Scarf Melee at Playland Amusement Park

[Argus]

The majority?

I respectfully disagree.

Well, they sure don`t like them.

The Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes survey conducted last year paints a worrying picture of attitudes towards Jews in the Middle East.

In the predominantly Muslim nations surveyed, views of Jews were overwhelmingly unfavorable. Nearly all in Jordan (97 percent), the Palestinian territories (97%) and Egypt (95%) held an unfavorable view. Similarly, 98% of Lebanese expressed an unfavorable opinion of Jews, including 98% among both Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims, as well as 97% of Lebanese Christians.

90% of Arabs have unfavourable opinion of Jews

Your belief regarding the Jews should be, first, that they are Kafirs, and second, that they are enemies. They are enemies not because they occupied Palestine. They would have been enemies even if they did not occupy a thing. Allah (SwT) said: You shall find the strongest men in enmity to the disbelievers to be the Jews and the polytheists. (THE Quran 5 : 82) Third, you must believe that the Jews will never stop fighting and killing us. They [fight] not for the sake of land and security, as they claim, but for the sake of their religion: And they will not cease fighting you until they turn you back youre your religion, if they can. (The Quran 2 : 217) This is it. We must believe that our fighting with the Jews is eternal, and it will not end until the final battle and this is the fourth point. You must believe that we will fight, defeat, and annihilate them, until not a single Jew remains on the face of the Earth.

Spiritual mentor of Hezbollah

Qur'an 2:61 "Humiliation and wretchedness were stamped on the Jews and they were visited with Allah's wrath."

Koranic quotes about Jews

Edited September 6, 2011 by Argus

[cybercoma]

I question the survey's methods. Muslims can't even agree with each other on many things. I'm not saying it's all roses betweens Muslims and Jews, but to say that a majority of Muslims want all the Jews dead is a bit much.

[Michael Hardner]

All right, then. Is it then not possible for one group, say, for lack of a better one, westernized people, to be better than some other group, let`s say, for theory`s sake, Muslims, and to argue this by pointing out the attributes of of one to suggest how it is better or worse than the other?

A "better" group ? I would say that groups have different attributes, but to say one is "better" than the other ... that's a personal view, and a shallow one in my opinion.

And before you respond by suggesting that the comparison fails where the latter group, Muslims, are actually westernized, I acknowledge that this would be true. However, I`m speaking to that group which is categorically not westernized, as in the group in question in this particular topic.

I refuse to discuss whether one race or religion is "better" than another. It's ridiculous to try to discuss such a flawed statement.

[Argus]

I question the survey's methods. Muslims can't even agree with each other on many things. I'm not saying it's all roses betweens Muslims and Jews, but to say that a majority of Muslims want all the Jews dead is a bit much.

Would you go so far as to say the majority of Muslims dislike Jews?

[jacee]

No, dont think so.

The ban is on any scarves, around the neck or not, long hair too, ball caps.

None of which are emblematic of any religion creed or colour.

Cite please?

All I found was a reference to "headgear".

[Argus]

I refuse to discuss whether one race or religion is "better" than another. It's ridiculous to try to discuss such a flawed statement.

Well,to begin with, no one has introduced race into the conversation, so I`m not sure why you are other than to bring it up as a sort of straw man defense. Second, why should not the tenets, the requirements of one religion not be able to be considered thoughtfully in light of our western values and culture, and then judged accordingly? As an example, suppose a religion called for having sex with little children. That would probably offend most people, and they would rightly condemn said religion and pretty much all who followed it. Or, say a religion called for incest between fathers and daughters. Again, this is something patently offensive to most of the rest of us, and we would think very poorly of that religion. Cannibalism, well, some religions required it at one point, along with human sacrifices. Surely you`d righteously condemn such religions and all who practice them?

I mean, given that a religion requires a certain set of beliefs and behaviour, why should we not be able to judge the practitioners of that religion if the beliefs and behaviour are violently opposed to our own?

[Michael Hardner]

Well,to begin with, no one has introduced race into the conversation, so I`m not sure why you are other than to bring it up as a sort of straw man defense.

