Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not saying this is the only aspect of the debate but if the future looks like all or even most of our women in niqabs or burkas then it looks a hell of a lot like the (not-so-glorious nor enlightened) past to me.
I wouldn't worry too much about the religious beliefs of others "taking over". The world is moving forward, not backward, despite the continued agitations and attempts by religious groups to maintain control and influence. The only way they can survive is to modernize, continuously softening their views and interpretations to fit the reality of the world we live in. This reduces their credibility, adds divisiveness to the followers, and begins their eventual decline into obscurity and historical footnotes.
Western society will never allow a regression to theocratic rule, the pressures of progress and secularization are too powerful. Ignorance is not as easy to attain as it was even a decade ago, and for religion to thrive, it requires both ignorance and complete control of information and knowledge.
I wouldn't worry too much about the religious beliefs of others "taking over". The world is moving forward, not backward, despite the continued agitations and attempts by religious groups to maintain control and influence. The only way they can survive is to modernize, continuously softening their views and interpretations to fit the reality of the world we live in. This reduces their credibility, adds divisiveness to the followers, and begins their eventual decline into obscurity and historical footnotes.
Western society will never allow a regression to theocratic rule, the pressures of progress and secularization are too powerful. Ignorance is not as easy to attain as it was even a decade ago, and for religion to thrive, it requires both ignorance and complete control of information and knowledge.
I generally agree but that doesn't mean we should be blind to what objectionable behaviours may occur under the guise of religious freedom or even cultural traditions.
Botticelli said " I am in favour of issues such as gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, abortion, and I am against gun ownership or any war the western countries start against any middle eastern countries, but I won't call myself a liberal as this doesn't carry any positive meanings for me."
A rose by any other name. Botty, this is a side we haven't seen before. You've earned one little respect point
I wouldn't worry too much about the religious beliefs of others "taking over". The world is moving forward, not backward, despite the continued agitations and attempts by religious groups to maintain control and influence.
Religious beliefs don't have to "take over" .... even small number of extremist elements in a religious group can cause tremendous damage.
Just look at the incident that was the largest mass murder in Canadian history - the bombing of Air India Flight 182 operating on the Montreal–London–Delhi route that killed 329 people, including 268 Canadians. Extremist religious elements did not have to take over Canada to wreak such havoc .... this was simply a case of a minority religious group in Canada that was given too much freedom to spread its vicious agenda.
And how do you account for the home grown terror groups sprouting across Europe? These "extreme" religious and violent beliefs might not be taking over the streets of London but are definitely terrorizing the people of London via events such as 26/11 bombings and public beheadings.
What's even more interesting is the amazing contradiction of having our most liberal thinkers constantly fighting for the freedom of people living in our societies to impose the most extremely illiberal practices within their communities, often through not-so-nice coercion or even dare I say violence.
And I say all of this as a liberal myself BTW.
You and some others have repeatedly made this point. We have yet to hear a response from the other side.
Yup. But I also happen to think that we should not blindly accept sexism and the oppression of women in the name of religious freedoms.
We should also not blindly believe that every woman wearing a headscarf is doing it against her wishes and is oppressed, the few women i know who wear muslim headgear do it with pleasure as a symbol of their faith, it also doesnt explain the governments need to ban Kippa;s and turbans are we to believe these men are oppressed as well.
Just look at the incident that was the largest mass murder in Canadian history - the bombing of Air India Flight 182 operating on the Montreal–London–Delhi route that killed 329 people, including 268 Canadians. Extremist religious elements did not have to take over Canada to wreak such havoc .... this was simply a case of a minority religious group in Canada that was given too much freedom to spread its vicious agenda.
That was a political act of terror, not religious fanaticism. And the bottom line is that the bombing was a colossal failure on the part of law enforcement and "intelligence". It could easily have been prevented but for their major incompetence. The bombing was not the result of spreading an agenda, it was an act perpetrated by a small group of thugs who wanted to make a political point. The only freedom they had was the ability to go about their business while those who were charged with protecting us twiddled their thumbs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman249
And how do you account for the home grown terror groups sprouting across Europe? These "extreme" religious and violent beliefs might not be taking over the streets of London but are definitely terrorizing the people of London via events such as 26/11 bombings and public beheadings.
