ban of piglet in the uk

Rev Hellfire

Personally the whole pig thing is a total red herring and has been stated before, such a ban says more about those who implemented it than it does about islam.

What is missing in all discussions is mutual respect, something which is typically missing on both sides.
Surely you would expect your co-workers to show some sensitivity when someone finds something offensive in this case a pig. But equally it should be remembered that the burka is offensive the garb within our society.
Anyone can insult or cause discomfort unintentionally, the issue is when they are informed of this and refuse to attempt to compromise. Something to which the (more extreme) Islamic practitioners are guilt of with the siege mentality that seems to be evident at times on this forum, as indeed are elements of western society with their scaremongering.

bonkey

Wibbs wrote:

Why can someone object to a piglet, yet I can't object to the restriction of women in Islam without drawing fire?

Do you understand what their objection to the piglet is?

jc

bonkey

Rev Hellfire wrote:

But equally it should be remembered that the burka is offensive the garb within our society.

Why is it?

I am in no way offended by the burka. Does that make me not a part of society? In a minority?

Can you show me any research which indicates that I'm in a minority and that your opinion is the majority's?

I would object to anyone being forced to wear it. I don't necessarily swallow the whole "its a woman's choice" argument because it smacks a bit too much of it being a woman's choice to not have a job, stay home and raise kids before emancipation, but I'm in no way informed enough to know that this is the case for every (or any) muslim woman who wears it, so I can't find the item itself offensive.

If I did, I would probably find all worn religious symbology offensive - including wedding rings.

Hobbes

Rev Hellfire wrote:

But equally it should be remembered that the burka is offensive the garb within our society.

So if you were talking to a woman who was wearing a burka you would be offended by this? How?

Rev Hellfire

I would be offended because it is not acceptable behaviour in our society to not see the face of a person. There is no denying within western society it is seen in general as unacceptable garb and makes people uncomfortable. Now I do recognise that the intention of wearer may not be to make me or others uncomfortable, but the end result is not the same.
I would like to make clear I have no issue with the hijab or islamic dress in general I would be equally uncomformable talking to a woman with a paper bag over her head.

Beer is Life

Kernel wrote:

I have no problem with cultures mixing, it is healthy and good for a society

Just out of curiosity, and im not trying to start anything, where do you get that from? Im just wondering because all i ever see are negative effects.

Kernel

Frank Grimes wrote:

What Muslims are expecting this out of interest? (leaving aside fanatical ramblings of an extreme minority)

Many of them... but in this particular instance I'm referring to the case mentioned earlier of girls in Holland being mocked as prostitutes for wearing normal western clothes. It is the goal of Islam to have Sharia law, however, so you cant use the 'extreme minority' excuse too quickly either.

Frank Grimes wrote:

You're assuming all Muslims in the West are immigrants, this is not the case.

No, but most are, so I'm generalising. Once again, pandering to the wishes of the minority. So in your opinion, when making a statement about muslims coming into a country, I have to say something like: muslims coming into a country and those few who are already citizens or have adopted the muslim faith? There is such a thing as too PC.

bonkey wrote:

And if one of your workmates beings in something you find offensive....I dunno....a graphic calendar of bombing victims or something....you'll have no problems with them hanging that in your line of sight?

There's a distinction between giving up your freedom and having sensitivity towards the feelings of others.

Freedom is a two-way street. I might not like what someone says/believes or brings to work, but if it's not against the laws of the land, then I accept it. As supporters of freedom of speech say; 'I may not like what you have to say, but I will die for your right to say it'.

If I'm a fundamentalist Christian and someone wears a Slayer t-shirt with satanic symbols on it (which happens where I work) then I don't complain about it, I don't tell the guy he's offending me and shouldn't wear it, instead I recognise his right and his freedom to wear it. Free society is a wonderful thing.

Wibbs is right, political correctness gone mad. :rolleyes:

bonkey

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I would be offended because it is not acceptable behaviour in our society to not see the face of a person.

I guess living for some time in a country where winter conditions make not being able to see the faces of people a normal reality for several months of the year has changed my views on that.

I would see that offence as a failing of our society, personally.

