|
Nothing in the Quran that I know of actually mandates the hijab; it's more of a cultural thing, not a strictly religious one...Ditto yarmulkas and crucifixes (and their respective religious documents).
In a time of heightened tension, a declaration that your outside ties supercede any loyalties to the country in which you've made your home will be met with some suspicion.Modesty is un-American?
More importantly, it also means Spider-Man is illegal in France owing to the full face covering. When will the Parker luck turn good? ;-)
More importantly, it also means Spider-Man is illegal in France owing to the full face covering. When will the Parker luck turn good? ;-)
I was talking about airports. Spidey walks in with the mask on and flashes ID from some dude named Parker, I need to check and make sure it's him. If he won't let me, then, yes, I'm going to subject him to "extra screening."
@Giant - pretend a bunch of dudes in yarmulkes -- some bizarre Israeli sect with the stated mission of killing American civilians for some reason -- starts a major campaign of suicide bombings all over the place. Afterwards, a bunch of young reform Jewish guys think they're gonna be cool; they start insisting on wearing their yarmulkes every time they go to the airport, claiming "it's traditional! I can do it!" Well yes, I agree they can do it. But equally: yes, I think the airport can check their luggage more often. Nobody's hurt on either side, unless they're actually toting bombs instead of just showing off.
Hell, pretend some worldwide terrorist cult was using little girls wearing "Hello Kitty" backpacks full of explosives to blow people up. Parents who continued to insist on bringing their daughters to the airport with Hello Kitty backpacks shouldn't be too surprised if those backpacks get checked somewhat more often.
I'm less than sympathetic about the airport thing because for years I, personally, got stopped for "additional screening" every single time I flew. And I flew a lot on business. I finally established some level of rapport with one of the security guys and said, "Are you allowed to tell me something? I mean, we both know this isn't random." He explained that a small, intense-looking dude with no check-through luggage, travelling alone, who proceeds directly to the gate without stopping to look at Maxim and buy a taco or whatever, raises suspicion. I started dawdling at the airport and acting like a tourist, and sure enough, they started leaving me alone. If I choose to make an issue of it and act more suspicious, yeah, they'd keep stopping me -- that's a choice on my part.
Quite right it's not what's happening. French Muslim women made their choice loud and clear: they don't want to wear the damned things. So did Afghan women, before the Taliban.We don't really know this. The poll says the French population as a whole support the idea but not what Arabic women themselves want.
Actually:
That's despite government estimates that less than 2,000 women in the country actually wear the full Islamic veil.France has about 3.5 million Muslims, representing about 6 percent of the population, according to research by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. The country does not collect its own statistics on religion in accordance with laws enshrining France's status as a secular state.
So yeah, we do know that. It's hard to see the fact that less than half of one percent of all French Muslim women wearing the things as anything but a rejection of them. One can hardly claim that these women are simply ignorant of the option of wearing one and thus it never crossed their mind.
Again, I don't support the ban on burqas on the street or in the home or whatever. However I do support and consider reasonable the current ban on religious headgear and other conspicuous religious symbols, of all faiths, in the French schools. Just like you do.
|
Nothing in the Quran that I know of actually mandates the hijab; it's more of a cultural thing, not a strictly religious one...Ditto yarmulkas and crucifixes (and their respective religious documents).Indeed, the Bible pretty strongly forbids worshipping graven idols, or any other iconographic representation as a focus of worship.
Back in Ye Olde Days, the crucifix (or the fish) was worn as a symbol by which Christians could discretely identify one another, literally 'wearing their faith on their sleeve,' in places where their faith wasn't always entirely safe to shout from the rooftops. (Pre-Constantine Rome, frex.) These days, millions of people pray to a crucifix on a daily basis. Somewhere, a golden calf sulks, and grumbles, "I coulda been a contenda!"
And that is a very poor misinterpretation.
