| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"paul abeles" |
| Date: |
30 Dec 2003 07:30:08 PM |
| Object: |
Turkey bans wearing hijabs |
What took France so long ? Ataturk banned them in Turkey in the 1920's. The
ban still applies.
The only reason I posted this is because this point seems to be ignored by
the Islamists.
.
|
|
| User: "Petzl .rr-00++ @hotmail.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Turkey bans wearing hijabs |
31 Dec 2003 08:13:40 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:30:08 GMT, "paul abeles"
<nospam....paabeles@hotmail.com> wrote:
What took France so long ? Ataturk banned them in Turkey in the 1920's. The
ban still applies.
The only reason I posted this is because this point seems to be ignored by
the Islamists.
The wearing of headscarves has nothing to do with Islam
It is simply a practice of proving mans superiority/domination over
and of women
In western civilizations it is used as a threat to Christian/western
superiority over Islam and simply an Islamic insult to the successes
of these countries
There is no Islamic and or Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, etc religious
significance of wearing a headscarf and or hijabs
Not surprising that our politically correct and terrorist infiltrated
"EO Commission" wankers are not fining women and Islamic groups for
underming women
Petzl
--
Vote
One Nation first,
The Opposition Member second
Your standing member last
2nd last the anti-enviroment party the "Greens"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl" |
|
| Title: Re: Turkey bans wearing hijabs |
31 Dec 2003 01:48:22 AM |
|
|
paul abeles wrote:
What took France so long ? Ataturk banned them in Turkey in the 1920's. The
ban still applies.
The only reason I posted this is because this point seems to be ignored by
the Islamists.
Can somebody explain to me what "banning" the wearing of hijabs is
supposed to achieve.
Not being personally involved, this issue has the hallmarks of an
anti-Islam backlash. Would somebody care to correct me?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Enlightenment" |
|
| Title: Re: Turkey bans wearing hijabs |
31 Dec 2003 05:44:50 PM |
|
|
"Carl" <no_spam@all.fu> wrote in message
news:3FF27F46.1080303@all.fu...
paul abeles wrote:
What took France so long ? Ataturk banned them in Turkey in the
1920's. The
ban still applies.
The only reason I posted this is because this point seems to be
ignored by
the Islamists.
Can somebody explain to me what "banning" the wearing of hijabs is
supposed to achieve.
Not being personally involved, this issue has the hallmarks of an
anti-Islam backlash. Would somebody care to correct me?
Ataturk wanted to modernize his country and that required
secularization in his country. To do that he needed to breakdown
theocratic power and the cultural divisions and social rigidity that
existed in Turkey. To do that he needed to drive out symbolic
displays of Islamic power and distinctiveness from common public
life. Hajib was part of that.
Singapore similarly bans hajib from public schools (infants). Lee
Kwan Yu after having experience the race riots of Malaysia reasoned
that Singapore Children needed to go to school together and sit with
each other and they would get to know and like each other and perhaps
intermarry. ( Race riots means people chopping each other up with
machetes rather than breaking and looting as happened in the UK and
Belgium recently in Muslim areas. )
Hajib, other clothing restrictions and Food taboos reinforce ethnic
boundaries. In sociobiological terms that is what they MEANT to do.
Note also that when Christianity was imposed on pagan Europe the
Catholic Church banned 6th Cousin marriage and the Orthodox Church 8th
cousin marriage to breakdown the social order and tribal loyalties and
strengthen its own theocratic power.
http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no2/km-unique.html
(Most Muslims regard cousin marriage and even first cosign marriage as
ideal and it seems that in Australia in Auburn Hospital that over 50%
of marriages are to relatives.) Hajib Laos helps to reinforce the
culture of arranged marriage.
The multicultural 'experiment' is in fact turning into a disaster in
respect of the Islam which evolved in a milieu of other ethnic groups
which have evolved to NOT assimilate. (Hence the ongoing problems
between Muslims, Copts, Jews, Residual Greeks in Turkey, Armenians,
Assyrians)
Banning Hajib is just in the same mold of the Totalitarianism needed
to impose Multiculturalism e.g. Banning clitorectomy and imposing
Diversity indoctrination on school children and the restrictions of
free speech known as hate Crime laws which have criminalised even
truthful and polite criticisms of other cultures.
