[gadster]

Originally posted by vmarks:
He's not a strange fish, he's the closest thing America has to a facist.

He's also never been a Democrat Party presdential candidate- he's always run on his own party. Sorta hard for them to kick him out when he's already out. As for kicking him out of their conventions, that's a good question; they had the means to kick out Ralph Nader, why did they not expel LaRouche? And, if they expelled him what were they to do with his supporters?

One possible answer is, they don't want to be known as the exclusionist party, kicking everyone out who disagrees, another is, they didn't perceive LaRouche as the threat he is, only focused on Nader as the vote-opposition threat. A third possibility is that they don't want to lend any credibility or recognition to LaRouche as a threat by acknowledging him at their convention, even if only to expel him.

I don't get the connection between Larouche and Nader. Larouche is clearly verging on insanity, or is it senility? Nader is nowhere near so dim. And Larouche is a strange fish. I think he was once brilliant, but has since gone soft in the head.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Increasing intolerance? I think not ms kitten.

A) Intolerance indicates that we 'tolerate' each other. We live and accept each other, we don't need to tolerate each other. However describing what you are feeling with the word intolerance implies that you'll never accept others for what they are, but you could tolerate them. That is racism.

B) Racism is not on the increase in Europe. Pick any year and compare it with today. More racism or less racism? How does 1943 compare to today? More or less? How about the 80s? More or less?

Semantics, much?!

What's the difference between living and accepting each other and tolerating each other? Surely if you accept someone you are also tolerating them. Or did you take my use of the term to mean tolerance as in 'putting up with someone' - not necessarily because you want to but because you have to?

Let me be more specific then. The French ban on headscarfs - that is intolerance. Secularism is supposed to also be about respecting the existence of other religions. This ban is the total opposite and is denying people their basic religious freedoms.
Anti-jewish attitudes, according to an EU report are on the increase in Europe. Have a look at some of the recent immigration policies being considered in Britain - absolute BS.
Anti-muslim behavior, anti-Jewish behavior, anti-immigration policy. It's the 'popular' thing right now. And now, unfortunately there are other European countries that want to follow these moves such as France's ban on religious symbolism.

[clt2]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Secularism is supposed to also be about respecting the existence of other religions.

I suggest you go look up secularism in the dictionary.

This ban is the total opposite and is denying people their basic religious freedoms.

Nonsense. You are free to wear whatever you wish on private property.

The religion I just made up requires me to be armed at all times. Can I bring guns to school in your country? If not, your country is denying me my basic religious freedoms.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by gadster:
I don't get the connection between Larouche and Nader. Larouche is clearly verging on insanity, or is it senility? Nader is nowhere near so dim. And Larouche is a strange fish. I think he was once brilliant, but has since gone soft in the head.

The connection is simply, they were both at Democrat functions at different times. Nader was forcibly removed. LaRouche and his supporters were not.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Anti-muslim behavior, anti-Jewish behavior, anti-immigration policy. It's the 'popular' thing right now. And now, unfortunately there are other European countries that want to follow these moves such as France's ban on religious symbolism.

Funny how you don't mention that the French are also banning the wearing of crosses.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Funny how you don't mention that the French are also banning the wearing of crosses.

Context! Me, me, me first! Screw everyone else!

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by clt2:
The religion I just made up requires me to be armed at all times. Can I bring guns to school in your country? If not, your country is denying me my basic religious freedoms.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Funny how you don't mention that the French are also banning the wearing of crosses.

They are banning the crosses, the Yarmulkas (sp?) and the hijab. I don't approve of banning any of them.

What's your point?

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
They are banning the crosses, the Jewish Yarmulkas (sp?) and the hijab. I don't approve of banning any of them.

What's your point?

If they're banning everything they're introducing equality. Or rather, enforcing equality 'coz the law's been there since 1911 (or 1912, I forget).

So stop moaning or I'll write a letter to my MP questioning why Halal-destined animals aren't handled in the same humane way that the rest of the animals are. Or asking why I can't carry a ceremonial dagger around all the time.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
If they're banning everything they're introducing equality. Or rather, enforcing equality 'coz the law's been there since 1911 (or 1912, I forget).

No, they are denying religious freedoms. They are also inciting anger. This will only add to the worlds problems.

Originally posted by Sherwin:
So stop moaning or I'll write a letter to my MP questioning why Halal-destined animals aren't handled in the same humane way that the rest of the animals are. Or asking why I can't carry a ceremonial dagger around all the time.

Write as many letters as you want, that's your choice and I don't give a flying fvck . I have a problem with the French ban and I shall continue to express my disagreement with it as I see fit.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
If they're banning everything they're introducing equality. Or rather, enforcing equality 'coz the law's been there since 1911 (or 1912, I forget).