I brought up race, because to my mind it's the same pointless type of discussion to try to decide whether one people is better than another.

Second, why should not the tenets, the requirements of one religion not be able to be considered thoughtfully in light of our western values and culture, and then judged accordingly?

All holy books are hopelessly flawed in any case. So discussing the tenets will inevitably turn to a discussion of the people who follow the particular religion.

As an example, suppose a religion called for having sex with little children. That would probably offend most people, and they would rightly condemn said religion and pretty much all who followed it. Or, say a religion called for incest between fathers and daughters. Again, this is something patently offensive to most of the rest of us, and we would think very poorly of that religion. Cannibalism, well, some religions required it at one point, along with human sacrifices. Surely you`d righteously condemn such religions and all who practice them?

Didn't YOU just accuse me of bringing in a strawman ?

I mean, given that a religion requires a certain set of beliefs and behaviour, why should we not be able to judge the practitioners of that religion if the beliefs and behaviour are violently opposed to our own?

You're basically trying to sneak in an argument about whether one "people" is better than another by pointing to the holy books they follow. The argument isn't there, it's just a way to justify hate and prejudice while sounding intellectual.

[cybercoma]

Would you go so far as to say the majority of Muslims dislike Jews?

Nope. I'm willing to bet the majority of Muslims couldn't possibly care less about Jews.

[jacee]

Ban all head scarves and face coverings in public. Problem solved. We need to stop being so politically correct and scared of Muslims or scared of offending Islam.

Mr.Canada I read Michael Hardner's comment s about you being prejudiced against Muslims, and your response asking him and others not to call you those names. Clearly you do care (where some bigots don't). So I searched and read some of your posts including this first one in this thread. I can see where Michael Hardner might have come to that conclusion. Can you?

The discussion is about headscarves as a possible safety issue. It isn't about face coverings. Your mention of face coverings and 'political correctness out of context easily leads one to believe that you are prejudiced against all Muslims.

I hope you can understand that it is yourself - your own posts I that lead to the perception that you are prejudiced, that you hate Muslims.

Another poster said your use of the name 'Mr Canada -' bothers him because your apparent biases are against what Canada is about. I have to agree.

However, it is also apparent to me that you don't want to be seen the way you are portraying yourself. Perhaps if you are more careful in the way you express yourself, you won't be seen in a way that disturbs you.

We all know that all Muslims are not terrorists. I think we all know that only some extremist Islamist sects practice extreme violence against women. Perhaps if you keep that in mind when composing your posts, we won,t see you as the bigot you appear to be when you generalize those things to all Muslims, especially those who have come to Canada seeking religious freedom, peace and safety.

[Sir Bandelot]

You're basically trying to sneak in an argument about whether one "people" is better than another by pointing to the holy books they follow. The argument isn't there, it's just a way to justify hate and prejudice while sounding intellectual.

Indeed, what he's pushing today is absolute poppycock. For example, Jews are highly tolerated, in Iran of all places.

Iran's Jewish community is officially recognized as a religious minority group by the government, and, like the Zoroastrians, they are allocated one seat in the Iranian Parliament. Ciamak Moresadegh is the current Jewish member of the parliament, replacing Maurice Motamed in the 2008 election. In 2000, former Jewish MP Manuchehr Eliasi estimated that at that time there were still 30,000–35,000 Jews in Iran, most other sources put the figure at 25,000. The United States State Department estimated the number of Jews in Iran at 20,000–25,000 as of 2009.

Today Tehran has 11 functioning synagogues, many of them with Hebrew schools. It has two kosher restaurants, an old-age home and a cemetery. There is a Jewish library with 20,000 titles. Iranian Jews have their own newspaper (called "Ofogh-e-Bina") with Jewish scholars performing Judaic research at Tehran's "Central Library of Jewish Association". The "Dr. Sapir Jewish Hospital" is Iran's largest charity hospital of any religious minority community in the country; however, most of its patients and staff are Muslim.

