, and not go and urinate on it, or look to cut it into two with several rounds of gun fire.

If ours is such a superior way of life why do we have such an excess amount of degeneracy, and crime when such things are a rarity in the Islamic world, except of course for those monarchies that were imposed by the super powers back in the 19th and 20th centuries. Then you have the Zionists of Israel who have invaded the Temple of Jehovah, spouting anti-Godly filth that would have Moses spinning in his grave, let alone the mighty King David. Abraham, the father of all three monotheistic religions would have none of this since all of us are his chosen children, though we may differ quite strongly on the definition of what is correct religiously.

Belief driven ideology is as destructive as certain extreme political beliefs, such the old Bolsheviks of early 20th century Russia, or the Nationalist Socialist fascists of Nazi Germany. I hearken back to a most reasonable and studious observer of the West's prejudices, that being the supremely insightful intellectual Tariq Ali, who speaks the truth about how we in the West are so enamored with ourselves that we forget our own founding democratic principles. Religious freedom is an all encompassing right that doesn't exclude those who are different from the Judeo-Christian mindedness that was the original majority in the West.

Being a latter day hippie from the psychedelic 1990s, I have a more progressive view of politics, and religion, being open-minded to concepts and ruminations that don't necessarily get the kind of acceptance they should in a completely free and open society. I adhere to a Christian dogma insofar as it doesn't constrict in on the individual and their own personal relationship with God. I believe my savior would want me to not interfere in the personal religious affairs of another, even if a couple dozen of another religious persuasion got into planes and used them as missiles.

It is tempting fate to interfere, or mistreat others who we just happen not to understand, nor appreciate with the fullness that we should despite our innate bigotry towards anything that is foreign to us. It is in essence a new form of Anti-Semitism, though the code word for it is actually Islamophobia, which is actually meaning it is an actual psychiatric disorder, which is good in the sense that it can be treated, and that there is a cure for it. It is worth pointing it out for it acts as a counter balance to the idea that it is acceptable behavior on the part of so-called civilized folk. Never mind the hidden realities that might seem to distract from the realness of the need to stamp it out before it becomes an all consuming cancer on our shared plane of existence.

To go back to the beginning from the start is the necessary cure to our seeing where we have faltered in our reasoning and own personal morality, basically like the American Southern refrain of,"What would Jesus do?" We are only equal to the task of fighting terrorism if unless we ourselves are not fanatical enough to become blindly patriotic automatons that merely spout out about freedom, but instead try to curtail the rights of others who aren't really that much different from say conservative Jews. Freedom is bought many times at a very high price, so we should tread lightly when dealing with someone who's beliefs are dissimilar to our own, especially if it turns out that we are wrong in this particular assessment. This goes also for the two biggest groupings of Islamic interpretation that hold sway in the world, even though they might differ on certain guiding and founding principles. The idea is to find commonalities between each other, and be appreciative that God has made us all quite original and so completely special. I say let there be light, and may that guiding light keep you from falling off of the righteous path.

56 comments :

DaithiD said...

There is alot here Frank, but one point sums up the piece succinctly i think :

...If we also allow our government and military to draw these distinctions, we are setting ourselves up for a huge fall, since there are 1.5 billion Muslims in this world that have no problem in blowing themselves up, or doing some other kind violence in response to such...

Really?
You group others as stupid or bigot for ccritiquing Islam, yet you have written this? Do you stand over this remark, or will you disavow it?

Steve R said...

"..yet in the supposed open and secular Western country of France it is an actual crime, which is the height of stupidity on the part of the French government authorities. "

Wrong. For once, the French got something right. The ban is to keep France secular and allowing religious articles of clothing which inhibit communication by virtue of the fact that you cannot see the person face is seen as a hindrance to this. What is to stop a pedophile from wearing a burka and sitting next to a school if it was allowed?

"This particular example of imposing Western secularism to the extreme is an outrageous form of secularism, bordering in on the religious rights of a minority, smacks of a prejudice gone completely mad"

Utter shite here, Frank. Can't be secular for everybody else but one section of a community. If you 'choose' to wear a burka you are making a statement. Though I doubt those women 'choose' anything.

"Nobody dares bother Catholic nuns who choose to wear the full length habits that cover their bodies, so why go after Muslim women in particular, if unless you are some prejudiced bigot who differentiates as to which religion is superior to the other? "

Choice, Frank. C-H-O-I-C-E. Go up to a burka wearing woman and ask her if she chooses to wear it. Oh wait, don't, she may get stoned to death by her husband for the outrageous offence of talking to you.

