NationStates Jolt Archive

I found this article interesting.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,411287,00.html
TV Host's Headscarf Stirs Debate

With Denmark still licking its wounds over the international outrage over anti-Muslim cartoons published by a major newspaper, a new controversy has erupted over a talk show presenter who insists on wearing a headscarf on her nationally televised talk show.

The only show I can think of right now that has women with headscarves as presenters is one on the Briz31 community TV channel.

But none of the major stations ever got even close. Indeed, I can't even think of a non-Anglo host right now.

So should it be somehow offensive that this woman is wearing the Hijab on national TV, as a main character who will be a part in millions of people's lives?

What about news presenters?

And, I suppose this is the heart of the question, what do you personally think about the Hijab and the women who wear it?

I don't understand the controversy. Why on earth shouldn't she wear the headscarf? :confused:

It's down to company policy, not the politicians.

I don't understand the controversy. Why on earth shouldn't she wear the headscarf? :confused:
It's probably because it somehow offends people to be confronted with something they consider foreign and unusual.

Plus, it's Denmark. There has been a lot of stuff going on in Denmark, and the cartoon thing had just been the latest strike.

What on earth is offensive about covering one's head? I have met enough young headscarf-wearing Muslim women to know that is far from being a symbol of oppression, it's just a cultural artifact, and in many cases a fashion statement. I suspect this "controversy" is being stoked up by some elements in Denmark who simply want to see a confrontation with Islam on any lines.

It's probably because it somehow offends people to be confronted with something they consider foreign and unusual.
That is quite astonishing - I had a look through the article, and it really does seem like the only 'problem' with her wearing it is because people don't want to see her religion. What kind of an age do we live in where people get offended and militant about the faith of someone else?

It's down to company policy, not the politicians.

It's down to her individual right to self-determination, not company policy.

</correction>

The co-host of a popular new public television show created to debate religious and cultural differences
The show is about religious and cultural differences and she's being criticised for wearing a headscarf? People are more stupid than I'm giving them credit for, the entire point of the show seems to be the differences between different religions and cultures in Denmark, of course they're going to have a Muslim host.

I don't understand the controversy. Why on earth shouldn't she wear the headscarf?

Well, it is part of a tradition of misogyny and prostration.

What kind of an age do we live in where people get offended and militant about the faith of someone else?
The age in which this party (http://www.danskfolkeparti.dk/sw/frontend/show.asp?parent=3293&menu_parent=&layout=0) is the third-largest in Denmark and controls the government by keeping it in power with its support.

Well, it is part of a tradition of misogyny and prostration.
This is Denmark, not Saudi Arabia. One would assume she's taken the decision to wear it personally, as a symbol of her faith.

The age in which this party (http://www.danskfolkeparti.dk/sw/frontend/show.asp?parent=3293&menu_parent=&layout=0) is the third-largest in Denmark and controls the government by keeping it in power with its support.
As long as this "ultra conservative" party has sway over the government, I see nothing but problems for the people of Denmark.

I see no problem with the woman wearing her headscarfe.

As long as this "ultra conservative" party has sway over the government, I see nothing but problems for the people of Denmark.

I see no problem with the woman wearing her headscarfe.what he said.
All of it.

This is Denmark, not Saudi Arabia. One would assume she's taken the decision to wear it personally, as a symbol of her faith.

No, no she hasn't. They're indoctrinated with that shit. They think it's liberating and shit like that, but it's oppressive and misogynist. They just don't know it.

The age in which this party (http://www.danskfolkeparti.dk/sw/frontend/show.asp?parent=3293&menu_parent=&layout=0) is the third-largest in Denmark and controls the government by keeping it in power with its support.

I'd vote for them.

No, no she hasn't. They're indoctrinated with that shit. They think it's liberating and shit like that, but it's oppressive and misogynist. They just don't know it.(lets ban her rigth to wear religion/cultural symbols)All the people voting for Bush are idiots, They just don't know it, Lets ban their rigth to vote. [/sarcasm]

I'd vote for them.They aren't a party for non-Danes, though. I doubt they have much love for a German-Ukranian that can't speak Danish.

