Quantcast
China has just banned the burqa in its biggest Muslim city

Forums - Politics Discussion - China has just banned the burqa in its biggest Muslim city

Nem said:
padib said:

Thanks Kappie1977, and history seems to agree with us.

Nem said:

Religious ideas! Cmon, do i have to spell it out? I dont mean you cant think and speak what you will, i'm saying you cant force it into others.

You are interpreting me personally when i'm talking about this in light of the incident that is the threads theme.

I agree with you. The problem is that asking a ban on religion forces an idea (non-religion) onto others.

The only way to fight ideas you think are wrong, even evil, is with ideas. To censor ideas never really resolves them.


It is societies job to filter out the ideas that may disrupt civil order though. Its actually what i sugested. To defend an idea of a new peaceful religion that cuts all ties with the past idea of religion as a holy crusade is necessary to evolve religion into something that can exist in a peaceful intellectual society.

If that doesnt happen, the society does have to defend itself against it. I believe its what is happening with China in this case.

DanneSandin said:
 

First of all, I'm oppossed to all religions as well, but banning them is not what a democratic sociaty does. That boarders to dictatorship, telling people what to believe. What we should do is to educate people (and perhaps most of all children) and just show them what kind of gods they worship.

I recommend you read my conversation with padib to clear some things up. You are having religion play the role of the victim when they are the agressor. I do believe they need to be eradicated by evolution into a better doctrine than by beeing forced to do it. But, if this does not happen societies will be forced to have to defend themselves from it. This is very different from banning them cause they disagree with it or dictatorship. Its self defense over something that promotes irrational and distabilizing behaviour to others inside the society.

I am sure you wouldnt be so understanding if one of your family worked on the offices in france and got killed. This kind of behaviour in modern society is intolerable. Non violent muslims will tell you the problem is a minority and not all, but that is not true. The problem is the religion. It has not evolved, it didnt move into modern times and its open interpretation and past history promotes this kind of behaviour. It needs changing. A new Islam is necessary because the west will eventually lose patience and raise bans or the conditions to another Hitler rising to power will return. Of course, this isnt isolated to Islam, i just used it as an example. China is now on the first stage of that.

This is a very slippery slope into totalitarianism. Be careful what you wish for, there may come a day when the governing authority impose an idea or lifestyle which does not suit your lifestyle. Then you might wish people thought more like me.

The religion has some nasty verses, like all religions. The solution to them is to open the dialogue rather than closing it. Opening the dialogue will allow people to reconsider ideas that they may not have had a chance to think through due to indoctrination.



Around the Network

I dislike religion but I like freedom so I have mixed feelings



what exactly does this have to do with gaming, i thought this was a gaming tech site!



Current PC build:

Asus Z97I-Plus, i5 4790K @ 4.6ghz, EVGA GTX 980 ACX 2.0 1377/1853/124%, Corsair Vengence Pro 2400mhz 2x 8192mb, Corsair RM850, Corsair H80i, 120GB OCZ Vertex 3 SSD, 750GB Seagate Momentus XT SSHD, 320GB Weston Digital HDD, Corsair 230T, Corsair K50 Raptor, HP XQ500AA mouse, Windows 10 Pro 64bit. iiyama Pro Lite G2773HS 120Hz 1Ms G2G gaming monitor.

r3tr0gam3r1337 said:
what exactly does this have to do with gaming, i thought this was a gaming tech site!



Its in the politics subforum. Every forum has a offtopic section, atleast I havent seen a forum without one



padib said:
 

This is a very slippery slope into totalitarianism. Be careful what you wish for, there may come a day when the governing authority impose an idea or lifestyle which does not suit your lifestyle. Then you might wish people thought more like me.

The religion has some nasty verses, like all religions. The solution to them is to open the dialogue rather than closing it. Opening the dialogue will allow people to reconsider ideas that they may not have had a chance to think through due to indoctrination.


It really isnt. Its just saying that if you want a dangerous set of ideas to rule your life, you are better off doing it over there if you cant do it peacefully over here. Its very different from totalitarism. There is no prosecution or the sort. Infractors would probably get a fine. No one is gonna take religious people to concentration camps or the sort.

I am also not saying that dialogue should be cut. I am saying that religious people need to evolve their religion into something that has no room for it to be interpretated through violence. Kind of like the old testament gave place to the new testament. Religion needs to clearly demark itself away from the violence and the killing. The logic of "yeah... its a minority everything is alright" will not satisfy people on the long term. What i say is that if that doesnt happen, it is perfectly natural for society to protect themselves from it. As in completely different from "do as we say or else you're a target for extermination". Its more like respect other people's choices and do not force your choices on them or your wallet suffers the consequences. :)

Also, most of us live in democracies, there is no chance of totalitarism unless its elected. If its elected, it represents what the people wish.