Conditions

The Constitution of Iran says that Jews are equal to Muslims. Imam Khomeini visited with members of the Jewish community and issued a decree ordering the adherents of Judaism and other revealed religions to be protected. Jews are entitled to self-administration and one member of the 290-seat Majlis is elected by only Jews. Jewish burial rites and divorce laws are accepted by Islamic courts. Tehran has over 20 synagogues. Iran has one of only four Jewish charity hospitals in the world. The hospital has received donations from top Iranian officials, including President Ahmadinejad. Kosher butcher shops are available in Iran. There are Hebrew schools and coeducation is allowed.

I knew this already, having heard if it quite some time ago but I looked up the Wikipedia entry as an easy reference. It is remarkable how well tolerated they are in a society whose president has been compared to Adolph Hitler himself and quoted as wanting to eradicate all Jewry. There is a disconnect somewhere in our information, and I'm inclined to believe much of what we hear about Iran is political propaganda. But I always try to keep an open mind.

[jbg]

The point is it`s a safety issue as all headwear or loose clothing is banned on certain rides.

Ski lifts have long banned scarfs and other loose clothing. Are ski areas inherently anti-Islam?

[jbg]

So call me names if you want, but as far as I`m concerned, no one wearing a Hijab or Burqua or the like, nor the men who believe they ought to, should even be allowed to enter Canada, much less to become a citizen of this country. I realize that doesn`t sit well with the frantic P.C. set, but I have almost as little respect for those types as I do for Islamists anyway. That`s partly because, like the Islamists they too hold our culture, values and history in contempt. And, like the Islamists, would like nothing more than to impose their own shrill, ideological behavioural requirements on the rest of us.

Very well said, except I personally admire Islamists.

[Argus]

Very well said, except I personally admire Islamists.

All right, I'll bite. Why?

[Argus]

All holy books are hopelessly flawed in any case. So discussing the tenets will inevitably turn to a discussion of the people who follow the particular religion.

And so? We judge each other all the time as individuals, based on our behaviour. Why should we shrink from judging a collective based on its collective behaviour?

You're basically trying to sneak in an argument about whether one "people" is better than another by pointing to the holy books they follow. The argument isn't there, it's just a way to justify hate and prejudice while sounding intellectual.

No, you're copping out here. That's why you brought up the race thing. Judging a race is wrong because first, no one can help what race they belong to, and second because there are no unique racial traits of any importance which separate the members of a given race from another race (unless you consider things like bad hair to be important). But judging a collective group based on its behaviour and beliefs is nothing more than what we do with individuals on a larger scale. Justifying prejudice? Let me quote that great philsopher Bill Maher, who said I’m saying I’m not prejudiced. That’s pre-judging. I’m not pre-judging, I’m judging. They’re worse. What’s wrong with just saying that?

[Michael Hardner]

And so? We judge each other all the time as individuals, based on our behaviour. Why should we shrink from judging a collective based on its collective behaviour?

Judge not lest ye be judged. I think that's how it goes.

No, you're copping out here. That's why you brought up the race thing. Judging a race is wrong because first, no one can help what race they belong to, and second because there are no unique racial traits of any importance which separate the members of a given race from another race (unless you consider things like bad hair to be important). But judging a collective group based on its behaviour and beliefs is nothing more than what we do with individuals on a larger scale. Justifying prejudice? Let me quote that great philsopher Bill Maher, who said I’m saying I’m not prejudiced. That’s pre-judging. I’m not pre-judging, I’m judging. They’re worse. What’s wrong with just saying that?

What's wrong with saying it? It's arrogant at best, utterly ugly and incorrect at worst. You can only judge other groups' behaviors based on your own. Do you know what other societies say about us ? We're materialistic, crass, fat, decadent and lazy.

If you can accept that, then have at it. I won't though.

[Argus]

Judge not lest ye be judged. I think that's how it goes.

Nice sentiment, observed by virtually on one.

What's wrong with saying it? It's arrogant at best, utterly ugly and incorrect at worst. You can only judge other groups' behaviors based on your own. Do you know what other societies say about us ? We're materialistic, crass, fat, decadent and lazy.

