Should the U.S. government tell a specific religion what they can teach?

Hamster Buddha said:

Today it is I believe. There may be some wacky Christians somewhere that believe in subjugation of women and treating them as property but I've not heard of it being done as part of religion. Regardless though, if it's being practiced, then it can't be allowed. I mean there are other religions that have to deal with sacrifices that have to work within the laws of the state so this is by no means a direct shot at Islam anyways. Islam though seems to not want to adapt as other religions had at the moment. I mean one instance we see this is with those damn burqas that I find as detestable as someone running around with a dixie flag sticker on their truck. But hell, the way they trumpet that around on TV, you'd think there wasn't horrible treatment of women in the Middle East.

Click to expand...

The Koran only requires that women (and men) "be modest" in their dress and behaviour. The Burqua is virtually unique to Afghanistan/Pashtun Pakistan. Oddly a group of Israeli women (Haredi) also wear it as a sign of purity. Your outrage is badly focused.

Hamster Buddha said:

And that is?

Click to expand...

Ideology is basically a set of principles that attempt to put some aspect of the environment that we experience into a perspective such that it can be understood. Implementation is how that ideology is practically applied to actual behavior.

Manc Skipper said:

The Koran only requires that women (and men) "be modest" in their dress and behaviour. The Burqua is virtually unique to Afghanistan/Pashtun Pakistan. Oddly a group of Israeli women (Haredi) also wear it as a sign of purity. Your outrage is badly focused.

Click to expand...

I've seen burqas in one form or another throughout the middle east so don't try this here. Now yes in that area it is more extreme, but regardless, the poor treatment of women is certainly not unique to the Pashtun region. Give me a break...

MildSteel said:

Ideology is basically a set of principles that attempt to put some aspect of the environment that we experience into a perspective such that it can be understood. Implementation is how that ideology is practically applied to actual behavior.

Click to expand...

This kind of ties into what Skipper is talking about so I include it here. I'm not arguing what the Koran does or does not say at this point. What I'm focusing on is how there is a large minority of these people in that region that have some nasty opinions that have been used by Islam. I don't think either of you would argue that the poor treatment of women throughout the Middle East isn't being done in the name of Islam, yes?

Hamster Buddha said:

I've seen burqas in one form or another throughout the middle east so don't try this here. Now yes in that area it is more extreme, but regardless, the poor treatment of women is certainly not unique to the Pashtun region. Give me a break...



This kind of ties into what Skipper is talking about so I include it here. I'm not arguing what the Koran does or does not say at this point. What I'm focusing on is how there is a large minority of these people in that region that have some nasty opinions that have been used by Islam. I don't think either of you would argue that the poor treatment of women throughout the Middle East isn't being done in the name of Islam, yes?

Click to expand...

All your responses include a shift of the goalposts, with a tad of arguing things I never said. Bye.

Manc Skipper said:

All your responses include a shift of the goalposts, with a tad of arguing things I never said. Bye.

Click to expand...

I'd be happy to hear you explain, but if you choose not to, I of course don't hold it against you and wish you good day.

Hamster Buddha said:

This kind of ties into what Skipper is talking about so I include it here. I'm not arguing what the Koran does or does not say at this point. What I'm focusing on is how there is a large minority of these people in that region that have some nasty opinions that have been used by Islam. I don't think either of you would argue that the poor treatment of women throughout the Middle East isn't being done in the name of Islam, yes?

Click to expand...

So are you saying that as a result of things that are being done in the name of Islam, that the U.S. government should have a policy that attacks Islam on ideological grounds?

MildSteel said:

So are you saying that as a result of things that are being done in the name of Islam, that the U.S. government should have a policy that attacks Islam on ideological grounds?

Click to expand...

I do, because it's moved from merely an existential argument over the nuances and interpretations of texts to being a real and present threat to the West. And we know that movement has widespread support in the ME, otherwise they wouldn't keep electing the radicals and terrorist when they are given the chance to vote.

Hamster Buddha said:

I do, because it's moved from merely an existential argument over the nuances and interpretations of texts to being a real and present threat to the West. And we know that movement has widespread support in the ME, otherwise they wouldn't keep electing the radicals and terrorist when they are given the chance to vote.

Click to expand...

Don't forget, Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi nor Assad gave any quarters to these pigs.

Montecresto said:

Don't forget, Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi nor Assad gave any quarters to these pigs.

Click to expand...

If Gaddafi was still in power, we wouldn't have of had Benghazi to be sure, and we certainly wouldn't now have that country where there's effectively no government. And not saying this is you Monte, but he's a perfect example of why all this involvement in the Middle East isn't just about Oil, because Gaddafi had actually started to work with Western Oil companies like BP.