No, no she hasn't. They're indoctrinated with that shit. They think it's liberating and shit like that, but it's oppressive and misogynist. They just don't know it.

Surely the point of existing within a liberal democratic society is the right to wear what you want, when you want and where you want? If people are stopped from wearing something because people don't agree with it, doesn't this make us the Oppressors of other ideas?

So should it be somehow offensive that this woman is wearing the Hijab on national TV, as a main character who will be a part in millions of people's lives?

What about news presenters?

And, I suppose this is the heart of the question, what do you personally think about the Hijab and the women who wear it?
Here's a question for you: Should it be somehow offensive that a woman or man is wearing a Yarmulka on their head, or a six-inch high cross around their neck, on national TV?

They aren't a party for non-Danes, though. I doubt they have much love for a German-Ukranian that can't speak Danish.

I meant, if I was a Dane.

Here's a question for you: Should it be somehow offensive that a woman or man is wearing a Yarmulka on their head, or a six-inch high cross around their neck, on national TV?
Disclaimer I realize the question is for Leon, But I need a little clarificatin:
What is a Yarmulka? is that like an AK-47 or a weapon.. (if not.. I dont mind them wearing it on TV)

Here's a question for you: Should it be somehow offensive that a woman or man is wearing a Yarmulka on their head, or a six-inch high cross around their neck, on national TV?Actually, I'm sure Jews could find it offensive if a woman wore a Yarmulka as it's something for men to wear...
(I could be wrong though.)

Disclaimer I realize the question is for Leon, But I need a little clarificatin:
What is a Yarmulka? is that like an AK-47 or a weapon.. (if not.. I dont mind tham wearing that on TV)Yarmulkas are the small "hats" that Jews wear when going into Synagogues.

I meant, if I was a Dane.But that's the point. You're not a Dane, and according to them, you're not welcome in Denmark.

Yarmulkas are the small "hats" that Jews wear when going into Synagogues.oh LOL..
OK thx.

But that's the point. You're not a Dane, and according to them, you're not welcome in Denmark.

Exactly. That's the way it should be. I have no intention or desire to reside in Denmark. Maybe come for a visit, see the sites. But never to live. Because I'm not Danish.

Denmark belongs to the Danes and its citizens must be able to live in a secure community founded on the rule of law, developing only along the lines of Danish culture.

Fuck straight.

Here's a question for you: Should it be somehow offensive that a woman or man is wearing a Yarmulka on their head, or a six-inch high cross around their neck, on national TV?

I think with most religious imagery, it is bound to offend someone somewhere who doesn't agree with what is being showed.

I think the point is that people need to stop bawling like small children and realise that a lot of the world thinks differently from them, and removing somebody's right to express themselves is merely trying to pretend that something they don't like does not exist.

I guess what I'm saying is that a person of any religion should have the right to wear their symbols, or not as the case may be.

Exactly. That's the way it should be. I have no intention or desire to reside in Denmark. Maybe come for a visit, see the sites. But never to live. Because I'm not Danish.

Denmark belongs to the Danes and its citizens must be able to live in a secure community founded on the rule of law, developing only along the lines of Danish culture.

Fuck straight.So where do you plan on living then?

Disclaimer I realize the question is for Leon, But I need a little clarificatin:
What is a Yarmulka? is that like an AK-47 or a weapon.. (if not.. I dont mind them wearing it on TV)
It's a skullcap worn by traditional followers of the Jewish faith.

Actually, I'm sure Jews could find it offensive if a woman wore a Yarmulka as it's something for men to wear...
(I could be wrong though.)
No, you're not wrong, but it could just as easily be a man on TV, yes?

I think with most religious imagery, it is bound to offend someone somewhere who doesn't agree with what is being showed.

I think the point is that people need to stop bawling like small children and realise that a lot of the world thinks differently from them, and removing somebody's right to express themselves is merely trying to pretend that something they don't like does not exist.

I guess what I'm saying is that a person of any religion should have the right to wear their symbols, or not as the case may be.
I disagree. Overt symbols of religious belief have no place in the public arena, whether we're talking about in Congress, or on TV.

