Religions > Atheism > Article:Only a fully secular state can protect women's rights
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"JPG" |
| Date: |
20 Oct 2006 04:28:36 AM |
| Object: |
Article:Only a fully secular state can protect women's rights |
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1924022,00.html
Only a fully secular state can protect women's rights
It is astonishing that a Labour government has managed to lead the
country into this religious quagmire
Polly Toynbee
Tuesday October 17, 2006
The Guardian
This has been a real test of Labour politicians. It is the first time
in years that there has been a hard choice about women's rights - and
many failed miserably. Here is a conflict between two principles -
respect for a religious minority and respect for women's equality. For
a host of reasons, some honest, some cowardly, an alarming number of
leading Labour voices got it badly wrong. But from the top, only
silence. Over religion, segregation and education, Tony Blair has led
his party badly astray through his own religiosity and by
misunderstanding the effect of personal "choice".
Article continues
When it comes to something as basic as women hidden from view behind
religious veils, is it really so hard to say this is a bad practice?
Because some racists may jump on the bandwagon to attack Muslims,
that's no reason to pretend veils are OK. Meanwhile, Labour has given
away yet more state education to all the religions - 42 of the first
100 expensive academies gifted to Christian groups, seven new Muslim
schools, with 150 in the pipeline. Why, in this least religious of
nations?
The veil turns women into things. It was shocking to find on the
streets of Kabul that invisible women behind burkas are not treated
with special respect. On the contrary, they are pushed and shoved off
pavements by men, jostled aside as if almost subhuman without the
face-to-face contact that recognises common humanity.
The classroom assistant in a Church of England school in Kirklees
removed her veil for a job interview, but now expects to go veiled in
corridors or whenever she might meet a man. What does that say to
children about the role of women as victims and men as aggressors? Of
course it should be banned in all places of education, and the
community cohesion minister is the right person to say so. The veil is
profoundly divisive - and deliberately designed to be.
No one need be a Muslim to understand the ideology of the veil, because
covering and controlling women has been a near-universal practice in
Christian societies and in most cultures and religions the world over.
Western women have struggled hard to escape, but not long ago women
here were treated as chattels and temptresses, to be owned by men and
kept out of men's way, to be chaperoned, hidden, powerless under
compulsory rules of "modesty". Women's bodies have been the battle flag
of religions, whether it's churching their uncleanness, the Pope
forcing them to have babies, the Qur'an allowing wife-beating, Hindu
suttee, Chinese foot-binding and all the rest.
Jack Straw questioned the veil when he found it was not fading out, but
increasing in his constituency. No one would ban it in the street:
where would fashion dictatorship end? But between teachers and pupils,
or public officials and their clients, the state should not allow the
hiding of women. No citizen's face can be indecent because of gender.
Prescott, Hewitt, Kelly, Hain and others failed the test, saying it was
women's "choice": can they really believe that's the whole story? Here
is an uneasy blend of nervousness about racism and fear of already
angry Muslims. It was left to Harriet Harman to make the unequivocal
case for women's rights: "If you want equality, you have to be in
society, not hidden away from it," she said. "The veil is an obstacle
to women's participation on equal terms in society." No nonsense about
choice. It took feminist leaders like her to fight for women's rights,
often against a majority of oppressed women who at first "chose" to
think them outlandish and unfeminine.
Harman is astute about the way choice is culturally determined: do
women really choose the female roles societies assign them? She is not
alone in meeting Muslim woman who are appalled that their own daughters
might adopt the veil as a political gesture. It's a danger to other
women's "choice" if all "good" Muslims are forced to prove their faith
by submission. Linda Riordan, the Halifax MP, says she talks to many
veiled Muslim constituents who feel oppressed by it; it's not their
choice at all. "And when I see women driving in veils, I am horrified
at the danger."
There is only one answer: a completely secular state. It is astonishing
that a Labour government has led the country into such a morass. Things
are far worse than they were 10 years ago. Labour stood by as Blair
gave religion more political influence, leaving one-third of all state
schools under religious control.
Alan Johnson, the education secretary, has been allowed to make only a
small improvement to today's education bill, obliging new religious
schools to offer 25% of places to children outside the faith. (He and
many ministers would probably phase out all religious state schools -
but no chance under Blair.)
