Girls were for breeding purposes only

[Terry MacArsey]

Definitively, we should take the sample of criminal for judge everyone else sharing their same religion... this is so swallow!


Seriously, if you FEEL intimidated only by having someone aside you with a different culture you have a serious problem of self confidence, please consult a psychiatrist, they can help you.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your point PhillippeD if your comments are aimed at me.

I have not said that all muslims take cocaine or that all muslims would beat you up if they saw you eating a pizza with ham on it.

All I've said is it's a bit bizarre that in this particular case, two muslim men seem to think it is haram to eat ham but not haram to offer cocaine.

In this instance it was the two muslim men that felt intimidated by a different culture (people eating ham) to the extent that they were physically aggressive so I would agree that they should see a psychiatrist because they obviously have a problem.

I don't feel intimidated by people with a different culture. If I was intimidated, there wouldn't be much point in travelling as far as I'm concerned. One of the main reasons I have travelled in the past is to see different cultures and someone intimidated by Islam would be very unlikely to convert to Islam don't you think ?

Just because I've converted to Islam doesn't mean that I should close my eyes to inconsistencies in peoples behaviour.

 

[dafluff]

All I've said is it's a bit bizarre that in this particular case, two muslim men seem to think it is haram to eat ham but not haram to offer cocaine.

Both are of course haram in Islam. However, people not fully understanding the religion they profess to believe in is not exclusive to Muslims. In fact, the majority of any religious group seems that way.

In this instance it was the two muslim men that felt intimidated by a different culture (people eating ham) to the extent that they were physically aggressive so I would agree that they should see a psychiatrist because they obviously have a problem.

This is the narrative that the news outlet decides to peddle because they know their readership, and it gets hits/ratings/circulation. It could just be as easily described as "Two criminals beat up couple because they refused to buy cocaine", although of course that is far less sensational, and probably wont make the news.

 

[El_Goretto]

I don't think that everything can be decided purely on what the majority think but surely there needs to be a limit on what the minority can enforce on the majority also.

Here's another article I've found. This time, 2 muslim men offering cocaine and then beating people up in France because they were eating a "blasphemous pizza" because it had ham on it.

How bizarre is that ? They will go to hell because they eat ham but it's ok to take cocaine ?

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blo...-because-they-ordered-a-blasphemous-ham-pizza

The problem with this post in my opinion, is that you go from a general statement:

I don't think that everything can be decided purely on what the majority think but surely there needs to be a limit on what the minority can enforce on the majority also.

And then you follow with "Here's another article I've found." as if you are using it to illustrate your general statement.

The problem is that your article is about a very specific incident that is NOT representative of the vast majority of Muslims.

I'm sure you didn't mean it that way but you can see how this tactic is used by certain media and political parties:

Make sweeping statements and then illustrate them with specific incidents as if they were representative of the truth.

 

[Ruserious]

I feel that this is just the way the French are drawing the line in the sand (ha) and suggesting that they dont want the ultimate multicultural society, and that they do want to retain there own societal values and cultures. There is also a lot of truth to what ukcouple suggested that the majority are currently being sidelined and deemed as racist which is unfair.

On its own i couldnt care less about the burkini but i believe it is being used as a longer term sign to say to people come to France if you are moderate and can integrate with our values and cultures but if you want to follow a truly islamic society and islamic rules then there are other places you should go.

 

[PhilippeD]

What they say:

The article is well crafted, but it is pretty much the usual conservative mantry -- freedoms guaranteed to all individuals by the US Bill of Rights (and by British common law constitution and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man) are OK only up to a point, meaning that that which does not comport with what conservatives view as cultural bedrock can be manned.

What those documents really mean is that people can do whatever they damn well please, including those things that "real Americans" might consider culturally offensive and including, as well, those things that could, in the long term, change the cultural bedrock upon which America, or any other society, rests. Fear of Muslims in France and Latinos in the USA is a weapon the conservatives are using to restrict all of our freedoms. If French institutions cannot survive without intimidating women in body-suits at a beach to disrobe, they should be scrapped.

As far as I am concerned, Allison Pearson, the author of the thread starting article, can go put her head between her legs for a bit of self-copulation.

I think it is about respect.
& I think we should all look for ways to build respect NOT dismantle it.

Actually I too was also loving it but had another thought, and one I believe is very legit to the more "liberal" societies. Goes like this: (words bolded where changed)

And I’m afraid the fact that a woman may “choose” to wear a bikini doesn’t mean that her “choice” must always be respected. Not if it ends up intimidating other Muslim women into feeling ashamed for not exposing their own flesh, making integration even harder.

Everyone know that we can't force people o wear bikini on beach and even less to be nude. Forcing a dressing code of "not enough cloth taken off" don't make any sense at all.

 

[Anglian]

I think it's a bit unfair to force a women who generally doesn't wear a bikini, and feels more comfort in her Burkini, I recall a holiday in Algeave, most women went tooled, you could tell the Brit girls it took them a couple of days to take the top off, anyone with a top was quite a stand out, but I think the case in France was totally over the top and could have been done a bit less heavy handedly, the effect is its caused the law to be canceled

 

[ukcouple]

Ok.. hypothetical situation..