Surely the point of existing within a liberal democratic society is the right to wear what you want, when you want and where you want? If people are stopped from wearing something because people don't agree with it, doesn't this make us the Oppressors of other ideas?
I'ts not a matter of "not agreeing with it," and it's not a matter of stopping people from wearing their reilgious symbols in public, it's a matter of not allowing religious prosylitizing in a non-religous context.

Actually, I'm sure Jews could find it offensive if a woman wore a Yarmulka as it's something for men to wear...
In Israel, a female TV anchor would lose her job if she wore that hat.

I disagree. Overt symbols of religious belief have no place in the public arena, whether we're talking about in Congress, or on TV.

Whilst I respect your opinion, I am a little unclear on your justification and politely ask for a clarification. The public arena, by definition, is made of (or representative of) 'the public'. If we take 'the public' to mean a collection of individuals, than each individual has their own personal religious beliefs which I believe people should have a right to express.

(For information purposes, I'm an Athiest living in the United Kingdom)

In Israel, a female TV anchor would lose her job if she wore that hat.
Sigh. That's not the point, and who the hell said anything about just women? Men also work on national TV the last time I checked. Jeeze. :rolleyes:

No, no she hasn't. They're indoctrinated with that shit. They think it's liberating and shit like that, but it's oppressive and misogynist. They just don't know it.

ummm im going to have to disagree with that. i wear the hijab because i want to. i dont feel it empowers me in any way, nor does it oppress me. I grew up in the States so i'm very well aware of all the ways the hijab is presented. I wore the hijab when i was in the states, not because i had to, not because anyone forced me too. hell, my own parents on a daily basis would ask me to take it off so i wouldn't have to be subjected to all the racism and what not. after a while, yeah, i took it off -- i wanted to see how different i would be treated without it. the thing is, after a week i wanted to wear it again, because i liked it. now, living in dubai, i wear it because i want to and because it has a fashion element to it. i can take it off, i just dont want to. and i would know if i am being oppressed dear, i think most right-minded inviduals would.

Whilst I respect your opinion, I am a little unclear on your justification and politely ask for a clarification. The public arena, by definition, is made of (or representative of) 'the public'. If we take 'the public' to mean a collection of individuals, than each individual has their own personal religious beliefs which I believe people should have a right to express.

(For information purposes, I'm an Athiest living in the United Kingdom)
We're not talking about rights here. We're talking about context. There are times when it's appropriate to shave your head and repent in sackcloth and ashes, according to some. There are times when it's appropriate, again according to some, to self-flaggelate your naked back. But doing so while being a presenter of the news in a non-religious context is definitely INappropriate.

ummm im going to have to disagree with that. i wear the hijab because i want to. i dont feel it empowers me in any way, nor does it oppress me. I grew up in the States so i'm very well aware of all the ways the hijab is presented. I wore the hijab when i was in the states, not because i had to, not because anyone forced me too. hell, my own parents on a daily basis would ask me to take it off so i wouldn't have to be subjected to all the racism and what not. after a while, yeah, i took it off -- i wanted to see how different i would be treated without it. the thing is, after a week i wanted to wear it again, because i liked it. now, living in dubai, i wear it because i want to and because it has a fashion element to it. i can take it off, i just dont want to. and i would know if i am being oppressed dear, i think most right-minded inviduals would.

Right...

We're not talking about rights here. We're talking about context. There are times when it's appropriate to shave your head and repent in sackcloth and ashes, according to some. There are times when it's appropriate, again according to some, to self-flaggelate your naked back. But doing so while being a presenter of the news in a non-religious context is definitely INappropriate.

Okay, I'm clear on what you mean now - if we're talking about the context in which such programs are presented in a specifically non-religious form of telivision, than I would agree that religion should not enter the method of news reporting. However, from my own personal point of view, it does seem that the definition of the 'public sphere' and where the 'public good' should infringe on the 'individual good' is arguably rather vague - the example I'm thinking of is with regards to the case in France whereby a girl lost a Court Case to allow her to wear religious imagery in school.

Would you personally therefore regard such context as extending to a person going about their own business, or that such context should only be considered in the cases of public non-religious representation such as the case we are examining here?