This is what happened in Denmark.
This is the results
Denmark has a 4% Muslim population. This is the result:
1 Welfare Dependency; Though only 4% of the population
Muslims in Denmark Produces a massive 40% of the
welfare costs.
2 Rape; 75% of Norway's convicted rapists are Muslim,
65% of Denmark's Rapist are Muslim.
3 Crime: 55% of Denmark's convicted criminals come from the
4% Muslim population.
You'll find solid data in several other countries just as revealing of
the failure of Islam and multiculturalism though in most cases the
totalitarian political correctness that has usurped Government means
that the data is not properly collected and disseminated.
***********************
http://cphpost.periskop.dk/default.asp?id=15630
http://cphpost.periskop.dk/default.asp?id=16937
(links are down but this is a national Danish paper and can still be
found on Caches I have reposted below:
http://jewishworldreview.com/0802/steyn.html
http://jewishworldreview.com/0802/pipes.html
Similar trends in Australia:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/May00/Crane.htm
http://old.smh.com.au/news/0107/29/national/national1.html
***********************
Muslim rape concern http://cphpost.periskop.dk/default.asp?id=16937
Alarmed at last week's police statistics, which revealed that in 68%
of all rapes committed this year the perpetrator was from an ethnic
minority, leading Muslim organizations have now formed an alliance to
fight the ever-growing problem of young second and third-generation
immigrants involved in rape cases against young Danish girls.
Promising demonstrations and an information campaign, Babar Baig from
Minhaj ul Quran said that Islam totally condemns rape and the
violation of women. 'We feel very strongly that as a Muslim youth
organisation, we have a responsibility to speak out about this
problem,' said Baig, whose organisation, alongside the Union of Muslim
Students (FASM) and the Organisation of Pakistani Students and
Academics (OPSA) announced demonstrations in Copenhagen, Odense and
Århus.
Criminologist: immigrants are rape champions
http://cphpost.periskop.dk/default.asp?id=15630
If one leading expert is to be believed, the sharp rise in the number
of rapes in this over the last 5 years is largely attributable to a
group of unemployed and alienated immigrants. 'Over the last 5-10
years there has an increasing tendency to marginalise and alienate
immigrants,' says Professor Flemming Balvig, a criminologist at
Copenhagen University. 'As a result, many second generation immigrants
have reacted against this through various types of criminal activity,
including rape.'
Although the number of reported rapes reached a peak of 600 in 1986
after which it fell steadily until 1996, since then the figure has
increased again from 388 to 497, equivalent to a whopping 25 per cent
jump. 'Rape is often committed by young men for whom it also
represents a kind of proof of manhood. And if you look at the figures,
men with an immigrant background are grossly over-represented,
compared to the proportion of the population they make up,' he
maintains.
His theory is backed up by a 1998 Justice Ministry survey on crime,
which found that immigrants were over-represented by an average of 46
per cent. In addition, the recent publication of a report from the
Copenhagen police shows that 47.5 per cent of prisoners on remand for
serious crimes such as murder, attempted murder and rape come from
immigrant backgrounds. 'Although the percentage of foreigners
committing rape is proportionally higher than it should be, on average
we only get one and a half rapes per month, so we are actually talking
about a very small number of cases,' says Kurt Jensen, who is in
charge of of Copenhagen police's Serious Crime Squad. Flemming Balvig
concludes: 'Those immigrants who do commit rape belong to a hardcore
group who have been considerably marginalised and alienated and who
are extremely criminally inclined already. These are people who don't
care what happens to them as they feel things can't get any worse
anyway. They simply use and abuse others as it suits them. But even if
we compare this group with other Danish-born people in the same
situation, i.e. with no job and no prospects, the immigrant group is
still over-represented.'
.
|
|
|
| User: "Red Dragon" |
|
| Title: Re: Turkey bans wearing hijabs |
01 Jan 2004 01:54:15 AM |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0041_01C3D07F.82136900
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ataturk wanted to modernize his country and that required
secularization in his country. To do that he needed to breakdown
theocratic power and the cultural divisions and social rigidity that
existed in Turkey. To do that he needed to drive out symbolic
displays of Islamic power and distinctiveness from common public
life. Hajib was part of that.
