Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that the burka ban was debated, not on the grounds of security (which would have been silly), but on the grounds that wearing it "is against the values of the republic".
Given that, while a number of woman wearing it are forced by others to do so (and a ban will just result in them forced to stay trapped at home), a number of women have freely chosen to want to wear one.
Given that most women who want to wear one are not immigrants (since the countries of emigration don't have that awful tradition) but French born citizen (so the argument "if don't love it, leave it" doesn't apply.

I think we can paraphrase Voltaire and say, "I profoundly disagree and are deeply offended by your wearing the burka, but will fight for your right to wear it."

Meanwhile, France remains the only country in the West that has legislation telling people how they must or must not dress.

Do you think people should be allowed to wear crosses or yarmulkes in public places, including government, public hospitals and public schools?

YES, they don't hide your freaking face, do they?

Well, in France, they are not allowed...

A woman who wore a headscarf (not a burka) in a day care was asked to remove it. She refused, and got fired. She appealed, and lost her appeal. Most of the French public applauded the fact that she lost her appeal. Google baby loup for more information.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why would the burka ban being debated on the grounds of security be "silly"? Burkas have been used to hide gender and weapons in multiple instances.

I'm convinced. Let's ban Halloween costumes. Halloween masks get used in bank robberies all the time (at least according to the movies I watch which is my only reference point, but probably as accurate as PP's).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that the burka ban was debated, not on the grounds of security (which would have been silly), but on the grounds that wearing it "is against the values of the republic".
Given that, while a number of woman wearing it are forced by others to do so (and a ban will just result in them forced to stay trapped at home), a number of women have freely chosen to want to wear one.
Given that most women who want to wear one are not immigrants (since the countries of emigration don't have that awful tradition) but French born citizen (so the argument "if don't love it, leave it" doesn't apply.

I think we can paraphrase Voltaire and say, "I profoundly disagree and are deeply offended by your wearing the burka, but will fight for your right to wear it."

Meanwhile, France remains the only country in the West that has legislation telling people how they must or must not dress.

Do you think people should be allowed to wear crosses or yarmulkes in public places, including government, public hospitals and public schools?

YES, they don't hide your freaking face, do they?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that the burka ban was debated, not on the grounds of security (which would have been silly), but on the grounds that wearing it "is against the values of the republic".
Given that, while a number of woman wearing it are forced by others to do so (and a ban will just result in them forced to stay trapped at home), a number of women have freely chosen to want to wear one.
Given that most women who want to wear one are not immigrants (since the countries of emigration don't have that awful tradition) but French born citizen (so the argument "if don't love it, leave it" doesn't apply.

I think we can paraphrase Voltaire and say, "I profoundly disagree and are deeply offended by your wearing the burka, but will fight for your right to wear it."

Meanwhile, France remains the only country in the West that has legislation telling people how they must or must not dress.

Do you think people should be allowed to wear crosses or yarmulkes in public places, including government, public hospitals and public schools?

YES, they don't hide your freaking face, do they?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that the burka ban was debated, not on the grounds of security (which would have been silly), but on the grounds that wearing it "is against the values of the republic".
Given that, while a number of woman wearing it are forced by others to do so (and a ban will just result in them forced to stay trapped at home), a number of women have freely chosen to want to wear one.
Given that most women who want to wear one are not immigrants (since the countries of emigration don't have that awful tradition) but French born citizen (so the argument "if don't love it, leave it" doesn't apply.

I think we can paraphrase Voltaire and say, "I profoundly disagree and are deeply offended by your wearing the burka, but will fight for your right to wear it."

Meanwhile, France remains the only country in the West that has legislation telling people how they must or must not dress.

Do you think people should be allowed to wear crosses or yarmulkes in public places, including government, public hospitals and public schools?

YES, they don't hide your freaking face, do they?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why would the burka ban being debated on the grounds of security be "silly"? Burkas have been used to hide gender and weapons in multiple instances.

I'm convinced. Let's ban Halloween costumes. Halloween masks get used in bank robberies all the time (at least according to the movies I watch which is my only reference point, but probably as accurate as PP's).

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please please please, this has nothing to do with Islam. Please do not leap to any assumptions that this has to do with Islam.

