Goddess

I don't imagine you care much about the people in the world who suffer from PTSD because of Islamic terrorism. There was a news story awhile back about a woman who had been sold as a sex slave by ISIS, managed to escape and get to Canada - where she ran into one of her former "owners" who had raped her repeatedly - walking the streets freely. Again, likely that you don't give a rip about that kind of thing, as you appear to agree with much of ISIS' basic teachings, and also seem to not even understand the basics of PTSD:

They usually ring the bells on the hour - 1 ring for 1 pm, 2 rings for 2 pm, etc. They are not doing it right now. It has nothing to do with whether services are being held or not.

I imagine your idea of "dressing as a slut" is different than most. Most offices have some sort of dress code and also most would speak to someone who wasn't dressing respectfully at work and making others uncomfortable. Assuming someone is a "slut" based on how they are dressed would be the same as assuming someone in a hijab is a terrorist.

It works both ways. I would rather see women scantily clad than see them having their entire being, personality and psyche obliterated and relegated to nothingness. But that's just me. What are your reasons for believing women need to be covered from head to toe?

Yes, you've said so already. I obviously disagree with you on the issue of whether women should be covered, how much and the reasons why. I hope that when you go out in your burka, that you are not harassed or verbally abused. Subjugation of women is not something I personally support, however. Not for culture, not for religion, not for family. Women as second class citizens is not a belief or value of mine.

Historically, both garments (hijabs and burkas) have the purpose of denigrating and subjugating women, separating human beings by gender in order to keep women under male domination and under religious control. They have both proven detrimental to women, to children, to men and boys and to the societies that use them for their intended purpose. So no, it's not "all in his head". I don't think too many people are uncomfortable with a woman in a hijab who looks like she is also enjoying the freedoms and benefits of Western culture while honouring her cultural heritage. It bothers people to see a woman completely covered up and clearly being subjugated BECAUSE she is a woman - that indicates a set of beliefs and values that is at cross purposes with Western values of gender equality. That some women "choose" this, does not make it any less denigrating to anyone of the female gender. When women choose a garment that advocates her supposed lower status in society - it affects ALL women. So it is important that when a woman chooses such a controversial garment with such a bloody history, she understands completely the choice she is making, WHY she is making that choice and how it will affect herself and other women. I find this educating oneself before making the "choice" to wear these garments, quite lacking.

Odd. I generally agree with your thoughts. I apologize that we have had heated exchanges, I certainly did not intend that. A couple of others here - yes. I generally find you very balanced in your views and always appreciate your posts - even the long ones that others complain about.

No, I don't find headscarves threatening. I've stated many times that they can be a cultural thing and in that sense, can be quite pretty. I don't agree with young girls being forced to wear them. They are not making the choice and I don't agree with forced wearing of them - husbands and fathers who don't allow their daughters and wives to go to school, university, have a job or leave the house without them. Yes, the niqab I view as barbaric. My views on headcoverings match quite closely to Marina Lazreg's thoughts in the book "Questioning the Veil". She's a Muslim woman, well-traveled and I defer to her insights on the topic of "choice". (I started a thread based on the book and quoted portions of her essays, if you care to read them.)

I don't remember having any heated exchanges with you, Rue

The petition makes an interesting point: What about our veterans who served in the Middle East and heard this call everyday? It is perpetuating their own PTSD symptoms. With a high alert of mental health issues due to the Covid-19 outbreak, many people have been experiencing increased mental health issues like our veterans who fought in the Middle East wars. Do you have any sympathy for the Canadian Veterans and their families who lost loved ones? I've seen this point in regard to other groups as well - I mentioned those who have fled Islamic persecution, only to find themselves having to listen to Allahu Akbar loudspeaker'ed through their neighbourhood 5 times a day. As the above article pointed out - these are usually the last words victims of Islamic terrorism hear, which is unsettling to many. Again, these points will mean nothing to those who place more importance on the religious rights of Muslims, than the rights of those who have been persecuted and killed in the name of Islam.

