The Pub - Discuss Anything

[DJames 729]

**Wonders why Stingray so enthusiastically wants everyone to visit him*

[Stingray 9,441]

I thought it would be against all religious symbols and not just veils as it was reported here. It's easy for me to say, as an atheist, that banning them would make for a more 'homogeneous' society, but who's to say that equates to a better society? Anyway, where do you stand on that?

PS: With the way things are atm, I'd love any uni that's just not here!

Well ..... Difficult topic.

Banning stuff (also in a secular non religious environment) creates .... Things you do not want! Radicalism, fanatics , .... Etc.

You can only accept the differences and tackling true rule breakers. It is what we do when dealing with some here as well.

I stand liberal. Very much so.

[Stingray 9,441]

**Wonders why Stingray so enthusiastically wants everyone to visit him*

Lol. Because I ..... like ..... you all.

A lot !

[Dion 2,476]

I think it's wrong to carry any religious symbol if you have a public function. It's not about free expression - when you have a public function you represent the state, the government. And Brazil is a laic state, it has no religion, I would assume Belgium is the same. Every individual exercising a public job is a representative of the state and as such should not be displaying any religious preference, at least not when doing his job functions.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Well ..... Difficult topic.

Banning stuff (also in a secular non religious environment) creates .... Things you do not want! Radicalism, fanatics , .... Etc.

You can only accept the differences and tackling true rule breakers. It is what we do when dealing with some here as well.

I stand liberal. Very much so.

I'm actually not against banning them in certain places where you really don't need to express religious beliefs like unis like they did in France. But the problem with that is that veils, unlike crosses for example, are not 'optional'. In Islam all women HAVE to wear veils. It's like praying and fasting.

[Stingray 9,441]

I think it's wrong to carry any religious symbol if you have a public function. It's not about free expression, when you have a public function you represent the state, the government. And Brazil is a laic state, it has no religion, I would assume Belgium is the same. Every individual exercising a public job is a representative of the state and as such should not be displaying any religious preference, at least not when doing his job functions.

True in principle ... But we generate extremism now because of that. Sharia4belgium/Uk being one of those organisations. The Woolwich slasher guy was connected very much.

So .... How important is a display of religion in those marginal cases when a prohibition generates this much anti-feelings. I think it is foolh. The best of Christian-atheist-jewish-muslim living together in history was in الأندلس or Al-Andalus after 750...

They still call it the golden age, the tactic was tolerance on religion.

The dutch did the same in the 16-17 century and sparking science, trade and philosophy.

We do forget what we as a species can do when we forget those petty difference.

[Amblève. 4,995]

I'm actually not against banning them in certain places where you really don't need to express religious beliefs like unis like they did in France. But the problem with that is that veils, unlike crosses for example, are not 'optional'. In Islam all women HAVE to wear veils. It's like praying and fasting.

Ehm, you mean according to the Qur'an?

[Stingray 9,441]

I'm actually not against banning them in certain places where you really don't need to express religious beliefs like unis like they did in France. But the problem with that is that veils, unlike crosses for example, are not 'optional'. In Islam all women HAVE to wear veils. It's like praying and fasting.

According to Qur'an or those interpreting it ....

Which is my point exactly, Nour.

[Stingray 9,441]

Ehm, you mean according to the Qur'an?

Now that was simultaneous ....

[Dion 2,476]

True in principle ... But we generate extremism now because of that. Sharia4belgium/Uk being one of those organisations. The Woolwich slasher guy was connected very much.

So .... How important is a display of religion in those marginal cases when a prohibition generates this much anti-feelings. I think it is foolh. The best of Christian-atheist-jewish-muslim living together in history was in الأندلس or Al-Andalus after 750...

They still call it the golden age, the tactic was tolerance on religion.

The dutch did the same in the 16-17 century and sparking science, trade and philosophy.

We do forget what we as a species can do when we forget those petty difference.

What about the anti-feelings I get if I'm a muslim and I go to court and there is this huge cross at the wall and in the necklace of the judge? I find that much worse.

It's just common sense. Nobody is forcing you to have a public job, if you want one, abide by the rules and know you'll be representing the entire society in all of its differences, hence you should not be wearing your religious symbols. If you can't deal with that go find another job.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Ehm, you mean according to the Qur'an?

According to Qur'an or those interpreting it ....

Which is my point exactly, Nour.

There is something you need to understand about Islam and that is there are two main things that make it up and that is the Qur'an and the speeches and instructions of the prophet. If something is not in the Qur'an, it doesn't mean that it's not part of Islam. Now, to be quite honest, I can't remember if instruction that women have to wear veils is in the Qur'an or the prophet's speeches, but it is definitely something that all Muslim Sheikhs agree on and isn't up for interpretation.

PS: This is incredibly difficult to explain in English!

[Stingray 9,441]

What about the anti-feelings I get if I'm a muslim and I go to court and there is this huge cross at the wall and in the necklace of the judge? I find that much worse.

It's just common sense. Nobody is forcing you to have a public job, if you want one, abide by the rules and know you'll be representing the entire society in all of its differences, hence you should not be wearing your religious symbols. If you can't deal with that go find another job.

That choice is not always an option when you are such a minority - see Amartya Sen interesting approach: he distinguishes 'rights, choices, being able to deal' with having the capability to enforce that very choice, right , .... Which is a whole other ball game!

We can choose to do something else, it s much harder for he minority group.... If you are a minority, you simply cannot exercise that right. So - in terms of fairness, what should we do. I say we be a bit more lenient to them.

No?

[Stingray 9,441]

There is something you need to understand about Islam and that is there are two main things that make it up and that is the Qur'an and the speeches and instructions of the prophet. If something is not in the Qur'an, it doesn't mean that it's not part of Islam. Now, to be quite honest, I can't remember if instruction that women have to wear veils is in the Qur'an or the prophet's speeches, but it is definitely something that all Muslim Sheikhs agree on and isn't up for interpretation.

PS: This is incredibly difficult to explain in English!

I know there are Hadith, Soenna's and here in belgium - very local interpretations.

A vail is not necessary an islamic feature, no?

Ps: Let's ask the Turkish after Atatürk ...

[Amblève. 4,995]

There is something you need to understand about Islam and that is there are two main things that make it up and that is the Qur'an and the speeches and instructions of the prophet. If something is not in the Qur'an, it doesn't mean that it's not part of Islam. Now, to be quite honest, I can't remember if instruction that women have to wear veils is in the Qur'an or the prophet's speeches, but it is definitely something that all Muslim Sheikhs agree on and isn't up for interpretation.

PS: This is incredibly difficult to explain in English!

Going by that logic (for what it's worth...) eating a hamburger at least once a week would not be "up for interpretation" as well if the Sheikhs agreed on it? Tbh, I fail to see the logic.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

I know there are Hadith, Soenna's and here in belgium - very local interpretations.

A vail is not necessary an islamic feature, no?

Ps: Let's ask the Turkish after Atatürk ...

lol not sure Ataturk has Islam in his mind when he made those rules. Sheikhs tell you that it is necessary for any Muslim girl to wear a veil just like it is necessary for every Muslim to pray, fast, not kill or lie..etc There are, though, a lot of Muslim women that don't wear it and still consider themselves Muslim just like there are people who violate but still consider themselves Muslims.

So to the means of our original discussion, wearing a veil is not at all the same as wearing a cross or having a religious tattoo.