No, you're not wrong, but it could just as easily be a man on TV, yes?Just being nitpicky ;)
Don't take it all that seriously.
Just had a jewish friend on the phone; women can wear Yarmulkas too.

We don't really have any news anchors wearing religious apparel on television, but we do have several little programs that usually run at a certain time where either a representative of the catholic or protestant community will say something.

In Israel, a female TV anchor would lose her job if she wore that hat.

Yay bolded red text?

I disagree. Overt symbols of religious belief have no place in the public arena, whether we're talking about in Congress, or on TV.
I disagree. There is a difference between evangelising a faith and simply wearing something as a symbol of that faith.

Besides, "the public arena" is anywhere that isn't a private home. Should she be banned from wearing it when she goes out in the street as well?

I disagree. Overt symbols of religious belief have no place in the public arena, whether we're talking about in Congress, or on TV.
You obviously didn't read the linked article?

The co-host of a popular new public television show created to debate religious and cultural differences has divided Danes with her decision to wear a headscarf on air.

Given that the program is religious in content, would you also disagree with a priest wearing his collar or vestments, or perhaps a rabbi wearing his?

You prattle on about "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expression", yet you are selective in your opinion as to who should be able to partake of these "freedoms".

By extension, should all military personnel taking part in a TV program be required to dress as an ordinary citizen?

Perhaps your exclusions to these "freedoms" would extend to those who sport tattoos or spiked hair, or body piercings?

Perhaps you would like to pick the style of clothes and/or colours of TV personalities?

Where do YOU draw the line?

and i would know if i am being oppressed dear, i think most right-minded inviduals would.
and in the 1950s when it was a woman's role to take care of the home, women didn't complain because that was their role. it is not clear to most proponents of the they've-been-brainwashed argument, myself included, that a similar situation is not at work here. despite the fact that you claim to like it for personal reason, I wonder if you are not simply used to it, and the comfort of tradition.

it is also not clear that your story is representative of the majority of cases, since women who do not wish to wear it might well be ostracized by their communities.

despite the fact that you claim to like it for personal reason, I wonder if you are not simply used to it, and the comfort of tradition.
How patronising.

We're not talking about rights here. We're talking about context. There are times when it's appropriate to shave your head and repent in sackcloth and ashes, according to some. There are times when it's appropriate, again according to some, to self-flaggelate your naked back. But doing so while being a presenter of the news in a non-religious context is definitely INappropriate.

But it is a religious context, the show is about the differences between cultures and religions in Denmark
...created to debate religious and cultural differences has divided Danes....

How patronising.

*shrug* If she was brainwashed, would you expect her to know it?

Would you personally therefore regard such context as extending to a person going about their own business, or that such context should only be considered in the cases of public non-religious representation such as the case we are examining here?
What people wear ( within limits ) while going about their own business is their own business. I think that public nudity would be a bit distracting ( not to mention sometimes thoroughly disgusting in some cases! Heh! ), but other than the violation of what the local community considers offensive, people not in the public arena should be allowed to wear what they choose.

If I owned a television station ( I WISH! ), and someone wanted to wear the symbol of their religion to work, that would be fine, as long as they didn't wear it when appearing in front of the camera. In the case at point, if the young lady in question refused to remove her scarf, I would try to persuade her that wearing it in front of the camera was unacceptable. If she still persisted, I would fire her. It's obviously more important to her to advertise her religion than is her job.

*shrug* If she was brainwashed, would you expect her to know it?
There is something frightening about people claiming to know the absolute truth and dismissing alternative views as brainwashing. I would say she very much knows her own mind; the fact you do not agree with her choice is hardly a reason to be insulting to her personal beliefs.

But it is a religious context, the show is about the differences between cultures and religions in Denmark
Oops! Sorry, I missed that part.

Then perhaps it would be acceptable, in that context.

If she still persisted, I would fire her. It's obviously more important to her to advertise her religion than is her job.
But this is the point; it's not about her advertising her religion, it is about a personal symbol important to herself. The fact that other people can see that symbol is irrelevant, and hardly a thing she should be penalised for.