"The very act of Western citizens not being outraged by the violence visited upon peaceful tribes in Waziristan, Pakistan speaks volumes as to the level of elitist, racist snobbery that passes for reason nowadays."

That's just arrogant. You are not the only one vehemently opposed to US drone strikes.

I could go on and on in response to your incoherent logic but I can't be bothered.

It's perfectly fine to have a religion just as long as it doesn't effect MY freedoms in anyway. I would not let my children play anywhere near someone in a burka. For all I know it's a naked pervert underneath, masturbating.

Would you Frank?





AM said...

Steve,

France called it hopelessly wrong on the burkini. Its own Supreme Court has since blocked that sort of move. The women being hassled at least those I saw being photographed. were not concealing their face. A secular society has to allow people the right to dissent in a way that does not see that dissent imposed on the rights of others.




Christy Walsh said...

Frank

Your man-burka is restricting your vision. Last time you were defending Islamist's and Islamism as freedom fighters. Now you claim to be defending Muslim women's right to be oppressed by Islam. You refer to your 2 Muslim friends -how about ask them how many women and girls are in their families? Then consider that if was not daesh who mutilated their crotches then who did? A reasonable person might see FGM as acts of barbaric extremis -but not you! given your support for Islamic Freedom Fighters (except daesh/ISIS -you don't like them because you only like the moderate extremist kind).

Do you know that Pakistani muslims are not known for their tolerance or respect for human rights? -Islamic values run contrary to our ideals of tolerance and human and civic rights that, if given the opportunity, moderate muslims would subject us to sharia law in the same way that there is no equality in Islamic countries. If they are luck non-muslims might only have to pay protection money for the right to exist -bad things can happen if they don't pay up.

Christy Walsh said...

AM

I saw that too, and while I thought the ban a not too smart move -the mayors of towns that have banned the burkini have made thier reasoning clear and it appears to be that they are using the burkini issue as a form of protest statement to highlight gender inequality in Muslim dominated regions -how non-muslim women must conform to Islamic demands. That is a fair point.

Yes their faces were uncovered because if they wore the full face covering then we would call that the water boarding burkini.

Steve R said...

AM,

On the burkini yes, but I meant the face covering burka. Dissent is a right, but so is the right to be free of intimidation.

Am I the only one uneasy around people in full, black body suits whose face I cannot see?

Franks analogy with Nuns misses this difference.

AM said...

Steve,

the issue was not face covering being confronted but Muslim women being discriminated against. It would not have happened to a nun.

I would not permit my children to be taught by someone with their face covered up, whether it be by a burka or a KKK hood. I would not deal with masked figures in public offices or be served by them in shops. But it has to be right across the board.

Christy,

I regard the mayors reasoning as a post hoc justification for an act of discrimination. They initially cited security if I am correct and then sought to made virtue out of necessity. If they want to protest gender inequality then for it to have merit they should be targeting men rather than women. Nor can they be unaware that the RC Church in France does not have women priests so I doubt if gender equality is all that high on their agenda.

larry hughes said...

Nuns' habits (of beating kiddies senseless usually) and burkas and burkinis are fine in my book. Otherwise an ugly tax could be considered. My main grief is the Borat mankini. Now THAT is an eyesore.

DaithiD said...

Are nuns habits ever forced on anyone, Christian or not, anywhere in the world?
You know, women have the right to wear to fur too, but because of the hurt involved in the fur indusrty, personal choice was made to look more and more selfish. This is what i would pursue, before any laws, that just confirm to them they are victims again.

AM said...

Daithi D,

I am sure they are forced on some in the orders where they are obligatory although a woman should have a choice to join such an order.

Not sure what "to fur" means but I presume it is some typo. I imagine the woman wearing the sable fur or whatever is made to look selfish for good reason, much like the plutocrat finding every excuse to justify his choice to get rich while keeping others poor. If we really want to ban selfishness we could start with the greedy rich. The direct cruelty context in which the fur issue arises makes it easier to identify selfishness than it is in the case of a woman who wants to wear a veil freely out of religious conviction.

The woman who wants to wear the veil of her own choice should be wholly entitled to. The woman forced to wear the veil should be protected from it just as she should be protected from some cleric seeking to deny her the choice to have an abortion. Can we have a society that tells one woman she can wear a habit and another that she can't wear a veil?