Incidentally, I take it that you find Halloween offensive as well? All those kids calling at your door wearing scary masks?

jc

Kernel

Beer is Life wrote:

Just out of curiosity, and im not trying to start anything, where do you get that from? Im just wondering because all i ever see are negative effects.

I take your point, but in a healthy society, some controlled integration benefits the society. If another culture is closer to the home culture, it's easier to integrate, but even totally different cultures can mix well if there is respect and freedom.

Take a good metropolitan place like Canada, voted one of the best places to live and total ethnic diversity. If Ireland didn't mix cultures, you would be eating spuds and carrots, in a boring and non-vibrant country, with less interesting things to do, a less powerful economy with a less qualified or effective workforce.

bonkey

Kernel wrote:

If I'm a fundamentalist Christian and someone wears a Slayer t-shirt with satanic symbols on it (which happens where I work) then I don't complain about it, I don't tell the guy he's offending me and shouldn't wear it, instead I recognise his right and his freedom to wear it.

You could ask him not to wear it because you find it offensive, and accept his decision.

Free society also gives you the freedom to complain as loudly and as vehemently against his wearing of it too.

Free society is a wonderful thing.

Only when people recognise the limitations of it.

jc

Kernel

bonkey wrote:

I guess living for some time in a country where winter conditions make not being able to see the faces of people a normal reality for several months of the year has changed my views on that.

I think western people find it more offensive because in western opinion it degrades the woman. The key thing is, in western opinion - since I'm sure many of those women don't know any better, or are indoctrinated since birth into believing covering up is good.

Kernel

bonkey wrote:

You could ask him not to wear it because you find it offensive, and accept his decision.

Free society also gives you the freedom to complain as loudly and as vehemently against his wearing of it too.

It certainly does, of course some complaints have more weight than others, thanks to our old friend, politcal correctness. If I did complain, and the company (for fear of offending my beliefs/law suit) told people they couldn't wear such things to work, then I'd be restricting peoples freedom to suit my own belief system, which is something I am against. Therefore, I would not complain. I am tolerant. The people who complained about toy pigs, ergo, are not tolerant.

bonkey wrote:

Only when people recognise the limitations of it.

jc

What do you mean by that? What are the limitations of a free society?

Rev Hellfire

To answer your questions if I was been addressed by someone on a cold winter day wearing a balaclava or any other grab which totally hides their face I would expect them out of courteous behaviour to remove it, this applies to all adults.

As for children wearing masks on Halloween I do not find it objectionable since:
a) They are children and wearing of masks is acceptable for them.
b) That is traditional behavour for that night.

Just as society kshould within reason try to accommodate emerging cultures, these cultures additionally have a responsibility to be aware and respect the dominate culture they are within. Both must come to an understanding which may require compromise on both their parts.

Additionally I dare say that my opinion is the more common one, while yours which is certainly the more accommodating and open one is not representative of Irish society as a whole.

Hobbes

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Additionally I dare say that my opinion is the more common one, while yours which is certainly the more accommodating and open one is not representative of Irish society as a whole.

I'd agree with that. I've lived in a few different countries so I am more used to accepting other peoples cultures then it seems most other people I know in Ireland.

Although comparing winter clothing to religous beliefs is hardly the same thing.

Frank Grimes

Kernel wrote:

Many of them... but in this particular instance I'm referring to the case mentioned earlier of girls in Holland being mocked as prostitutes for wearing normal western clothes. It is the goal of Islam to have Sharia law, however, so you cant use the 'extreme minority' excuse too quickly either.

The goal of most Muslims isn't to force Sharia law on non Muslims.

There is such a thing as too PC.

It's not about being too PC. Your arguments seem to be based around your opinion that all Muslims are immigrants and therefore need to abide by "our" rules. If Muslims are born and bred in the West does their opinion/beliefs not count for anything? (and please don't pick some nutcase as an example of a Western Muslim)

bonkey

Kernel wrote:

What do you mean by that? What are the limitations of a free society?

Show me a truly free society, and you'll have your answer.

Every society places limitations on its freedoms. We have societies that are relatively more free than others, but every society still has limits.

Even within those, you still have the awkward situations where one freedom clashes with another, and ultimately one or both must lose out to some degree.

Both must come to an understanding which may require compromise on both their parts.