If you can accept that, then have at it. I won't though.

I wouldn't say that description is really out of line. Well, we're not so fat, at least compared to the Americans. Decadent? Definitely! Materialistic? Ridiculously so. Crass? Hmm, I think that's more an American trait. Lazy? Most of us are in pitiable physical shape, and even those with energy are all too determined to let someone else do things for us. I would have added passive, short-sighted, selfish, and with a growing sense of entitlement to the list myself.

I've never suggested our society is perfect. It's just a hell of a lot better than THEIRS. And a hell of a lot less inclined towards extreme beliefs or support for extreme beliefs and behaviour.

[Guest American Woman]

Women often wear scarves around their necks as part of an outfit, but the ban is not on scarves per se but "headgear".

I'm curious. ... do they ban ball caps or just headscarves? Neck scarves or just headscarves?

I suspect this is more about racism than safety.

Some rides do not allow backpacks, purses or head gear of any kind.

What do backpacks and purses have to do with racism? And I doubt they've banned head gear of any kind just to get at Muslims.

[Saipan]

I brought up race, because to my mind it's the same pointless type of discussion to try to decide whether one people is better than another.

But in Canada we have Castes. First Nation, Second Nation, Third Nation.

With different rights - like in India.

[Michael Hardner]

Nice sentiment, observed by virtually on one.

If one isn't interested in trying to be a better person, then one shouldn't expect others to.

I wouldn't say that description is really out of line. Well, we're not so fat, at least compared to the Americans. Decadent? Definitely! Materialistic? Ridiculously so. Crass? Hmm, I think that's more an American trait. Lazy? Most of us are in pitiable physical shape, and even those with energy are all too determined to let someone else do things for us. I would have added passive, short-sighted, selfish, and with a growing sense of entitlement to the list myself.

Somehow it doesn't seem like you're talking about your own people here. You deflected some of these traits on to Americans, which I would group with Canadians anyway, and refer to 'most of us'... well, there you have it.

I've never suggested our society is perfect. It's just a hell of a lot better than THEIRS. And a hell of a lot less inclined towards extreme beliefs or support for extreme beliefs and behaviour.

We're talking about societies, though, which is different yet than talking about peoples or religions. Even better, let's talk about "systems". A society is kind of a system, I think. I like our system, and prefer it to others. I would say good things about it, and might even say it's "better" than other systems if I let my guard down.

[jbg]

Very well said, except I personally admire Islamists.

All right, I'll bite. Why?

Among their many accomplishments, I'd have to rank at the top their talent in the field of demolition, and human (barely) reproduction. Just below that is their talent at organize, transparent and effective self-government.

[cybercoma]

And so? We judge each other all the time as individuals, based on our behaviour. Why should we shrink from judging a collective based on its collective behaviour?

Fallacies of composition and division. That's why.

[Saipan]

Fallacies of composition and division. That's why.

That's too mighty specific

[Argus]

If one isn't interested in trying to be a better person, then one shouldn't expect others to.

I suppose that depends on how you define non-judgemntal, doesn't it? Another term might be 'lacking judgement'.

Do you judge Paul Bernardo to be a bad person? Or do you say to yourself "Judge not, lest ye be judged"?

Would you have a beer with him, smile and joke around with him, because, after all, 'judge not, lest ye be judged', right?

Somehow it doesn't seem like you're talking about your own people here. You deflected some of these traits on to Americans, which I would group with Canadians anyway, and refer to 'most of us'... well, there you have it.

You created a more or less arbitrary list of pejorative descriptions and characteristics which you claim 'others' say describe us. I agreed with some, while others seemed misplaced. Crass? What does that even mean? And who considers us crass?

We're talking about societies, though, which is different yet than talking about peoples or religions. Even better, let's talk about "systems". A society is kind of a system, I think. I like our system, and prefer it to others. I would say good things about it, and might even say it's "better" than other systems if I let my guard down.