Hamster Buddha said:

If Gaddafi was still in power, we wouldn't have of had Benghazi to be sure, and we certainly wouldn't now have that country where there's effectively no government. And not saying this is you Monte, but he's a perfect example of why all this involvement in the Middle East isn't just about Oil, because Gaddafi had actually started to work with Western Oil companies like BP.

Click to expand...

That we would agree on, oil is a factor in the ME, undeniable, but if Libya was about oil, it sure back fired, because Libya produced 1.3 million BPD before our military intervention and last I checked, it was at 300,000!!!!!!!!

Hamster Buddha said:

I do, because it's moved from merely an existential argument over the nuances and interpretations of texts to being a real and present threat to the West. And we know that movement has widespread support in the ME, otherwise they wouldn't keep electing the radicals and terrorist when they are given the chance to vote.

Click to expand...

I disagree with you in the strongest terms. To see the type of problems that can occur with this one need only consider that it puts the U.S. government in the position of interpreting religious text. Then we can end up with official government interpretation of religious texts. Also consider Christianity. The Bible says that there will be a war in which the non believers will be destroyed. That is part of modern Christian ideology. Based on this, people could claim to be Jesus come again to engage in this war and could start to wage war against the general population and the government. Would the government then step in and demand that this ideological aspect be purged from Christian ideology? Also consider Judaism and the ideology that what constitutes Palestine is meant for the Jews. This ideology is the source of quite a bit of tension in the Middle East and poses quite a few problems for U.S. foreign policy. Should the U.S. therefore demand that Zionism be purged from Jewish ideology? Of course not. But that is the type of road we would be going down if all of a sudden we started to attack religions based on ideology. Indeed freedom of religion would become an empty concept.

Religion has NO place in the world, and it will be eradicated!!!!!!

MildSteel said:

I disagree with you in the strongest terms. To see the type of problems that can occur with this one need only consider that it puts the U.S. government in the position of interpreting religious text. Then we can end up with official government interpretation of religious texts. Also consider Christianity. The Bible says that there will be a war in which the non believers will be destroyed. That is part of modern Christian ideology. Based on this, people could claim to be Jesus come again to engage in this war and could start to wage war against the general population and the government. Would the government then step in and demand that this ideological aspect be purged from Christian ideology? Also consider Judaism and the ideology that what constitutes Palestine is meant for the Jews. This ideology is the source of quite a bit of tension in the Middle East and poses quite a few problems for U.S. foreign policy. Should the U.S. therefore demand that Zionism be purged from Jewish ideology? Of course not. But that is the type of road we would be going down if all of a sudden we started to attack religions based on ideology. Indeed freedom of religion would become an empty concept.

Click to expand...

First off, I'm just going to assume that your not Christian, nor have you ever stepped foot in a church, because I don't know what hokey place you going to where "modern Christian ideology" dictates non believers will be destroyed. I mean, there are Christians all over the world in places like China and Saudi Arabia that are hostile to the religion, but unlike Islam, they aren't going around blowing stuff up and killing innocent people. And the line about Jesus coming to war is ... you don't know the story of Jesus Christ apparently. Because if you did, you'd know that he had an out as the Son of God to no go through with his execution but he chose to go through with it. And when John cut off one of the soldiers ears in defense of the man he followed, Jesus stopped him and healed the soldier. In the future, it's best you don't talk about Christianity again if you're going to spout that kind of nonsense and make blanket statements. And as far as Judaism is concerned, they aren't a threat to us and thus there is no reason that they should be looked at. If they, as many who follow Islam do, support attacks against us or our allies, that's when there is going to be issues.

But let's talk in applications terms then. I mean, despite the fact the KKK adorned themselves with the trappings of Christianity, it's not like the Government allowed that to be an excuse to not go in and clean house against that organization (who at that time would of been classified as a terrorist organization. Same with these cults you see pop up on occasion that the government goes in and busts up for creating sex slaves. Bottom line, no one can use religion as a cover to commit acts of terror or otherwise illegal behavior.

Montecresto said:

Religion has NO place in the world, and it will be eradicated!!!!!!

Click to expand...

Religion does have a place in this world, there's a lot of good that people do who are religious. It's not a coincidence that the most charitable state in the US is also one of the most religious (Utah). But even beyond that, history is long enough now that we've seen a few examples of countries that have outlawed religion and it wasn't exactly like those were the peaceful utopias that you might expect (Soviet Union or China for example).

