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.
I don't begrudge anyone the opportunity to practice a faith, or none at all. I may agree or disagree with their choice of religion. In a country like the USA, we have the freedom to do just this- we have the constitution to protect our choice in religion and some cutlural choices. Polygamy and same sex marriage, even though it may involve consenting adults, is illegal. We also have laws that prevent things like nudity or licentious behavior. Laws can be changed based on the will of the people, and they have been. Even the constitution has been changed (slavery, womens' suffrage, for example). This is the will of the people.
If the US citizenry decide that women should be covered, that would be the law of the US, and the rest of the world would have to respect that if they come to the US. This is the case in the Muslim world. Actually, the Muslim religion does not mandate that women be covered- Sharia, or Muslim law, dictates that women should cover and to what degree. The actual Koran does not spell this out. I f any woman, French, American, Canadian, etc., goes to most Muslim countries, she is expected...demanded...to cover. Women who go there respect that and do it. Why isn't it approrprate for another country, under the laws of its people not be equally respected? You simply cannot have it both ways. It is logically inconsistent to accept that a Muslim country demand women- all women, Islamic or not- to cover and NOT accept that a Christian country demand that all women- Christian or not- be UNcovered. It just makes no sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parrotrosie
Unfortunately, I have, and the reply was, something along the lines of , she had to convert in order to marry her husband. She didn't know which way was East when she had to pray. She said her husband had told her several times how to tell, but she could not remember. She was young, and naive. My impression was, she had really been taken advantage of in this particular situation. I am not saying this is always the case, but the few encounters I have had, the women have been relatively young, uneducated, married to older men. Didn't seem like the best circumstances in my opinion, but, who am I to judge. I could not quite get what the advantage for the woman was, however, it is readily apparent what the many advantages are to the males.
I think Jtur88 is actually referring to women that truly are involved in their religiouse beliefs. Correct me if I am wrong Jtur88. Well, I know you will without asking. LOL
I have seen what you mentioned but I have also talked to those that truly believe it is the way to go. I have seen that sincerity on many of them.
I spent 7 months in Saudi Arabia and talked to some of them somehow because it is difficult to do that. But indirectly in social gathering we were able to gather how they feel.
As far as statistics on which system may be more effective to take care of the population of a nation, there are.
No there aren't. Any statistics available have been skewed by external forces. Namely, the USA manipulating the balance of global trade to the marked disadvantage of any nation that has exercised its sovereign right to conduct an experiment in social economics that is not to the distinct advantage of America's interests. And the USA using implied or overt threats of nuclear annihilation, to force any such nations to divert excessive resources away from social benefits and into the wasteful task of defending themselves against American aggression.
I think Jtur88 is actually referring to women that truly are involved in their religiouse beliefs. Correct me if I am wrong Jtur88. Well, I know you will without asking. LOL
I have seen what you mentioned but I have also talked to those that truly believe it is the way to go. I have seen that sincerity on many of them.
I spent 7 months in Saudi Arabia and talked to some of them somehow because it is difficult to do that. But indirectly in social gathering we were able to gather how they feel.
You have a great day.
El Amigo
If they want to be Muslim, so be it. I believe we all have a free choice as to what religion- if any- we choose to follow. The minute you leave a religious state, however, you must be prepared to follow the laws of that state.
On a personal level, there is no way that I would ever become a fundamentalist anything- Christian, Muslim, Jew, whatever. That level of fanaticism scares me. I'm a liberal Episcopalian, almost on the agnostic side. That works for me.
No there aren't. Any statistics available have been skewed by external forces. Namely, the USA manipulating the balance of global trade to the marked disadvantage of any nation that has exercised its sovereign right to conduct an experiment in social economics that is not to the distinct advantage of America's interests. And the USA using implied or overt threats of nuclear annihilation, to force any such nations to divert excessive resources away from social benefits and into the wasteful task of defending themselves against American aggression.
Here you go again. You are making sure to say the USA is manipulating this. You had to bring the US to the point in discussion. I am not talking about anyone or any country. I am simply discussing how statistics can be differently by different people. They can be skewed as you said too.