But it is a religious context, the show is about the differences between cultures and religions in Denmark
Exactly. Perhaps Eut missed the point of the attached article?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10763425&postcount=43

Sigh. That's not the point..(Looks to me)the point is about what bodywear should be allowed or disallowed.
Laerod point was about Jewish Females not being allowed to wear that Hat. (looks on topic to me)

I disagree. There is a difference between evangelising a faith and simply wearing something as a symbol of that faith.

Besides, "the public arena" is anywhere that isn't a private home. Should she be banned from wearing it when she goes out in the street as well?
IMHO, "public arena" is where issues are debated, news is presented, and commentary about public issues is offered.

Exactly. Perhaps Eut missed the point of the attached article?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10763425&postcount=43

Also http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10763089&postcount=8.
:rolleyes: Silly Eut

There is something frightening about people claiming to know the absolute truth and dismissing alternative views as brainwashing. I would say she very much knows her own mind; the fact you do not agree with her choice is hardly a reason to be insulting to her own mind and beliefs.

I'm just saying. I don't think she'd be the best authority on whether or not she herself was brainwashed. It's just sorta how brainwashing works, she's not exactly a trustworthy testimony on the subject.

You obviously didn't read the linked article?

The co-host of a popular new public television show created to debate religious and cultural differences has divided Danes with her decision to wear a headscarf on air.

Given that the program is religious in content, would you also disagree with a priest wearing his collar or vestments, or perhaps a rabbi wearing his?

You prattle on about "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expression", yet you are selective in your opinion as to who should be able to partake of these "freedoms".

By extension, should all military personnel taking part in a TV program be required to dress as an ordinary citizen?

Perhaps your exclusions to these "freedoms" would extend to those who sport tattoos or spiked hair, or body piercings?

Perhaps you would like to pick the style of clothes and/or colours of TV personalities?

Where do YOU draw the line?
Jeeze! Talk about "taking out of context!" Read my other posts on this, please. :rolleyes:

How patronising.
That's not being patronizing at all. :confused:

Also http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10763089&postcount=8.
:rolleyes: Silly Eut
So he went past a couple of barriers to arrive at his destination. :p

That's not being patronizing at all. :confused:
Twas. She claimed to know the mind of the poster better than the poster herself.

In this day and age, where everything is relative and there is no 'truth', it is very hard and often very courageous to stand by a belief of faith. I think to be told that your position is based on something other than your own rational decision is patronising.

But this is the point; it's not about her advertising her religion, it is about a personal symbol important to herself. The fact that other people can see that symbol is irrelevant, and hardly a thing she should be penalised for.
How can you allege that it's "irrelevant?" I can't speak for Denmark, but here in America a business ( which is what a television broadcasting service in fact is ) must make money or go under. If you allow your on-screen personnel to wear religious symbols you're going to offend viewers. They're going to boycott your programs and your advertisers. The advertisers are going to go to your competitors, and you are going out of business.

How is that "irrelevant?"

Twas. She claimed to know the mind of the poster better than the poster herself.

If you were brainwashed, you would not know your mind. You can't say she's not brainwashed because she says so.

Jeeze! Talk about "taking out of context!" Read my other posts on this, please. :rolleyes:
Well apparently, it was your posts that ignored the "context" of the article in the first place. My reply was to your "out of context" reply. Vicious circle huh?

(Looks to me)the point is about what bodywear should be allowed or disallowed.
Laerod point was about Jewish Females not probably not allowed to wear that Hat. (looks on topic to me)And I turned out to be wrong and corrected that.

If you were brainwashed, you would not know your mind. You can't say she's not brainwashed because she says so.
So every muslim woman that wears a headscarf is brainwashed now? :rolleyes:

How can you allege that it's "irrelevant?" I can't speak for Denmark, but here in America a business ( which is what a television broadcasting service in fact is ) must make money or go under. If you allow your on-screen personnel to wear religious symbols you're going to offend viewers. They're going to boycott your programs and your advertisers. The advertisers are going to go to your competitors, and you are going out of business.

How is that "irrelevant?"
Because what exactly are these viewers so offended by? The fact that there are faiths in the world, and these faiths have followers? The fact that there is the possibility that one of these followers might end up on television?