Sir Terry Pratchett ready to be test case for suicide law
Good for him. I wish him well with it.
|
|
Sir Terry Pratchett ready to be test case for suicide lawGood for him. I wish him well with it.
But why? and please this is not me being snarky just wanting to know your honest opinion.
I feel that life is precious and as such should be preserved as long as naturally possible. I do not understand the opposite view.
I feel that life is precious and as such should be preserved as long as naturally possible. I do not understand the opposite view.
I strongly hold the opposite view. I see quality as being more important than quantity; personally, I'd rather live one good year than twenty lousy years. If I'm in state where I can't earn my own living or take care of myself, at that point I'm a pet, not a person.
But why? and please this is not me being snarky just wanting to know your honest opinion.
I feel that life is precious and as such should be preserved as long as naturally possible. I do not understand the opposite view.
My opinion is that if someone wants to end their life I have no right to stop them. Even if I believe life is precious, I can keep that thought to myself and let others do to themselves as they wish. In some cases death may be far better than suffering and who am I to make someone suffer when they do not need to.
|
I feel that life is precious and as such should be preserved as long as naturally possible. I do not understand the opposite view.I strongly hold the opposite view. I see quality as being more important than quantity; personally, I'd rather live one good year than twenty lousy years. If I'm in state where I can't earn my own living or take care of myself, at that point I'm a pet, not a person.
Kirth, is it odd that I agree with you about this? Not necessarily quite the way you said it, but I often feel like we try to cheat God but doing our best to extend our lives to the point of stupidity. But at the same time, "just let me die" is different than "let me end it before my time."
|
|
With the pleasant topic of "death"...
I'm mad a God. For those of you who know me, that's really saying something.
A very good friend of the family was in Haiti during the earthquake. Chances are slim to none that he survived at this point.
A little background...
David Hames could be considered to be best friends with my brother. To the point where they are practically family. They have two wonderful boys whom they adopted fairly recently. David has spent a good amount of the past year plus working on a new kids show called Cranium's Ark which is a really good shot at a cross between Blue's Clues, Sesame Street, and Veggie Tales -- educational programming with a "message". After a lot of work he got the first episode done, won awards for it, and was working on getting a company to endorse it. He finally got a company to endorse it (I don't remember the name of the company specifically) and then took a freelance job to document what has been happening in Haiti for Compassion International.
And then the earthquake hit.
Now, granted there were a LOT of people who lost their lives and lost loved ones. And I in no way wish to discount that. This whole thing is a tragedy that has been felt (and will continue to be felt) by more people than I can really fathom.
However, I don't know them. I do know David. And there are a lot of things that are simply "not fair". David's companion with Compassion was Dan Woolley. They were together at the Hotel Montana when the earthquake hit. Dan survived. They still have not found David. They found David's tripod undamaged. But they still haven't found David. They said that he had his backpack with him which always carried extra water and food (granola bars or something), but we're going on three weeks now.
So here's a wonderful man, "doing God's work", loves the Lord, things are just really getting started for him and his family and he was last seen two feet from someone who survived. We all want our lives and possibly our deaths to "mean something". This just seems so pointless. He wasn't a martyr. It was nothing. And then there are the further "consequences" -- his family. My brother's family has stayed with David's wife since the disaster just trying to help out. The whole thing is a mess and simply saying "that sucks" just doesn't really express what is happening.
So, yeah. I'm mad at God. Just saying that "he's in a better place now" doesn't really help. And "the Devil" didn't make this happen.
So I just wanted to vent. I also wanted people to know that even through all this, I'm still a Christian. And I really wanted people to know and understand that there isn't always a reason for things that happen. Believe me I wish there was.
awful stuff about his friend and the earthquake
That really sucks.
|
|
awful stuff about his friend and the earthquakeThat really sucks.
Thank you. Most people here are fairly empathetic (regardless of religious preference). i.e. It's a fairly "safe" place for me.
It just seems odd to me that I should be angry with God -- but I am. It's also a little therapeutic to write my thoughts down.