Wrong term used. It is Hijab, not Hajib!!
Singapore similarly bans hajib from public schools (infants). Lee
Kwan Yu after having experience the race riots of Malaysia reasoned
that Singapore Children needed to go to school together and sit with
each other and they would get to know and like each other and perhaps
intermarry.=20
Singapore banned the hijab but allowed the Sikh boys to have their =
turbans on. That was what created the controversy.
Khoon.
------=_NextPart_000_0041_01C3D07F.82136900
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2733.1800" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> Ataturk wanted to modernize his =
country and=20
that required<BR>> secularization in his country. To do that he =
needed=20
to breakdown<BR>> theocratic power and the cultural divisions and =
social=20
rigidity that<BR>> existed in Turkey. To do that he needed to =
drive out=20
symbolic<BR>> displays of Islamic power and distinctiveness =
from common=20
public<BR>> life. Hajib was part of that.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><STRONG>Wrong term used. It =
is Hijab,=20
not Hajib!!</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> Singapore similarly bans hajib =
from public=20
schools (infants). Lee<BR>> Kwan Yu after having =
experience the=20
race riots of Malaysia reasoned<BR>> that Singapore Children needed =
to go to=20
school together and sit with<BR>> each other and they would get to =
know and=20
like each other and perhaps<BR>> intermarry. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><STRONG>Singapore banned the hijab but =
allowed the=20
Sikh boys to have their turbans on. That was what created the=20
controversy.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><STRONG></STRONG></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><STRONG>Khoon.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><STRONG></STRONG></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0041_01C3D07F.82136900--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tjlim" |
|
| Title: Re: Turkey bans wearing hijabs |
30 Dec 2003 06:18:11 PM |
|
|
"Carl" <no_spam@all.fu> wrote in message news:3FF27F46.1080303@all.fu...
paul abeles wrote:
What took France so long ? Ataturk banned them in Turkey in the 1920's.
The
ban still applies.
The only reason I posted this is because this point seems to be ignored
by
the Islamists.
Can somebody explain to me what "banning" the wearing of hijabs is
supposed to achieve.
It reduces the stench of body odour emanating from these people so bundled
and covered up.
Not being personally involved, this issue has the hallmarks of an
anti-Islam backlash. Would somebody care to correct me?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Turkey bans wearing hijabs |
31 Dec 2003 07:40:07 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:18:11 +1100, "tjlim" <tjlim@bigpond.net.au>
wrote:
"Carl" <no_spam@all.fu> wrote in message news:3FF27F46.1080303@all.fu...
paul abeles wrote:
What took France so long ? Ataturk banned them in Turkey in the 1920's.
The
ban still applies.
The only reason I posted this is because this point seems to be ignored
by
the Islamists.
Can somebody explain to me what "banning" the wearing of hijabs is
supposed to achieve.
It reduces the stench of body odour emanating from these people so bundled
and covered up.
Not being personally involved, this issue has the hallmarks of an
anti-Islam backlash. Would somebody care to correct me?
I would. Forcing these women to cover themselves in this way has
nothing to do with religion. It is purely a control method used by
Islamic men in their orthodox sects to enslave their women. The
women only go along with it out of fear or reprisals or due to their
being brainwashed into believing that it is proper. In any case, it is
an insult to Islamic womanhood and it is a form of slavery.
No one is telling the Muslims that they can't practice their religion
(and there are many forms of Islam, just as there are many forms of
Christianity). What they are being told (the men, that is) is that
they have no right to enslave over half of the followers of their
religion (the women) and tell them in various and sundry ways that
they have less value than dirt and no rights.
Do you honestly believe that the women of Iran (many of whom were
doctors, teachers and scientists) would have supported the revolution
against the Shah if they had known that they would be forced out of
the jobs, forced to wear the hajib and soft shoes, not allowed to
leave their homes without a male relative, have the windows to their
houses darkened so that no male might accidentally look in and see
them, not allowed to laugh out loud and punished or murdered for
the slightest infraction of his rules once the Ayatollah took over?
