Why do liberal SJWs say nothing about the burqa?

[luckynumbah7]

The fact that burqas should not be treated different from other carnival costumes was my point.

That doesn't mean they can't be a security issue. But Disney costumes can be a security issue too.

As for deities, their non-existence is quite relevant. Batshit crazy people do a lot of things because they hear voices telling them too. That is how circumcision became a thing, remember? If circumcision didn't exist and someday invented it today (with or without the divine voices telling them to do it), he'd be in jail for the rest of his life. If people force other people to mummify themselves out of deferrence to a non-exist god, we have the right to protest.

...Except that costumes, by definition, are not something worn daily. Try comparing it to other clothing worn daily. Like those ball-caps & sunglasses that I don't see you decrying as 'hiding the face!' and they both also have coded social messages about who wears them when and how. Several of them that most people probably don't concern themselves with, as they're not the ones that have to live in caps & sunglasses.

As for circumcision, I have 1 bar through the glans and 2 above the shaft. So I'm absolutely certain that jail would not be the first thing the active receivers of those ministrations called for. Licencing and safer (sterile) conditions, sure. Jail, well, not so's you'd notice.

When you discuss, you should probably try hard not to include the wild hairs up your ass about various deities being figments of a deluded people. If only because most people are religious in some form and you'd be easy to squish.

I did hear there was an interesting 'atheism as a religion' book that's been out. I sneered at it for the longest time, but these types of postings have me willing to pick it up and give it a go. Not that I think your opinion on the subject is widespread among atheists in its vociferousness about it being in particular a delusion (I've been hearing it more as a world-interpretation of the possibilities outside of human comprehension with a few dashes, light to heavy of "But eh, that stuff, nah, those books I don't believe". But I can see how, when atheism is taken to the extremes it's indicative that atheism can push the same internal 'reality' buttons that much of religion/spiritual practice as a whole pushes/accomplishes.

 

[luckynumbah7]

As for circumcision, I have 1 bar through the glans and 2 above the shaft. So I'm absolutely certain that jail would not be the first thing the active receivers of those ministrations called for. Licencing and safer (sterile) conditions, sure. Jail, well, not so's you'd notice.

Though I'd like to ask, as we're an awfully decorative species - I'd like to know why only some modifications would land jail time? I'm saying some cuz you brought up circumcision existing but your example relies on your lack of clarity about the recipient choosing it for themselves or not. Assuming, of course, that there's the general 'do no harm' clause and all that.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

...Except that costumes, by definition, are not something worn daily. Try comparing it to other clothing worn daily. Like those ball-caps & sunglasses that I don't see you decrying as 'hiding the face!'

Apparently it has now come to this. One is no longer allowed to say that a certain garment, namely the burqa, may be a security issue without publishing an exhaustive list of all other such garments and accessories, from motorcycle helmets to diving suits.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

.

As for circumcision, I have 1 bar through the glans and 2 above the shaft. So I'm absolutely certain that jail would not be the first thing the active receivers of those ministrations called for. Licencing and safer (sterile) conditions, sure. Jail, well, not so's you'd notice.

No fucking idea what your point here is, mate. But I assume you chose to get those bodily modifications for your own body only, without proscribing them to all the infants in your tribe?

 

[Zeno Lorea]

When you discuss, you should probably try hard not to include the wild hairs up your ass about various deities being figments of a deluded people. If only because most people are religious in some form and you'd be easy to squish.

The truth is not a democracy you know. It is not decided by popular vote in a referendum. Either something is true or it isn't, and if it isn't we need to dare say so. And the truth is that we have no evidence in favor of any religion and a lot of evidence against all of them. The fact that a lot of people believe in them is irrelevant.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

I did hear there was an interesting 'atheism as a religion' book that's been out. I sneered at it for the longest time, but these types of postings have me willing to pick it up and give it a go. Not that I think your opinion on the subject is widespread among atheists in its vociferousness about it being in particular a delusion (I've been hearing it more as a world-interpretation of the possibilities outside of human comprehension with a few dashes, light to heavy of "But eh, that stuff, nah, those books I don't believe". But I can see how, when atheism is taken to the extremes it's indicative that atheism can push the same internal 'reality' buttons that much of religion/spiritual practice as a whole pushes/accomplishes.

Atheism is, indeed, not a religion. Those who say it is, are so sucked up in one faith or another that they cannot believe anyone can live outside a faith. Like they say about Brazilians and football: you can support any team, from Man U to a local pub team, but you cannot say you don't support a team, because only that is blasphemy.

And what the heck is "atheism taken to its extremes"?! The universal declaration of human rights, perhaps, but other than that?

 

[luckynumbah7]

No fucking idea what your point here is, mate. But I assume you chose to get those bodily modifications for your own body only, without proscribing them to all the infants in your tribe?

I would've sworn that was blunt enough. So rare that someone asks me to extend the metaphorical hand farther. I mean that circumcision, described simply, is the removal of the tip of the glans covering. In other words, it's nothing but a body modification.

