You don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about.
No liberal supports women being compelled to wear hijabs against their will.
Islam is neither necessary nor sufficient for homophobia or sexism. Lumping all Muslims together as bigots, then using that as a stick to attack the free exercise of religion, helps nobody (other than those who gain money and power from Islamophobia). The way to fight sexism and homophobia is…drumroll…to fight homophobia and sexism.
Nope. Doesn’t happen.
Liberals oppose anyone requiring anyone else to wear some particular thing against that person’s will. Neither Christianity nor Islam enters into it.
Liberals support the right of an individual to choose to dress in a particular way. Neither Christianity nor Islam enters into it.
What does “defend Islam” mean to you?
Liberals oppose bigotry or discrimination on the basis of religion. That’s not defending Islam.
Christians required nuns to wear very similar coverings for centuries and no one batted an eye!
Losing your shit over anyone wearing a headscarf ranks right up there with hating long hair on men!
It’s just a style of dress. All of the Muslim women, I’ve ever met, insist it is entirely their choice.
Shall I believe them? Or your hateful, unsubstantiated bias?
Considering the OP’s previous statement that:
Perhaps he’d like to clarify just which of his personal meanings for muslim he’s referring to?
Orthodox Judaism requires that both men and women cover their heads. Is that oppressive also?
Want to give some evidence that the “liberal press” has said that Saudi Arabia is a libertarian paradise? Your buddy Shrub held hands with the king, remember.
Lots of Muslims live in my town. Many women cover their hair. Many don’t. If someone was forced to do anything, that would be a matter for the police. However Christians shriek about not having laws banning toplessness in women. Which is fundamentally no different.
What Liberals object to is the presumption that all Muslim women are forced to dress a certain way and must be “freed from their oppressive coverings”. Some Christian and Jewish religious groups other ethnic groups do require women to wear clothing combinations along similar lines as the hijabs (i.e., little or no visible skin) though one rarely hears calls for their banning. (Someone please think of the poor oppressed Amish and Hutterite women). Likewise in regards to feminism, LGBT movement and Islam what liberals are defending is the right to believe what you want to believe, live how you want to live, etc., so long as you respect the right of others to do likewise. Part of that respect is accepting that others may not agree with you.
You don’t seem to like Muslims that much. Why is that?
How does this sound to you?
Or this,
Do either of those sound “liberal” to you?
Maybe most liberals have just internalized Niemöller,First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—
And there was no one left to speak for me.Just a thought.
CMC fnord!
A number of Christian (and Jewish) groups even today require women to cover their heads (e.g., the Amish, and various subsets of Orthodox Jews). (ETA: as other posters have noted above.)
I completely agree that no woman (or man) in any religious group should be forced to wear any symbol of religious identification against their will. But if somebody tells me they’re wearing a religious symbol as a voluntary expression of their freely chosen religious or cultural identity, I think I’d be kind of an asshole to refuse to believe them.
Similarly, there are doubtless women in various tribal cultures in tropical climates who think it’s absurd and/or repressive that western women are generally required by cultural and legal mandates to keep their breasts covered in public no matter how hot it gets.
But those women would be kind of jerkish if they insisted to me that I’m condoning oppression unless I demand to be allowed to go topless at all times.
According to our own even sven, there are even some African Muslim cultures where covering the head is considered more important than covering the breasts:
I don’t see anyone giving positive discrimination to Jews or Hindus. In fact, it was one of my core argument points. The argument is only valid because Islam is getting a lot of positive media coverage being manufactured by liberals.
Liberalism is about separating oneself from religion and not being ruled by it. Liberals should champion secularism, science/athiesim, LGBT, feminism, multiracial tolerance, etc… without pandering to a voter base.
Muslims should form their own political party and campaign that way.
You have failed to provide any examples of this "positive discrimination " and therefore we find your premise faulty.
Nobody but you is seeing this. Can you give an example of what it is you think is positive discrimination to Muslims?
Your evidence for this was Pakistanis being allowed to model, even though you find them all ugly; and a Pakistani being a musician, even though (one presumes) you find them all untalented. Note that this requires a pre-existing hatred of Muslims in order to be convincing.
No, it’s really not. Liberals can be, and generally are, religious.
Secular government, sure. Civil rights, absolutely. Religious freedom? You bet! That is, the right to practice whatever religion one chooses, or none at all.
You simultaneously want secular government, and religious political parties??? You think all Muslims have the same political ideals and needs?
And what about Muslim liberals, what are they to do?
That’s truly funny, because the racists in America go on and on about Jews controlling the media and brainwashing everyone to love Israel or something.
There’s a bit of a contradiction there. If a party bans creationism, they are combining church and politics.
Do you mean you want to support a party that supports a ban on forcing creationism to be taught
in public schools? That’s the liberal position.
I was listening to a right-wing hate radio show, and they gave the example of footwashing stations for Muslims, on college campuses.
To me, that’s merely accommodation, not “discrimination.” To begin with, non-Muslims may also use these stations. It was simply a facility that a number of Muslims requested, and the request was granted. In the same way, many college campuses offer Kosher food as an available alternative. It isn’t “discrimination,” because, again, anyone can have that food for themselves.
Why?
Nobody can ban an idea. Even a stupid one.
But you can refuse to teach Creationism in public schools. Even Texas managed to do this.