Meanwhile, segregation gets worse, with a third of schools now
religious. The Young Foundation's study, The New East End, warns that
in Tower Hamlets white parents have taken over four church secondary
schools, making them virtually all white, so neighbouring secular
schools have become 90% Bangladeshi. Church schools aid segregation:
the Institute for Research in Integrated Strategies finds that the
number of children taking free school meals at C of E and Catholic
schools is lower than the average in an area. That means nearby schools
take more, magnifying the difference. Selection is the secret "ethos"
of church schools. Everyone knows it - I have just met an Enfield taxi
driver whose wife goes to church to get their child into a church
school. Is that choice?
As Christian hypocrisy keeps poor children out, others demand their own
religious schools. The Leicester Islamic Academy turns state school
next year, but the duty to accept 25% non-Muslims may not trouble it
much. The principal said on The Moral Maze that all girls must wear the
school uniform, both the hijab and the head-to-toe jilbab. Not much
choice there. The Commission for Racial Equality says trust schools and
parental choice are leading to parents choosing schools of their own
ethnicity.
Will the next Labour leader be brave enough to confront growing
segregation? If so, start by ending all religious state education. It
would be popular: a Guardian/ICM poll finds 64% of voters think "the
government should not be funding faith schools of any kind".
Desegregating schools is a matter of fairness: Muslims have the poorest
communities with the worst schools, and are in danger of increasing
isolation and anger. The veil is another totem of that danger.
polly.toynbee@guardian.co.uk
.
|
|
| User: "Sean C" |
|
| Title: Re: Article:Only a fully secular state can protect women's rights |
20 Oct 2006 09:16:09 AM |
|
|
In article <1161336516.498886.17840@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, JPG
<j_peasemold_gruntfuttock@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1924022,00.html
Only a fully secular state can protect women's rights
It is astonishing that a Labour government has managed to lead the
country into this religious quagmire
Polly Toynbee
Tuesday October 17, 2006
The Guardian
This has been a real test of Labour politicians. It is the first time
in years that there has been a hard choice about women's rights - and
many failed miserably. Here is a conflict between two principles -
respect for a religious minority and respect for women's equality. For
a host of reasons, some honest, some cowardly, an alarming number of
leading Labour voices got it badly wrong. But from the top, only
silence. Over religion, segregation and education, Tony Blair has led
his party badly astray through his own religiosity and by
misunderstanding the effect of personal "choice".
Article continues
When it comes to something as basic as women hidden from view behind
religious veils, is it really so hard to say this is a bad practice?
Because some racists may jump on the bandwagon to attack Muslims,
that's no reason to pretend veils are OK. Meanwhile, Labour has given
away yet more state education to all the religions - 42 of the first
100 expensive academies gifted to Christian groups, seven new Muslim
schools, with 150 in the pipeline. Why, in this least religious of
nations?
While I generally agree with Toynbee in principle, her antagonism to
religion can really be over the top sometimes, and this is one of them.
While I agree that women wearing the veil is a bad thing, it is equally
bad to force them to remove it, if they desire to wear one. Toynbee's
argument is that if giving women freedom from the veil is a desirable
social goal, which I think it is, then we should make it mandatory,
whether the woman agrees or not. If we do not do this, then we are in
essence sanctioning the oppression of women by permitting it to happen.
At the same time, we are giving Muslim women a convenient out, allowing
them to argue that they are refraining from wearing the veil because
they have to comply with the law, and not because it is their choice,
even if it is. Otherwise, the Muslim woman herself must bear the often
considerable onus of freeing herself from the veil.
But by similar reasoning, you could argue that forcing women to wear
bikini tops or other covering of their breasts while in public while
men can go bare-chested is also an obvious double-standard that
oppresses women as surely as the veil does. If a woman desires to go
topless, she will in most parts of the Western world find herself
quickly arrested and charged with a crime. Repeated attempts to go
topless may well result in jail time. So if giving women freedom from
the brassiere and the bikini is a desirable goal, then we should
require women to go topless at all times, otherwise, we are sanctioning
an oppressive double-standard. Right? Well, I think not, because many
Western women would feel naked, humiliated and abused if they were
forced to go topless, so it can hardly be called "liberation" to force
them to do so. There are Muslim women who report the same feelings from
being forced to remove the veil--that it is a deeply humiliating and
embarassing experience for them. Having the legal option to refrain
from wearing a particular item of clothing is one thing, being forced
to do so is another, and I am suprised that Toynbee can't see this
distinction.