So.. lets say you are a Druid and you and your mates want to sit on the beach in your full Druid gear. Right next to you is a group of birds in their beach burqas.
You are feeling hungry so you fire up your portable roast pig barbecue.
The pork fumes waft past the birds in burqas.

Question 1: Do the birds in their beach burqas have a right to feel uncomfortable and object to your behavior or not.?

Question 2: Would you sympathize with the birds in burqas or with the Druids who were just doing what religious Druids do.?

It's in situations like this that politically correct arguments of many on this thread disappear up their own inconsistencies.

To avoid conflict, in secular France there should be a DRESS CODE for people wanting to go on the beach.. normal western beachwear.

The beach is no place for Arabs or Druids to make provocative religious or political statements. It should be a safe place for secular western civilization.

 

[Puspawarna]

Question 1: Do the birds in their beach burqas have a right to feel uncomfortable and object to your behavior or not.?

Er...no, the women in burqas have no right to object to the Druids (assuming that the latter are following whatever other laws might apply about fires, littering, weaponry, etc.).

Question 2: Would you sympathize with the birds in burqas or with the Druids who were just doing what religious Druids do.?

Why would I sympathise with anyone? Everyone has chosen to go to a public beach and presumably they have all put on their big boy/girl panties and know that they might encounter people there who aren't Druids or burka-wearers. As long as they treat each other with mutual respect, I'm not seeing the problem.

I'm genuinely puzzled. What answers did you think you were going to get? I gave the obvious ones, for people who believe in tolerance. In what way have you dramatically revealed my "politically correct" "inconsistencies"?

 

[ukcouple]

Er...no, the women in burqas have no right to object to the Druids

Well at least you are consistent..

 

[Puspawarna]

Well at least you are consistent..

Yes, people with rational world views that they have given much thought to often are.

 

[ukcouple]

ok...

 

[Bad_azz]

Yes, people with rational world views that they have given much thought to often are.

If this were tennis - that was an "ace "

 

[ukcouple]

If this were tennis - that was an "ace "

Not really.
Everyone thinks that their own views are rational.. that's why they hold them.

 

[Puspawarna]

Everyone thinks that their own views are rational.. that's why they hold them.

I disagree. Not everyone believes that moral codes should have rationality as their basis. Plenty of people say things along the lines of, "I can't explain this in rational terms, but it is the Word of God and therefore correct. [Insert religious book here] tells me so."

For people who approach morality that way, rationality is nothing but a possible by-product of their views, not an ideal to uphold.

 

[ukcouple]

I disagree. Not everyone believes that moral codes should have rationality as their basis. Plenty of people say things along the lines of, "I can't explain this in rational terms, but it is the Word of God and therefore correct. [Insert religious book here] tells me so."

Not everyone of course..

But for Muslims the Koran is the absolute word of God as handed down to the Profit Mohammad. The Koran is the basis of their moral code and the rational for it.

Christianity is different. People interpret the Bible in many different ways.
Their are even priests that don't believe in the resurrection, Christmas or even God.

 

[fastpitch17]

Not everyone of course..

But for Muslims the Koran is the absolute word of God as handed down to the Profit Mohammad. The Koran is the basis of their moral code and the rational for it.

Christianity is different. People interpret the Bible in many different ways.
Their are even priests that don't believe in the resurrection, Christmas or even God.

Such heresy is unheard of in Islam. Such issues could not even be discussed.

People interpret the Qur'an differently all over the place. From simple things from one Iman to another to the more serious ones. If they didn't then you are saying that ISIS, The Telaban, and all Muslims are the same and follow the same thing. Ah, I don't think so.

 

[ukcouple]

People interpret the Qur'an differently all over the place. From simple things from one Iman to another to the more serious ones. If they didn't then you are saying that ISIS, The Telaban, and all Muslims are the same and follow the same thing. Ah, I don't think so.

For Muslims the Koran is the absolute word of God as handed down to the Profit Mohammad.

I don't you will ever find an Imam that disagreed with that.

There are other differences of course but the foundation of their belief is the same.

There are plenty of Christians who challenge the basis of Christianity though. The Archbishop of Canterbury for one.

 

[fastpitch17]

For Muslims the Koran is the absolute word of God as handed down to the Profit Mohammad.

I don't you will ever find an Imam that disagreed with that.

There are other differences of course but the foundation of their belief is the same.

There are plenty of Christians who challenge the basis of Christianity though. The Archbishop of Canterbury for one.

So, Muslims have a more complete brainwashing? I guess so.

 

[Puspawarna]

Not everyone of course..

But for Muslims the Koran is the absolute word of God as handed down to the Profit Mohammad. The Koran is the basis of their moral code and the rational for it..

You are confusing the words "rational" and "rationale." One's rationale [basis] for a moral code can be the Koran, at the same time one says something like "I can't explain this in rational [logical] terms, but it is the Word of God and therefore correct. The Koran tells me so."

I'm not accusing Muslims of being irrational, I'm just saying that claiming the Word of God as the basis for one's beliefs isn't the same as the reasoning that goes into, for example, a secular humanist view. The latter cares about rationality; the former may think rationality is a perfectly nice thing, but if something said by God appears irrational, God wins.

 

[ukcouple]

You are confusing the words "rational" and "rationale."

no confusion actually. a spelling mistake.

thanks for pointing it out..