You didn't type what your issue with circumcision was in your original post; you just presented it as all-over 'bad'. You linked it to religion, which is understandable as it currently has a large religious component. But that doesn't mean the current associations are intrinsic to the circumcision itself. The same goes for body mods in general. The issue surrounding circumcision seems to be consent, not so much that it's considered a religious practice.

So if you're under the impression that humanity (as a well-established decorative species who has, species wise, quite the appreciation of body mods across cultures) would automatically throw whomever invented circumcision in a non-religious society in jail - it makes no gods-be-damned sense.

Same goes for the burqa. Not intrinsic so pretending it is, well. Someone's bound to call you out on it.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

You didn't type what your issue with circumcision was in your original post; you just presented it as all-over 'bad'. You linked it to religion, which is understandable as it currently has a large religious component. But that doesn't mean the current associations are intrinsic to the circumcision itself. The same goes for body mods in general. The issue surrounding circumcision seems to be consent, not so much that it's considered a religious practice.

Consent is indeed the issue. And the problem with the burqa is that most women who wear it do not choose to do so, or even consent to doing so, but only agree to it because they are forced to do so. By religions.

And it's the same thing with circumcision: very few uncut adult men choose to undergo the procedure. In most cases it is forced upon infants who are unable to give their consent. In three countries (the USA, South Korea and the Philippines) this is done not for a specific religious reason but "just because". But every other country in the world where most boys are cut, do it because of scripture. The Old Testament in Israel and the Koran everywhere else. All other countries do not circumcise.

So again, if circumcision did not exist and today someone came up with the idea to cut off his boy's foreskin because an invisible man in the sky told him to do it, we would lock him up.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Not intrinsic so pretending it is, well. Someone's bound to call you out on it.

I'd also be wary of calling it a symbol of whatever-the-hell with no additional information supplied. You can say the same thing about virtually everything. If you want to claim it as a symbol of something specific you'd better have coherent references to give your point context in the grand scheme of likely human outcomes. And statistics, preferably double blind, would be great.

Usually the point is to change the meaning of the symbol for the people who have negative impressions of it, not that changing the symbol itself is going to do any good. I've found additions are usually better than subtractions when it comes to symbolism and equitable-clarity.

 

[eastofeden]

I am a liberal and not a fan of any organized religion or their rules....including Muslims....

Having said that...I find I like the Liberal members of any religion a hell of alot better than the conservative members....

Most of the bad shit in life comes from the conservative religious people...not unlike their non religious brothers and sisters...

Don't believe in climate change..
Don't believe in marriage equality...
Don't believe a woman should be able to decide what she does with her own body....

Hmnmmmmm.....

 

[luckynumbah7]

So again, if circumcision did not exist and today someone came up with the idea to cut off his boy's foreskin because an invisible man in the sky told him to do it, we would lock him up.

Personally, I doubt there's much difference between the man in the sky and the man on the ground. Not of perception and the inherent disability in attempting to piece reality into a coherent and utterly useful item, anyway.

But no. You've handily snuck in a prerequisite of what it must mean to believe in the tenants of a faith (invisible man in the sky) without defining what those specific tenants are and how it interacts with their symbolism. That's not how to argue a position; it's untenable.

 

[luckynumbah7]

The assumption that it wouldn't have been invented is also prolly not accurate. Not even a little, much as I wish it were. Humanity has some serious clique/tribe issues combined with problems in grouping safe/unsafe results with the behavior that got them there. Not only would people have likely invented circumcision without religion, we would've invented more extreme procedures. We have the latter, as much as is medically capable at this point in time, so what makes you believe the former wouldn't be available?

 

[nyctopgam]

I know I don't like the burqa and I sure am as liberal as they come.

 

[luckynumbah7]

I know I don't like the burqa and I sure am as liberal as they come.

You don't have to like it. You do have to accept it so long as it's a personal decision that doesn't infringe on your rights. You can always look away, after all. It's when clothing is mandated that I find it concerning.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

Not only would people have likely invented circumcision without religion, we would've invented more extreme procedures.

Where the heck did you pull that from? You make a lot of grand statements without any evidence whatsoever, but this is one I want to call you out on. Evidence, please?

 

[Zeno Lorea]

It's when clothing is mandated that I find it concerning.

But that's the goddamn point of this thread. Only a handful of women worldwide CHOOSE to wear the burqa. In my native Belgium (population 11 million, muslim population 350,000) only TWO women have ever been seen wearing a burqa. But millions of others have been forced to.

 

[bankside]

My first awareness of sexism was about equal pay, having the same shot at a promotion, basically telling people to realize that when a man and a woman are just as good at something, they're just as good.

It was about the freedom to work outside of being a housewife, not the obligation to.

You'll probably find lots of people who will argue that women don't have to wear a burqa if they don't feel like it. But not many telling them they have to stop. That's a bit silly. It would be taking away one kind of control-freakery and substituting another.

 

[peeonme]

I agree with bankside, forbidding to wear and forcing to wear both take away freedom.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Goodness, the floor in here is soaked with saliva from the foaming at the mouth. Sheesh.

 

[eastofeden]

I also think it is odd to want to force someone to not wear a piece of clothing..seems very invasive to me. I don't see the point of it.