Another point lost on ones who advocate FOR the Islamic call to prayer in the name of pluralism and religious tolerance is the history of the Islamic call to prayer - the Islamic call to prayer was INVENTED by Mohammed TO BE DISTINCT FROM OTHER RELIGIONS AND TO SEPARATE ISLAM FROM THEM. He wanted to use a human voice to do this BECAUSE it was different from the Jewish ram's horn (which is only blown at certain times of the year, not at all hours of the day) and the Christian bells (which also provided a non-religious function for the population - time signaling.) Those who argue they are all the same, choose to ignore this history.

I think this issue is much more multi-faceted and should not just be boiled down to "noise ordinances". Church bells can be just as annoying to some people, as the call to prayer is to others. The difference I see is that the bells are musical and contain no words - the purpose is not to proselytize. ( I live next door to a church, the bells chime the time, which is sometimes helpful and also let people know when there is a wedding or funeral, which helps people to know they need to allow extra parking around the church at that time. The exception is possibly the bells to begin services on Sunday mornings, but those have not been chimed since the recent covid-19 pandemic. I'm not sure why they made the decision to omit the bells at this time, but they did.) The call to prayer is actual words and I think that's an importance difference. Words have meaning. "Adhan" in Arabic means " information, enlightenment", so it's more than just a time signal. The purpose of the call to prayer is also different - another important thing to consider and I defer to Islamic scholars themselves, as to the purpose of the Islamic call to prayer: Allahu-Akbar is a statement of Islamic supremacy. The “Omdat Al-Ahkam”, an important book for Islamic law, has this to say about the Adhan: In “A summary of Islamic Jurisprudence” by Fawzan, we read: Moulana Ihtishamul Hasan Sahib Kandhelwi writes: In another article he says: Shah Waliullah (Rahimahullah) writes: Note what has been said: the Adhan proclaims, confirms and manifests (makes real) Islam across the Country, it expresses creed and faith. It also states that Allah and the Muslims are supreme and that areas in which the Adhan is heard belong to the “house of Islam” – i.e. are Muslim owned areas. In other words the Adhan is a credal statement that proclaims Islamic and hence Muslim supremacy as well as Muslim ownership of the land in which it is heard. (No wonder some Muslims in western enclaves where the Adhan is heard – publicly or not – consider Islamic law above the law of the land and no wonder such areas are no-go areas for the arms of the [kaffir] government.) It is worth remembering that in Muslim Countries Churches and temples have to ring bells, sound horns etc. in a quiet manage so as to not disturb the tranquillity of the Muslims and Church and Temple buildings have to be lower in height than the mosques to show the ‘inferiority’ of these kaffir religions. For similar reasons in many Muslim Countries non-Muslims have the greatest difficulty in getting permission to build or even repair their religious buildings, this with the aim of making non-Islamic religions disappear from the public sphere. http://www.faithfreedom.org/church-bells-and-the-muslims-adhan/ Before I am accused of "racism" and "islamophobia", (which is sure to happen anyways) the article points this out: ......and it is these orthodox Muslims and fundamentalist Muslims and THEIR views which are causing so much trouble in the world, so I think it's only prudent to consider how THEY view such things. Also, for educated non-Muslims - hearing "Allahu Akhbar" broadcast 30 times a day can be quite unsettling. You can't argue (in good faith, at least) that these words are not a statement of Islamic supremacy. Is it unsettling to non-Muslims because they are all "racists" and Islamophobes"? Or is it because of a well-deserved reputation for violence that Islam has cultivated? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say. There are quite a few comments in news articles about this issue from non-Muslims who previously lived in Islamic-ruled countries and who have fled the persecution there - about how frightening it is to hear the words of this "call to prayer". Not everyone here will give a rip about THEIR feelings, but I think that also needs to be taken into account, especially when it's a religion that is known for violence, persecution and killing in the name of its "god".

Only your twisted interpretation of the conversation. Go away.

I'm talking mostly about immigrants and refugees. The ones who cling to antiquated religious beliefs like complete covering of women, subjugation of women (not letting them out of the house very often and not unless totally covered) and then come here and complain about "half-naked women" running around and how it inconveniences and disgusts them. I'm talking about how they come to a country where their women and girls can be educated and do more with their lives than just be breeders, and they don't take advantage of those freedoms and in fact often denigrate the country for giving females the opportunity. Ones who come here and complain that there are street musicians and feel they have the right to block streets for praying. There is a plethora of evidence to show that these types of religious views have absolutely no benefit to humankind and even if they do not have access to this knowledge before they come - they certainly do once they get here. If you want to have little girls not allowed out of the house or properly educated or want all women to wear blankets over their heads and still feel that men have the right to subjugate women, if you send your girls back to whatever hellhole you came from to be genitally mutilated because it's not allowed here - then why are they coming here at all? I'm sure they ALL know that they are not going to find this type of religious fanaticism in mainstream Canada. So why complain about it and fight it once they get here? It makes no sense to me. Unless they're just here for the free money and have a desire to change Canada into the monstrocities they left - but again - why bother coming here?