There are other ways to protect women in their right to go without the
veil; coercion is not the only option.
--Sean C
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: Article:Only a fully secular state can protect women's rights |
20 Oct 2006 10:02:52 AM |
|
|
To put it succinctly, if the state has the power to prevent women
from wearing a veil, it also has the power to require it. The
state should not have such power in the first place.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark D J. Mark D" |
|
| Title: Re: Article:Only a fully secular state can protect women's rights |
20 Oct 2006 10:27:05 AM |
|
|
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:12jhp8s16n9cf0f@corp.supernews.com...
To put it succinctly, if the state has the power to prevent women
from wearing a veil, it also has the power to require it. The
state should not have such power in the first place.
If elected and accountable officials of the state shouldn't have such power,
why should unelected and unaccountable leaders of 'faith communities' have
the power to instil and perpetuate practices and beliefs that cause young
girls to develop such a sense of shame and paranoia about their own
*physicality*, *sexuality*, *attractiveness* and *worth* that they submit to
and/or internalise the pathological patriarchal insistence that they
isolate, dehumanise and anonymise themselves by the use of so-called
'veils'? Doesn't *the psychological and psycho-sexual mutilation of
children* show up anywhere in your pseudo-ethical, pseudo-libertarian
scheme...?
M.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: Article:Only a fully secular state can protect women's rights |
20 Oct 2006 11:02:32 AM |
|
|
"Mark D J." <Mark D J.@hoyme.com> writes:
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:12jhp8s16n9cf0f@corp.supernews.com...
To put it succinctly, if the state has the power to prevent women
from wearing a veil, it also has the power to require it. The
state should not have such power in the first place.
If elected and accountable officials of the state shouldn't have such power,
why should unelected and unaccountable leaders of 'faith communities' have
the power to instil and perpetuate practices and beliefs that cause young
girls to develop such a sense of shame and paranoia about their own
*physicality*, *sexuality*, *attractiveness* and *worth* that they submit to
and/or internalise the pathological patriarchal insistence that they
isolate, dehumanise and anonymise themselves by the use of so-called
'veils'?
Because people have the freedom to be idiots.
Doesn't *the psychological and psycho-sexual mutilation of
children* show up anywhere in your pseudo-ethical, pseudo-libertarian
scheme...?
You're free to be an idiot as well, and I see you exercise your
right vigorously. Bravo! <golfclap>
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Article:Only a fully secular state can protect women's rights |
20 Oct 2006 01:01:55 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:02:32 -0000, Brian Westley <westley@visi.com>
wrote:
"Mark D J." <Mark D J.@hoyme.com> writes:
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:12jhp8s16n9cf0f@corp.supernews.com...
To put it succinctly, if the state has the power to prevent women
from wearing a veil, it also has the power to require it. The
state should not have such power in the first place.
If elected and accountable officials of the state shouldn't have such power,
why should unelected and unaccountable leaders of 'faith communities' have
the power to instil and perpetuate practices and beliefs that cause young
girls to develop such a sense of shame and paranoia about their own
*physicality*, *sexuality*, *attractiveness* and *worth* that they submit to
and/or internalise the pathological patriarchal insistence that they
isolate, dehumanise and anonymise themselves by the use of so-called
'veils'?
Because people have the freedom to be idiots.
Doesn't *the psychological and psycho-sexual mutilation of
children* show up anywhere in your pseudo-ethical, pseudo-libertarian
scheme...?
You're free to be an idiot as well, and I see you exercise your
right vigorously. Bravo! <golfclap>
There was an excellent and thoughtful post in our local newspaper
last night (Bradford is next door to Kirklees*)
He concluded by saying:
"One smile is worth a thousand Burkas"
* named after Kirklees Abbey in the Calder Valley reputed to be where
Robin Hood died. Legend has it that Robin fired an arrow through the
window and asked to be buried where it landed. A grave nearby is
called "Robin Hood's grave". There is even less evidence to show
Robin actually existed than there is for Jesus.