Get real.
Those bloody head scarves were also responsible for the deaths of
five Muslim girls being allowed to burn to death in their school
because they didn't have the scarves to cover their hair. The police
were trying to get the girls (15 and under) out of the school when
they were stopped by a religious leader. The religious leader told the
cops that it was more important for them to burn to death than to
tempt any men who saw them with their hair uncovered. And, the
cops went along with this. All five of the girls, who would have been
saved, died horribly. May the Muslim cleric responsible for their
deaths be buried wrapped in pigskin.
By the way, your crack about body odor seems only to apply to
women. What is your problem? Your comments seem less pro-
Islam than anti-women.
Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action,
rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith.
Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let
me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. For
happiness is the only good, reason the only torch,
justice the only worship, and love the only priest.
- Robert Green Ingersoll
**************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Red Dragon" |
|
| Title: Re: Turkey bans wearing hijabs |
01 Jan 2004 02:28:28 AM |
|
|
Do you honestly believe that the women of Iran (many of whom were
doctors, teachers and scientists) would have supported the revolution
against the Shah if they had known that they would be forced out of
the jobs, forced to wear the hajib and soft shoes, not allowed to
leave their homes without a male relative, have the windows to their
houses darkened so that no male might accidentally look in and see
them, not allowed to laugh out loud and punished or murdered for
the slightest infraction of his rules once the Ayatollah took over?
Get real.
The majority of the women in Iran are uneducated, unskilled and
uneverything because the men made sure they were in such a state so that
the men can be in total control over them. . We saw this in Afghanistan very
clearly under the Taliban. Women were not even be allowed to go to school
so that they would remain totally ignorant. The educated ones are from
the liberal minded muslims which were very very few. The educated women of
course have issues with the muslim fundamentalist, but they will suffer the
hostility and persecution from them. They can even be killed and no
questions asked. Example is Shirin Ebadi, the Nobel Peace Prize of
2003.and the hurdles and tribulations she went through in fighting for her
Rights and for her fellow womenfolks. Although she does not believe in the
Hijab, she does wear something light, sometimes, like a scarf over the
hair, just to have some peace from the Muslim Clerics.
Khoon.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl" |
|
| Title: Re: Turkey bans wearing hijabs |
01 Jan 2004 10:21:06 PM |
|
|
Michelle Malkin wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:18:11 +1100, "tjlim" <tjlim@bigpond.net.au>
wrote:
"Carl" <no_spam@all.fu> wrote in message news:3FF27F46.1080303@all.fu...
paul abeles wrote:
What took France so long ? Ataturk banned them in Turkey in the 1920's.
The
ban still applies.
The only reason I posted this is because this point seems to be ignored
by
the Islamists.
Can somebody explain to me what "banning" the wearing of hijabs is
supposed to achieve.
It reduces the stench of body odour emanating from these people so bundled
and covered up.
Not being personally involved, this issue has the hallmarks of an
anti-Islam backlash. Would somebody care to correct me?
I would. Forcing these women to cover themselves in this way has
nothing to do with religion. It is purely a control method used by
Islamic men in their orthodox sects to enslave their women. The
women only go along with it out of fear or reprisals or due to their
being brainwashed into believing that it is proper. In any case, it is
an insult to Islamic womanhood and it is a form of slavery.
No one is telling the Muslims that they can't practice their religion
(and there are many forms of Islam, just as there are many forms of
Christianity). What they are being told (the men, that is) is that
they have no right to enslave over half of the followers of their
religion (the women) and tell them in various and sundry ways that
they have less value than dirt and no rights.
But it won't work, IMHO. If, using France as the example, the
Fundamentalists feel threatened they will simply take their daughters
out of the secular schools, where at least they get exposed to wider
ideas, and get put into private Islamic schools where the girls receive
an even narrower education.
I don't know about you but I get nervous when the State begins deciding
how people should practice personal beliefs.
[snip]
--
Creation Science: the ***** child of Scientism and Fundamentalism.