From an atheists perspective I have a lot to say but out of respect and compassion for your loss I'll just say I'm sorry for your loss. Hopefully it isn't true and your friend can continue to do good things in life.
|
|
From an atheists perspective I have a lot to say ...
While I appreciate what you said, I'm curious about this. Or at least your perspective on this. I understand that many atheists feel that (at best) "heaven" is a fabrication possibly created to help promote people to do good things. But at the very least, assuming that there is no "heaven" or "hell" or afterlife in general, it means that you only really get this one shot in life to make a difference or something like that. In which case, this tragedy also seems so pointless. And so, ok -- $hit happens. That doesn't mean that it's "good".
While I appreciate what you said, I'm curious about this. Or at least your perspective on this. I understand that many atheists feel that (at best) "heaven" is a fabrication possibly created to help promote people to do good things. But at the very least, assuming that there is no "heaven" or "hell" or afterlife in general, it means that you only really get this one shot in life to make a difference or something like that. In which case, this tragedy also seems so pointless. And so, ok -- $hit happens. That doesn't mean that it's "good".
You have it basically. I believe I only have one life. I do not believe I will be rewarded with, or in, an afterlife. I do not believe there is a higher power watching over me/us. I have no problem with others believing there is. My belief in no higher power or greater intellect watching over and guiding the world makes things like Haiti easy to understand. Unfortunately, sometimes bad things happen to good people. There's not much more to it than that. For me, if I were a believer in your shoes I'd be having an extremely difficult time rationalizing how or why a god would or could do such a thing. So many innocent people, so much suffering... I'd be having a lot of issues right now. Ultimately, the only explanation believers can end up giving themselves is that their god works in mysterious ways.
I just excise "god" from the equation and cut to "sometimes bad things just happen". Its easier for me then trying to understand why a good and loving god would do such horrible things.
That is not meant in anyway to demean you, your faith, or your loss. I truly feel sorry for your pain and wish that bad things didn't happen to good people, but unfortunately, they do.
But why? and please this is not me being snarky just wanting to know your honest opinion.
I feel that life is precious and as such should be preserved as long as naturally possible. I do not understand the opposite view.
The postmonster ate my post. I lack the strength to go through recreating it and reliving the personal stories in it again. I'm way over my daily crying quota.
A person is suffering and you would make them go on suffering even if they want it to end? I had words but they are all used up save these very few, and they will have to suffice:
Torture is abhorrent. How dare anybody demand such a thing?
|
|
That is not meant in anyway to demean you, your faith, or your loss. I truly feel sorry for your pain and wish that bad things didn't happen to good people, but unfortunately, they do.
I appreciate what you said. And I did not feel "demeaned". And assuming I'm "right", it's just one of many questions I plan on asking the Almighty.
From an atheists perspective I have a lot to say ...While I appreciate what you said, I'm curious about this. Or at least your perspective on this. I understand that many atheists feel that (at best) "heaven" is a fabrication possibly created to help promote people to do good things. But at the very least, assuming that there is no "heaven" or "hell" or afterlife in general, it means that you only really get this one shot in life to make a difference or something like that. In which case, this tragedy also seems so pointless. And so, ok -- $hit happens. That doesn't mean that it's "good".
Off course its not good. Not even close. In a way being an atheist makes these types of situations worse as it just ends.
You don't get to stat up of a new character or trying a different game (to use lame gaming analogies).As they say "Hope for the best but prepare for the worst."
Heres hoping for the best outcome.
|
|
Torture is abhorrent. How dare anybody demand such a thing?
While I agree, the definition of "torture" is different by the person. I believe that most suicides are because someone just can't handle "life" as opposed to a terminal illness that will slowly eat someone away to nothing. "Torture" isn't because Sally dumped me or because I lost my job or because I simply have nothing worth living for even though many people going through it may feel differently.
In a way being an atheist makes these types of situations worse as it just ends.