But a system gives rise to a society and the cultural values which are instilled in its members. How many times have we heard from Islamists, whether in Saudi Arabia, or in England, or in the United States or Canada, that they consider themselves to be members of a society of Muslims, as opposed to the nationality which is on their passport? They feel so strongly about it they're more than willing to kill their fellow citizens in the name of people who they consider to be their true brethren, fellow Muslims. Whether it is the Toronto 18, or the wack jobs who blew up the subway in London, the act they were born and raised in these countries was apparently meaningless to them. They considered themselves not to be members of those societies, but instead, members of some sort of world-wide Muslim society, and it was in the name of that society they killed and murdered.

If you look at the cultural beliefs and traits, the value system which is becoming predominant throughout the Muslim world, what you find is extreme religious devotion and antipathy to outsiders and 'heretics'. This is seen not only in the more restrictive laws against minorities, but violence against them, as well as, among other things, physical manifestations of that devotion, like unkempt beards and the wearing of burkas and hijabs.

Nor can you dismiss the violence. If the more orthodox Muslims were simply peaceful religious folks who liked to wear outdated clothing we'd find them quaint and non-threatening, as we do the likes of the Amish. But a substantial number of the members of that society support violence 'in the name of allah' and in the name of a variety of political religious goals. And that impacts us. Judging them for it is a perfectly valid response.

[Sir Bandelot]

But a system gives rise to a society and the cultural values which are instilled in its members.

Hell, it's a well know fact that Catholic priests have screwed lots of little boys over the years. I guess by your reckoning, that makes the rest of us a bunch of pedophiles?

[Michael Hardner]

I suppose that depends on how you define non-judgemntal, doesn't it? Another term might be 'lacking judgement'.

Do you judge Paul Bernardo to be a bad person? Or do you say to yourself "Judge not, lest ye be judged"?

Would you have a beer with him, smile and joke around with him, because, after all, 'judge not, lest ye be judged', right?

Do I want to be his friend ? No. I judge him to be a damaged psychotic who murdered people. Am I supposed to get all upset when his name is mentioned and throw a chair across the room or something ?

I highly recommend 'Beyond Good and Evil' by Nietzsche.

You created a more or less arbitrary list of pejorative descriptions and characteristics which you claim 'others' say describe us. I agreed with some, while others seemed misplaced. Crass? What does that even mean? And who considers us crass?

I have heard such comments made by foreigners about Americans.

But a system gives rise to a society and the cultural values which are instilled in its members. How many times have we heard from Islamists, whether in Saudi Arabia, or in England, or in the United States or Canada, that they consider themselves to be members of a society of Muslims, as opposed to the nationality which is on their passport? They feel so strongly about it they're more than willing to kill their fellow citizens in the name of people who they consider to be their true brethren, fellow Muslims. Whether it is the Toronto 18, or the wack jobs who blew up the subway in London, the act they were born and raised in these countries was apparently meaningless to them. They considered themselves not to be members of those societies, but instead, members of some sort of world-wide Muslim society, and it was in the name of that society they killed and murdered.

Yes, it's not surprising that Islamists feel that way.

If you look at the cultural beliefs and traits, the value system which is becoming predominant throughout the Muslim world, what you find is extreme religious devotion and antipathy to outsiders and 'heretics'. This is seen not only in the more restrictive laws against minorities, but violence against them, as well as, among other things, physical manifestations of that devotion, like unkempt beards and the wearing of burkas and hijabs.

You can't separate the environment from the culture from the religion, though many have tried to do that on this board. I can't think of one person who has pulled it off.

The arguments on here mostly amount to name calling... no logic.

Nor can you dismiss the violence. If the more orthodox Muslims were simply peaceful religious folks who liked to wear outdated clothing we'd find them quaint and non-threatening, as we do the likes of the Amish. But a substantial number of the members of that society support violence 'in the name of allah' and in the name of a variety of political religious goals. And that impacts us. Judging them for it is a perfectly valid response.

Substantial number ? Two thirds ? Sorry, but people are people... they support violence in self-defense or against injustice. It's all where you put your eyes, you see.