Because it's 2016

[kimmy]

Yeah but they were segregated.

They were in the same room.

Yeah but I thought they were on a balcony. Still, they were at the back of the room.

And Rosa Parks had nothing to get mad about, because, after all, she was on the bus.

There were women at the front of the room.

Those women don't count because they're special women. Plus they had to keep quiet.

A few women have actually spoke there in the last couple of years.

Well, like I said, they're special women.

(like there are any special women to misogynists)

And Augusta Golf And Country Club wasn't a racist club because they did, after all, let Mr Woods play there once a year.

-k

[kimmy]

A recent former Prime Minister invited a bunch of rabbi's on his junket to Israel, including Toronto Rabbi Daniel Korobkin from Beth Avraham Joseph synagogue, the largest Orthodox congregation in Canada.According to article IV of their constitution: All services shall be conducted in accordance with traditional Orthodox practice. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing the Congregation will have separate seating for men and women, with a balcony or other halachically proper mechitza during religious services conducted under its auspices.

As you later said:

Where was your criticism of Stephen Harper when he cozied up to Rabbi Daniel Korobkin without acknowledging the elephant in the room?

So, first off, did Harper actually attend a gender-segregated event at the synagogue, or did he go on a junket with a rabbi from such a synagogue? From your statement I gather it's the latter. I confess that I don't have a comprehensive list of people Harper may have been on junkets with or what their social views are, but I am sure there are probably some shady ones there. (I suspect that we'll be able to say the same of Trudeau before long as well.)

I don't approve of a Prime Minister cozying up to religious fundies as a matter of official business. Or religious figures in general, to be honest, but that's my personal opinion. Not really sure what point is served by a Prime Minister flying a bunch of rabbis to Israel for some kind of dog-and-pony show, and to me that's more questionable in itself than the specifics of which rabbis he was traveling with (and more questionable than Trudeau doing a photo-op at a mosque, as well.) Had I been paying attention when this junket happened, I would have probably complained about the overall point of the trip and not delved into the specifics of what goes on in each rabbi's synagogue.

Secondly, I have to point out that Harper has never billed himself as a feminist and was often criticized for being the opposite. So for you to respond to criticism of Trudeau's actions not matching his words by saying "yeah well Harper did it too!" is setting the bar awfully low for Mr Trudeau.

As much as you guys might wish it were otherwise, not all of the criticism of Trudeau's choice is coming from kimmy or Argus or Muslim-haters or Trudeau-haters. Some of it is coming from feminists who felt let down or betrayed by him.

And even when confronted with that fact on Friday, he couldn't even acknowledge the complaint, couldn't address why feminists were disappointed, couldn't state how he felt his hosts fell short of "that perfect ideal".

And I still haven't heard why he couldn't have just gone to a more progressive mosque. Wouldn't that have been a great way to make a point about how Muslims and Canadian values are not incompatible?

-k

[cybercoma]

And Rosa Parks had nothing to get mad about, because, after all, she was on the bus.

And Augusta Golf And Country Club wasn't a racist club because they did, after all, let Mr Woods play there once a year.

-k

They were at the back of the room and the front of the room, but yeah...it's exactly like Jim Crow Era America./s

Do Muslim men at this mosque also lynch their daughters and wives? You want to make up some nonsense about that too while you're at it?

[kimmy]

They were at the back of the room and the front of the room, but yeah...it's exactly like Jim Crow Era America./s

The regular women got to stand at the back of the room. The special guests got to stand at the front of the room.

To me it matters how the regular women are treated on a regular day, to you that apparently doesn't matter because some special guests got to stand at the front during the media dog-and-pony show.

Do Muslim men at this mosque also lynch their daughters and wives?

When did I suggest they did?

You want to make up some nonsense about that too while you're at it?

What exactly have I made up?

-k

[cybercoma]

"regular women"

[DogOnPorch]

They were at the back of the room and the front of the room, but yeah...it's exactly like Jim Crow Era America./s

Do Muslim men at this mosque also lynch their daughters and wives? You want to make up some nonsense about that too while you're at it?

So you're trying to claim that the mosque is not gender segregated? Al-Qaradawai really isn't such a bad fellow other than wanting to murder all the Jews and homosexuals?

Why was Trudeau at this man's mosque? There is no good answer. Either he knew what the mosque stands for...that's bad...or he didn't...he is stupid.

Which was it?

[dialamah]

So far, the following claims have been made about this Mosque:

1. Supports terrorism: False, it actually works to prevent radicalisation

2. Treats women as second class citizens: False, women are on the board, give talks and lead services

3. Forced women to enter through a separate door: False, an MP who was there said that did not happen

4. Kept women segregated on a balcony: False, women were on the same floor, at the front, at the back and even mingleing with the men

So far, all the detractors have to support their case of hypocrisy is that the women covered their hair. Early on in the thread, complainers were saying "Why didn't he go to a Mosque that was more progressive". It appears he did. So what, exactly, is your problem?