Right. If, and I hope it doesn't, something horrible were to happen to someone I love, say, one of my children, I could not console myself with the idea that they are now in "a better place." I do not have any sort of "consolation" prize for losing a loved one, I just lose them and then try to cope. Sometimes I wish I could be religious because it might make loss more bearable.
So, yeah. I'm mad at God.
Moff, my post just got eaten as well, but hopefully I can still extend compassion to you, beyond all that that was just lost in the ether. I can understand your frustration as well, and as your friend -- one who knows how important your faith is to you -- I'd like to point out Matthew 5:45, "For He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." I guess the idea is that God doesn't micromanage, or selectively spare the faithful; indeed, He told us up front that He wouldn't be playing fair if He did. (Similar points are made again in Matthew 13, and also in Luke 13.) Certainly, that will not ease your grief by so much as an iota. But just maybe it can help lessen your anger somewhat, and hopefully thereby make the grief a bit easier to bear.
Even if not, again, you have my deepest sympathies, for whatever they are worth.
"Torture" isn't because Sally dumped me or because I lost my job or because I simply have nothing worth living for even though many people going through it may feel differently.
For some, losing Sally or a job might be torture and be unbearable. I feel that no matter the motivation, if someone wants to end their life, I should have nothing to say about it. It's not my life afterall. That does not mean someone were being coerced into ending their life, I mean someone who just decides, "you know what, today is tuesday, I've had a good run, I think I'll go out on top."
What right do I have to tell someone what they can or can't do to themselves. So long as they are not harming someone else or being coerced I'm out of the picture.
|
|
... So long as they are not harming someone else ...
Is this even possible in this circumstance? From a strictly logic point of view, I agree with you. However, we all affect others to a point that I don't believe any of us are truly aware. If Sally dumps me, I may feel like I'm being tortured -- but how would my death not negatively affect, my parents, my siblings, my classmates, Sally, shoot -- even my dog? In spite of what we would like to believe, we are not an island.
Torture is abhorrent. How dare anybody demand such a thing?While I agree, the definition of "torture" is different by the person. I believe that most suicides are because someone just can't handle "life" as opposed to a terminal illness that will slowly eat someone away to nothing.
Terminal illnesses are more or less the case being discussed in CJ's article, and memories of which being where my tears were shed, but I have to agree with jreyst that it's none of my (or the state's) business to judge for someone else what is or is not sufficient cause to end their life. Making someone stick around when they find life unbearable counts as torture in my book, whatever the reason is. I don't think a person who suffers from depression and wants to end it has pain any less real than a person who suffers from cancer and wants to end it.
On a personal level I may or may not agree with an individual's decision and if consulted might argue for or against ending it all, depending on the situation. But forcing the person to endure when they don't want to? I can't even imagine it. How could anybody?
Is this even possible in this circumstance? From a strictly logic point of view, I agree with you. However, we all affect others to a point that I don't believe any of us are truly aware. If Sally dumps me, I may feel like I'm being tortured -- but how would my death not negatively affect, my parents, my siblings, my classmates, Sally, shoot -- even my dog? In spite of what we would like to believe, we are not an island.
I knew when I wrote that someone was going to make that point. When I say "harm" though, I mean, do something to someone against their will that is also illegal. Making someone sad against their will is not illegal. Injuring or killing them is.
Certainly what is legal and what is illegal may vary from place to place but generally it means you can not injure or assault or kill someone, against their will. Inflicting ongoing mental abuse might be considered "harming" them at a certain level, but in almost no place could someone be prosecuted for making someone sad. Of course, cases such as child abuse or rape or ongoing mental abuse could be an exception but in those cases someone had malicious intent to harm another. In a case where someone just decided to kill themselves, sure it might make some people sad, but unfortunately you can not (or I do not think you SHOULD be able to) regulate behavior strictly on whether or not it might make someone sad.