Scientism: science will provide the answer to everything
Fundamentalism: we already know the answer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Petzl .rr-00++ @hotmail.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Turkey bans wearing hijabs |
01 Jan 2004 10:45:03 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 14:21:06 +1000, Carl <no_spam@all.fu> wrote:
Michelle Malkin wrote:
[S]
But it won't work, IMHO. If, using France as the example, the
Fundamentalists feel threatened they will simply take their daughters
out of the secular schools, where at least they get exposed to wider
ideas, and get put into private Islamic schools where the girls receive
an even narrower education.
I don't know about you but I get nervous when the State begins deciding
how people should practice personal beliefs.
The "state" already decide you cannot murder etc
These Islamic schools if they cannot conform to the legalities of a
christian society, Christian countries such as France needs to arrest
the proprietors
Sydney did it with one condoning pedophilia or are Islamics
"untouchable" criminals
Particularly when much of the claims that they are "sanctioned" by
their Moon God Cult
*All* of these Islamic clerics are not even selected by a religious
education but of a "order of hatred"
The Saudi appointed head Cleric of Sydney's Islamic Lakemba Mosque is
wanted by Egypt for involvement in murder of a policeman
Petzl
--
"AVG 6.0 Free Edition" Anti-Virus
<http://www.grisoft.com/us/us_dwnl_free.php>
Check your computer for "Spy Bots" (free)
<http://security.kolla.de/>
Block spamvertised websites (free good for parents)
<http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ehowes/resource.htm#IESPYAD>
a good firewall for windows(free version available)
<http://www.zonelabs.com/>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl" |
|
| Title: Re: Turkey bans wearing hijabs |
01 Jan 2004 11:17:35 PM |
|
|
Petzl wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 14:21:06 +1000, Carl <no_spam@all.fu> wrote:
Michelle Malkin wrote:
[S]
But it won't work, IMHO. If, using France as the example, the
Fundamentalists feel threatened they will simply take their daughters
out of the secular schools, where at least they get exposed to wider
ideas, and get put into private Islamic schools where the girls receive
an even narrower education.
I don't know about you but I get nervous when the State begins deciding
how people should practice personal beliefs.
The "state" already decide you cannot murder etc
That's slightly different, because murder involves a irreversible
deprivation of liberty. Parents wanting a girl to wear a hijab (not to
be confused with a niqab) until the age of 18 is a subjective issue.
Certainly some may say the hijab is demeaning but such comments have
also been said about bras.
http://www.almuhajabat.com/definitions.html
These Islamic schools if they cannot conform to the legalities of a
christian society, Christian countries such as France needs to arrest
the proprietors.
The laws in France, AFAIK, only apply to secular schools
[snip]
--
Creation Science: the ***** child of Scientism and Fundamentalism.
Scientism: science will provide the answer to everything
Fundamentalism: we already know the answer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Petzl .rr-00++ @hotmail.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Turkey bans wearing hijabs |
02 Jan 2004 12:05:38 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 15:17:35 +1000, Carl <no_spam@all.fu> wrote:
Petzl wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 14:21:06 +1000, Carl <no_spam@all.fu> wrote:
Michelle Malkin wrote:
[S]
But it won't work, IMHO. If, using France as the example, the
Fundamentalists feel threatened they will simply take their daughters
out of the secular schools, where at least they get exposed to wider
ideas, and get put into private Islamic schools where the girls receive
an even narrower education.
I don't know about you but I get nervous when the State begins deciding
how people should practice personal beliefs.
The "state" already decide you cannot murder etc
That's slightly different, because murder involves a irreversible
deprivation of liberty. Parents wanting a girl to wear a hijab (not to
be confused with a niqab) until the age of 18 is a subjective issue.
Certainly some may say the hijab is demeaning but such comments have
also been said about bras.
http://www.almuhajabat.com/definitions.html
These Islamic schools if they cannot conform to the legalities of a
christian society, Christian countries such as France needs to arrest
the proprietors.
The laws in France, AFAIK, only apply to secular schools
[snip]
In New Zealand those gangs that the police are scared of have their
atrocities accepted. The have actually hired "mongrel Mobsters" as
"protection" type securuty by various concils!?