Really, we cover everything in cotton wool these days, to an absurd extreme. If someone is going to be offended by a symbol of faith then I would say that is their problem, not the wearer of that symbol.

So every muslim woman that wears a headscarf is brainwashed now? :rolleyes:

No. But if they were, they wouldn't know it. Evil brainwashing 101 here, geez.

Well apparently, it was your posts that ignored the "context" of the article in the first place. My reply was to your "out of context" reply. Vicious circle huh?
Whatever. Never miss a chance to ding the "old guy" is most likely the name of this game. :rolleyes:

Really, we cover everything in cotton wool these days, to an absurd extreme. If someone is going to be offended by a symbol of faith then I would say that is their problem, not the wearer of that symbol.

Cotton wool? Some kind of blended material, or cotton and wool?

If you were brainwashed, you would not know your mind. You can't say she's not brainwashed because she says so.
Which is exactly the point of brainwashing. You are not supposed to even be aware of it. According to you, you are acting under your free will. Now I do not know whether or not the poster in question is brainwashed, yet if she were, she would not be able to tell, like you say.

Because what exactly are these viewers so offended by? The fact that there are faiths in the world, and these faiths have followers? The fact that there is the possibility that one of these followers might end up on television?

Really, we cover everything in cotton wool these days, to an absurd extreme. If someone is going to be offended by a symbol of faith then I would say that is their problem, not the wearer of that symbol.
No, it's the problem of the owner of the station.

It's all about "image," grasshopper. :p

Cotton wool? Some kind of blended material, or cotton and wool?
...do you not have cotton wool in America? :confused:

...do you not have cotton wool in America? :confused:

I certainly don't know of it. *shrug*


Wikipedia knows all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_wool

No, it's the problem of the owner of the station.

It's all about "image," grasshopper. :p
Precisely. It is in the worst interests of the business to lose viewers. Small, inconspicuous religious symbols are one thing. Ones that are blatantly obvious are another, and are not going to go down well. This is business sense, and common logic, not a matter of who is wrapped in cotton wool or not. Now in the case of a show about religious matters, I can see the sense in wearing symbols of faith. In other situations though, no, I cannot.

How can you allege that it's "irrelevant?" I can't speak for Denmark, but here in America a business ( which is what a television broadcasting service in fact is ) must make money or go under. If you allow your on-screen personnel to wear religious symbols you're going to offend viewers. They're going to boycott your programs and your advertisers. The advertisers are going to go to your competitors, and you are going out of business.

How is that "irrelevant?"
I think the show might be on public television, which does not set out to make a profit.

I think the show might be on public television, which does not set out to make a profit.
Everything is out to make a profit of a kind. Public television is still a business, of sorts. If it has low ratings it fails its purpose.

Which is exactly the point of brainwashing. You are not supposed to even be aware of it. According to you, you are acting under your free will. Now I do not know whether or not the poster in question is brainwashed, yet if she were, she would not be able to tell, like you say.
Actually, being "religious" apparently has a biological component. Calling being religious the equivalent of being "brainwashed" is rather disengenuous, IMHO.

"Brainwashed" has some heavily negative connotations. I prefer to believe that "being reilgious" can amount to a ( hopefully willful ) suspension of rationality.

Precisely. It is in the worst interests of the business to lose viewers. Small, inconspicuous religious symbols are one thing. Ones that are blatantly obvious are another, and are not going to go down well. This is business sense, and common logic, not a matter of who is wrapped in cotton wool or not. Now in the case of a show about religious matters, I can see the sense in wearing symbols of faith. In other situations though, no, I cannot.
So should a Sikh be obliged to remove his turban as well?

So should a Sikh be obliged to remove his turban as well?
On a non-religious show in the public arena as defined by Eut? Yes. Especially if the station does not want its anchors to wear overtly religious symbols. This goes for all faiths.

So should a Sikh be obliged to remove his turban as well?

Possibly, if the head guy has a problem with it and he wants to work there.

"Brainwashed" has some heavily negative connotations. I prefer to believe that "being reilgious" can amount to a ( hopefully willful ) suspension of rationality.
I'm not sure if that's deeply offensive or deeply profound. :p

I'm not sure if that's deeply offensive or deeply profound. :p

I vote profoundly offensive *nodnod*

I'm not sure if that's deeply offensive or deeply profound. :p
I will go for the former.