David Higgins said...

As far as am concerned people can express their religion in any harmless way they see fit. For me face covering is harmless. It always seems to be the biggest critics of Islam who are in favour of bans. I see this policy as backward, you cannot argue against ideologies by vilifying it's members. If the well being of Muslim women in the west is our concern then surely telling women what not to wear is no answer to telling them what to wear. Ultimately logic can be the only way to persuade the captive audience of fundamentalism.

AM said...

David,

I think a person should be able to wear what they want in their own homes: a KKK hood or a burka. I don't think any sort of face cover should be permitted in the public sphere. I wouldn't engage with someone behind a mask. But if it is to be permitted then there can be no preferential treatment based on religious opinion. If people want to wear a Liverpool scarf up to their eyes or a Mickey Mouse face hood they should have the same rights.

David Higgins said...

I think it all depends on circumstances, if a fan was on route to Anfield with a scarf round his face, fair play. If on the other hand there's a group of young men covered in summer, chances are something is about to happen. A lot of good points are made on this issue, some nonsense, my fear is alienation strengthens the fundamentalists. As time goes by more and more young Muslims in the west will break with tradition and become more secular, it's common sense. Pretty much the sane as we did with Catholicism, there is no one in my circle a practising Catholic anymore and it would have, in my opinion, diminished a lot sooner if it wasn't for the siege mentality. Lessons to be learned maybe

AM said...

The grey area of circumstance is often a difficult one to negotiate. But even where circumstance allows for a relaxing of the societal rule, the rule itself still has to be in place. The way it will most likely go (if there is a ban on burkas and KKK hoods etc,) is that clubs will start discouraging fans from use of the scarf as a face cover (probably after some riot or disturbance)and then it will become a full blown norm.

There is the additional question of say public officials or broadcasters - should they be allowed to be masked by a burka? If so, then they should also be allowed to wear a soccer scarf over their face. Otherwise society is just giving preferential treatment to religious opinion when there is no just reason for doing so.

DaithiD said...

AM, a woman can chose to wear one, just as one can chose to wear fur. Society is entitled to draw their own inference in both cases, it neednt be an automatic neutral reponse.Society judges what each other wears in every other instance without infringing on the individuals liberty to chose their clothes, lets not pretend otherwise to feed their victim complex.

David H,

"As time goes by more and more young Muslims in the west will break with tradition and become more secular, it's common sense. "

Don't most of the studies show the second generation immigrants to be more orthodox in their beliefs that their parents? My own experience in whitechapel where I go weekly (and used to live) confirms there are more who cover their face than those who westernise their dress (and those that do look really cute) by reversing the coverage abd brightening their fabrics, and this doesn't even account for those who have to remain at home if not with their mahram, skewing the figure to orthodox even more.

AM said...

DaithiD,

you are abiding by the liberal principle of disapprove but permit. Which is as much as we can expect from people. Society has no one view on it.

An issue I have is that some on the Left would defend her right to wear a burkini but not a Charlie Hebdo image on a T-Shirt.

DaithiD said...

Yes AM, not just for individual liberties, but because of the surveilence states desires, I cant see how this has become such an issue, if not becuase its the thin end of the authoritarian wedge.Hence we see a shut down of the discussion on burkas/niqabs, and thus in our helpless state we will call the state to act. Face veils are just ephemera, and people that object citing bank robbers toting guns that wear them for cover invite hilarity rather than worry.

ps i think this point of yours is they key thing to resolve:

"The woman who wants to wear the veil of her own choice should be wholly entitled to. The woman forced to wear the veil should be protected from it"

It seems the two are mutally exclusive at this point, unless we can change the general perception of the face covering ourselves, without the state.

jgr33n said...

AM - you nailed it in your last comment - the selective nature of some on both sides of the argument render it almost nonsensical.

As you point out, you have to apply it across the board - such as freedom to wear burkinis, freedom to draw cartoons of anyone you like.

David Higgins said...

Dogmas aren't eradicated over a generation, it takes time. Your open hostility to Islam will only exacerbate it. In many ways your the propaganda fundamentalists dream of. As long as there is an external threat, ideologies have no reason to look inward

David Higgins said...

Anthony your assessment would make me support rigorously the wearing of religious masks as it could lead to the opposition of social fashion programming. Personally I have no problem with public broadcasters wearing masks, could obscure the shite they talk

AM said...

jgr33n,

its very much the old adage of people with rings in their ears having a go at people with rings in their noses.

