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.
The Confederate flag is in almost no circumstances ever raised. What is commonly referred to as the Confederate Flag is actually the Army of Northern Virginia battle flag. This flag was often flown by the Confederate Army during the Civil War, but it was not a flag made to specifically represent the Confederacy.
The Confederacy, of course, was a group of states that left the union because there was a threat of losing slavery. Some say it was over states rights. This may be true from a certain point of view, but there was one state right in particularly that they were not up to losing, for economic reasons. At the time, this issue wasn't really about racism. It's not that they weren't racist; they were. But racism was not in any way exclusive to the South or the confederacy. Lincoln himself agreed that black people were objectively inferior to their white counter parts. Lincoln, however, still maintained that slavery is wrong. The flag in question represented a rebel army who's existence was to defend the institution of slavery.
It wasn't about race. Until groups like the KKK started waving the flag. They themselves identified the flag as a symbol of white superiority. Now, the guy, who's assured us his penis is huge, in his diesel truck with a confederate flag waving in the back says it's an issue of states rights. He also often identified as pro-America. There is irony in this; how can their not be?
I'll cut to the chase: most defenders of the Confederate Flag likely had no idea that the flag printed on their $5 t-shirt they got at Walmart is not actually the flag of Confederate America, nor do they probably notice the shirt was made in China. They are often ignorant, and don't understand why I think it's funny that they think that they think they're super patriotic.
The hijab is an article of clothing often promoted in Muslim countries. The justification for this generally comes from the Koran. While no explicit instruction on what is to be worn is necessarily given, the idea of it comes from passages on modesty as well as the role of the wife/women. Modesty for women is encouraged in nearly all Abrahamic religions and is enforced in various ways. Case and point, not to long ago, it was considered scandals for a woman not wear a hat to church. Enforcement for these modesty requirements varies from place to place. In some places, it's not enforced or barely enforced. In some more conservative Muslim countries, they may be punished legally, sometimes even with death.
The countries who's punishment is greater generally expect more than just the hijab. In Saudi Arabia, the niqab is a common sight. In Afghanistan, the burqa is quite common. In Turkey, the hijab is reasonably common, however there is no enforcement and they are culturally more secular so many women go without headwear all together, and despite possibly facing some verbal harassment from older members of society (which happens pretty much everywhere; old people can be *******s... or super nice; I've yet to see much in between), no one really cares.
Even so, many women in the societies that don't demand it of them, still choose to do so. This is as it should be. There should not be laws on what can and cannot be worn. That said, I do not think advertisements glamorizing the hijab as being fun or trendy should be encouraged either. What one chooses to wear is an individual choice. If they're young enough for this to apply, their parents can make the final call (for better or worse). But I do not think there should be laws or intentional societal pushes for wearing certain things. Unintentional societal pushes are unavoidable. That's the nature of culture. But TV advertisements like this are not good, in the same way that billboards claiming that abstinence only education is better are not good.
"The flag in question represented a rebel army who's existence was to defend the institution of slavery."
As usual you CLAIM to know what others think and why they did things.
And, as usual, you are wrong.
Many in the South believed, and still do today, that if you "join" any kind of federation, group, organization, etc., you have the RIGHT to "quit" that same group, organization etc.
"nor do they probably notice the shirt was made in China."
If the nun's habit became compulsory in this world for Catholic women (outside of the clergy or whatever they are called... I wouldn't know, I left Catechism after one year as a kid on my own request. Guess even back then I could see through the nonsense).... then yes, I would have the same argument.
But, as far as I know, Catholic women aren't required to wear anything on their head. Only nuns. And if they WERE required, you can be damned sure every feminist from here to Berlin would be protesting outside the churches.
Again, everyone here talking about BANNING the hijab are SEVERELY missing the point in your attempts to value-signal (if that's even possible when defending hijab):
We should DISCOURAGE the practice. We shouldn't CELEBRATE it. We shouldn't ACCOMMODATE it. We shouldn't NORMALIZE it.
It is an abhorrent cultural practice. Like child-marriage and other "assorted deplorables."
The Nuns habit doesn't represent a political threat as the Wahabiest inspired Niqab and Burqa does. If Muslim countries recognize the wearing of these ridiculus costumes as a threat we should pay attention.
Mmmhmmm, and the regressive left in the United States would rightly be on the forefront of condemning the practice.
But, toss in a *mysterious and exotic* religion and cultural practice, add a dash of "-phobia-phobia"... et voila!
Stone Age Chic!
I'm just waiting for Brooklyn hipsters to start wearing niqab. Maybe then it will finally be "uncool"!