It seems that if you are outragiously violent you will not be touched
by that countries "police"
In Sydney Australia Islamic pedophile rape gangs that were targeting
what they percieved as White Australian were not investigated and such
crimes were hidden by NSW police for five years or more!
Petzl
--
"AVG 6.0 Free Edition" Anti-Virus
<http://www.grisoft.com/us/us_dwnl_free.php>
Check your computer for "Spy Bots" (free)
<http://security.kolla.de/>
Block spamvertised websites (free good for parents)
<http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ehowes/resource.htm#IESPYAD>
a good firewall for windows(free version available)
<http://www.zonelabs.com/>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Turkey bans wearing hijabs |
02 Jan 2004 01:07:53 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 17:05:38 +1100, Petzl <.rr-00++ @hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 15:17:35 +1000, Carl <no_spam@all.fu> wrote:
Petzl wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 14:21:06 +1000, Carl <no_spam@all.fu> wrote:
Michelle Malkin wrote:
[S]
But it won't work, IMHO. If, using France as the example, the
Fundamentalists feel threatened they will simply take their daughters
out of the secular schools, where at least they get exposed to wider
ideas, and get put into private Islamic schools where the girls receive
an even narrower education.
I don't know about you but I get nervous when the State begins deciding
how people should practice personal beliefs.
I didn't write the above two paragraphs. Someone messed up the
attributes.
The "state" already decide you cannot murder etc
That's slightly different, because murder involves a irreversible
deprivation of liberty. Parents wanting a girl to wear a hijab (not to
be confused with a niqab) until the age of 18 is a subjective issue.
Certainly some may say the hijab is demeaning but such comments have
also been said about bras.
http://www.almuhajabat.com/definitions.html
These Islamic schools if they cannot conform to the legalities of a
christian society, Christian countries such as France needs to arrest
the proprietors.
The laws in France, AFAIK, only apply to secular schools
[snip]
In New Zealand those gangs that the police are scared of have their
atrocities accepted. The have actually hired "mongrel Mobsters" as
"protection" type securuty by various concils!?
It seems that if you are outragiously violent you will not be touched
by that countries "police"
In Sydney Australia Islamic pedophile rape gangs that were targeting
what they percieved as White Australian were not investigated and such
crimes were hidden by NSW police for five years or more!
Petzl
Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action,
rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith.
Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let
me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. For
happiness is the only good, reason the only torch,
justice the only worship, and love the only priest.
- Robert Green Ingersoll
**************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Turkey bans wearing hijabs |
02 Jan 2004 06:10:49 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 07:07:53 GMT, Michelle Malkin
<hypatiab7@earthlink.net> posted to alt.atheism:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 17:05:38 +1100, Petzl <.rr-00++ @hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 15:17:35 +1000, Carl <no_spam@all.fu> wrote:
Petzl wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 14:21:06 +1000, Carl <no_spam@all.fu> wrote:
Michelle Malkin wrote:
[S]
But it won't work, IMHO. If, using France as the example, the
Fundamentalists feel threatened they will simply take their daughters
out of the secular schools, where at least they get exposed to wider
ideas, and get put into private Islamic schools where the girls receive
an even narrower education.
I don't know about you but I get nervous when the State begins deciding
how people should practice personal beliefs.
I didn't write the above two paragraphs. Someone messed up the
attributes.
Count again, Mickey. The attributes say that Carl wrote them.
--
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be under-
stood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can
comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of
humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman _Albert Einstein the Human Side_, p. 39
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Turkey bans wearing hijabs |
03 Jan 2004 03:37:20 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 19:10:49 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 07:07:53 GMT, Michelle Malkin
<hypatiab7@earthlink.net> posted to alt.atheism:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 17:05:38 +1100, Petzl <.rr-00++ @hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 15:17:35 +1000, Carl <no_spam@all.fu> wrote:
Petzl wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 14:21:06 +1000, Carl <no_spam@all.fu> wrote:
Michelle Malkin wrote:
[S]
But it won't work, IMHO. If, using France as the example, the
Fundamentalists feel threatened they will simply take their daughters
out of the secular schools, where at least they get exposed to wider
ideas, and get put into private Islamic schools where the girls receive
an even narrower education.