If that were the case divorce would be illegal. Calling someone a bad name would be illegal. Telling someone they have poor choice in clothing would be illegal.
I think ultimately one should have the right to his own self, and that right should extend to the right to end ones own life, for whatever reason.
|
|
But forcing the person to endure when they don't want to? I can't even imagine it. How could anybody?
I actually didn't read the article. If it was talking about forcing people to stay alive, then I really agree. It's been my experience that if someone really wants to die, forcing them to stay alive really doesn't help matters.
However, I really feel that the desire to commit suicide is really a symptom of a different problem. And fixing that problem with suicide is similar to fixing a zit with a hand grenade. On one hand, sure, it takes care of the zit...
|
|
When I say "harm" though, I mean, do something to someone against their will that is also illegal.
I understand what you are saying, but are the only things that are "wrong" are things that are "illegal"?
Also, mostly from a "legal" standpoint, isn't suicide illegal? I had a friend that attempted suicide and she was given a ticket from the law enforcement for her attempt. Talk about adding insult to injury.
Oh I agree that in many cases suicide is a symptom of a different problem, that MIGHT be solvable in some other way. If someone was abused as a child and grows up with no self esteem or other mental issues, then they proceed through a serious of failed relationships to a point where they decide that its just not worth it for them... I'd really hate to see someone like that go out. I'd desperately want to see that person get some sort of help. The unfortunate truth though is that sometimes no amount of help makes the bad things go away and no amount of counseling undoes a lifetime of bad memories. They will always be there waiting for the person when they are alone at night. For some people that is a torture none could imagine. How the hell can I make that person suffer?
When I say "harm" though, I mean, do something to someone against their will that is also illegal.I understand what you are saying, but are the only things that are "wrong" are things that are "illegal"?
Also, mostly from a "legal" standpoint, isn't suicide illegal? I had a friend that attempted suicide and she was given a ticket from the law enforcement for her attempt. Talk about adding insult to injury.
Well mostly when I was using the legal/illegal argument I was using it from the perspective of what you can or can not inflict on another because that action itself is illegal. The idea of suicide itself being illegal is absurd to me. If you succeed you won't care and if you fail it will likely just make you want to try harder the next time.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Thank you. Most people here are fairly empathetic (regardless of religious preference). i.e. It's a fairly "safe" place for me.It just seems odd to me that I should be angry with God -- but I am. It's also a little therapeutic to write my thoughts down.
Hey Bill, sorry for your loss. I feel like I should say something else, maybe about anger being a natural reaction for imperfect beings such as ourselves, but, I'm not sure that words are ever adequate where emotions such as these are involved. Plus, I'm not certain you're seeking a response so much as an outlet.
But, I can't help but toss in one other comment, which is that it may not be just God you're angry with - it could be your friend for doing this (even though it's not his fault, obviously), it could be yourself for not talking to him more, it could be the others who survived. There are a lot of reasons to be angry when you suffer a loss, and a lot of targets to take it out on. God's sorta the biggest and the one ultimately most responsible, but, luckily, it seems like he can take it. Maybe if what you are seeking is to resolve the anger, you might consider forgiving God for what he did. I know that sounds odd, but I've always taken the view that the act of apologizing and forgiving is as much for the forgiver as for the forgiven. Forgiving god will probably help your anger, and it will enable you to receive forgiveness for experiencing such anger should you seek that. I imagine it will also make it easier to forgive the other people you may be angry with - seems to me like part of God's purpose is to help absolve you of these things you can't help but experience by virtue of being human.
Hmmm...meant to just say 'sorry' and run. Best wishes in dealing with this, you're in my [whatever it is atheists do to commune with the divine].
|
|
But, I can't help but toss in one other comment, which is that it may not be just God you're angry with - it could be your friend for doing this (even though it's not his fault, obviously), it could be yourself for not talking to him more, it could be the others who survived.