So stop moaning or I'll write a letter to my MP questioning why Halal-destined animals aren't handled in the same humane way that the rest of the animals are. Or asking why I can't carry a ceremonial dagger around all the time.

no, see, here's the deal: if you are equally intolerant of all religions, that's not the same thing as equally tolerant of all religions. In the former, equal repression is not a desired outcome, as it actually foments more unrest than it seeks to avoid.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
No, they are denying religious freedoms. They are also inciting anger. This will only add to the worlds problems.

Nope. Nothing stopping you from practising your religious freedoms in a private school. If you don't like the ban in state schools, start your own private one.

Oh... And if we're going to start about religious freedoms, how many of these children have freely chosen their religion instead of having that religion because their parents have told them that they're Muslims/Christian/Sikh/etc.? Did they have the freedom to choose their religion to start with or was it hereditary?

Isn't it denying the child religious freedoms when the parent chooses the religion for the child? And at what age is the child suitably equipped to choose their own religion? Perhaps about the same time that they're adult enough to choose who they vote for? In which case they'd maybe have left school, rendering your argument invalid?

[theolein]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
If they're banning everything they're introducing equality. Or rather, enforcing equality 'coz the law's been there since 1911 (or 1912, I forget).

So stop moaning or I'll write a letter to my MP questioning why Halal-destined animals aren't handled in the same humane way that the rest of the animals are. Or asking why I can't carry a ceremonial dagger around all the time.

So do it. Your MP is likely to take you seriously, don't you think? BNP, anyone?

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by theolein:
BNP, anyone?

Umm... Try The Farm Animal Welfare Council, The British Veterinary Association, Compassion in World Farming and The Humanists Movement.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2977086.stm

Keep reading from the script Theo.

[voodoo]

Why do people insist on killing animals in a completely unnecessary way? A single cut to the throat. Why? Do they taste different?

I don't get it. Enlighten me.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Umm... Try The Farm Animal Welfare Council, The British Veterinary Association, Compassion in World Farming and The Humanists Movement.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2977086.stm

Keep reading from the script Theo.

I used to think the pommies were quick on the uptake. Seems I was wrong. And in case you still don't get it, Sherwin, I wasn't contradicting you in the previous post, but simply pointing out that there are matters that get taken seriously and matters that don't. Carrying a dagger around or having the right to walk around with your ball bag swinging freely oustide your fly are not subjects likely to get you taken seriously.

I mentioned the BNP because your anti-religious ranting (The only people I've heard ranting about Sikhs in the Uk have been the NF and the BNP) reminds for all the world of that troupe of civilised gentlemen.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Why do people insist on killing animals in a completely unnecessary way? A single cut to the throat. Why? Do they taste different?

Do they taste any different if they've had a captive bolt to the back of the head first to minimise their suffering (veterinarians' words, not mine)?

Why do certain religions require that they be slaughtered in a particular way? Do they taste any different? Or does Allah/G_d want the animals to suffer?

Anyways, the point was about equality. Why should one group be legally allowed to do something when another group can't? This is what breeds anger, not equality.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by theolein:
Carrying a dagger around or having the right to walk around with your ball bag swinging freely oustide your fly are not subjects likely to get you taken seriously.

I beg to differ. If I carry a knife, I face prison time. If a Sikh carries a knife, nothing. Equality? Nope.
Prison time is pretty serious, don't you think? Equality in a country is pretty serious too, don't you think?

Originally posted by theolein:
I mentioned the BNP because your anti-religious ranting (The only people I've heard ranting about Sikhs in the Uk have been the NF and the BNP) reminds for all the world of that troupe of civilised gentlemen.

Umm... I was using the Sikhs to illustrate a point because they're a group known to have different laws applied to them here because of their religion. I'm willing to bet that if I'd mentioned the Christians as an example you wouldn't have blinked.

If you want to take my pro-equality ranting as anti-religious ranting, feel free.
Like I said, keep reading from the script.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Why do people insist on killing animals in a completely unnecessary way? A single cut to the throat. Why? Do they taste different?

I don't get it. Enlighten me.

This one actually has a rational reason (though not divinely ordained). In the middle east it's hot and before refrigeration it was very hard to preserve meat to feed to the community if the meat was full of blood. The meat would go bas and get infected when insects would fly all over it. Therefore they thought it would be better to drain the meat of all blood. Theoretically it might have made sense back then, it was their only choice, but in reality meat goes bad and infected regardless of the blood content in those conditions if not eaten in time or kept in a clean, cool space.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Nope. Nothing stopping you from practising your religious freedoms in a private school. If you don't like the ban in state schools, start your own private one.