I should also point out that this is written with western societies point of view. Really, if you are an immigrant and you are unwilling to adapt to the customs of a country, then its a bit arrogant to think you can force other people on that country to do so.



Around the Network
Nem said:

It really isnt. Its just saying that if you want a dangerous set of ideas to rule your life, you are better off doing it over there if you cant do it peacefully over here. Its very different from totalitarism. There is no prosecution or the sort. Infractors would probably get a fine. No one is gonna take religious people to concentration camps or the sort.

I am also not saying that dialogue should be cut. I am saying that religious people need to evolve their religion into something that has no room for it to be interpretated through violence. Kind of like the old testament gave place to the new testament. Religion needs to clearly demark itself away from the violence and the killing. The logic of "yeah... its a minority everything is alright" will not satisfy people on the long term. What i say is that if that doesnt happen, it is perfectly natural for society to protect themselves from it. As in completely different from "do as we say or else you're a target for extermination". Its more like respect other people's choices and do not force your choices on them or your wallet suffers the consequences. :)

Also, most of us live in democracies, there is no chance of totalitarism unless its elected. If its elected, it represents what the people wish.

I should also point out that this is written with western societies point of view. Really, if you are an immigrant and you are unwilling to adapt to the customs of a country, then its a bit arrogant to think you can force other people on that country to do so.

It could be valid to call that Totalitarian Democracy, e.g. a democracy which majoritarily chooses to limit the freedom of people to choose their own ideas for themselves, to choose what they believe in, to choose what they like to wear, to choose what kind of values they want to instill in their children.

Killing is one form of penalty, fines are another. Kind of like how the conquest of lands in the name of Islam allows for taking a tax if people choose other religions (even non-religion). So what you are frowning down on in religion is basically what you're proposing.

If evolution is to do its work, then it would do so naturally, not by force. Assume for a moment that I thought that your ideas were harmful and conducive to hostility rather than constructive thinking, would it be up to me to choose to censor you? Would I be right to if I were in power?

I say no, it should never be my right. Because in my values, people have the right to their own beliefs, even if we fundamentally disagree. Even if I think your opinion is not evolved, it doesn't give me the right to censor you. Rather, it's my responsibility to do what I can to keep the debate open and do my best to convince you of the validity of my point of view.

The best way to know if what you're proposing is valid is to put yourself in the shoes of the other party. In other words, imagine a world that completely disagreed with your opinion and would fine you for believing it. How would you feel? How would you feel in a world where maybe your friend was penalised for believing a certain way that his government disagreed with, even if that idea was not necessarily wrong just frowned upon, or just unpopular? What do you think of a future where even our thoughts are controlled by the government?

If you believe that parts of Islam are fundamentally contrary to the values which you hold, then explain to your interlocutor where and why, and hope (or pray, whatever is your preference) that the person you are dealing with can understand. Even if/when religion disappears, people will forever fundamentally disagree on things. What will you do then? You will end up with the same problem. You can't just ban ideas and expect evil to go away. You fight evil with good, shine light on the darkness. If a person is ignorant, educate them. If they are confused, clarify your ideas for them. Strive to be clear, strive to be honest, strive to be educated. That is the only weapon against lies and misinformation.

Many people follow islam with an honest heart. If you ban the religion, these people will be disgruntled, and it may make matters worse. When people are honest, generally it is much easier to present to them a truth even if it might disagree with some of the verses in the book they hold dear to.

Also, about the niqab, if you disagree with it for security reasons, then that is a fair consideration in general. Not a perfect one, but a fair one. However, what about the hijab? Are people free to wear it? Should they be? I think so.



padib said:
 

It could be valid to call that Totalitarian Democracy, e.g. a democracy which majoritarily chooses to limit the freedom of people to choose their own ideas for themselves, to choose what they believe in, to choose what they like to wear, to choose what kind of values they want to instill in their children.

Killing is one form of penalty, fines are another. Kind of like how the conquest of lands in the name of Islam allows for taking a tax if people choose other religions (even non-religion). So what you are frowning down on in religion is basically what you're proposing.

If evolution is to do its work, then it would do so naturally, not by force. Assume for a moment that I thought that your ideas were harmful and conducive to hostility rather than constructive thinking, would it be up to me to choose to censor you? Would I be right to if I were in power?