Hamster Buddha said:

First off, I'm just going to assume that your not Christian, nor have you ever stepped foot in a church, because I don't know what hokey place you going to where "modern Christian ideology" dictates non believers will be destroyed. I mean, there are Christians all over the world in places like China and Saudi Arabia that are hostile to the religion, but unlike Islam, they aren't going around blowing stuff up and killing innocent people. And the line about Jesus coming to war is ... you don't know the story of Jesus Christ apparently. Because if you did, you'd know that he had an out as the Son of God to no go through with his execution but he chose to go through with it. And when John cut off one of the soldiers ears in defense of the man he followed, Jesus stopped him and healed the soldier. In the future, it's best you don't talk about Christianity again if you're going to spout that kind of nonsense and make blanket statements. And as far as Judaism is concerned, they aren't a threat to us and thus there is no reason that they should be looked at. If they, as many who follow Islam do, support attacks against us or our allies, that's when there is going to be issues.

But let's talk in applications terms then. I mean, despite the fact the KKK adorned themselves with the trappings of Christianity, it's not like the Government allowed that to be an excuse to not go in and clean house against that organization (who at that time would of been classified as a terrorist organization. Same with these cults you see pop up on occasion that the government goes in and busts up for creating sex slaves. Bottom line, no one can use religion as a cover to commit acts of terror or otherwise illegal behavior.

Click to expand...

The government has already assumed too much power in the name of fighting terrorism. We don't need to give it the power to tell people what they can believe.

MildSteel said:

The government has already assumed too much power in the name of fighting terrorism. We don't need to give it the power to tell people what they can believe.

Click to expand...

You misunderstand what I'm saying; I'm not advocating that Obama should create a special advisory position, a "Islam Czar" if you will, to dictate what Islam should and shouldn't believe or how it should it implement said beliefs. However, that doesn't mean our government shouldn't be willing to call out the flaws that bring Islam in clash with western society, for instance the treatment of women and what wearing a Hiqab represents. The FBI and DEA doesn't have any problem going after inconsequential Christian sects for their whack job beliefs and poor treatment of women, I don't see why the White House couldn't just condemn Islam for the same thing, and make that condemnation loud and clear.

Hamster Buddha said:

You misunderstand what I'm saying; I'm not advocating that Obama should create a special advisory position, a "Islam Czar" if you will, to dictate what Islam should and shouldn't believe or how it should it implement said beliefs. However, that doesn't mean our government shouldn't be willing to call out the flaws that bring Islam in clash with western society, for instance the treatment of women and what wearing a Hiqab represents. The FBI and DEA doesn't have any problem going after inconsequential Christian sects for their whack job beliefs and poor treatment of women, I don't see why the White House couldn't just condemn Islam for the same thing, and make that condemnation loud and clear.

Click to expand...

Your example of Muslim women wearing the Hijab represents the inherent flaws in this type of thinking. What you have donein that instance is imposed your view of what the Hijab represents. That is your belief and there are many Muslim women who do not agree with your view. That's just the type of stuff I am talking about. The government telling people what they should believe. Sorry. The government does not need that type of power.

God bless our troops! Now, off to fight another pagan religion.

MildSteel said:

Your example of Muslim women wearing the Hijab represents the inherent flaws in this type of thinking. What you have donein that instance is imposed your view of what the Hijab represents. That is your belief and their are many Muslim women who do not agree with your view. That's just the type of stuff I am talking about. The government telling people what they should believe. Sorry. The government does not need that type of power.

Click to expand...

You know what the Hijab is? It's the Dixie flag of religion, specifically Islam in this case. You see there is also a lot of people, especially in the South, that would argue up and down that the Dixie flag somehow represents freedom, independence or some other BS. The same flag mind you that was carried into battle by men that were willing (and some who did) to die to protect slavery. And you know what the funny this? There's a lot of people that believe that kind of crap, and can in one moment talk about blacks deserving equal rights while they have a sticker of that flag on the bumper of their truck.

It's no different than the Hijab. Oh I'm sure there are many women that believe that it stands for modesty or purity. But that doesn't change the fact that in the Arab world, literally millions of women are forced into wearing those things and are being oppressed in the process. Maybe there was a time long ago where one could argue that it represented those values I mentioned, but today isn't that. Today, it's just another reminder of what the Arab world is really about. And what many of those who emigrate from the region to places in Europe want to bring with them. Which incidentally is why after some thought I do support banning it from public places, as today it's no more than a symbol of oppression, just like the Dixie flag for many today.

Montecresto said:

God bless our troops! Now, off to fight another pagan religion.

Click to expand...

In case you haven't heard, that fight's being brought to us:

Denmark attacks: Two men charged in Copenhagen

And before you bring up your usual garbage about this "being the result of US foreign policy", keep in mind this is Denmark that the attacks occurred please.