DaithiD said...

David you employ the old canard that blames the victim for the aggression they face.

David Higgins said...

In what way? There are many issues you can take issue with in Islam, paedophilic practices, subjugation of women etc. Focusing on dress code is bullshit, it causes unnecessary aggravation. The problem with you is you allow your prejudices to colour your outlook, i.e there is paedophilia within Catholicism, then it's down to individual evil rather than the dogma, whereas paedophilia within Islam is down to ideology. Problems within Socialism is down to the doctrine but problems with Capatialism is down to mismanagement and crony Capatialism. So on and so forth. Concentrate on cleansing your own religion and maybe other faiths might take your points on face value. Am not a Muslim, I don't agree with any of their teaching and I fell as if your comments are agenda filled at best, so how do you hope to have productive engagements with Muslims?

Steve R said...

Not really. I'd still have an issue if I couldn't see the face of a person in a KKK outfit.

If I wore a balaclava and a black maternity suit and walked into a bank or sat near a playground, that wouldn't be acceptable, so why is the burka?

DaithiD said...

David im pretty sure ive been through this before with you, not every one who critiques Islam need be a bigot or prejudiced. Why cant i just be wrong? And from memory you have never read the Koran have you?
I was a victim, albeit a minor one who didnt mind at the time.Everydays things like hearing the call to prayer at awful hours of the morining, not being able to have a Nandos,KFC,Subway etc that isnt halal. Having non-obvious lables for halal meat in a supermarket, in many cases its all halal.Others can boycott Israeli products, why am I not free to do same, why is it forced on us?
Having to vacate the swimming pool at York Hall after 1pm so Muslim women feel able to swim with no males in the pool.Not being served alcohol in Tesco because the woman cashier wouldnt handle it.Then there is adhoc things like seeing people you been for a drink with sitting in a wheelchair because they were stabbed for being gay in a muslim area, gay pubs closing because they were repeatedly attacked.
Even within that I still have productive engagements with self described Muslims, anyone in a professional career has to be able to, another canard of yours exposed.

AM said...

DaithiD,

I think you are allowed to be wrong or oppose the things you do. I oppose them to. But some of them are inflicted by people of other religions as well.

But that does not stop you being prejudiced as I think you are. The prejudice seems to be based on a canard of your own - that the Muslims follow some horrible entity called Mohammad while the Christians follow some lovely deity called Yahweh who fathered the son that gave rise to their religion. So if a view is asserted which lacks substance and wants people to be opposed or disliked on the basis of a fallacy then it amounts to a prejudice.



David Higgins said...

Daithi, you more or less confirmed your prejudices, kowtowing to any religious beliefs in a societal structure is nonsensical, but just as illogical is responding by analysing every aspect of Islam's daft beliefs while ignoring our own nonsense just reeks of an attack, when discussion is needed. Steve, your better than that surely. When people start using burkas continuously to rob and kill people then they'll be banned until then they are not even on the same planet in terms of intimidation as a balaclava. Your setting a dangerous precedent here, ban burkas and where do you stop? Eye scans before you enter banks or schools?
Youse need to calm down with this Islam bogeyman hysteria, look at it objectively. Every Islamic fundamentalists group is directly created or financed by the west. The most relevant just now I.S has never laid a glove on any of it's great enemies, Israel, U.K or U.S a few, what they call leaderless lone wolfe attacks in Europe, is their lot. The fact an Israeli professor was on R.T talking about the strategic benefit of I.S tells you a lot. I.S are doing what the west, Israel and Saudi Arabia expect of them, cauising chaos in their enemies countries. Their no danger of an Islamic takeover of your countries or whatever keeps youse up at night.
By all means have the courage to stand up to religous facism, just don't make it so singular or petty or all you'll find is resistance.

DaithiD said...

AM, actually my faith is not as definate as before these conversations. I had resolved the nasty bits of the bible as just stories, and that as a Christian i followed the New Testament. But then you offered me the chance to condemn those actions in the Old Testament, which ive never considered. I briefly thought of asking my priest on it, but I wouldnt want to hear a justification of awful behaviour. So there you go.Ill still keep going to church as the buildings are beautiful as are the songs, but I dont know what id call myself at this stage.

Christy Walsh said...