Roadways were made specifically for vehicular traffic Not for prayer groups to block. Parades get special permits to use the roadways. I know you have said that your belief is that women should be covered up head to toe - do as you like, but no one else has to cater to your religious beliefs. It's called busking. You can either stop and listen or you can continue walking - the choice is your's. I understand Islam is against music, so it makes sense that this would bother you. But it rarely bothers anyone else.

I agree with this to a certain extent. Where I differ is that Christianity and Judaism reformed without having any example to follow, without the benefit of knowing what we now know. Islam - TODAY - has examples to follow in regards to treatment of women and human rights and has the benefit of modern-day knowledge, yet is extremely resistant to reform.

Agree. To say that every white person has only succeeded because of their skin colour, is asinine. All that does is tell some in minority categories that they are "owed" success no matter what they do and if they don't get it, they get to blame it on racism. Is there racism? Ya. Do some minorities get shut out because of their skin colour? Of course. Should I feel bad because I have a good job, which I worked hard for - pulled myself out of a poverty-stricken, stuck in a religious cult childhood, got an education and hustled and moved to where jobs were and created my own job - Sorry but I don't. I earned my place. Skin colour may not have been what held me back, but other things were, and they were just as hard to overcome. Everybody has things to overcome in life.

Yes, I understand your position. You're here every day slagging Canada, we get it. The reverse can also be said - focusing on Canada, while letting your own country or other countries off the hook also does nothing for racism or climate change. It's a bit like a child abuser pointing out someone else who made their kid sit in the corner for a 15-minute time-out.

We do. Again, no one has said there is NO racism in Canada. But anyone who is truly concerned about racism, does not START with Canada unless they have an agenda. That's like the climate emergency people who focus on Canada, while having nothing to say about China. It's easy to bully Canada on things like climate and racism because we take those accusations to heart and actually do something about them. Not so easy to bully China - China doesn't give a rip what anyone says about it.

If you think I secretly believe Canada is wildly racist - you'd be very wrong. What I DO think - you and Marocc are doing something called "projecting" - you project your own racism onto innocent people. Because I don't believe either of you are actually concerned about racism.

I don't think Canadians view themselves as wildly racist - nothing like what you and Marocc are trying to portray, that's for certain. Newsflash - Canada is bigger than one or two neighbourhoods in Ontario.

Not saying it doesn't happen. But does it happen EVERY time - No. I'm an introvert, employed now by a company that saw my qualifications and introverted qualities (calm, think before I speak, don't dominate meetings, or push to have my own way, etc.) and created a position for me, which I accepted. It had nothing to do with the colour of my skin. And they felt they needed an introvert in an office full of extroverts. I'm often commended for bringing calm to stressful office situations - again, nothing to do with the colour of my skin. My argument is not that it NEVER happens. My argument is that getting a job primarily based on skin colour and whether a person is extroverted or introverted does not happen in EVERY situation, as has been asserted. What that poster is saying is basically - white people do not deserve jobs because it means a person of colour doesn't get to have that job. And that's baloney.

How do you know this? I find it difficult to believe that EVERY job I've ever applied on, was at the expense of someone with a darker skin colour. I find it difficult to believe that EVERY job a white person applies on or is hired for is based on their skin colour and not their qualifications. I'm not saying it doesn't happen - but EVERY time a white person applies for or gets a job, it's at the expense of darker skinned people?

Canada is one of the LEAST racist countries in the world and actively works at stamping it out. Why would you be overly concerned about racism in Canada when the MOST racist countries are Middle Eastern and Islamic-ruled countries? If you are truly concerned about racism, I would start there.

Let's just go with the dictionary definition. Google is your friend. en·ti·tle·ment /inˈtīdlmənt,enˈtīdlmənt/ the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.