On a non-religious show in the public arena as defined by Eut? Yes. Especially if the station does not want its anchors to wear overtly religious symbols. This goes for all faiths.
So you think it is alright to suppress the rights of a minority and force someone to choose between their job and their faith in order to not offend someone so closed minded that they cannot face the idea of seeing someone different to them on television?

Actually, being "religious" apparently has a biological component. Calling being religious the equivalent of being "brainwashed" is rather disengenuous, IMHO. .
Different if you are actually brainwashed into embracing the tenets of the religion with all their strictures.

So should a Sikh be obliged to remove his turban as well?
No, because he won't. Neither will he rid himself of the dagger carried at his side. I don't recall seeing any Sikhas as news anchors.

Everything is out to make a profit of a kind. Public television is still a business, of sorts. If it has low ratings it fails its purpose.
Really? Over here there are plenty of shows with bad raitings that are still being broadcast. Public tv is for all of the public, not just a mainstream audience.

So you think it is alright to suppress the rights of a minority and force someone to choose between their job and their faith in order to not offend someone so closed minded that they cannot face the idea of seeing someone different to them on television?
What minority? I said all faiths. That includes Christians, Muslims, Jews, whatever.

So you think it is alright to suppress the rights of a minority and force someone to choose between their job and their faith in order to not offend someone so closed minded that they cannot face the idea of seeing someone different to them on television?

*shrug* Opportunity costs?

I'm not sure if that's deeply offensive or deeply profound. :p
Heh! Ya pays yer money and ya makes yer choice, I guess. :p

Really? Over here there are plenty of shows with bad raitings that are still being broadcast. Public tv is for all of the public, not just a mainstream audience.
Then it is a waste of tax-payer's cash, a waste of advertiser's money and a failure in more ways than one. No viewers, no worth.

I vote profoundly offensive *nodnod*
Well, I think it may be profound; there is no rational 'proof' for the existence of God, and so you may need to 'suspend rationality' to have faith.

Different if you are actually brainwashed into embracing the tenets of the religion with all their strictures.
Strange how this always comes up in debates around Islam.

Strange how this always comes up in debates around Islam.
I will argue the same when I debate against Fundamentalist Christianity, so don't try this cheap tactic on me.

Well, I think it may be profound; there is no rational 'proof' for the existence of God, and so you may need to 'suspend rationality' to have faith.
There is no rational disproof either.

There is no rational disproof either.

Or any rational evidence whatsoever, really.

There is no rational disproof either.
Hence the original question of whether it was profound or offensive. :p

Strange how this always comes up in debates around Islam.
Uh ... perhaps because the case at point was about an Islamic practice? Ya think? Duh.

I vote profoundly offensive *nodnod*
You would. :rolleyes:

Care to explain that, or are you just going to do what you always seem to do, avoid the issue?

Hence the original question of whether it was profound or offensive. :p
I will go for offensive because to simply imply that it is irrational to believe in a god, when there is no concrete evidence or even logic against the existence of one is underhanded in my view. Dogmatic belief in non-creationist sources of existence is equally irrational if this is held to be the case.

Hence the original question of whether it was profound or offensive. :p
There is reason to believe that, to some degree, spirituality is hard-wired into the human nervous system.

Recent experiments using thermal imaging indicate that brain activity during a "transcendent" experience is highest in the limbic system, that part of the brain which is associated with emotions and motivation, and in the connecting hypothalamus, amygdala and the hippocampus. Neurobiologists Andrew Newberg and Eugene d'Aquili have conducted research in the field of "neurotheology" using brain imaging technology ( Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography, or SPECT for short ).

They suggest that "religion is intimately interwoven with human biology." Their studies of praying Franciscan nuns and meditating Buddhist monks reveal that certain religious experiences, like meditation and prayer, are linked to increased activity and changes in the structure of the brain and nervous system.

These experiments revealed that specific areas of the brain exhibited heightened activity during the climax of meditation or prayer. According to Newberg, "the human brain is genetically wired to encourage religious beliefs."

