Hinduism and Buddhism. Assuming that you'd call Buddhism a religion and not a life philosophy. Most people seem to include in the list of 'major religions'.

Of course, if you disagree with me that they are not religions of love and peace, I might just accuse you of Hinduismaphobia and Buddhismaphobia.

I was one of the 2 agrees. Islam doesn't create terrorists, drone strikes and unjust invasions do (ie, terrorism creates opposing terrorists). If your village of goat herders, women and children gets wiped out by a drone strike, suddenly Al Qaida's rantings make more sense to you.

I have been trying to explain this to coolerboy, either he ignores it or doesn't want to hear it.

Of course their are deviant Muslims just as their are deviant Buddhists, that doesn't mean Islam/ Buddhism are not religions of peace. And that doesn't mean the greatest majority of Buddhists and Muslims are evil "terrorists".

lol

did you know that Mary, the mother of Jesus, covered her hair?

Are we supposed to care? I mean I know it's a line that is supposed to work with Christians. With atheists not so much.

After some minor research, I have some questions/concerns and a possible red flag with those whom strongly disagree that Islam is a religion of peace. Obviously many of these votes are valid nonetheless,

One of the voters whom strongly disagreed was Kermit1981. Also another "strongly disagree" voter, Iknownothing has never made a single post. Not alleging anything here I just find this interesting.

Seeing that the guy who made the black hole thread was banned, what should be done with Kermit1981 seeing his only activity was voting and he has not been back since. I'm not alleging anything here just asking what the deal with Kermit1981 is.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/members/383283/

Kermit1981 joined on 11/22/13 and has no posts whose last and only activity was 11-22-2013 at 6:18 am.

I'm not accusing anyone of voting twice by using a gimmick although I am wondering what the deal is with Kermit1981 is and if that vote is valid.

This line doesn't work with Christians either, what Mary did with her hair is irrelevant to Islam.

The comic uses humour to make a point about oppression of modern islamic women. Are you also going to argue that the burka is "not really part of the true Islam"?

The burka is part of Islam and it is oppressive.

Oh snap well that changes things completely

Online polls are srs business.

Wow is all I can say, I have family members who wear Burkas. I highly disagree with you here Lemon, although I will let this women in a Burqa explain herself to your bigoted view wrt to burqas. I don't think you are Islamophobic, yet, but wow this statement of yours offends alot people. You should be more reasonable with your criticism.

Probably a good idea to keep a running tally:

• Islamophobic: collerboy123, doggg
• Bigoted, but not yet classified as Islamophobic: lemonzest

Did I miss any?

by all means if someone thinks burkas are oppressive, then they are presumably speaking for all the women who wear them


is this not the case?

edit: I dont think Lemon is a bigot, but I believe if one thinks a Burka is oppressive, that is a bigoted view.

by all means if someone thinks burkas are not oppressive, then they are presumably speaking for all the women who wear them

is this not the case?

My point is Stating that a burka is a sign of oppression is a shot at the many women who willingly wear a burka, Give me a break man.

You understand there's a difference between offensive and oppressive, right?

This is ridiculous, I edited my response 1 minute after posting

look, I find it extremely offensive when someone thinks that burqas are oppressive.

Well, considering he never said they were offensive, you're getting your panties in a bunch for no real reason. And, yes, forcing women to wear burqas is indeed oppressive so long as some percentage of those women would find it burdensome, cruel, or unjust (someone could probably argue that this criteria doesn't necessarily have to be met, and it could still be considered oppressive; I won't be doing that here).

I never flipped the subject on Lemon like you are trying to now,

The statement was "Burqas are oppressive" The statement was not men who force women to wear burqas are oppressive, again give me a break man

A woman who doesn't want to wear it doesn't have to wear it. How is not being forced to do something oppressive?

There are countries where the burka is required by law. Then I guess you have a choice to move out of that country if you don't like that law (though I admit this is a weaker argument).

IIRC, the countries with laws like that are the ones where the US installed brutal puppet regimes*. Regimes like those are allies of the US because they keep their populations in line and their resources open for the West to extract (for instance Saddam was a big ally of the US during his worst atrocities).

*I can double-check this when I get a chance.

I'm going to guess that lemon doesn't really care what a women chooses to wear, burqa or no, so long as it's a truly free choice. He is almost certainly referring to those who are forced/pressured (whether explicitly or implicitly) to wear them, even if that pressure is subtly dealt. I suppose he could also argue that if burqas are sufficiently burdensome, then they might qualify as oppressive regardless of whether or not they choose to wear them (as they might have been conditioned to choose them in spite of said burden). I'm going to assume is the former until lemon pokes his head in.

Also, try to be a bit more charitable with your reading; it will go a long way.

Your missing my point and you make a alot of assumptions here.

It appears that you may not understand the weight of Lemons false statement to Muslims all around the world. To the many, many Muslim women who willingly wear burqas including my own family members. BTW I am very charitable with my reading, I have yet to use foul language or bully people itt. Do you actually think its ok to say that "Burqas are oppressive"? You are also guessing what Lemon assumes about burqas by saying you are "going to guess" when you don't actually know what his true views are. (Lemons) Not to mention you are oblivious to his statement.

BTW as a side note, many Muslim women simply wear a "Hijab", which covers part of their hair. Of course the Burqa covers everything except the eyes. Some Muslim women wear neither a Hijab/Niqāb/Burqa. Its all personal preference. Of course many sikh males cover their hair as well and never cut it, its part of their way of life.

Again I don't think Lemon is a bigot/nor Islamophobic. But the fact that you seem to think his comments are meaningless is mind boggling to me.

Pot, meet kettle.

The fact that there are "many, many Muslim who willingly wear burqas" is not an argument against it being considered oppressive. At best, you can argue it's not oppressive toward those women.

That's not what 'charitable' means. Link.

Sure, it is "okay". Again, "Burqas are oppressive" has many possible interpretations, and some of them certainly are oppressive (I would hope you would agree that in those countries where women must wear them, they are being oppressed).

Of course. I am always going to strive to be as charitable as possible in my reading [especially when I know a poster's history], so I'm going to have to make some assumptions and then wait for him to clarify.

I don't think it means what you think it means.

Quite the narrow edge from "I think he has bigoted views" to "he is a bigot". If you want to walk that inflammatory language tight rope, then feel free. Personally, I'd choose firmer ground.

I don't think it means what you think it means.

"Charitable" is this context doesn't mean what you think it means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

Here's one of the best explanations of the principle by game-theorist Anatol Rapoport:

+1


I mean this is absolutely mind boggling to me. Your trying to deflect/ somehow change the words that were stated. You know what else has many interpretations.... racial segregation and racial science to say a few. My point is I don't think it is at all reasonable to flatly state "Burqas are oppressive" without stating so long as it is being forced upon a women. You may never agree with this point and it doesn't really bother me.

I agree with ASDF's comments and interpretations so far itt (it is also nice to be in agreement for a change )

Kid,
For the sake of discussion (in other words I don't really agree but lets not get hung up here) I think we can agree some women wear burkas by choice and some women wear them by obligation of the law or their husband. Because of the many women who are forced to wear them by governments or their husband's will the burka has become a symbol of oppression.

http://www.amazon.ca/My-Forbidden-Fa.../dp/1860499619

EDIT: Let me know how many more FPP I need to reach "Islamaphobe" status, I am willing to put in the time.

EDIT II If I truly choose to do something out of my own free will then it is not oppressive is it? - pretty straightforward.

I do question the "truly choose" part though in many instances. Islam doesn't exactly have a great reputation for open mindedness to those that want to buck the system or question the way things are. There are pretty strict rules in place for criticizing Islam.