The Pub - Discuss Anything

[Dion 2,476]

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?

Why is it much harder for the minority group? I'd say the majority of jobs aren't public. In terms of fairness no one will display their religious beliefs, everyone will be as neutral as possible. Nobody is asking for you to quit your religion, just to refrain from showing it for neutrality of public services. It's just like racism. There's no problem if you think racist stuff all day long, as long as you don't exteriorize those thoughts into racist behavior. Besides, your religion was your own choice. We are not denying your right to have a public job, you are denying it yourself by the choices you've made.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

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.

Well if eating a burger once a week is mentioned in the Qur'an or Al Hadith then the idea itself would not have sounded so absurd now because there would be billions of people doing it.

And LOL, it's a religion, you're not supposed to think about it logically!

[Stingray 9,441]

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.

Exactly Nour :-)

The policy here is NOT to fall into the trap of meaningless debate of what is or what isn't. Even the french had hat shit going on after he french revolution in which they declared a purely secular state.

[Stingray 9,441]

Why is it much harder for the minority group? I'd say the majority of jobs aren't public. In terms of fairness no one will display their religious beliefs, everyone will be as neutral as possible. Nobody is asking for you to quit your religion, just to refrain from showing it for neutrality of public services. It's just like racism. There's no problem if you think racist stuff all day long, as long as you don't exteriorize those thoughts into racist behavior. Besides, your religion was your own choice. We are not denying your right to have a public job, you are denying it yourself by the choices you've made.

You just denied the possibility of tolerance. That is always policy, never fact.

In that context your argument is indeed valid.

Ps: it is always harder for that group, religious symbol or not. That was my point.

[Stingray 9,441]

And LOL, it's a religion, you're not supposed to think about it logically!

Dawkins would love you in his research group :-)

Ps: so would I

[Amblève. 4,995]

Well if eating a burger once a week is mentioned in the Qur'an or Al Hadith then the idea itself would not have sounded so absurd now because there would be billions of people doing it.

And LOL, it's a religion, you're not supposed to think about it logically!

But neither is having to wear a veil.

So they could actually make that hamburger thing happen, no?

Well, let's call it "reasoning" then

[Dion 2,476]

You just denied the possibility of tolerance. That is always policy, never fact.

In that context your argument is indeed valid.

Ps: it is always harder for that group, religious symbol or not. That was my point.

Yeah, in a perfect world I would admit the possibility of tolerance. Unfortunately I don't live in such a world and I have to think about people who will feel genuinely offended by that. No matter what you choose someone is going to feel wronged.

I have to read everyday myself in our Constitution that it was written under the protection of God, and I'm an atheist. Not only I find it disrespectful but very stupid (because stating it was written under those conditions doesn't make it more or less true, if it was, it was, whether you write it down or not), but I ain't making a big deal about it. Still some people find it a big deal and are trying to change the text.

[Stingray 9,441]

Yeah, in a perfect world I would admit the possibility of tolerance. Unfortunately I don't live in such a world and I have to think about people who will feel genuinely offended by that. No matter what you choose someone is going to feel wronged.

I have to read everyday myself in our Constitution that it was written under the protection of God, and I'm an atheist. Not only I find it disrespectful but very stupid (because stating it was written under those conditions doesn't make it more or less true, if it was, it was, whether you write it down or not), but I ain't making a big deal about it. But some people find it a big deal and are trying to change the text.

I agree .... I really do. It is my ideal situation to put an end to it.

Still .... Here in belgium a prohibition on religious symbols is really doing more bad then good on the long run.

If i have the choice between deontology or a rational consequentionalism in this matter, it is rational to choose the latter.

[Amblève. 4,995]

I'm gonna get myself a burger now. It seems there's no point in waiting for God to bring me one.

[Stingray 9,441]

I'm gonna get myself a burger now. It seems there's no point in waiting for God to bring me one.

Have fun, egalitarian one

[Stingray 9,441]

Sorry, no more likes guys ....

[Dion 2,476]

I'm gonna get myself a burger now. It seems there's no point in waiting for God to bring me one.

I need a royale with cheese.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

But neither is having to wear a veil.

So they could actually make that hamburger thing happen, no?

Well, let's call it "reasoning" then

You can't really pick up that small detail and try to make sense of it when the entire foundation of religions is not logical. In fact the very idea of an omnipotent being is paradoxical. So it's like complaining to the waiter that you found a hair in the bowl of shit you're eating! (PS: This is just a comparison, I'm not calling anyone's religious beliefs shit). Now you can say that those are things in themselves (Kant reference) but even then you can't attempt to find logic in them because that would make them 'beyond' our logic.

Oh, and I'll see if I can get the Sheikhs to start that burger thing

Dawkins would love you in his research group :-)

Ps: so would I

Hahaha I admit that my opinions are often a bit extreme, and that's not something I am at all ashamed of. But what distinguishes me from Dawkins or any other extremist is that I have absolutely no problem with people having opposing opinions and beliefs and that's because I believe that both my opinion and theirs are ultimately false (which is the first philosophical discussion we had here if you remember :heart: )

[Stingray 9,441]

I need a royale with cheese.

Yeah + bet you like the hash bar in Holland as well :-)

[Dion 2,476]

Yeah + bet you like the hash bar in Holland as well :-)

That was exactly what I was watching, LMAO.

And french/belgian fries with mayonnaise.