I'm not mad at him. I have kind of an odd view of death for a Christian. I guess in some regard I'm angry for being left behind to help try and clean up the "mess". I knew a girl who was going to college who blew her head off with a shotgun in her parents' bathroom. It was a huge mess -- in more ways than just cleaning up the bathroom. This is very different -- in many ways, but the after-effects of this will be going on for a VERY long time. The next few years will not be easy.
And thank you for your very kind (atheist) words. ;-)
EDIT: And I think that you are spot on with regard to forgiveness. That's the second time I've heard that in the past week that we should actively forgive God. Which logically seems contradictory to me.
EDIT: And I think that you are spot on with regard to forgiveness. That's the second time I've heard that in the past week that we should actively forgive God. Which logically seems contradictory to me.
Mutual forgiveness can be an important part of a healthy relationship. Or at least this single atheist thinks so. :)
The idea of suicide itself being illegal is absurd to me.I thought it was incredibly odd as well.
You've got some really good points. And overall, I agree with you. I just think that far, far too many people give up too easily.
Suicide used to be illegal almost everywhere. They'd do more than give tickets too. You'd be imprisoned. And this was in the days when prisons were far worse than they are today. This didn't help anybody.
It might or might not be the case that someone is giving up too easily. I'm not living their lives, so I don't know if other people are or aren't and I don't feel right for pronouncing judgment on them in light of that. It's not my life, to live or to end.
Suicide might be a permanent solution to a temporary problem, or it might be a permanent solution to a permanent problem. Maybe Frodo could continue without hope, as a friend once reminded me, but we're not all Frodo.
I am sorry, Moff.
|
|
Life is cheap if you treat it that way. Life is precious if you value others lives, not just your own. There are plenty of people I wouldn't hit my brakes for were they crossing the street, but I don't want to buy a cattle guard and full insurance. There are also plenty of people I'd run into a collapsing building to try and save. All depends on the individual whether or not I think their life is valuable.
|
|
I think all life is valuable. The difference is if you feel your is valuable enough to do something with it. Some have made the choice that life is nothing and as such have given up any right to humanity. Fred Phelps and Dennis Rader are local people who have made this choice. All others get the benefit of the doubt.
I think all life is valuable. The difference is if you feel your is valuable enough to do something with it.
And if you don't think your life has sufficient value to continue with it, why should you be barred from ending it peacefully in the manner of one's choosing?
|
|
I think all life is valuable. The difference is if you feel your is valuable enough to do something with it.And if you don't think your life has sufficient value to continue with it, why should you be barred from ending it peacefully in the manner of one's choosing?
Not the point I was going for. Life is valuable. We should treat it as such.
Not the point I was going for. Life is valuable. We should treat it as such.
Ok. Which life? Certainly not all of it. No one mourns for dead cancer cells, but they are alive.
Or mosquitoes.
Or fleas.
Or bacteria.
+1 to LazarX. Very eloquently stated.
|
|
You said this...
I don't feel that heaven is some sort of "fabrication".
And then you said this...
Religion is borne out of a valid human impulse to explain the unknowable.
I'm not sure if I see the difference. Maybe you are saying that where religion originated makes sense from some kind of anthropological view and that therefore it isn't a "fabrication". I feel that any attempt to "explain the unknowable" without some kind of logical process (like "science") constitutes a "fabrication". I understand that thought process and can appreciate it. I personally don't feel that that is how Christianity came to be, but that is much more a matter of "faith" and not something that can be logically argued or defended.
Or, perhaps you felt that "fabrication" was a bit harsh. I used that term because I've really tried hard to understand the other point of view. And I really didn't want to re-hash something that I feel I've got a pretty good handle on. So I was trying to show that I actually do know (fairly well) the atheist point of view and I'm not sure why that's better or worse when dealing with unfortunate and fairly pointless loss of life. However you look at it, someone's time here on this earth is done. Regardless of whether or not there is an afterlife. And that sucks. (Putting it as succinctly as possible.)