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Article:Only a fully secular state can protect women's rights |
20 Oct 2006 09:10:51 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:01:55 +0100, Les Hellawell
<myrubbishbin@notatleswell.freeuk.net> wrote:
There is even less evidence to show Robin actually existed than there is for Jesus.
How can there be less evidence than none? (Actually less than
negative, since there's actual evidence that some of the Biblical
claims are actually wrong.)
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds
are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her
tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the
existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Article:Only a fully secular state can protect women's rights |
21 Oct 2006 06:00:32 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 22:10:51 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:01:55 +0100, Les Hellawell
<myrubbishbin@notatleswell.freeuk.net> wrote:
There is even less evidence to show Robin actually existed than there is for Jesus.
How can there be less evidence than none? (Actually less than
negative, since there's actual evidence that some of the Biblical
claims are actually wrong.)
Actually the though occurred that I might be picked up on that
after I had posted it :-)
It is thought that the biographies of Jesus by the (in)famous
four were written less than one hundred years after his supposed
death and have not changed much since (translations notwithstanding)
whereas the Robin Hood tales first appeared much later in time and
became more elaborate with the retelling. We are not
even certain where he operated. There is a strong claim he operated
in this vicinity and not Sherwood forest. Much of what is now
England was forest then of course.
I do not think we can entirely dismiss the biographies as evidence
of Christ's existence bearing in mind their closeness in time to the
actual events. That they are not corroborated does not mean
they are fake but must be regarded as highly suspect particularly
bearing in mind the obvious bias and religious beliefs of the
authors plus the extraordinary things that are supposed to
have happened. It needs more than accounts by believers
that he came back to life and then 'ascended' into heaven
(a euphonism for 'died'?). That he did it to save us is clearly
just their opinion or interpretation for which there is not the
slightest shred of evidence even by them. This particular claim
made by just four or five men is hardly the basis for an
entire religion, a massive infrastructure and the cost in
human misery it has caused and yet, there it is.
The Robin Hood Tales are far removed from the events and
much more obviously fiction.
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Article:Only a fully secular state can protect women's rights |
21 Oct 2006 02:20:30 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 12:00:32 +0100, Les Hellawell
<myrubbishbin@notatleswell.freeuk.net> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 22:10:51 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:01:55 +0100, Les Hellawell
<myrubbishbin@notatleswell.freeuk.net> wrote:
There is even less evidence to show Robin actually existed than there is for Jesus.
How can there be less evidence than none? (Actually less than
negative, since there's actual evidence that some of the Biblical
claims are actually wrong.)
Actually the though occurred that I might be picked up on that
after I had posted it :-)
It is thought that the biographies of Jesus by the (in)famous
four were written less than one hundred years after his supposed
death and have not changed much since (translations notwithstanding)
Thought by believers. The Gospels seem, for the most part, to be
copies of the 'Q' document, which dates to, probably, 90. However:
Jesus of Nazareth? The town of Nazareth owes its existence to the
Bible. Since Jesus came from Nazareth, there has to be a town there,
so ...
There's no mention of any Nazareth up through the first century. The
Romans were never there, no one was responsible for it, the residents
paid no taxes ...
And the spot on which Nazareth stands? It was a town (a different
town) cemetery in the first century so if Jesus actually 'came from'
there, he was a corpse when he was born.
If you actually read the Bible, Jesus is called a *Nazorite*, not a
Nazarene. "Nazorite" refers to an oath having been taken - it has
nothing to do with location.
And that's just one problem with the story.
The fact that 'Christus', in the first century, had nothing to do with
a savior, tends to make a second century tale about an anointed savior
less easily acceptable as fact.
whereas the Robin Hood tales first appeared much later in time
The first written mention of a man named Yeshua (as opposed to the
Logos, part of God and totally spiritual) is late first century.
I do not think we can entirely dismiss the biographies as evidence
of Christ's existence bearing in mind their closeness in time to the
actual events.
But we can based on a lot of other evidence.
This particular claim made by just four or five men
Four purported authors (were they one man writing in 4 styles? who
knows) - Paul's Jesus was purely spirit, not a man at all.
The Robin Hood Tales are far removed from the events and
much more obviously fiction.
Since there are so many stories about a benefactor of the poor
throughout human history ...
