Bubble Burst Posted October 24, 2017 Report Share Posted October 24, 2017 11 hours ago, hot enough said: We don't have to look at the last thirty days, we have to look at the last 3/4 of a century. US Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 “Victim Nations” Since World War II https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-people-in-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051 A headline from that site: US Coalition Bombing of Raqqa Comparable to the World War II Destruction of Dresden: tells you everything you need to know about their objectivity. The list is mostly about US taking sides in conflicts around the world and some are hilarious, like blaming US for the victims of the Korean war. Anyhow, this has nothing to do with the Islamic ideology, and I am not gonna continue this with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted October 24, 2017 Report Share Posted October 24, 2017 15 hours ago, DFCaper said: Found this article: https://globalnews.ca/news/2404384/does-quebecs-ban-on-married-names-infringe-on-womens-rights/ So in Quebec, women do not have the right to take their husbands last name. Is this discriminatory against traditional Catholics? There is no connection between banning last married names and banning face coverings in certain limited circumstances. Two totally different matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxme Posted October 24, 2017 Report Share Posted October 24, 2017 16 hours ago, DFCaper said: Found this article: https://globalnews.ca/news/2404384/does-quebecs-ban-on-married-names-infringe-on-womens-rights/ So in Quebec, women do not have the right to take their husbands last name. Is this discriminatory against traditional Catholics? I wish that we lived in a world where there was no religion at all. Religions divide people, not unite them. Catholics fight protestants. Hindus fight Sikhs. Muslims fight everybody. Sunnis fight Shites, and so on. These are some of the examples of what religions have done to mankind. They have only offered us hatred and wars and division. Religions have nothing to be proud of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted October 24, 2017 Report Share Posted October 24, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, taxme said: I wish that we lived in a world where there was no religion at all. Religions divide people, not unite them. Catholics fight protestants. Hindus fight Sikhs. Muslims fight everybody. Sunnis fight Shites, and so on. These are some of the examples of what religions have done to mankind. They have only offered us hatred and wars and division. Religions have nothing to be proud of. And the godless (Communists), who believe there's no one to answer to, kill their own people like we swat flies! Edited October 24, 2017 by betsy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted October 24, 2017 Report Share Posted October 24, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, taxme said: I wish that we lived in a world where there was no religion at all. Religions divide people, not unite them. Catholics fight protestants. Hindus fight Sikhs. Muslims fight everybody. Sunnis fight Shites, and so on. These are some of the examples of what religions have done to mankind. They have only offered us hatred and wars and division. Religions have nothing to be proud of. I agree that all religions are equally as suspect. Where I disagree is you are selective in which religions you hate just as you are selective as to what secondary physical characteristics people have that you hate. In short you pay lip service to sentiments you don't apply equally to all religions. Edited October 24, 2017 by Rue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 2 hours ago, Rue said: I agree that all religions are equally as suspect. Where I disagree is you are selective in which religions you hate just as you are selective as to what secondary physical characteristics people have that you hate. In short you pay lip service to sentiments you don't apply equally to all religions. 7 hours ago, taxme said: I wish that we lived in a world where there was no religion at all. Religions divide people, not unite them. Catholics fight protestants. Hindus fight Sikhs. Muslims fight everybody. Sunnis fight Shites, and so on. These are some of the examples of what religions have done to mankind. They have only offered us hatred and wars and division. Religions have nothing to be proud of. I agree with Betsy. The Communists killed about 100 million people in the 20th century imposing their system in the USSR and China, and they opposed and banned any kind of religion. While they professed to not believe in God and opposed religion, they set up their own belief system based on Karl Marx's ideology. Anyone who disagreed or questioned it was exterminated. Hundreds of millions of others were enslaved. About 1/3 of the world was enslaved and remains so to this day. I can't think of any religion that killed that many people in the 20th century. But let's face it the world has always been a place where people fought wars over land, resources or political control for thousands of years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) 15 hours ago, taxme said: I wish that we lived in a world where there was no religion at all. Religions divide people, not unite them. Catholics fight protestants. Hindus fight Sikhs. Muslims fight everybody. Sunnis fight Shites, and so on. These are some of the examples of what religions have done to mankind. They have only offered us hatred and wars and division. Religions have nothing to be proud of. It's not religion! It depends on the person. That would be like saying the same thing to opposing groups - like political parties! Democrats against Republicans. Conservatives against Liberals against