So you're suggesting that countless millions of women (actually thousands in this country as we don't have legal jurisdiction in other Muslim countries) should be forced not to wear a certain piece of clothing against their will?
Yeah...that's the freedom-loving America I know.
And you can still fly the Confederate flag on private property like any other flag. The only prohibition that I am aware of is the prohibition on raising it on public property.
[put it on your car a la Dukes of Hazzard]
That's not what I'm suggesting. Please read again.
By the way --- at a certain point, when your "love of freedom" literally and existentially threatens a sustainably free society --- you're going to have to drop the empty schtick.
In Germany and other places now women and girls (Germans, not the newcomers) are being told to "cover up" and modify THEIR behavior so as not to offend. Menus are being restricted in public schools.
"Freedom loving" doesn't mean you embrace ideas, cultures and values which are anti-freedom... These are choices we never really had to make in the past, because the arc of progress was slow, but it was there. Now there are forces bending it backwards and you offer nothing but platitudes.
My solution is to put pressure on newcomers to abandon these concepts of "covering women up." Even the ones who do it by "choice" (LOL)
The hijab is oppressive because it puts the burden of not committing sin on the woman.
They aren't oppressive because they wear the hijab, they force them to wear the hijab precisely because they're oppressive to begin with. The argument that an inanimate object compels the wielder to a certain action is the same fallacy gun grabbers use when they imply that holding a gun makes you murder people. In both cases, the gun and the hijab, those wanting to ban or suppress it are wrong.
These people would be the same way no matter what kind of clothing they forced women to wear, and I get the feeling that hijab-grabbers such as certain politicians in France who last month were sending goons to forcibly strip women's clothing off beyond the point the women find modest on the beach (which is literally enforcing rape culture at bayonet-point) wouldn't know an open society if it walked right up and bit them. This applies to most of the other wannabe crusaders, especially in Europe - it truly seems to me that they cannot understand the concept of a free and open society. It is not about exchanging one set of prejudices and coercions for another set that's "more modern", it's about refraining from any set of coercions and prejudiced actions.
Americans seem to understand the concept better than Europeans (or at least their elites do), and lo and behold: America has very little in the way of problems centered around Muslim clothing. It is pretty much a non-issue in the United States, even in the areas that have similar Muslim populations to much of western Europe. That's the power of consistently leaving each other alone for a very long time - people, even those of different backgrounds, can actually get along with each other or at least be consistently peaceable.
The lesson from all this - practicing live and let live, at least in generous doses, makes for a more harmonious country. We should bear that in mind the next time someone wants to dictate how modestly women can dress or what flags should be socially acceptable for people to fly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
By the way --- at a certain point, when your "love of freedom" literally and existentially threatens a sustainably free society --- you're going to have to drop the empty schtick.
In Germany and other places now women and girls (Germans, not the newcomers) are being told to "cover up" and modify THEIR behavior so as not to offend. Menus are being restricted in public schools.
The solution, in these cases, is to, you know, practice freedom - you can cover up all you want, but I can serve whatever food I want or conduct myself how I choose out on the streets, and our right to do so is protected by law. As a general rule we have the right to practice our chosen lifestyles, bound only by others' equal right to do the same for themselves. German girls shouldn't have to modify their behavior in terror or stigma just so Muslims aren't offended - I agree with that totally. I'd also extend the same principle to Muslim girls not having to modify their behavior in terror or stigma just so Germans aren't offended.
Quote:
"Freedom loving" doesn't mean you embrace ideas, cultures and values which are anti-freedom... These are choices we never really had to make in the past, because the arc of progress was slow, but it was there. Now there are forces bending it backwards and you offer nothing but platitudes.
My solution is to put pressure on newcomers to abandon these concepts of "covering women up." Even the ones who do it by "choice" (LOL)
So you only like the concept of freedom only to the extent people are free to do what you'd like them to do - which is actually the opposite of freedom and is a "Social Justice Warrior"'s view of freedom and tolerance, a perversion of the original concept and a hideous imposition of political correctness. Your side of the political spectrum would be much better served by refusing to entertain that view; reversing the roles such that your group bans what offends you is not defeating political correctness or social justice warrior viewpoints. You should not be under any obligation to participate in any lifestyle you disapprove of; it's only fair that you acknowledge other people have an equal right to do the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LS Jaun
You bring up Turkey. You know that Turkey banned all Hijabs, Burkhas, and Niqabs in Government schools and Buildings. They acknowledged it was a threat to modern secular society. Morroco and others have bans on them, and even Egypt prohbits the Niqab and full covering Burkahs in public roles acknowledging the political threat it represents. If even Muslim countries acknowledge the Niqab and full Burkahs as a Wahibiest inspired political threat we should pay attention considering they are the experts.