AM

In fairness I find DaithiD refers to distinctions in living practices rather than differences in vague scriptures and ancient texts. For example, he correctly refers to how halal is imposed on non-Muslims whether they like it or not whereas the closest comparison one can draw with Catholicism would be eating of fish on Friday's -it is a choice Catholics or non-Catholics can make through informed consent -he obviously does not give his consent to eating halal -and neither do I -halal is mostly unlabeled and where it is labeled it is not immediately understandable to anyone who cannot read Arabic. I think it unconscionable for animals not to be humanely slaughtered. Muslims deny us our freedom of conscience and belief every-time they feed inhumane slaughtered animals to unwitting non-Muslims. Muslims use halal as a hate crime against non-Muslims in order to 'cleanse the path for Islam'. As much as 99% of halal slaughtered meat sold in Ireland is sold to non-Muslims.

AM said...

Christy,

DaithiD's criticisms cannot be reduced to that. I agree with all his criticisms in the above post. I agree with yours too. I want none of that stuff to figure in how I conduct my life. But a lot of his critique has been directed towards the Muslim text which at the end of the day is not all that more evil than the other texts.

But I think DaithiD has gone some distance in scrutinising his own perspective which is as much as we can ask of people. Those who have instantaneous conversions from one position to another can not have held the initial conviction on the basis of a great deal of thought. If he flipped too quickly I would be sceptical.

AM said...

David,

if we allow the burka we should allow KKK masks in every social setting where the Burka is allowed or face masks emblazoned with the Danish anti-theocratic cartoons. While I would see the fairness in that I don't see the societal benefits.

David Higgins said...

What are the long term societal benefits of restricting what people wear? Apart from short term appeasement. As long as clothes aren't used as weapons, there's no crime. If people are offended by clothes, you ban one item, soon we'll be naked.
Christy, halal is a hate crime? Clint Eastwood's got a point, pussy generation right enough.

AM said...

I think one possible long term benefit is the common denominator of a human community expressing itself and the autonomy of the individual through the one thing that makes all of us unique - our faces, rather than having it absorbed into one uniform mask. We are not lions or zebras who might all look the same but humans.

Nor is it a matter of people being offended by clothes but I feel the rights of my children not to have to talk to somebody who is masked is greater than any right to be masked. I can see no reason why my children should have to go to school and be taught by somebody wearing a KKK hood.

The notion of a masked society I find psychologically disturbing.

Christy Walsh said...

David Higgins

Obviously it is if Muslims do not respect the freedom of conscience and beliefs of non-Muslims. If Muslims were tricked into believing they were being sold halal meat that wasn't halal -that would be classed as a hate crime so the opposite is also true -selling unlabeled halal to someone who consciously objects to it. As much as 99% of halal meat in Ireland is sold to non-Muslims -apparently feeding non-Muslims halal 'cleanses the path for Islam'. If you are happy eating halal then that is your choice but it is not mine.

I think humane slaughter is not the sign of a pussy generation but of a civilized society but if the idea of unnecessary cruelty gives you a hard-on or makes you feel like a tough guy -the least said the better.





DaithiD said...

Yeah this common sense thing works one way. To anyone else, taking a job in sales in a place that sells alcohol might lead one to conclude they might have to deal with customers buying it, and that its silly to claim a dispensation otherwise. Some one would make a meme of you if you tried the pussy generation comment about that to them.Probably merging you ,Eastwood, Brevik and dead Syrians with the text "Pussy Generation" id imagine. Ones second death : being made an internet meme.

AM said...

Just got an email about this a few minutes ago. It is about Lying Catholics trying to con women out of exercising their right to choose. An argument that depends on falsehoods to support it is weak to begin with. It reminds me of the time the Intelligent Design lobby were caught lying through their teeth against evolution in a US court.

David Higgins said...

Anthony, I don't see a masked society is a remotely possible scenario. If you don't want your children taught by people with their faces covered, campaign to make sure it doesn't happen, you'll have plenty support. If you ban religious clothing, you make the religion stronger, not in my interest. I don't have kids, but I wouldn't want any teachers to have their face obscured, that gets back to circumstances and common sense. Christy, Animals are breed to die. I don't ever think of animals getting slaughtered, humanely or not, never mind get aroused over it. If a Muslim gets tricked into eating non halal or non Muslims getting tricked into eating halal, I couldn't give fuck it's food, eat it

David Higgins said...