I agree. Thats why I've already started moving towards that compromise position, rather than standing on the more common societal outrage that others haven't made their compromises first.

Additionally I dare say that my opinion is the more common one, while yours which is certainly the more accommodating and open one is not representative of Irish society as a whole.

Exactly affirming the point I made in my previous sentence.

jc

Wibbs

Frank Grimes wrote:

The goal of most Muslims isn't to force Sharia law on non Muslims.

Is not one of the goals of Islam that an Islamic state is the ideal solution? The Quran/Hadith/Sharia contain both the intent and the framework to buildd such a state. While many liberal Muslims may not be in too much of a hurry to sign up for that, the intent is present in Islam. The restoration of the caliphate would be a goal of the more politicised, especially with regard to Europe.

If you look at somewhere like Pakistan. It was formed as a secular state in the 40s, by 1998 it became a country where Sharia law was in force. Bangladesh is going the same way. Nigeria is another example where Sharia law is in force in the Muslim part of the country. Look at Turkey which has a growing number of outspoken Muslim clerics calling for a return to the Islamic fold. Egypt has similar problems. The idea of "one nation under Islam" is a pervasive one.

If Muslims are born and bred in the West does their opinion/beliefs not count for anything?

Of course they do. That's the advantage of our democratic system. An advantage that's something to be proud of and worth defending.

Frank Grimes

Wibbs wrote:

Is not one of the goals of Islam that an Islamic state is the ideal solution? The Quran/Hadith/Sharia contain both the intent and the framework to buildd such a state.

I did not say that wasn't the case, did I? I was talking about Muslims not forcing their religion on people, not the establishment of an Islamic state.

While many liberal Muslims may not be in too much of a hurry to sign up for that, the intent is present in Islam. The restoration of the caliphate would be a goal of the more politicised, especially with regard to Europe.

What makes a Muslim "unliberal" for wanting to live in an Islamic state?

If you look at somewhere like Pakistan. It was formed as a secular state in the 40s, by 1998 it became a country where Sharia law was in force.

Pakistan is a Muslim country, why does it surprise you that Muslims might want to live under an Islamically based system of laws?

Of course they do. That's the advantage of our democratic system. An advantage that's something to be proud of and worth defending.

Is it all their opinions or just the ones that correspond to "Western" beliefs?

Wibbs

Frank Grimes wrote:

I did not say that wasn't the case, did I? I was talking about Muslims not forcing their religion on people, not the establishment of an Islamic state.

What's the difference. In an Islamic state for example all other religious displays would be illegal. Women of other faiths would be safer in Islamic dress lest they find themselves thought of as immoral. In some interpretations even music would be proscribed. Would many non Muslims want to live there? While it's not a direct way of forcing faith on someone, it's a pretty good way of forcing ones moral codes on those who may not agree.

What makes a Muslim "unliberal" for wanting to live in an Islamic state?

Because one could contend that an Islamic state is hardly a byword for liberalism. Not by a long way. The seperation of church and state in such a nation would be unthinkable at worst and extremely difficult to achieve at best. If it wasn't why not have a secular state in the first place?

Pakistan is a Muslim country, why does it surprise you that Muslims might want to live under an Islamically based system of laws?

Well it started off secular and then changed into a Sharia law driven Islamic state where the views of the secular and other religious faiths are largely ignored. Why not stay a Muslim secular state and let the views of the minority at least have some voice?

Is it all their opinions or just the ones that correspond to "Western" beliefs?

When their opinions don't correspond to the western ideal of a liberal state where all views are considered valid then I have a problem with it. They should have their opinion, but it shouldn't preclude or obstruct those who disagree with them. In an Islamic state that would be a difficult balance to strike, if achievable at all.

Frank Grimes

EDIT: On second thoughts, forget about it - too OT.

Wibbs

True enough, another topic for another time perhaps.

desiredbard

hmmm
appart from one person who proclaims the sharia
it appears that most of us here agree on political correctness going ballistic, which is not doing anyone any good
Westerners feeel threatened by what they do not know and this is not helped by giving in to a minority amongst a minority, and this minority suffers under this as well. (If your still with me)

And this makes it impossible to express any kind of religion for anyone