Rather than admit how wrong you guys were in the first four instances, you double-down and insist that no accommodation to tradition or religion, no matter how benign, should be allowed if it involves the PM. Do you know how extreme you sound?

[DogOnPorch]

Why do nuns cover up?

Nuns are members of a religious order. Not the general population.

So far, the following claims have been made about this Mosque:

1. Supports terrorism: False, it actually works to prevent radicalisation

2. Treats women as second class citizens: False, women are on the board, give talks and lead services

3. Forced women to enter through a separate door: False, an MP who was there said that did not happen

4. Kept women segregated on a balcony: False, women were on the same floor, at the front, at the back and even mingleing with the men

So far, all the detractors have to support their case of hypocrisy is that the women covered their hair. Early on in the thread, complainers were saying "Why didn't he go to a Mosque that was more progressive". It appears he did. So what, exactly, is your problem?

Rather than admit how wrong you guys were in the first four instances, you double-down and insist that no accommodation to tradition or religion, no matter how benign, should be allowed if it involves the PM. Do you know how extreme you sound?

It's good to see one of the members defending Imam al-Qaradawi.

[Smallc]

Nuns are members of a religious order. Not the general population.

And Muslims - also a religion.

[dialamah]

The regular women got to stand at the back of the room. The special guests got to stand at the front of the room.

To me it matters how the regular women are treated on a regular day, to you that apparently doesn't matter because some special guests got to stand at the front during the media dog-and-pony show.

You don't actually know how women are treated on a regular day, but so far you've believed without question, the absolute worst - and even though most of that has been proven wrong, you won't even consider that perhaps you are wrong about your further assumptions. You were one saying "Why didn't he choose a more progressive Mosque?", and when it appears he did - well, not progressive enough for you is it? What would be? A Christian church with a lesbian pastor, perhaps? Is that your only acceptable 'place of worship' for a PM to attend?

[DogOnPorch]

And Muslims - also a religion.

Nuns are members of the church...not part of the General Population. Also, many nuns have ditched the habit...their choice.

All Muslim women are to wear the veil under Islamic law.

[Smallc]

All Muslim women are to wear the veil under Islamic law.

And yet not all do, so....

I know what you're going to say, but you're still wrong.

[DogOnPorch]

And yet not all do, so....

I know what you're going to say, but you're still wrong.

Under Islamic Law they do...or else.

[WestCoastRunner]

As much as you guys might wish it were otherwise, not all of the criticism of Trudeau's choice is coming from kimmy or Argus or Muslim-haters or Trudeau-haters. Some of it is coming from feminists who felt let down or betrayed by him.

-k

What other feminists have felt let down besides the one previously mentioned?

[Smallc]

Under Islamic Law they do...or else.

Boogedy boogedy boo?

Most Islamic people are no more fundamentalist than most Christian. I'm sure they're glad to have you to tell them all about their faith.

[DogOnPorch]

What other feminists have felt let down besides the one previously mentioned?

For her to be absolved from guilt, a raped woman must have shown good conduct.

---Imam al-Qaradawi

Boogedy boogedy boo?

Most Islamic people are no more fundamentalist than most Christian. I'm sure they're glad to have you to tell them all about their faith.

Sharia Law is a fact. You're free to deny it exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_religious_police

Support Islam...support it all.

[Smallc]

Support the Bible - support it all.

Of course, no one does that - in either case.

[DogOnPorch]

Support the Bible - support it all.

Of course, no one does that - in either case.

Again, you're free to deny Sharia Law exists. But, I have to wonder why you're so vigorously denying its existence.

[PIK]

Personally I don't trust people that put religion 1st.

Edited September 20, 2016 by PIK

[Smallc]

Again, you're free to deny Sharia Law exists. But, I have to wonder why you're so vigorously denying its existence.

Who denied that it existed?

Every religious text is the world of (insert fictional deity here). I don't know why you have such a hard time understanding this and feel that is true of only Islam.

[DogOnPorch]

Who denied that it existed?

Every religious text is the world of (insert fictional deity here). I don't know why you have such a hard time understanding this and feel that is true of only Islam.

You...you're contesting what I say: therefore you deny its existence. The big question is WHY you deny its existence, now.

[Smallc]

I don't even know what you're talking about.

[DogOnPorch]

I don't even know what you're talking about.

You tried to draw equivalence between Islam forcing all women to cover themselves and the Catholic church's nuns and their habits.

[Smallc]

You tried to draw equivalence between Islam forcing all women to cover themselves and the Catholic church's nuns and their habits.

Mostly because the difference doesn't exist.

[DogOnPorch]

Mostly because the difference doesn't exist.

Islam forces all women to wear a hijab, veil, etc. Not just a few nuns who still where the habit by choice.

Edited September 20, 2016 by DogOnPorch