Belgium Decides To Ban The Burqa

andreas_mercury wrote: "Amazon wrote: Instead of treating religious and non-religious people as equal, you want to treat non-religious people as superior."


"they are. people stop believing in easter bunny and santa when they are to only be 5 years old - mankind must be no different and should stop wasting time on organized 'religion'"

So, you're not going to even bother showing respect for religious people? If I showed this utter contempt for your views, or implied that as an athiest you were morally inferior, you would be insulted. Rightfully so. Well, this is no different.

"spritualism and an acceptance of what is beyond our current humand understandings is good and a private thing that hurts no one but the institutions that hide behind religious should be outlawed forever."

Nice. So as a religious person, in your ideal world, would I only be allowed to pray indooors or can I actually pray outside? Would I be permitted to have a religious wedding? Thankfully, you will never get your way.

You know, the hyppocricy of this is astounding. You want to ban organised religion, yet how would you feel if athiesm was banned? You undoubtfully wouldn't like it.

Here's a suggestion; why can't people believe whate they like in whatever way they like? Ultimately, my being a practitioner of organised religion no more affects you than your being an athiest; except, unlike you, I don't show contempt for the other person's views.

"fuck the Pope and fuck anyone on the earth in his position in different churches; they should all be against walls with bullets"

Advocating violence. My first thought is to wonder what it is about the Catholic Church that inspires such anger, my second is to note that if that statements had been about blacks or Jews, it would be met with horrified outrage. Whether you believe in God is your right, but that doesn't give you the right to advocate violence.

"ugggh fuck the burga already, it is total pointless and childish reminder of outdated beliefs." Whether it is 'pointless and childish reminder of outdated beliefs' is debatable. What is less debatable is that you attacked myself and others for being poor debaters, yet this shows that you are in fact a terrible debater. You do realise, that you nobody forces you to engage in this discussion? If you don't like it, then don't.

BTW, there is actually no difference between you and a religious extremist. In fact, you will find that you and religious extremists have more in common than you would probably like.

blah blahblah you make presumptions!!  would i be insulted by anything you say?  no because i am above anything that comes from your mouth.

retard should read posts closely, in nowhere did i ever claim to be an atheist (unlike my idiotic ex band mates)

i am even to full support of the pursuit of truth and an understanding of high concepts that are outside of common human knowledge,

but religion has no thing to do to that because it is all doctrine and  bullshit.  you could have healthy belief that there is something beyond (that we used to call God) and find comfort in the truth of the universe, without ever being religious ......   only an idiot needs to make up stories to it all.

Amazon wrote:

"You want to ban organised religion, yet how would you feel if athiesm was banned?"

It would be a travesty because atheism by default is correct, since there is no proof that anything metaphysical exists or has ever existed.  To create a world where it is illegal not to believe in unproven beings would be far more dangerous than simply accepting they don't exist until proven otherwise.

Atheism isn't a religious belief.  It is an absence of religion on the basis of the logic of accepting what the physical world is and isn't.  All else is philosophical discussion and desires.

Sir GH wrote: andreas_mercury wrote:

ThomasQuinn wrote:

"When someone has been arrested, it is an additional crime (yes, I actually think it's a crime and not a misdemeanor in most countries) to hinder the process of identification."

You're right, that's the law.  But if freedom of religion is in the constitution of a country, what's bigger - that or the law?

I am not aware of any constitution that does not stipulate that all citizens are at all times answerable to the law. That evidently overrides the freedom of religion.

andreas_mercury wrote: "blah blahblah you make presumptions!! would i be insulted by anything you say? no because i am above anything that
comes from your mouth."


Good for you. Quite honestly, who gives a damn what you think?

"retard should read posts closely, in nowhere did i ever claim to be an atheist (unlike my idiotic ex band mates)"

You know, banding around the word retard simply shows proves that when someone isn't smart enought to back up their ridiculous position, they resort to insults. You really are absurd. It also appears that you have taken etiquette lessons from Skip.

So I falsely called you an athiest? Big deal. At least, unlike you, I didn't advocate violence, call the other person names, show complete contempt for their valid views and reveal myself to be completely unsuitable for adult discussion.

"but religion has no thing to do to that because it is all doctrine and bullshit. you could have healthy belief that there is something beyond (that we used to call God) and find comfort in the truth of the universe, without
ever being religious ...... "

According to you. Has it ever occured to you that other people might disagree and are perfectly entitled to?

"only an idiot needs to make up stories to it all."

Well, we can't be all be as incredibly intelligent as you. rolls eyes

Sir GH wrote: "All good in this world can be accomplished secularly without having the walls of religion to divide us from one another.