NDP! Or, to races! Look at the race-related divisions we have! Or, to genders! Is there over-all unity? Even families are not spared. Look at the stats for broken marriage. Who do you blame for that? MARRIAGE? If there is no marriage, there wouldn't be any divorce? Or, to things - like guns. Like as if a gun would go off on its own and kill people. Look how divided people are about it! Heck - you can even say the same thing to forums! Look at the division in this forum. Some even went off in anger to create another forum! Opposing views is natural. It's part of life. It's how one approaches it and deals with it, that matters. Edited October 25, 2017 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 15 hours ago, Rue said: I agree that all religions are equally as suspect. Where I disagree is you are selective in which religions you hate just as you are selective as to what secondary physical characteristics people have that you hate. In short you pay lip service to sentiments you don't apply equally to all religions. I thought that Taxme pretty uniformly described this evil as one that covers all religions, Rue. "I wish that we lived in a world where there was no religion at all. Religions have nothing to be proud of." Wherein the above do you find "lip service to sentiments you don't apply equally to all religions"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 5 hours ago, betsy said: It's not religion! It depends on the person. That's not supported by the evidence, Betsy, you know that stuff that you have a great aversion to. The USA pretty much founded their entire first century of raping and pillaging the planet upon the fatuous notion that a god would bless their crimes as a god given right to rape and pillage. The Brits pulled the same bullshit for a long time too. Canadian and US [Australia & NZ too] genocides against indigenous peoples all had the imprimatur of the christian god. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benz Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 On 2017-10-18 at 10:52 AM, Goddess said: I'm not sure how I feel about this - on the one hand it irritates me that how women dress is a subject of legislation and I understand Allow me to help you get more comfortable with this. If a woman is hired as policewoman, do we tell her what to wear? Do we force her to wear a uniform or she can wear whatever she wants? If a woman is a teacher, can she wear whatever she wants? Can she do her job in bikini? Nope, we have a certain minimum requirements and therefore, we tell her what to wear and what not to. Depending on what you do or where you are, there are up to a certain point, rules where we tell women what to wear... just as well as to the men. The rules are the same and applied on both gender. We always said what to where and we will always do. Even if the rules are very flexible, there are still rules. So, banning a garmant that covers your face, does it remove the women the right to wear what they want? Not more than getting topless into a bus. It's a justified rule for identification. IT IS NOT, under any circumstances, an excessive restriction over the right for the women to wear what they want. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goddess Posted October 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 1 minute ago, Benz said: IT IS NOT, under any circumstances, an excessive restriction over the right for the women to wear what they want. Actually in discussion here and in other forums, I am getting more comfortable with the idea. I don't think what is being asked is unreasonable. This article goes through the history of burkas/niqabs: http://www.meforum.org/2777/ban-the-burqa The history of the burka is that it has always been and continues to be, used to denigrate and marginalize women. It has always been and continues to be, used by Islamists to acheive political gains. It has always been and continues to be, affiliated with the most violent, regressive, extremist and fundamentalist forms of Islam. I think these considerations are more important than any one person's "personal freedom". Why allow Islamists to even get a toehold in Canada? This is a garment that should not be celebrated in any way, shape or form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 27 minutes ago, Benz said: Not more than getting topless into a bus. It's a justified rule for identification. This is actually a new clarification on the law, only from yesterday. So yes you are correct, but only because of this recent change. Before that the bill seemed to be about cultural homogenization, or forcing people to act like lapsed Catholics. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-face-covering-guidelines-bill-62-1.4368594 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 14 minutes ago, Goddess said: The history of the burka is that it has always been and continues to be, used to denigrate and marginalize women. It has always been and continues to be, used by Islamists to acheive political gains. It has always been and continues to be, affiliated with the most violent, regressive, extremist and fundamentalist forms of Islam. Yes, I have heard anti-religious people say the same about Christianity. For all of you people who want to ban religions, please review the history of the USSR thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goddess Posted October 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Yes, I have heard anti-religious people say the same about Christianity. For all of you people who want to ban religions, please review the history of the USSR thanks. ??? This is about banning burkas. Please review the history of the burka. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Yes, I have heard anti-religious people say the same about Christianity. For all of you people who want to ban religions, please review the history of the USSR thanks. Bill 62 is about banning a face covering in certain circumstances, not about banning religion. The Niqab is sending the message that our western culture and freedoms are rejected. This is a political ideology of control under the cover of a religion. Do you support this? Edited October 25, 2017 by blackbird 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 38 minutes ago, Goddess said: This is about banning burkas. Please review the history of the burka. Thanks. Nuns also wear headgear that covers their faces. Haven't heard about that one. This is about putting restrictions on creepy foreigners, period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goddess Posted October 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Nuns also wear headgear that covers their faces. Haven't heard about that one. This is about putting restrictions on creepy foreigners, period. False analogy. Being a nun is a voluntary career choice, while Muslim "modesty" is most often coerced. The underlying ideology, how it functions and what it confers are totally different. FFS, there are entire countries where millions of women are forced from childhood to cover their entire selves! Which country on earth is murdering nuns, throwing acid in their faces, beating and mutilating nuns for not wearing a habit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Nuns also wear headgear that covers their faces. Haven't heard about that one. This is about putting restrictions on creepy foreigners, period. Yeah, and I wear a hardhat when I'm at work. And, believe it or not, when I was in the army, the bastards made me wear a uniform! My wife doesn't force me to wear one at home though. (I'm still against any ban. I'm just pointing out how silly it is to compare Burkas to Habits) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 24 minutes ago, blackbird said: Bill 62 is about banning a face covering in certain circumstances, not about banning religion. It's about banning face coverings and leaving it up to individual racists in positions of authority to decide who to apply it against. How are you going to know if that isn't a Muslim disguising their ethnicity under that hoody and sunglass' for example? Do you support this? Obviously not. Do you think a bus driver should pander to your discomfort if you insist they make another passenger show their face? This is where I think the stupidity of this law will really shine, when hostile 'frightened' racists insist the law is the law is the law and that someone enforce it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goddess Posted October 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, bcsapper said: Yeah, and I wear a hardhat when I'm at work. And, believe it or not, when I was in the army, the bastards made me wear a uniform! My wife doesn't force me to wear one at home though. (I'm still against any ban. I'm just pointing out how silly it is to compare Burkas to Habits) It's ridonkulous. And it's an argument that's been debunked over and over again. Nuns spend their days working their chosen career path. Praying, tending to religious duties, etc. Women who are required to burka-up are not devoting their days to worship. They are trying to cook meals, raise children, work a job, drive to the grocery store. I'd like to see some men here throw a comforter over their heads for a week and try to live a normal life. Are Christian women all over the world being actively/socially coerced into becoming nuns? No. Aside from being silimlar in appearance, they are completely different in their symbolism. Edited October 25, 2017 by Goddess 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 16 minutes ago, bcsapper said: (I'm still against any ban. I'm just pointing out how silly it is to compare Burkas to Habits) Then why doesn't this law specifically target Burkas, why does it rather ambiguously refer to face coverings? What is Quebec trying to hide? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 24 minutes ago, Goddess said: False analogy. Being a nun is a voluntary career choice, while Muslim "modesty" is most often coerced. The underlying ideology, how it functions and what it confers are totally different. FFS, there are entire countries where millions of women are forced from childhood to cover their entire selves! Which country on earth is murdering nuns, throwing acid in their faces, beating and mutilating nuns for not wearing a habit? Yes, sorry I have seen this argument before in regards to Christianity's crimes throughout history. It's not objective. You have basically provided an axiom that says Christianity is better than Islam because the latter is 'most often' coerced whereas the social indoctrination of our society is apparently better... somehow. Why not just ban Islam ? You can prove it's evil, right ? All of the bad things they do ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 23 minutes ago, bcsapper said: Yeah, and I wear a hardhat when I'm at work. And, believe it or not, when I was in the army, the bastards made me wear a uniform! My wife doesn't force me to wear one at home though. (I'm still against any ban. I'm just pointing out how silly it is to compare Burkas to Habits) ? It's silly why ? Because that's a work uniform ? Weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 31 minutes ago, eyeball said: Then why doesn't this law specifically target Burkas, why does it rather ambiguously refer to face coverings? What is Quebec trying to hide? No idea. Never understood Quebec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 27 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: ? It's silly why ? Because that's a work uniform ? Weird. Yes. How is that weird? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.