Religion is a tool that can be used how its followers choose to use it. So while this incident may not have anything to do with your interpretation of Islam, or the interpretation of most, it is absolutely a reflection of the perpetrators' view of Islam.

I mean think of how ironic it is. The terrorists attacked Charlie Hebdo, because they depicted characterizations of the prophet Muhammad. Characterizations of prophet Muhammad are frowned upon, because it's mean to discourage idolatry (like how Muslims believe falsely led to idolatry of the prophet Jesus).

Yet... these terrorists attacked Charlie Hebdo to "avenge" prophet Muhammad.

I don't consider myself Muslim, but I was raised in the faith. And absolutely disgusted with the idolatry of Muhammad. How people put Hadith & Sunna on the same degree as the Quran. That seemed so profoundly un-Islamic to me. Muhammad was a prophet, but a human being. A mortal. Homo sapien flesh. Too many Muslims place way, way, way too much emphasis on Muhammad, and don't realize just how much they worship Muhammad. They idolize him - they're doing what the whole non-depiction of Muhammad was meant to avoid. It's totally backfired.

I believe you responded to a troll, but your post is first rate. Quite the irony you point out.

My troll-dar is off, but thanks.

Truthfully, a big part of why I left the faith (eventually religion altogether), was frustration with the extreme obsession with Muhammad. It's totally out of control in much of the Muslim world. I remember watching a video about Muhammad's life as a kid in Sunday School (in the US), where Muhammad's face was basically a blurry blob. Even as a kid the taboo weirded me out and seemed so ironic. Why don't Muslims get upset over depictions of Jesus? Moses? Adam? Or any other prophet? Too many Muslims put Muhammad on a pedestal that's different from the rest. He may be the final prophet, but as a mortal human being, he doesn't need extra special treatment or to be handled with kid gloves.

I think the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are super distasteful and obnoxious, but obviously not worthy of violence. But I think practicing Muslims need to start depicting Muhammad. Nothing fancy, but Muhammad taking a walk. Playing with his kids. Eating breakfast. Drinking tea. Show images of Muhammad doing ordinary, mundane things, and break down the taboo. The (informal) "ban" on imagery of Muhammad is doing precisely the opposite of what it was intended to do.

You can leave Islam for whatever reason you seem fit, but to say that Muslims worship Prophet Muhammad saw is simply not true. Yes, there are some overzealous Muslims out there but you and I both know that worshipping people, prophets, saints, ect is contradictory and opposite to the teachings of the religion. Yes, Muslims do have a great love for the Prophet saw , yes some actually love him more that they love their parents, their children, their life, but I have never seen a Muslim worshipping the man. Nouman Ali Khan did a lecture about the other point you raised about why Muslims don't speak up when other prophets are made fun, because really depictions of all prophets are frown upon in Islam . He said :

"People of other religion ask- why are you Muslim so crazy? When people make fun of Jesus on Fox TV even though they claim to love Jesus, and they also show ‘Family Guy’ on Jesus; when they make fun of Jesus on TV, Christians don’t go crazy! People make fun of Moses all the time, Jews don’t go crazy! People make fun of Hindus and that certainly does happen, Hindus don’t go crazy! What is with you Muslims, can’t say anything to you people. Don’t you understand the concept of freedom of speech? Why do you people go crazy? And our usual response and you might think this was given being my response in this khutba is that- You don’t know what love is, you don’t know. You think you love Jesus, but we love Muhammad saw way way way more, and that’s why we go that crazy. But that is not my response today. My first response when that question is asked to me is that- how come I don’t get angry when Isaa (Alaihiwa sallam) is made fun of? How come I don’t get angry when Musa (Alaihiwa sallam) made fun of? Musa (Alaihi wa sallam) is The most mentioned messenger of Allah in The Quran. Muhammad is mentioned four times and Ahmad is mentioned once. That is the messenger of Allah sawmentioned by name in the Quran. Musa (Alaihissalam) is mentioned seventy plus times in the Quran. When Musa Alaihissalam is poked fun at, and he is poked fun at a lot, A Lot. When Jesus is made fun of, he is made fun of a lot. Where is my anger? ‘Oh that’s your problem.’ It’s their problem, that’s not my problem. So first of all, there is something even problematic about the way we emotionally respond. The things that we find offensive, there is something already problematic. But you could say- no no no, but Allah gave a special honor to Muhammad Rasulullah ?. I agree, yes, Allah did give the messenger ? a special honor. But it is the same Allah, who says-Glory to thy Lord, the Lord of Honour and Power! (He is free) from what they ascribe (to Him)! And Peace on the messengers! (sura as saffat : 180-181)"