Oh, that's the Christian argument about the flood, isn't it?
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Creationists are the best evidence we have that there is no intelligent design."
-Josef Balluch
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Article:Only a fully secular state can protect women's rights |
21 Oct 2006 03:38:05 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 15:20:30 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 12:00:32 +0100, Les Hellawell
<myrubbishbin@notatleswell.freeuk.net> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 22:10:51 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:01:55 +0100, Les Hellawell
<myrubbishbin@notatleswell.freeuk.net> wrote:
There is even less evidence to show Robin actually existed than there is for Jesus.
How can there be less evidence than none? (Actually less than
negative, since there's actual evidence that some of the Biblical
claims are actually wrong.)
Actually the though occurred that I might be picked up on that
after I had posted it :-)
And so I was :-)
It is thought that the biographies of Jesus by the (in)famous
four were written less than one hundred years after his supposed
death and have not changed much since (translations notwithstanding)
Thought by believers. The Gospels seem, for the most part, to be
copies of the 'Q' document, which dates to, probably, 90. However:
Jesus of Nazareth? The town of Nazareth owes its existence to the
Bible. Since Jesus came from Nazareth, there has to be a town there,
so ...
There's no mention of any Nazareth up through the first century. The
Romans were never there, no one was responsible for it, the residents
paid no taxes ...
And the spot on which Nazareth stands? It was a town (a different
town) cemetery in the first century so if Jesus actually 'came from'
there, he was a corpse when he was born.
If you actually read the Bible, Jesus is called a *Nazorite*, not a
Nazarene. "Nazorite" refers to an oath having been taken - it has
nothing to do with location.
And that's just one problem with the story.
The fact that 'Christus', in the first century, had nothing to do with
a savior, tends to make a second century tale about an anointed savior
less easily acceptable as fact.
whereas the Robin Hood tales first appeared much later in time
The first written mention of a man named Yeshua (as opposed to the
Logos, part of God and totally spiritual) is late first century.
I do not think we can entirely dismiss the biographies as evidence
of Christ's existence bearing in mind their closeness in time to the
actual events.
But we can based on a lot of other evidence.
This particular claim made by just four or five men
Four purported authors (were they one man writing in 4 styles? who
knows) - Paul's Jesus was purely spirit, not a man at all.
The Robin Hood Tales are far removed from the events and
much more obviously fiction.
Since there are so many stories about a benefactor of the poor
throughout human history ...
Oh, that's the Christian argument about the flood, isn't it?
OK I won't try to cling to a weak even unteneable point til
it gets ridiculous especially as it was only a casual one nor have I
the time, interest or knowledge to attempt to counter every point. Nor
am I going to defend what I personally think is a load of tripe
anyway. It has more holes than the US intelligence net.
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Article:Only a fully secular state can protect women's rights |
22 Oct 2006 05:10:49 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 21:38:05 +0100, Les Hellawell
<myrubbishbin@notatleswell.freeuk.net> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 15:20:30 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 12:00:32 +0100, Les Hellawell
<myrubbishbin@notatleswell.freeuk.net> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 22:10:51 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:01:55 +0100, Les Hellawell
<myrubbishbin@notatleswell.freeuk.net> wrote:
There is even less evidence to show Robin actually existed than there is for Jesus.
How can there be less evidence than none? (Actually less than
negative, since there's actual evidence that some of the Biblical
claims are actually wrong.)
Actually the though occurred that I might be picked up on that
after I had posted it :-)
And so I was :-)
It is thought that the biographies of Jesus by the (in)famous
four were written less than one hundred years after his supposed
death and have not changed much since (translations notwithstanding)
Thought by believers. The Gospels seem, for the most part, to be
copies of the 'Q' document, which dates to, probably, 90. However:
Jesus of Nazareth? The town of Nazareth owes its existence to the
Bible. Since Jesus came from Nazareth, there has to be a town there,
so ...
There's no mention of any Nazareth up through the first century. The
Romans were never there, no one was responsible for it, the residents
paid no taxes ...
And the spot on which Nazareth stands? It was a town (a different
town) cemetery in the first century so if Jesus actually 'came from'
there, he was a corpse when he was born.