Daithi, I don't know what your talking about. If Muslims don't want to sell drink, don't employ them in places that sell drink, if they refuse to sell drink. That's just common sense. I don't know what an Internet meme is, nor is it something i'll research. The pussy generation comment simply made me laugh, certain truth to it, everybody is offended by everything. Halal meat and preferential treatment to religions in work place it's all shite. Here's an idea the next time someone tells you to vacate the pool for religious reasons tell them to fuck off

Christy Walsh said...

David Higgins

You come across as a complete ass that I have thought it pointless even responding to you. I notice even with DaithiD you admit to not knowing what he is talking about and then rubbishing everything he says in flawed argument revolving around your dependence on your opinion of people simply taking offense. Unconvincingly you try to sound like you are above being offended but your hostile tone betrays your obvious annoyance.

If I were to reduce matters to your simplistic world view of being offended or not being offended then you might have a point. But I was referring to mankind's capacity for higher thought on infliction of inhumane or unnecessary suffering or cruelty -these things involve most peoples capacity for empathy and compassion -things that you say don't matter to you, at least not for the welfare of animals. But your opinion is not reflective of our society and values. In Ireland or in the UK there are laws to protect animals from unscrupulous or callous people who would think nothing of inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering on animals -except when it comes to religion -then you can be inhumane and unnecessarily cruel. I am not offended by Muslims insistence that an animal must be fully conscious and aware of what is happening to it. I have made an informed decision on what I believe to be grotesquely wrong all you can say is you oblivious to what I am talking about. That just shows your ignorance.

Try watching this 5min video and then make your argument from a position of knowing what you are talking about https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9EIZUKpnlI

DaithiD said...

David, this option, even if one felt they could cope with the embaressment of causing a public scene, is denied us because you run the risk of getting pulled for a hate crime if you arent really careful. Not wanting things that way, is not the same as wanting things my way, therefore the bigot/prejudiced tags are really misplaced.

David Higgins said...

Christy, mankind's higher thought on unnecessary suffering? Grow up. Of course my arguments are based on my opinions, whose aren't? Would you rather I gave your opinion for you? Daithi, If you have a belief your on the wrong side of an injustice the consequences shouldn't matter, now and then you need to make a public nuisance. I never called you a bigot, I said your prejudices colour your outlook, massive difference.

UnitedBrotherhood said...

I stand by what I f---ing say here, so if any of you disagree so be it, but this stuff really needs to be said, since Muslims are getting it up the rear by both those frogs in France, and the securocrats here in my neck of the woods. I am personally declaring war on all forms of Islamophobia. I'm IRA all the way, so deal with it.

UnitedBrotherhood said...

Anthony...this darn thang ain't working

Christy Walsh said...

David Higgins

Yes we all have opinions but only certain kind of people express theirs while admitting, as you have done, to not knowing or thinking about that to which you were expressing yours on. And if you look at what I actually said about mankind you might notice that I also used the word 'capacity' with it -having the capacity for higher thought does not mean that mankind exercises that capacity, you were my case in point, because you freely admitted to not having knowledge or given thought to what you were on about.



Christy Walsh said...

Frank/UnitedBrotherhood

Your not a bit racist when you want to be -and are French Muslim's 'frogs' as well?
And what has the IRA got to do with Islam?
You're declaring war on Islamophobia -is that as an Islamic Freedom Fighter? Will your war include beheading, stoning or other such acts of barbarity?

UnitedBrotherhood said...

Such bloody ignorance I'd expect from a dolt as you seem to be. Get your head out of your ass and goddamn read the piece through again just like I did. It is all good as we say it on the streets here. And as far as IRA, even though I'm retired, I've kept my 30+ unit at a sort of standby, to be the muscle in waging a protracted war, which could also be used in defending the rights of Muslims. Were you the head of any of the IRAs, cause I was, and we are freedom fighters, first and foremost, whether that is in fighting an American police state, or protecting innocent Muslims. For Christs sake man, most Muslims are peaceful. I suppose you are a Donald Trump supporter?

UnitedBrotherhood said...

From scanning the responses, half are shit, while there are actually a few thoughtful, and friendly responses. Debate is good, even if it brings out the elitist assholes who are as ignorant as ignorance gets in Trump like trolls.

UnitedBrotherhood said...

Christy.....get a f---ing life hon!

David Higgins said...

Christy, The reason I asked Daith what he was talking about was he went off topic, I wasn't talking about Muslims refusing to sell drink, internet meme weren't relevant. Man is what he is, higher level of consciousness and understanding remain theroies. Your boring me now, you sound like one of those trendy new left who think life's a giant liberal art college

Christy Walsh said...