But I do agree with you that killing cartoonists is just plain crazy. From what I am learning about the attackers, at least one of them has done time in the French prisons and was radicalized while there. He is described as a delinquent who was recruiting "jihadists" to go fight in Syria. I wonder, if these reports are true, how was he able to perpetrate this, especially with the weapons used given that it is not as easy to get these types of guns in France like it is in the US.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that the burka ban was debated, not on the grounds of security (which would have been silly), but on the grounds that wearing it "is against the values of the republic".
Given that, while a number of woman wearing it are forced by others to do so (and a ban will just result in them forced to stay trapped at home), a number of women have freely chosen to want to wear one.
Given that most women who want to wear one are not immigrants (since the countries of emigration don't have that awful tradition) but French born citizen (so the argument "if don't love it, leave it" doesn't apply.

I think we can paraphrase Voltaire and say, "I profoundly disagree and are deeply offended by your wearing the burka, but will fight for your right to wear it."

Meanwhile, France remains the only country in the West that has legislation telling people how they must or must not dress.

Do you think people should be allowed to wear crosses or yarmulkes in public places, including government, public hospitals and public schools?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very thoughtful post pp.

Small blurb in today's Post: Judge orders women soldiers to stop accompanying 5 Guantanamo defendents as it is causing them religious distress.
So we have as a society fought for these women's inclusion in the armed forces, prepped and sent them to this locale, and now they are not allowed to perform their duties....because they are women? What am I.missing here??????

Cultural relativism.

Think about how these guys treat women back home, but we are having American women soldiers defer?

Anonymous wrote:
Why would the burka ban being debated on the grounds of security be "silly"? Burkas have been used to hide gender and weapons in multiple instances.

Anonymous wrote:Given that the burka ban was debated, not on the grounds of security (which would have been silly), but on the grounds that wearing it "is against the values of the republic".
Given that, while a number of woman wearing it are forced by others to do so (and a ban will just result in them forced to stay trapped at home), a number of women have freely chosen to want to wear one.
Given that most women who want to wear one are not immigrants (since the countries of emigration don't have that awful tradition) but French born citizen (so the argument "if don't love it, leave it" doesn't apply.

I think we can paraphrase Voltaire and say, "I profoundly disagree and are deeply offended by your wearing the burka, but will fight for your right to wear it."

Meanwhile, France remains the only country in the West that has legislation telling people how they must or must not dress.

Anonymous wrote:Given that the burka ban was debated, not on the grounds of security (which would have been silly), but on the grounds that wearing it "is against the values of the republic".
Given that, while a number of woman wearing it are forced by others to do so (and a ban will just result in them forced to stay trapped at home), a number of women have freely chosen to want to wear one.
Given that most women who want to wear one are not immigrants (since the countries of emigration don't have that awful tradition) but French born citizen (so the argument "if don't love it, leave it" doesn't apply.

I think we can paraphrase Voltaire and say, "I profoundly disagree and are deeply offended by your wearing the burka, but will fight for your right to wear it."

Meanwhile, France remains the only country in the West that has legislation telling people how they must or must not dress.

Anonymous wrote:Given that the burka ban was debated, not on the grounds of security (which would have been silly), but on the grounds that wearing it "is against the values of the republic".
Given that, while a number of woman wearing it are forced by others to do so (and a ban will just result in them forced to stay trapped at home), a number of women have freely chosen to want to wear one.
Given that most women who want to wear one are not immigrants (since the countries of emigration don't have that awful tradition) but French born citizen (so the argument "if don't love it, leave it" doesn't apply.

I think we can paraphrase Voltaire and say, "I profoundly disagree and are deeply offended by your wearing the burka, but will fight for your right to wear it."

Meanwhile, France remains the only country in the West that has legislation telling people how they must or must not dress.