I don't hold the billions of Muslims around the world responsible for the acts of a few extremists. The solution is not to generalize and punish those who are not extremist. The solution is to continue with improving education, access to information, and living standards in areas where extremists are easily turned, which in turn exerts upward societal pressures towards change. This does not happen overnight, but it will.
In my ideal world, there would be no religion at all. But even if you remove religion from the equation, there will always be those who use violence and terror to accomplish their goals. Terrorism doesn't just apply to street-level thugs with bombs and knives; it is used by ALL governments and nations, it's just sanitized and spun to be more palatable when WE do it.
What is the difference between an extremist hacking a soldier on the streets in London and that guy who just (randomly) stabbed an off-duty firefighter to death recently in Toronto? Crazy is crazy. The world will always be a volatile and violent place, religious extremism or no.
If someone in this country is proven to have extremist ties or is obviously slipping down that rabbit hole, by all means lets deal with them appropriately. But it's not fair or Canadian to smear an entire population with the same brush. Nothing good has ever come from that (Japanese internment during WWII, anyone?) and we have to learn from our mistakes.
That was a political act of terror, not religious fanaticism. And the bottom line is that the bombing was a colossal failure on the part of law enforcement and "intelligence". It could easily have been prevented but for their major incompetence. The bombing was not the result of spreading an agenda, it was an act perpetrated by a small group of thugs who wanted to make a political point. The only freedom they had was the ability to go about their business while those who were charged with protecting us twiddled their thumbs.
I do not want to veer off topic but much of the motivation for this attack was religious. In fact, the report by Supreme Court Justice John Major clearly stated the failure of the RCMP and CSIS in investigating the religious groups (Sikh extremists) that were operating out of Sikh Temples in Canada.
Even if we were to assume that they were only a "small group of thugs" - they did manage to terrorize an entire country. I brought this example to light only to negate the point you made earlier about religious extremism never being able to "take over" the West.
Quote:
I don't hold the billions of Muslims around the world responsible for the acts of a few extremists. The solution is not to generalize and punish those who are not extremist. The solution is to continue with improving education, access to information, and living standards in areas where extremists are easily turned, which in turn exerts upward societal pressures towards change. This does not happen overnight, but it will.
I am not holding the billions of Muslims accountable. I am simply stating that even a few religious extremists can terrorize an entire nation or people. Religious extremism need not take over the world to wreak havoc - even in small doses it can paralyze nations.
Quote:
What is the difference between an extremist hacking a soldier on the streets in London and that guy who just (randomly) stabbed an off-duty firefighter to death recently in Toronto? Crazy is crazy. The world will always be a volatile and violent place, religious extremism or no.
This is a Straw Man Argument. There are different levels of crazy - one could commit a crime because their holy book says so; or one could commit a crime because they overdosed on alcohol; or one could commit a crime because they are mentally unstable. You might not see a difference, but Canadian law treats all these differently.
We should also not blindly believe that every woman wearing a headscarf is doing it against her wishes and is oppressed, the few women i know who wear muslim headgear do it with pleasure as a symbol of their faith, it also doesnt explain the governments need to ban Kippa;s and turbans are we to believe these men are oppressed as well.
Jambo. Let's assume that 100% of women wearing the burqa/kippa are doing it with pleasure and as a symbol of their faith (no coercion). Given this scenario, are you okay with women in burqa/kippa(s) teaching children in schools and serving as police officers? If the answer is YES ... then using the same logic and the idea of "freedom of religion", one should be allowed to wear pretty much anything mandated by his or her religion?
Say religion X mandates all followers to tattoo their faces. And followers do it willingly.
Say religion Y mandates all followers to wear only bikinis (men and women). Followers do it willingly.
So using your same logic: "freedom of religion" and "Govt should stay out ......" - people from X and Y religions should be allowed to practice their religion freely? And by default, should be allowed to teach in schools and serve in the police force?
I apologize if my question sounds a little strange to you. But there are many religions in the world that ask followers to do bizarre things - Scientology, Australian and African tribal religions, etc. I just want to know if you would afford the same rights to an Australian Aboriginal that you would to a woman wearing a kippa or burqa?
One-third of Quebecers want PQ’s ban on religious garb extended as support for Liberals increases: poll
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