I must admit to some point it is somewhat hilarious to me how you make sure to use the US as an bad example of any subject we may talk about. Remember I wrote about that somewhere before, your cruzade to show how bad the US is? Now it is American aggression. Threats of anihilation. Manipulating balance of trade and on and on.
The thread did get sidetracked to statistic in discussing the Burqa in France and now you made sure to bring back the US monster by somehow tying statistic to in some point.
I think that personal freedom should grant the option of wearing a covering over one’s head. Do any of you wear a covering on your head? As has been pointed out, in this case it’s similar to our ‘option’ of women wearing tops. If covering the head is a social norm in which a given person was raised, it seems rather overbearing to me to force him/her to remove clothing. I don’t see it as a religious issue, but rather a cultural one. I can think of it as someone telling me to remove my pants when in public—no way.
As for personal opinion: I’d like to see everyone covering their bodies completely just like women do in the Middle East. MEN too. And the kiddies. I’m sick of men staggering around with their plumber’s cracks and women having a contest to see how far below the navel they dare lower their beltline. Especially right after I eat. But then... that’s just me.
Here you go again. You are making sure to say the USA is manipulating this.
Yes, we left Cuba alone, and never meddled in Castro's affairs. Just wished him good luck and let him go. It was you who raised this example to show how statistics can be used or misused:
An example is best:
Some people do believe that society has to make sure to give everybody something from the whole pot regardless of who contributed to the pot.
Now, how do I respond that thinly-veiled reference to communism, while pretending that the US had no influence on communism in the 20th Century?
Yes, we left Cuba alone, and never meddled in Castro's affairs. Just wished him good luck and let him go. It was you who raised this example to show how statistics can be used or misused:
An example is best:
Some people do believe that society has to make sure to give everybody something from the whole pot regardless of who contributed to the pot.
Now, how do I respond that thinly-veiled reference to communism, while pretending that the US had no influence on communism in the 20th Century?
The intent has no thing to do with communism. I did not say in the issue which is better than the other. That was the first example that came to my mind. I was addressing a philosphical view as far as how two views can collide and influence people decision and rationale. When I wrote that part did I say communism and capitalism? I do not think so. Check it out.
You probably have it in your mind so much that at any discussion you have to bring that up or think that is what people are saying.
For all I know I could have said an example of abortion views as they may collide or how some people may think spanking is allright or not.
So for the sake of the discussion replace the example with let us say spanking. Are you now still going to link it in some ways how the US is so bad in some ways again and somehow link it to how the US manipulates spanking on the rest of the world?
Stay with the philosophical view and then we could stay more on the subject.
If they want to be Muslim, so be it. I believe we all have a free choice as to what religion- if any- we choose to follow. The minute you leave a religious state, however, you must be prepared to follow the laws of that state.
On a personal level, there is no way that I would ever become a fundamentalist anything- Christian, Muslim, Jew, whatever. That level of fanaticism scares me. I'm a liberal Episcopalian, almost on the agnostic side. That works for me.
I repeat this again. I am not addressing whether people should or should not follow the laws of a state. The OP is pretty much saying how you feel about that law.
Stop splitting hairs. You raised the example of collective distribution of wealth within a society, and then said prior history could be used to reveal the success of the two schools of thought. I said it could not be used, because one of the two alternatives has never been tested fairly.
Stop splitting hairs. You raised the example of collective distribution of wealth within a society, and then said prior history could be used to reveal the success of the two schools of thought. I said it could not be used, because one of the two alternatives has never been tested fairly.
Not splitting hair at all. But if that is how you want to address it, I repeat you did not provide a single shred of support on the issue since you decided, as usual, to cover how the US likes to manipulate things.
Now, let us get back on track and I will try again on the point that was discussed about statistics. If it is at all possible, forget I used that example and think I used spanking instead. Insert that on the writing and if you decide to then answer about the point I was trying to make whether you agree or not. Now, if somehow you try to tie spanking to how the US manipulates things and how the US control the world and how that may have anything to do with the war in Iraq, well, I give up.
You have a great day.
El Amigo
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.
I could not quite get what the advantage for the woman was, however, it is readily apparent what the many advantages are to the males.