That's the argument that strikes me as utterly ignorant in all this. Islam to Muslims is not just seen as a religion which can be separated from other activities. Islam is a way of life. You're expecting girls to remove their hijabs when they arrive at school. That defeats the whole point.
'Start your own private school'? So you are saying that Muslims should attend a separate school. Rings of segregation to me. Brilliant - what's next? White only restrooms?

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Oh... And if we're going to start about religious freedoms, how many of these children have freely chosen their religion instead of having that religion because their parents have told them that they're Muslims/Christian/Sikh/etc.? Did they have the freedom to choose their religion to start with or was it hereditary?

Isn't it denying the child religious freedoms when the parent chooses the religion for the child? And at what age is the child suitably equipped to choose their own religion? Perhaps about the same time that they're adult enough to choose who they vote for? In which case they'd maybe have left school, rendering your argument invalid?

Children born in to religious families are brought up to follow that religion, yes. You are suggesting that a religious mother and father should not teach their child the beliefs that - particularly in Islam - they are following daily. I'm not sure how that would work practically. Kids will eventually become aware of other religions and will study them. Sometimes they may even convert. At this stage it is wrong for the family to force you against your will to follow the religion of their choice. You cannot force someone to follow a religion, they must do so of their own free will.

...

Regarding Islamic methods of slaughter. Slitting the throat of the animal is the most painless method for the animal since it dies instantly. It is also the most efficient way to drain as much blood from the animal as possible. Muslims are not supposed to consume the blood of an animal.

[Dudaev's Corpse]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
That's the argument that strikes me as utterly ignorant in all this. Islam to Muslims is not just seen as a religion which can be separated from other activities. Islam is a way of life. You're expecting girls to remove their hijabs when they arrive at school. That defeats the whole point.
'Start your own private school'? So you are saying that Muslims should attend a separate school. Rings of segregation to me. Brilliant - what's next? White only restrooms?

In effect, the Muslims want a whites-only restroom: they want to be treated as special unde the law; want an exemption to apply to them whereby they can do what they want and with contempt for the values of a democratic government and democratic society.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Dudaev's Corpse:
In effect, the Muslims want a whites-only restroom: they want to be treated as special unde the law; want an exemption to apply to them whereby they can do what they want and with contempt for the values of a democratic government and democratic society.

How so? We want equal protection from discrimination. That's all we want. We aren't requiring that other religious symbols are forbidden, we are asking that all religious symbols are tolerated as long as it is not a violation of the nations laws that we live in. Very different from what you are implying. But does it surprise me that you try to twist it? No.

[clt2]

Are people who wear t-shirts with pornographic images discriminated against in religious schools?

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Logic:
How so? We want equal protection from discrimination. That's all we want. We aren't requiring that other religious symbols are forbidden, we are asking that all religious symbols are tolerated as long as it is not a violation of the nations laws that we live in. :

Why are Muslims against the use of other religious symbols or religions in Arabia? Why wasn't exploding of the Buddhas of Bamiyan condemned by the Islamic world? Why is a western woman asked to cover her head in Arabia and to reject her own way of life when she isn't offending anyone? Is the hair of a woman so revealing that an Arab man can't control his sexual desire? If so he's a pervert and he should cover his eyes and lock himself away in prayer.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Dudaev's Corpse:
In effect, the Muslims want a whites-only restroom: they want to be treated as special unde the law; want an exemption to apply to them whereby they can do what they want and with contempt for the values of a democratic government and democratic society.

I'm confused how their style of dress in accordance with their religion is an indication of contempt or special status?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Dudaev's Corpse:
In effect, the Muslims want a whites-only restroom: they want to be treated as special unde the law; want an exemption to apply to them whereby they can do what they want and with contempt for the values of a democratic government and democratic society.

Man, you talk utter bullsh1t.

We want to be treated as 'special'? wtf?!
We want to be able to do what we want?
We have contempt for democracy?

W T F ?

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Logic:
we are asking that all religious symbols are tolerated as long as it is not a violation of the nations laws that we live in.

It would not appear so. It's French law that state and church are separate, has been for a long time. If you want to go to state school, you leave your religion at the door.

Wishing to wear symbols of your religion in a French school is a violation of the law of the land.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
We want to be treated as 'special'? wtf?!

Yep. See recent postings on Halal meat. The vets think it's wrong. Everyone else thinks it's wrong. Yet you are able to do it while the rest of the population cannot. How is that not being treated as "special"?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Yep. See recent postings on Halal meat. The vets think it's wrong. Everyone else thinks it's wrong. Yet you are able to do it while the rest of the population cannot. How is that not being treated as "special"?