I say no, it should never be my right. Because in my values, people have the right to their own beliefs, even if we fundamentally disagree. Even if I think your opinion is not evolved, it doesn't give me the right to censor you. Rather, it's my responsibility to do what I can to keep the debate open and do my best to convince you of the validity of my point of view.

The best way to know if what you're proposing is valid is to put yourself in the shoes of the other party. In other words, imagine a world that completely disagreed with your opinion and would fine you for believing it. How would you feel? How would you feel in a world where maybe your friend was penalised for believing a certain way that his government disagreed with, even if that idea was not necessarily wrong just frowned upon, or just unpopular? What do you think of a future where even our thoughts are controlled by the government?

If you believe that parts of Islam are fundamentally contrary to the values which you hold, then explain to your interlocutor where and why, and hope (or pray, whatever is your preference) that the person you are dealing with can understand. Even if/when religion disappears, people will forever fundamentally disagree on things. What will you do then? You will end up with the same problem. You can't just ban ideas and expect evil to go away. You fight evil with good, shine light on the darkness. If a person is ignorant, educate them. If they are confused, clarify your ideas for them. Strive to be clear, strive to be honest, strive to be educated. That is the only weapon against lies and misinformation.

Many people follow islam with an honest heart. If you ban the religion, these people will be disgruntled, and it may make matters worse. When people are honest, generally it is much easier to present to them a truth even if it might disagree with some of the verses in the book they hold dear to.

Also, about the niqab, if you disagree with it for security reasons, then that is a fair consideration in general. Not a perfect one, but a fair one. However, what about the hijab? Are people free to wear it? Should they be? I think so.


I feel like you arent getting what i'm saying. Everyone has freedom to exercise their beliefs, that is not in question. What is in question is forcing those beliefs on other societies. I do not say: You have this belief, therefore you are not fit for this society. Its exactly the opposite. You may have what beliefs you will, but you cant force them on other members of society and much less may it be an excuse for violence and murder.

Also, i think i am not reaching you when i say Religion needs to evolve. I say that religion needs to come up with a new set of rules, a new doctrine that separates it from the past and doesnt make it an excuse for violence of any kind. This does not exclude anyone but those that want to hold on to outdated values that do not respect the other cultures. Islam has to separate itself from all these murders. No one can "ban" a religion per se. But if you are in a foreign country that has seen a fair share of murders because of religion, can you blame them for not wanting those people in their lands anymore? I dont know how we go from this to totalitarism.

If your neighbour comes to your house and shoots your mum or wife because they dont follow the same religion he does, is he exercing his right of free will and/or belief? Are you a totalitarist if you say you dont want him in your house anymore? That is a fair example of what we have here. When you go to someone else's house, you pay due respects. Its only civil to do so. If they dont you call the police on them and for next time you get an alarm so no one else can come in.



It is to be noted that the burqa is not actually a traditional uighur garment. The culture of the region is not being suppressed. This is simply a measure taken to prevent the local muslims from radicalizing. In no way is this supressing the uighur culture; in fact, it is helping it stay alive.



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

Nem said:

I feel like you arent getting what i'm saying. Everyone has freedom to exercise their beliefs, that is not in question. What is in question is forcing those beliefs on other societies. I do not say: You have this belief, therefore you are not fit for this society. Its exactly the opposite. You may have what beliefs you will, but you cant force them on other members of society and much less may it be an excuse for violence and murder.

Also, i think i am not reaching you when i say Religion needs to evolve. I say that religion needs to come up with a new set of rules, a new doctrine that separates it from the past and doesnt make it an excuse for violence of any kind. This does not exclude anyone but those that want to hold on to outdated values that do not respect the other cultures. Islam has to separate itself from all these murders. No one can "ban" a religion per se. But if you are in a foreign country that has seen a fair share of murders because of religion, can you blame them for not wanting those people in their lands anymore? I dont know how we go from this to totalitarism.

If your neighbour comes to your house and shoots your mum or wife because they dont follow the same religion he does, is he exercing his right of free will and/or belief? Are you a totalitarist if you say you dont want him in your house anymore? That is a fair example of what we have here. When you go to someone else's house, you pay due respects. Its only civil to do so. If they dont you call the police on them and for next time you get an alarm so no one else can come in.

To ban a specific religion is forcing a belief on someone. Even if parts of the belief is wrong, even if it is mixed with violence, it is a person's belief system. To hamper it is a violation of a peron's rights.

Though I see what you're saying, I think that the way people talk about religion in general is basically throwing the baby with the bathwater. It's important to be judicious when talking about eliminating certain things. And even if a person's belief is messed up at some point or in some area, it's important to be delicate, because people don't change when forced, it usually just revolts them. That's not a positive force.