If you actually read the Bible, Jesus is called a *Nazorite*, not a
Nazarene. "Nazorite" refers to an oath having been taken - it has
nothing to do with location.
And that's just one problem with the story.
The fact that 'Christus', in the first century, had nothing to do with
a savior, tends to make a second century tale about an anointed savior
less easily acceptable as fact.
whereas the Robin Hood tales first appeared much later in time
The first written mention of a man named Yeshua (as opposed to the
Logos, part of God and totally spiritual) is late first century.
I do not think we can entirely dismiss the biographies as evidence
of Christ's existence bearing in mind their closeness in time to the
actual events.
But we can based on a lot of other evidence.
This particular claim made by just four or five men
Four purported authors (were they one man writing in 4 styles? who
knows) - Paul's Jesus was purely spirit, not a man at all.
The Robin Hood Tales are far removed from the events and
much more obviously fiction.
Since there are so many stories about a benefactor of the poor
throughout human history ...
Oh, that's the Christian argument about the flood, isn't it?
OK I won't try to cling to a weak even unteneable point til
it gets ridiculous especially as it was only a casual one nor have I
the time, interest or knowledge to attempt to counter every point. Nor
am I going to defend what I personally think is a load of tripe
anyway. It has more holes than the US intelligence net.
BTW I have argued much of what you argued elswhere anway.
As we seem to be the only ones capable of viewing the gospels
from a strictly historical point of view maybe sometimes we
aught to play the devil's - sorry gods - advocate for them as
they seem incapable of doingit themselves handicapped as
they are by their firm belief every word is sacred and true.
A kind of' they pray for us, we intelligently argue for them'
trade off :-) Rather like the defence lawyer doing his best
for his client on the grounds of serving justice when his
client is clearly as guilty as the (fictional biblical) god.
After all our goal should be to reinforce truth not prejudice
(not that we have any, of course :-)
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Article:Only a fully secular state can protect women's rights |
22 Oct 2006 08:43:21 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 11:10:49 +0100, Les Hellawell
<myrubbishbin@notatleswell.freeuk.net> wrote:
A kind of' they pray for us, we intelligently argue for them'
trade off :-)
I haven't seen it recently, but there used to be theists who would end
posts with "I'll pray for you". Some atheists responding to those
posts would tag that line with "I'll think for you".
After all our goal should be to reinforce truth not prejudice
(not that we have any, of course :-)
What's the phrase about doing something "against the tide"? Kind of
like bailing a bottomless cement boat.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DarkAngel" |
|
| Title: Re: Article:Only a fully secular state can protect women's rights |
20 Oct 2006 10:55:12 AM |
|
|
Mark D J. wrote:
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:12jhp8s16n9cf0f@corp.supernews.com...
To put it succinctly, if the state has the power to prevent women
from wearing a veil, it also has the power to require it. The
state should not have such power in the first place.
If elected and accountable officials of the state shouldn't have such power,
why should unelected and unaccountable leaders of 'faith communities' have
the power to instil and perpetuate practices and beliefs that cause young
girls to develop such a sense of shame and paranoia about their own
*physicality*, *sexuality*, *attractiveness* and *worth* that they submit to
and/or internalise the pathological patriarchal insistence that they
isolate, dehumanise and anonymise themselves by the use of so-called
'veils'? Doesn't *the psychological and psycho-sexual mutilation of
children* show up anywhere in your pseudo-ethical, pseudo-libertarian
scheme...?
And banning the veil resolves this "psychological and psycho-sexual
mutilation"... how?
We could also ban bras, mascara, high heels, and all those other items
of women objectification and subjugation to the patriarchy, but would
that actually resolve the issue?
If you ban the veil from the public sphere, and Muslim women are,
because of social, religious and familial pressures, 'forced' or
'coerced' into wearing the veil, then all you're accomplishing is
banning Muslim women from the public sphere. If you're doing that,
you're effectively condemning them into isolating themselves within a
close-knit and unintegrated community. Do you truly believe this
empowers these women?
---
No Gods. No Masters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark D J. Mark D" |
|
| Title: Re: Article:Only a fully secular state can protect women's rights |
20 Oct 2006 11:22:30 PM |
|
|
"DarkAngel" <drkangel666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161359712.294654.257970@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Mark D J. wrote:
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:12jhp8s16n9cf0f@corp.supernews.com...