Why is it whenever anyone tries to restrict the rights of others, they do it out of anger because the other group wants to be "special"? Is conformity that important? How about respect for diversity?

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
That's the argument that strikes me as utterly ignorant in all this. Islam to Muslims is not just seen as a religion which can be separated from other activities. Islam is a way of life. You're expecting girls to remove their hijabs when they arrive at school. That defeats the whole point.

I seem to remember that you posted a while back stating that the hijab was not a requirement for Muslim girls.

So which is it? An integral part of your religion which you can't be seen without or an optional extra? If it's optional, then what's your problem? Do you stop being a Muslim when you take it off?

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Slitting the throat of the animal is the most painless method for the animal since it dies instantly.

...according to Muslims. According to vets, however, it's not the most painless method.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Why is it whenever anyone tries to restrict the rights of others, they do it out of anger because the other group wants to be "special"? Is conformity that important? How about respect for diversity?

The problem arises when the "other" groups are not allowed to do the things which the "special" group is allowed to.

Conformity must obviously be somewhat important if the "special" group has to "conform" to their religion's customs in the way that some do, no?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
I seem to remember that you posted a while back stating that the hijab was not a requirement for Muslim girls.

So which is it? An integral part of your religion which you can't be seen without or an optional extra? If it's optional, then what's your problem? Do you stop being a Muslim when you take it off?

is this kind of hostile crap totally necessary? I mean, I didn't like it this sort of pointed grilling taking place against christians on this board, and I don't like it when it happens to another religion, either. If you choose to be an intolerant person, fine, but stop the third degree for no other reason except to be annoying of someone who has chosen one religion or another.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
The problem arises when the "other" groups are not allowed to do the things which the "special" group is allowed to.

Conformity must obviously be somewhat important if the "special" group has to "conform" to their religion's customs in the way that some do, no?

so....you really, really want to wear a hijab? I say, go for it, if you're that jealous.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
is this kind of hostile crap totally necessary?

You're trying to make him feel guilty to oppress important issues. The questions he raised are fairly simple, not hostile at all and are asked by many Muslim women who don't want to wear a hijab and are just as modest and wholesome without them.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
You're trying to make him feel guilty to oppress important issues. The questions he raised are fairly simple, not hostile at all and are asked by many Muslim women who don't want to wear a hijab and are just as modest and wholesome without them.

?

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
?

Ooooooh, provocative. Nice. I'm insane, rambling and babbling. It's so easy to predict the direction of internet discussions with the religious.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
is this kind of hostile crap totally necessary? I mean, I didn't like it this sort of pointed grilling taking place against christians on this board, and I don't like it when it happens to another religion, either. If you choose to be an intolerant person, fine, but stop the third degree for no other reason except to be annoying of someone who has chosen one religion or another.

No hostilities intended. However, when LBK says something about her religion I want her to back it up.

This has nothing to do with intolerance. I'd just really like to know if there's any substance beyond dogma to her statements. I'd like to know why the hijab is so important, especially when LBK has already stated that it's actually not.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
so....you really, really want to wear a hijab? I say, go for it, if you're that jealous.

No. But I'd quite like to carry a six-inch knife around with me. I can't, not without being thrown into prison. Some "special groups" can carry with no fear of imprisonment.

I want to know why "special groups" get special rules.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
I seem to remember that you posted a while back stating that the hijab was not a requirement for Muslim girls.

:sigh:

It is not. BUT if a muslim girl decides that the best way she can maintain her modesty is by wearing the hijab then she should have the freedom to do so. She might feel uncomfortable without it, particularly if she is used to wearing it.
I find it interesting to note, that it is people like you who were up in arms about the fact that women were forced to wear the hijab in Afghanistan. Yet now, you want to force muslim women in to not wearing it. The hypocrisy.

Originally posted by Sherwin:
...according to Muslims. According to vets, however, it's not the most painless method.

This is still an on going argument.

[itai195]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
:sigh:

It is not. BUT if a muslim girl decides that the best way she can maintain her modesty is by wearing the hijab then she should have the freedom to do so. She might feel uncomfortable without it, particularly if she is used to wearing it.
I find it interesting to note, that it is people like you who were up in arms about the fact that women were forced to wear the hijab in Afghanistan. Yet now, you want to force muslim women in to not wearing it. The hypocrisy.