David Higgins

There was only one thing you said that was actually real -some animals are bred for killing. And if they are to be killed then kill them humanely because there is no justification for causing undue pain and suffering when they can be rendered completely unconscious instantaneously. Any human requirement that the animal must be aware of its suffering is just indulgence in savagery whether under the guise of religion or sadism.

Christy Walsh said...

Frank/United Brotherhood

Nobody goes off topic more than yourself by linking things that have no relationship. I mean how crazy are you the IRA and Islam?? -I can see the IRA supporting peoples revolutions and insurgencies -other freedom fighters regardless of their religion or nationality -but supporting Islamic Freedom Fighters -that's as convincing as the Widery Report on Bloody Sunday was.

Your dislike of the French is interesting given your support for Islamic Freedom Fighters and the atrocities they have inflicted on innocent people there. Freddie Scapatticci and others were head of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) so your self proclaimed leadership attributes don't impress me -and you have a 30 strong unit on standby... I did not realise you meant the Islamic Republican Army -my mistake, I am sure they are all faithful aderents of Islam to the last man no doubt.

AM said...

David,

we are not going to have a totally masked society but we may have one where a fad or youth culture leads to masking becoming pretty common. Because I don't want my children to be on the streets with masked people I do make the case (rather than actively campaign I suppose) for prohibiting masks in public.

I would not call for a ban on religious clothing. Nuns, priests, Imans, Rabbis can wear what they like if it does not violate the societal norm. They don't have the freedom to dress but are compelled to dress by society. None of us can streak the streets. I think if we argue for people to be allowed to dress how they wish we would need to allow them the choice not to dress at all.

The point I make is that masks rather than religious clothes per se should not be permitted. We should not prioritise an item of clothing simply because it claims a religious status.

If you ban religious clothing, you make the religion stronger.

I don't agree. It is only by curbing and banning religious practices coupled with the progress of science and secularism have we managed to push back the threat from Christianity and weakened its power.

Henry JoY said...

Frank

you off your meds again?

David Higgins said...

Anthony, I disagree. Though not the same circumstances, the banning of clothing has been done before, Elizabeth I banned traditional Irish dress, They banned tartan in Scotland after the Jacobite rebellion. There's more examples but you get my drift, they didn't work. There's a difference between highlighting religions insanse practices and falsehoods and backing a course that will be deemed an attack on a culture that will in my view further entrench said religion. Islam will wane in the west because it's retarded. I'll continue to oppose Islam because of honour killings etc, i'll not get involved in something I think is petty fascism. People jump on this bandwagon through fear, in my view it's ridiculous. If the next fashion trend involves face covering, it's not something that would irritate me but that's me.
Christy, you added nothing there, so i've no reply.

AM said...

David,

I think the key point is "not the same circumstances." We can never be sure what the impact of any move will be but we do know that religious evil doesn't give up of its own accord and has to be curbed and constrained. A ban on all face masking in society might well the means for breaking the power of those who impose the face mask on women. Much like women are unmasking and men are shaving their beards in the areas where ISIS are being forced out of. For those who wish to mask up voluntarily their attitude might harden.

Many countries employ anti-face mask laws although usually they are reserved for public protests or events.

Religions don't wane because they are retarded. We could argue the opposite and claim that they grow because they are retarded. They wane when confronted with a countervailing power.

I don't defend the right of KKK mask to be worn in public and fail to see how I could turn that logic on its head and subsequently defend the right of the Islamic face mask to be worn inn public.

David Higgins said...

You make good points, in particular the retarded counter argument. Still disagree though. I think it will be a lot harder to convince Muslims of the blatant repressive nature of their doctrine if we attack them over something as trivial as clothing. I wouldn't back any government measures that restrained what people wore in public, I know there are extreme examples that would be deliberately inflammatory, but I believe giving the establishment such powers would cause more hassle than Islamic chosen isolationist. In my view a more worthwhile exercise would be concentrating on honour killings for example. One idea could be to put criminal charges in place for those who know abuse is continuing and don't alert authorites especially those cases were scumbags take girls back to Pakistan etc to abuse and sometimes murder women for simply wanting to leave a relationship. You could argue this contradicts my earlier point as it would give the Authorities more invasive powers and could be potrayed as collective punishment. If I do contradict myself tough shite. The Muslim community don't tackle this issue and it's vitally important, clothing is a non issue for me.