Except religion doesn't automatically divide. I would say that it is intolerance that divides. Andreas Mercury is a perfect example and we know his thoughts on organised religion.

Personally, I've always found religion to be an enlightening and incredibly positive thing.

"My ideal society would consist of people adhering to the customs of the land they are in. They can believe in whatever they want to believe in as long as they don't break the law and/or basic codes of ethics that are seen as culturally acceptable by the majority - any part of which can be up for amendment, since things do evolve."

The problem is though we are talking about legally enforcing 'customs' which arguably have nothing to do with the law. It is the custom of Western society not to cover our faces, but to legislate against the burqa? That to me simply takes away freedom and choice.

"Most of these people can't get jobs because most employers won't hire someone who hides their face (that, and many of them have husbands who won't let them get jobs to begin with)."

You've just put your finger on another problem with banning the burqa. Of the women who are forced to wear it, many- if not most- would then be placed in a situation where their contact with the outside world is eliminated. If you believe that the burqa is oppressive, banning it won't free these women, it will further oppress them as a large number of the women who wear the burqa won't be able to go out in public. For these women, the burka is a symptom of their oppression, rather than the cause. In fact, I've never met a woman who was at one time forced to wear the burqa, who cited it as the most oppressive thing that they experienced (although they never really used that particular word.)

"Would you want someone in a burqa to be your doctor? Just picture yourself going through a difficult time due to bad health. Would you not feel a sense of warmth from a good doctor whose face you can see smiling in encouragement? Would you feel that same warmth from someone who refused to show you their face?"

It's kind of irrelevent, because if I don't want to, I can simply go to a doctor who doesn't wear the burqa. But really, the fact that I might feel feel more comfortable with a burqaless doctor is not a reason to ban it. We can't simply ban things because they make us feel uncomfortable.

"But it wouldn't happen anyway because most people would rather see a doctor whose face is visible. No such doctor would be able to sustain a business in the western world, unless of course their clientele consisted of people of their cultural background. So much for integrating into the culture of your new country, if that's the case."

Two comments. Firstly, Muslims are not the only people who mostly deal with people of their own cultural background. I have a family doctor who, like me, is Jewish, and I went to a Jewish school. But, secondly, what's wrong with that? Ultimately people choose to be with people they are familiar with, whether it be on a professional basis or a personal basis. 'Integrating into the culture of your new country' doesn't mean not primarily living with/dealing with/befriending/dating people of the same background; if it did, nobody would have integrated into the culture.

"If they like the ways of their culture so much, why don't they stay in their country and practice what they do in a community where the majority embrace their ways?"

It's not that simple. People immigrate for numerous reasons, not the least of which for freedom.

"You make many great points (both practically and philosophically), and this is turning into a great discussion. But on the issue of the burqa it seems we just agree to disagree."

Thanks. :D Yes, it does seem that we have a fundamental difference, however I just wanted to respond to the points above. .

Sir GH wrote: "It would be a travesty because atheism by default is correct, since there is no proof that anything metaphysical exists or has ever existed."

Athiesm isn't correct, nor is it incorrect. There may not be proof that anything metaphysical exists or has ever existed, but nor is there any proof that it hasn't existed.

But, really it's being 'correct' isn't really all that relevent. We can't ban things because they may be incorrect. Is that the world you want to live in? Religon is banned because it is 'incorrect? That to me would be horrifying, and I honestly don't understand it at all.

"To create a world where it is illegal not to believe in unproven beings would be far more dangerous than simply accepting they don't exist until proven otherwise."

Yes, but making it illegal to believe in unproven beings is also dangerous. You can accept that they don't exist until proven otherwise, but to force others to have the same attitude is totalitarianism. By saying that I can't believe in God or that I can't practice my Judaism in public goes against every value that I would have thought that society values.

"Atheism isn't a religious belief. It is an absence of religion on the basis of the logic of accepting what the physical world is and isn't. All else is philosophical discussion and desires."

I never said it was a religious belief. That does not mean that it is beyond reproach, and really, to say it is on 'the basis of the logic of accepting what the physical world is and isn't. All else is philosophical discussion and desires,' is incredibly debatable. As I said before, one may not be able to prove that God exists, but nor can one disprove that God exists, and a logical approach would not autmatically lead to a lack of belief in God; altough religion is ultimately about faith.

However, this is besides the point. My point is simply that I have no desire to live in a society in which either organised religion or athiesm are banned. While I would find it troubling to live in a country in which the burqa was banned, there is simply no way that I could live in any country in which either organised religion or athiesm were banned.

In fact, as much as as I hate andreas mercury's 'views', and as much as I hate him, I would be reluctant to deny him the freedom that he is so eager to deny me. Surely that isn't too controversial?

"Brevity is the soul of wit"