Children, actually. I'm not sure they have the same rights.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Ooooooh, provocative. Nice. I'm insane, rambling and babbling. It's so easy to predict the direction of internet discussions with the religious.

you continue to read a great deal of false information into a single punctuation mark. I only posted a question mark to see what kind of bizarre assumption you'd jumpt to. Glad to see you don't disappoint.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
you continue to read a great deal of false information into a single punctuation mark. I only posted a question mark to see what kind of bizarre assumption you'd jumpt to. Glad to see you don't disappoint.

He'll tell you he's proved an invisible point next!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
No hostilities intended. However, when LBK says something about her religion I want her to back it up.

This has nothing to do with intolerance. I'd just really like to know if there's any substance beyond dogma to her statements. I'd like to know why the hijab is so important, especially when LBK has already stated that it's actually not.

actually, yes, IMO this is overtly hostile. You don't realize it, perhaps, because you aren't the one being grilled on your religion.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
No. But I'd quite like to carry a six-inch knife around with me. I can't, not without being thrown into prison. Some "special groups" can carry with no fear of imprisonment.

I want to know why "special groups" get special rules.

sorry, this still reads as bizarre jealousy to me, if not downright intolerance.

[swrate]

These daggers in here�.

�Why are Muslims against the use of other religious symbols or religions in Arabia? Why wasn't exploding of the Buddhas of Bamiyan condemned by the Islamic world�

It was condemned, a few voices raised, Massoud�s for example, none listened. The situation needed UNESCO and UN, in fact I was surprised no intervention instance took care of that.

The examples you give are related mostly to the Arabic Peninsula, the hijab, used also in areas occupied by nests of fundamentalists, other places in the Islamic world, a woman is free to go around how she wishes.
If it is her choice as an adult or teenager to wear a hijab, I see no reason why she couldn�t.
Indian woman wear saris and nobody whines about how �degrading� it is, etc�

I think kids should chose a religion when they are ready. It can be 14, like it can be 19 or even later. Or never.

Its OK to carry guns in some places, but to wear ritual objects is offensive!

Some respect for traditions!
Sherwin, is that a tradition in your group? write to the MP lol

Are we ALL supposed to take the uniform?


Any person affiliated to a religious group and practicing his/her faith regularly carries around sacred objects.

If abroad a few days, or away from home,
A Jew of certain branches will carry his Tefillin, a box with biblical verses inside, a Sikh has 5 items, *the dagger, carried on the belt, was originally to protect him in the forest. Not to mention Christians who wear the cross and Muslims carry their chaplet , Buddhist will use rice seeds and flower petals, and of course you can add to the list. Holy scriptures in their luggage.

Rituals are part of all religions, and attacking them is only pushing people to fall into fanatism. Are we all supposed to fit the same mould?
Code bar
Identical clone saloon
Standardized

Each time there is an �intrusion� there is a tightening of religion, a radicalisation, a retaliation, sorrow plunges a few into indoctrination, others follow, same way sect systems work. Underneath it lays lots of corruption, they don�t have the means and are totally controlled, so mafia goes with it.

Religions have generated a few wars, the invasions bring religion changes, focus around the borders: there is often confusion, syncretism, so to �resist� occupation, and defend his legacy the man will fight/die for future generations.

Even though customs, rituals, beliefs vary slightly over the planet, the scheme is the same; the strongest takes the food =�natural resources� and tries to impose his way of thinking.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
sorry, this still reads as bizarre jealousy to me, if not downright intolerance.

What basis is it for society if one group has one set of rules and another group has a different set of rules? Do you not understand that societies must be formed on the basis of equality? One set of rules for everyone.

What is it about this that you don't understand?

[lil'babykitten]

Excellent post swrate

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
What basis is it for society if one group has one set of rules and another group has a different set of rules?

um...I dunno, an enlightened society that celebrates diversity instead of enforcing conformity, maybe?

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Do you not understand that societies must be formed on the basis of equality? One set of rules for everyone.

What is it about this that you don't understand?

I understand that you are using the argument of equality to mask an intolerance. Its possible you are not consciously aware of that yourself.

Let's extend this further: what if you forcibly eliminate the bris (circumcision) ceremony for the jews, or holy communion for the catholics? How about refusing to let Buddhists practice chanting, forcing quakers to kill or forcing vegetarians to eat meat. Aren't those all ways of being "special" by your definition? What do you propose, force everyone to be atheist? That didn't work well, even for communism. People still practiced their religion in spite of that oppression.

[clt2]

Originally posted by swrate:
Its OK to carry guns in some places, but to wear ritual objects is offensive!

Where?

[clt2]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Let's extend this further: what if you forcibly eliminate the bris (circumcision) ceremony for the jews, or holy communion for the catholics? How about refusing to let Buddhists practice chanting, forcing quakers to kill or forcing vegetarians to eat meat.

On private or public property?