To put it succinctly, if the state has the power to prevent women
from wearing a veil, it also has the power to require it. The
state should not have such power in the first place.
If elected and accountable officials of the state shouldn't have such
power,
why should unelected and unaccountable leaders of 'faith communities'
have
the power to instil and perpetuate practices and beliefs that cause young
girls to develop such a sense of shame and paranoia about their own
*physicality*, *sexuality*, *attractiveness* and *worth* that they submit
to
and/or internalise the pathological patriarchal insistence that they
isolate, dehumanise and anonymise themselves by the use of so-called
'veils'? Doesn't *the psychological and psycho-sexual mutilation of
children* show up anywhere in your pseudo-ethical, pseudo-libertarian
scheme...?
And banning the veil resolves this "psychological and psycho-sexual
mutilation"... how?
Don't ask me, cupcake: it was the other guy who was speaking about the state
having 'the power to prevent women from wearing a veil', not me.
We could also ban bras, mascara, high heels, and all those other items
of women objectification and subjugation to the patriarchy, but would
that actually resolve the issue?
Okay, I know you're not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, but even
for you the above is pitiful. You ought to know enough by now to understand
that the men who want women to dress like sacks of potatoes are *also* the
ones who are darn eager to see a ban on make-up, sexy clothes, and more
besides. So why would I oppose one kind of pathological reaction and welcome
the other? As for the 'objectification and subjugation to the [western]
patriarchy' crap, you need to get away from your own unconsidered
religion -- a pile of one-dimensional, androphobic, anti-west humanities
***** -- and spend more time studying evolutionary biology: eventually
even you might understand sexual attraction.
If you ban the veil from the public sphere, and Muslim women are,
because of social, religious and familial pressures, 'forced' or
'coerced' into wearing the veil, then all you're accomplishing is
banning Muslim women from the public sphere. If you're doing that,
you're effectively condemning them into isolating themselves within a
close-knit and unintegrated community. Do you truly believe this
empowers these women?
Listen, noddy, the day you send your little girls off to be taught in class
by someone who is irrationally convinced that female sexuality is
'dangerous' and dementedly believes that a woman's worth is only half that
of a man, is the day I will take you seriously on this issue. As for me, I
will fight to the death anyone who tries to put *my* little girls in the
hands of a class teacher whose supportive and rewarding smile they will
never ever see because the poor damaged woman thinks some god wants her to
keep a bag on her head all fucking day. Basically, you're just wasting
bandwidth on your dimwit insistence -- that my wanting to protect children
from the damaging influence of damaged people is 'wrong' because it takes
isolated members of a close-knit and unintegrated community and 'condemns'
them to being 'isolated' members of a 'close-knit and unintegrated
community'. No *****, Sherlock.
M.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Article:Only a fully secular state can protect women's rights |
25 Oct 2006 05:30:55 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:02:52 -0000, Brian Westley <westley@visi.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
To put it succinctly, if the state has the power to prevent women
from wearing a veil, it also has the power to require it. The
state should not have such power in the first place.
Exactly.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DarkAngel" |
|
| Title: Re: Article:Only a fully secular state can protect women's rights |
20 Oct 2006 09:01:11 AM |
|
|
JPG wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1924022,00.html
Only a fully secular state can protect women's rights
Agreed. But governments banning personal religious expression is not
secularism. It's not the same as campaigning against the 10th
Commandments being displayed in a state courthouse, or teacher-led
prayer.
As much as I find the tradition of the veil distasteful as a
feminist-allied male, banning it won't free Muslim women. One issue
with the Muslim community in the UK is that it is not integrated well,
that it remains isolated from the mainstream. This tends to foster
conservative religious memes. If the state forces Muslim women to
choose between the veil or access to the public space, considering the
intense religious and familial pressures on keeping tradition in these
communities, what do you think they will give up? I guarantee you it
won't be the veil. They'll simply stop going outside of their homes and
closed-knit communities. How is this going to be empowering for these
women? How is this going to foster the goals of integration? If they
are in an abusive relationship and they have no contact outside of
their family, are they going to be inclined to get out of that
relationship? When they have no other security net?
It's not a simple issue.
---
No Gods. No Masters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