Hamster Buddha said:

You know what the Hijab is? It's the Dixie flag of religion, specifically Islam in this case. You see there is also a lot of people, especially in the South, that would argue up and down that the Dixie flag somehow represents freedom, independence or some other BS. The same flag mind you that was carried into battle by men that were willing (and some who did) to die to protect slavery. And you know what the funny this? There's a lot of people that believe that kind of crap, and can in one moment talk about blacks deserving equal rights while they have a sticker of that flag on the bumper of their truck.

It's no different than the Hijab. Oh I'm sure there are many women that believe that it stands for modesty or purity. But that doesn't change the fact that in the Arab world, literally millions of women are forced into wearing those things and are being oppressed in the process. Maybe there was a time long ago where one could argue that it represented those values I mentioned, but today isn't that. Today, it's just another reminder of what the Arab world is really about. And what many of those who emigrate from the region to places in Europe want to bring with them. Which incidentally is why after some thought I do support banning it from public places, as today it's no more than a symbol of oppression, just like the Dixie flag for many today.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but the young southern men fighting were poor (slaves weren't cheap and wealthy owned them) and weren't thinking about dying for a slave. They had state rights on their minds, autonomy and freedom from what had become an all powerful central government that was now pressing their will at gun point!!! And no doubt a deep seated hatred of it, which in some ways persists to the present.

Hamster Buddha said:

You know what the Hijab is? It's the Dixie flag of religion, specifically Islam in this case.

Click to expand...

Like I said, that is what it is to you. The government has no business whatsoever telling Muslim women what to think about wearing the Hijab.

Speaking of the Dixie flag, it means something to me, be it means something totally different to some others. And while I want my freedom to view it as I see fit, I want others to have that freedom as well.

Montecresto said:

Sorry, but the young southern men fighting were poor (slaves weren't cheap and wealthy owned them) and weren't thinking about dying for a slave. They had state rights on their minds, autonomy and freedom from what had become an all powerful central government that was now pressing their will at gun point!!! And no doubt a deep seated hatred of it, which in some ways persists to the present.

Click to expand...

You can argue that Monte, but that doesn't change that when the majority of people, especially black people, in this country see the Dixie Flag, they don't think of the slavery and the years of oppression that were carried out under it's banner. Besides, if you really don't believe me that it wasn't about slavery, then you need look no further than the Confederate Constitution which forced every state to sign to allow the heinous institution to exist.

But back to the topic at hand, if the Hijab or the Burqa was just something isolated to Afghanistan, or that the Arab World was a bastion of equality and women empowerment, then this wouldn't be an issue. But no one can deny the level of oppression that occurs in many of these countries where women are required by laws to wear them.

MildSteel said:

Like I said, that is what it is to you. The government has no business whatsoever telling Muslim women what to think about wearing the Hijab.

Speaking of the Dixie flag, it means something to me, be it means something totally different to some others. And while I want my freedom to view it as I see fit, I want others to have that freedom as well.

Click to expand...

If the west were never going to change then I would agree with you, I'd be fine with allowing the Muslim women to insult every single women forced to wear it, to defame all those and who are oppressed in the ME to wear it. But the problem is that there is a war of ideas that is coming to Europe, much faster than anyone could of predicted even a few years ago. And the west can either choose to stand up for what we believe in, or allow the Muslims to change it all when western Europe is dominated by Muslims who have emigrated from the that black hole.

Hamster Buddha said:

If the west were never going to change then I would agree with you, I'd be fine with allowing the Muslim women to insult every single women forced to wear it, to defame all those and who are oppressed in the ME to wear it. But the problem is that there is a war of ideas that is coming to Europe, much faster than anyone could of predicted even a few years ago. And the west can either choose to stand up for what we believe in, or allow the Muslims to change it all when western Europe is dominated by Muslims who have emigrated from the that black hole.

Click to expand...

There is indeed a war of ideas. One idea is that the government should now be able to tell people what they can believe. That idea needs to be shot down with great force.

MildSteel said:

Some appear to feel that the U.S. government has the right to single out Islam and say specifically what it can and cannot teach. Should the government be allowed to single out a specific religion in this way?

Click to expand...

If a religion is advocating violence, negligence (like prayer versus going to a doctor) (especially in regards to children), or other gross harms, yes that should be looked into.

tacomancer said:

If a religion is advocating violence, negligence (like prayer versus going to a doctor) (especially in regards to children), or other gross harms, yes that should be looked into.

Click to expand...

Behavior should be the point of focus. The government cannot tell people what they can believe.

MildSteel said:

Behavior should be the point of focus. The government cannot tell people what they can believe.

Click to expand...

The line is murky. If people say you can't let you kid die by praying for him instead of getting help, then those folks will very much see their beliefs being called into question.

Another example is the "revelation" that mormons could no longer be polygamist once it was deemed to not be socially acceptable.