Yes, and that's helped Turkey avoid Islamism over and above what we'd expect based on their belief system alone - oh, that's right, they have a big issue with political Islam. The reason Turkey has come out as well as it has is because of Ataturk and company's secular belief system which is adhered to by most Turks; merely whether the hijab is accepted or not has nothing to do with it, seeing as clothing choices don't dictate one's religion or political beliefs. As I said earlier the entire concept is ludicrous. If Islam actually was such a serious problem that one must forcibly prevent further Islamic influence on a country, wouldn't a better approach be to attack the root of that problem and prohibit further immigration from Muslim countries? You could even spice it up by offering payment to current immigrants if they go back to their old country and never return. These are all ways to keep the Muslim population in check while still having an open society within your borders; hardly a solution I subscribe to but it's not nearly as bad as hijab bans and the like, and if your objective is to keep a lid on Islam it would be more effective to boot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
To some the Confederate flag is a symbol of hate, but to many others it is a part of their heritage and it certainly is a part of what made America today. To imply that the shooter in Charleston, S.C., was a nut because he also had the Confederate flag is ludicrous. He is a disturbed person, flag or not. The flag didn't make him that way. I have couple of friends who displayed that flag in battle field, to them, it represents southern warrior spirit NO more NO Less.
Prohibition of the burka and the niqab would not liberate oppressed women, but might instead lead to their further alienation in European societies. A general ban on such attire would be an ill-advised invasion of individual privacy. I think religious clothing should be an individual choice.
Confederate flag, jihab, well, I don't have an opinion on either one. I think people should be allowed to fly their flag, Muslim women should have the freedom to wear their religious clothing. Doesn't bother me
Banning effects of a certain culture and belief system will not address the underlying causes that impelled them to choose (or force) such effects in the first place, but it will necessarily further isolate and alienate their culture from mainstream or native society and culture. Exposure to the native culture and its salutary assimilatory effects becomes much less, which means integration to the native culture proceeds much more slowly. Worse yet, it also makes the terrorists' case that the native culture is waging a war on Islam and all the goodness thereof and thus Muslims must strike back with terrorism much more convincing, since in such a case there is sort of a war on Islam. This makes terrorist contingents larger, creating higher death tolls from terrorist Jihad (over and above the admittedly minimal existing figures, but still...).
Last edited by Patricius Maximus; 09-17-2016 at 06:37 PM..
if you can ban one, then you can ban the other. That's part of the reason that the United States is extremely reluctant to allow the banning of any symbol, even one as repugnant as the swastika. (There's also the fact that the swastika isn't just a symbol of Nazism.)
Banning the swastika WOULD be all but banning Hindus since that symbol's to their religion what the cross is to Christians. Too; swastika is also an American Indian thing for many tribes, even before 1492.
Time to start making the argument that things like the hijab, burka, niqab, etc. are the same as flying a confederate flag in today's America: Socially unacceptable and a symbol of supremacist ideology.
It's your RIGHT to wear any nonsense on your head in proclamation of your faith, just as it's your RIGHT to fly the confederate flag.
But, if you fly the flag, the connotation is that you're racist and backwards, regardless of your protestations to the contrary or appeal to your history and culture.
Same with hijab and Burka (which as the video link above shows, is being normalized and encouraged now across Europe... even for non-Muslim girls to "try it out, it's fun!)
The hijab is a symbol of oppression and misogyny. Countless millions of women are forced to wear that clothing against their will. They are subject to violence and even death if they do not comply. Therefore, regardless of what Muslim women say *their* personal reasons for wearing it, the history of hijab is too fraught and problematic to be considered anything else other than a symbol of oppression and of a supremacist religious ideology.
Flip the script, and stop the sharia creep in the Western world.
The hijab and the rest of that garb has no place in this country. The confederate flag, at least a part of U.S. history, has nothing to do with it.
What about a nun's habit or the head covering and black dresses of the Amish women in America? What about the robes that priests wear? Do you want to ban all religious dress? Sorry, the constitution is going to get in the way of doing it for any religion including the Muslims.
What other religion hides their faces? Priests? Amish? Nuns? Your argument is Lame.
I still have my Confederate Flag. Only hooky Liberals think of it as a "Hate" symbol, so who gives a crap what they think, except for the folks who kiss the butts of anyone they think may cost them a dollar.
What other religion hides their faces? Priests? Amish? Nuns? Your argument is Lame.
I still have my Confederate Flag. Only hooky Liberals think of it as a "Hate" symbol, so who gives a crap what they think, except for the folks who kiss the butts of anyone they think may cost them a dollar.
The topic is the hijab. It doesn't hide anyone's face.
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.
