That’s not the issue. I don’t care if women want to wear a full burqa. I don’t care if women want to wear hijab. I don’t care if women want to run around dressed like a flamenco dancer. My problem comes in when some random dude I run across decides that women wearing western clothing are a problem and gives me a hard time for wearing a miniskirt or leggings or whatever.
So, if that guy is being a dick, does my boyfriend get to punch him in the nose? Can I punch him in the nose? We need equality in nose-punching, if we’re going to have it. Do I get to blow up his car if he doesn’t stop annoying the non-traditional-clothing-wearing women in the area with him commentary?
Now, as I said, I don’t care what women wear. BUT, women need to stop trying to get a drivers license photo or ID, and insisting that their face be covered in the photo. The point of an ID is that you can be identified; you can’t be identified if everything but your eyes are covered.
And that’s why people mock religious fundamentalists; they’re unbending and want the world to conform to them. It’s not just fundamentalist Muslims who annoy the hell out of me; I grew up in the Deep South, and trust me, I don’t have any more patience for Christian religious fundamentalists (probably less, TBH; their idiocy affects me and my family more).
[QUOTE=Luke 26]
Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also, unless he says something about your Mama, in which case, his ass is toast.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not objecting to people getting angry. People have a right to get angry and anything they want to get angry at. I’m objecting to people killing or hurting other people about it. That applies to all cases.
The stuff wasn’t even hateful, and IIRC the cop came to the show specifically to be offended. That someone, somewhere can be offended by what you say doesn’t make you a dick saying it. Period.
I’m all for letting anyone dress the way he or she wants. That’s what we do where I live. Perhaps in some places there is concern that the way to prevent coercion is to limit what can be worn. I don’t agree with that, but it could help the immigrants integrate into society.
It is sometimes hard to tell what is insulting. Do you consider the most recent Charlie cover insulting? Yes it has an illegal picture of the prophet, but that prophet is upset about those who murder in his name, which doesn’t seem insulting to me.
Sometimes those who don’t get the point see the supposed insult and not the reason why the piece was done.
Sounds like it’s along the same lines of reasoning the Taliban were fond of using, where any activity that does not directly contribute to praising Allah is inherently blasphemous.
Upon observation of the giraffe and the platypus, one cannot doubt that God Almighty has a puckish sense of humor. Therefore, I resolve to conduct my worshipful praise by being a smart-ass.
Road & Track had an article about a recent running of the Mille Miglia vintage racer rally. One small photo showed a fellow in papal garb waving at the racers, presumably in blessing. Unfortunately the arm of a monsignor beside him blocked his face so I couldn’t be sure it was Il Papa, and the monsignor looked more like a fat greaser with inappropriate facial hair than a proper priest so it might not have been him. Still, it would not surprise me if Frankie were there. As an Argentinian of a certain age I assume he believes that Fangio, who drove in the Mille Miglia seven times when it was a real race, sits at God’s left hand. I know I do, but he’ll have to shove aside when Stirling Moss arrives. Um, I think I mean Fangio, not God, but I’m good either way.
Generally agreed.
However if you know before travelling that in the country of *Misogynyland *they specifically don’t allow skirts higher than the knee AND you still go, it is rational to abide by their laws, as stupid as they may seem to us.
If you didn’t get the point I was making about real people in real life and not debates in anonymous message boards, then more explanation ain’t gonna help.
Agreed. I respect someone’s culture and will try to accomodate as much as posible, but certain issues cannot be resolved in a way that is satisfactory to both.
Fundamentalism, especially when it’s annoying or, much much worse, violent is not to be tolerated if they want to effect their desired outcomes illegally.
However, I’ve been told that we should mock and be dicks freely so fundamentalists get the same rights.
Agreed. However, you can see how a few/some/many/most rational, peaceful people have a breaking point where they do things that are wrong.
Some people, even if it could be argued they had some sort of point. just want to be ofended. They are the dicks.
I don’t go to nudie bars (it’s for me, an inmoral activity), but if adults go there freely and legally it’d be wrong for me to go to the bar and start annoying people telling them about their sins or whatever or suing the bar for not respecting my beliefs.
I see the minor point of integration, but it’s like forcing migrant to learn the national language a year after arriving. It’s a very good idea, but’s certainly an imposition.
[QUOTE]
It’s not an illegal picture. It’s, at least for muslims, blasphemous.
As a non-muslim I don’t think it was insulting, and most muslims would consider it like that. There is, I know, a continuum from 100% non-insulting to 100% insulting, and it’s not alwyas easy to know where the line is broken. The cover it’s intelligent, transgressive stuff. Much, much better than, say, Muhammad ass-raping a pig while wiping his ass with the Koran; that’s simply insulting and stupid.
I agree, but most of the time with the anti-muslim CH cartoons, all explanations are simply handwaving or thinking that saying “art” excuses everything. They were unimaginative, childish, and insulting simply to be insulting.
I get something similar to that from Jehovah’s Witnesses, although (bless their blessed hearts) they don’t get all into violence about it.
What I hear from JW’s is that they don’t celebrate most Christian holidays because Jesus didn’t command it (yes, they use the word command this way); they don’t celebrate birthdays because Jesus didn’t command it and so forth. Their rule seems to be: Do everything that Jesus commands and only that which Jesus commands.
(Reminds me of Li’l Abner, who once swore to do everything Fearless Fosdick does, and not to do everything Fearless Fosdick doesn’t do. It was his specific plan, knowing that Fosdick would never marry Miss Pimpleton, to assure that he himself would never get married. But due to a serious misunderstanding, it then appeared that Fosdick went ahead and married Miss P. – Turned out, it was all just a bad dream, but by the time that became known, Abner had done gone and married Daisy Mae.)
Well, the JW’s give other reasons as well for not observing birthdays: They claim to find only a scant few Biblical passages in which birthdays are mentioned, but with unfortunate circumstances surrounding each case. Hence, birthdays = evil.
Why is this even being reviewed by anyone? If I don’t like your face, I don’t have to make a cake for you if I don’t want. What happened to “We have the right to refuse service?” Or is that only for drunks in bars??
This case is being compared, by others, to the one with the baker who refused a homosexual couple a cake, with some using it to bash gay people for “forcing” others to do accept something they don’t want and how people should refuse services, even if they discriminate, or people to do what the customer says due to his religion.
Which I believe is different. The case you mention is about the baker refusing to bake the cakes in the first place, this one is about the cakes being baked but the icing will not contain anti-gay slurs. The owner offered the icing and an icing bag to the man who ordered the cakes and told him to decorate the phrases himself. A judge in the article I posted said they were not the same claim.
I don’t know why I always read comments on these articles. Makes me lose faith in humanity’s intelligence. It’s like nobody was ever taught critical thinking.
I was just reading another thread where someone was complaining that Obama didn’t say something or other about radical Islam in the SOTU. My thought was, perhaps they don’t invoke Islam because when you deal with religion, even the nasty aspects that nobody agrees with, you get defenders jumping on board because they feel their religion is being attacked. Perhaps it’s better to just label them terrorists by their actions, rather than due to their religion.
Better lock the barn, now that the horse is gone
Kenneth Copeland’s church is now offering measles vaccinations after having been hit with an outbreak. Copeland has been an outspoken anti-vaxxer, I guess the faith in jehovallah and prayer to him came up a little short.