I don't know about you but I get nervous when the State begins deciding
how people should practice personal beliefs.
I didn't write the above two paragraphs. Someone messed up the
attributes.
Count again, Mickey. The attributes say that Carl wrote them.
Carl has five attributes by his name. I have six. The paragraphs have
six and should have five.
Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action,
rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith.
Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let
me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. For
happiness is the only good, reason the only torch,
justice the only worship, and love the only priest.
- Robert Green Ingersoll
**************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Turkey bans wearing hijabs |
03 Jan 2004 03:54:49 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 09:37:20 GMT, Michelle Malkin
<hypatiab7@earthlink.net> posted to alt.atheism:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 19:10:49 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 07:07:53 GMT, Michelle Malkin
<hypatiab7@earthlink.net> posted to alt.atheism:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 17:05:38 +1100, Petzl <.rr-00++ @hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 15:17:35 +1000, Carl <no_spam@all.fu> wrote:
Petzl wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 14:21:06 +1000, Carl <no_spam@all.fu> wrote:
Michelle Malkin wrote:
[S]
But it won't work, IMHO. If, using France as the example, the
Fundamentalists feel threatened they will simply take their daughters
out of the secular schools, where at least they get exposed to wider
ideas, and get put into private Islamic schools where the girls receive
an even narrower education.
I don't know about you but I get nervous when the State begins deciding
how people should practice personal beliefs.
I didn't write the above two paragraphs. Someone messed up the
attributes.
Count again, Mickey. The attributes say that Carl wrote them.
Carl has five attributes by his name. I have six. The paragraphs have
six and should have five.
The paragraphs have one more tick than Carl's id line. That says that
Carl wrote them. The id line always has one less tick than the
paragraphs that person wrote.
--
"I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world
insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it."
- Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954; Einstein Archive 30-1154
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iskandar Baharuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Turkey bans wearing hijabs |
03 Jan 2004 05:12:19 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:deeevv8a3ekkhdo1pndr74vgdksh6rbp5m@Pern.rk...
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 09:37:20 GMT, Michelle Malkin
<hypatiab7@earthlink.net> posted to alt.atheism:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 19:10:49 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 07:07:53 GMT, Michelle Malkin
<hypatiab7@earthlink.net> posted to alt.atheism:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 17:05:38 +1100, Petzl <.rr-00++ @hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 15:17:35 +1000, Carl <no_spam@all.fu> wrote:
Petzl wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 14:21:06 +1000, Carl <no_spam@all.fu> wrote:
Michelle Malkin wrote:
[S]
But it won't work, IMHO. If, using France as the example, the
Fundamentalists feel threatened they will simply take their
daughters
out of the secular schools, where at least they get exposed to
wider
ideas, and get put into private Islamic schools where the girls
receive
an even narrower education.
I don't know about you but I get nervous when the State begins
deciding
how people should practice personal beliefs.
I didn't write the above two paragraphs. Someone messed up the
attributes.
Count again, Mickey. The attributes say that Carl wrote them.
Carl has five attributes by his name. I have six. The paragraphs have
six and should have five.
The paragraphs have one more tick than Carl's id line. That says that
Carl wrote them. The id line always has one less tick than the
paragraphs that person wrote.
I get a lot of this. Whay can't people learn how to count those pointy bits.
Izzy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Turkey bans wearing hijabs |
04 Jan 2004 03:34:30 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 07:12:19 +0800, "Iskandar Baharuddin"
<brengsek@mcpc.net.au> posted to alt.atheism:
I get a lot of this. Whay can't people learn how to count those pointy bits.
Mickey doesn't usually make that mistake.
--
"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian volunteering to have his soul take your
soul's place in hell, so yours could go to Heaven. Don't hold your breath."
- John Popelish
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Turkey bans wearing hijabs |
02 Jan 2004 01:11:27 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:18:11 +1100, "tjlim" <tjlim@bigpond.net.au>
wrote:
"Carl" <no_spam@all.fu> wrote in message news:3FF27F46.1080303@all.fu...
paul abeles wrote:
What took France so long ? Ataturk banned them in Turkey in the 1920's.
The
ban still applies.
The only reason I posted this is because this point seems to be ignored
by
the Islamists.
Can somebody explain to me what "banning" the wearing of hijabs is
supposed to achieve.
It reduces the stench of body odour emanating from these people so bundled
and covered up.
Not being personally involved, this issue has the hallmarks of an
anti-Islam backlash. Would somebody care to correct me?
I would. Forcing these women to cover themselves in this way has
nothing to do with religion. It is purely a control method used by
Islamic men in their orthodox sects to enslave their women. The
women only go along with it out of fear or reprisals or due to their
being brainwashed into believing that it is proper. In any case, it is
an insult to Islamic womanhood and it is a form of slavery.
No one is telling the Muslims that they can't practice their religion
(and there are many forms of Islam, just as there are many forms of
Christianity). What they are being told (the men, that is) is that
they have no right to enslave over half of the followers of their
religion (the women) and tell them in various and sundry ways that
they have less value than dirt and no rights.
Do you honestly believe that the women of Iran (many of whom were
doctors, teachers and scientists) would have supported the revolution
against the Shah if they had known that they would be forced out of
the jobs, forced to wear the hajib and soft shoes, not allowed to
leave their homes without a male relative, have the windows to their
houses darkened so that no male might accidentally look in and see
them, not allowed to laugh out loud and punished or murdered for
the slightest infraction of his rules once the Ayatollah took over?
Get real.
Those bloody head scarves were also responsible for the deaths of
five Muslim girls being allowed to burn to death in their school
because they didn't have the scarves to cover their hair. The police
were trying to get the girls (15 and under) out of the school when
they were stopped by a religious leader. The religious leader told the
cops that it was more important for them to burn to death than to
tempt any men who saw them with their hair uncovered. And, the
cops went along with this. All five of the girls, who would have been
saved, died horribly. May the Muslim cleric responsible for their
deaths be buried wrapped in pigskin.
By the way, your crack about body odor seems only to apply to
women. What is your problem? Your comments seem less pro-
Islam than anti-women.
Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action,
rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith.
Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let
me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. For
happiness is the only good, reason the only torch,
justice the only worship, and love the only priest.
- Robert Green Ingersoll
**************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Turkey bans wearing hijabs |
31 Dec 2003 11:39:44 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:48:22 +1000, Carl <no_spam@all.fu> ejaculated:
paul abeles wrote:
What took France so long ? Ataturk banned them in Turkey in the 1920's. The
ban still applies.
The only reason I posted this is because this point seems to be ignored by
the Islamists.
Can somebody explain to me what "banning" the wearing of hijabs is
supposed to achieve.
Not being personally involved, this issue has the hallmarks of an
anti-Islam backlash. Would somebody care to correct me?
From what I know of Turkish politics (very little) that is the case.
Turkey is militantly secular in its government to a point that
definitely appears reactionary to us in the West.
--
Jesus is my crush.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Enlightenment" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Turkey bans wearing hijabs |
31 Dec 2003 06:43:13 PM |
|
|
"Beowulf" <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0d26vvo301bd2dn1u6jtqqcgagna925ogb@4ax.com...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:48:22 +1000, Carl <no_spam@all.fu>
ejaculated:
paul abeles wrote:
What took France so long ? Ataturk banned them in Turkey in the
1920's. The
ban still applies.
The only reason I posted this is because this point seems to be
ignored by
the Islamists.
Can somebody explain to me what "banning" the wearing of hijabs is
supposed to achieve.
Not being personally involved, this issue has the hallmarks of an
anti-Islam backlash. Would somebody care to correct me?
From what I know of Turkish politics (very little) that is the case.
Turkey is militantly secular in its government to a point that
definitely appears reactionary to us in the West.
Love the way you use the lefty polemic "reactionary". It's actualy
quite air headed.
The reason that Turkey's government is agressively secular is because
islam is (by its very tennants) agressively theocractic. You always
get that with Islam or you roll over and get dominated.
--
Jesus is my crush.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