The frontal lobes of the brain, which are associated with attention, showed increased activity. They expected this, since greater concentration and focus was essential to meditation and prayer. More surprising was activity they observed in that area of the brain affiliated with the Orientation Association Area, the part of the brain which influences our orientation in time and space. This area of the brain ( the posterior superior parietal lobe ) helps us judge up/down, forward/behind, and must function all the time to assist movement. Newberg concluded that this decreased activity observed in these areas of the brain was responsible for the transcendental states experienced by the praying nuns and meditating monks.

Your thoughts?

You would. :rolleyes:

Care to explain that, or are you just going to do what you always seem to do, avoid the issue?

Well, it certainly makes for a good explanation, and hints at the religious being irrational. It could be profound and offensive, hence profoundly offensive. Would you prefer offensively profound?

Or any rational evidence whatsoever, really.
On either side of the debate.

What minority? I said all faiths. That includes Christians, Muslims, Jews, whatever.
Perhaps, but the original point stands; why should a religious person be required to hide their religion because of the narrow mindedness of a viewer?

I would hope that television would hold better standards than that.

We're not talking about rights here. We're talking about context. There are times when it's appropriate to shave your head and repent in sackcloth and ashes, according to some. There are times when it's appropriate, again according to some, to self-flaggelate your naked back. But doing so while being a presenter of the news in a non-religious context is definitely INappropriate.
While I agree I am not sure the entirty of the public arena is "in apropreate"

For example a talk show on modern christian values ... I would be suprized to not see a cross appear somewhere (weather worn by the host or not)

There are other places I agree it is not in good taste.

But "Taste" is not something we should legislate ... Personaly I would leave it up to the individual broadcasting corporations to set what they do and do not want shown as being endorsed by them.

I will go for offensive because to simply imply that it is irrational to believe in a god, when there is no concrete evidence or even logic against the existence of one is underhanded in my view. Dogmatic belief in non-creationist sources of existence is equally irrational if this is held to be the case.

Then again, no concrete evidence against Santa...Or I suppose at this time of year I should say Easter Bunny, eh?

Your thoughts?
So in some ways it is more beneficial to pray/meditate? Nothing new there. Hence the focus some martial artists display via meditation.

On either side of the debate.

Which would explain why a lack of belief would be more appropriate than an active belief against God, considering we have no reason to believe anything.

Well, it certainly makes for a good explanation, and hints at the religious being irrational. It could be profound and offensive, hence profoundly offensive. Would you prefer offensively profound?
Religious belief is, by definition, non-rational.

Perhaps, but the original point stands; why should a religious person be required to hide their religion because of the narrow mindedness of a viewer?

I would hope that television would hold better standards than that.
Oh I don't know, maybe because it wants to actually attract viewers? It has to remain as broadly attractive as possible to the audience. This is business, not charity.

Perhaps, but the original point stands; why should a religious person be required to hide their religion because of the narrow mindedness of a viewer?

I would hope that television would hold better standards than that.
I agree with your sentiment

But on some level the "ratings" system (or its equivelent) will put presure on corporations to show what their viewers want to see

I would leave it up to the individual broadcasting corporations to set what they do and do not want shown as being endorsed by them.
As would I.

Then again, no concrete evidence against Santa...Or I suppose at this time of year I should say Easter Bunny, eh?
How delightfully irrelevant. Science is phased at how humans could have developed from nothingness, or even more so at the possibility of the constant existence of a universe. It cannot explain it. In some ways, it is rational to believe a deity created the universe.

So in some ways it is more beneficial to pray/meditate? Nothing new there. Hence the focus some martial artists display via meditation.
Which serves to illustrate the biological basis for religious beliefs and acts, yes?

Which would explain why a lack of belief would be more appropriate than an active belief against God, considering we have no reason to believe anything.
No, agnosticism would make most sense.

Religious belief is, by definition, non-rational.

*shrug* Okay. It's true and some people might find it offensive to be called irrational. Profoundly offensive. An adverb and an adjective, easy right?

In some ways, it is rational to believe a deity created the universe.
Explain them, please.

Oh I don't know, maybe because it wants to actually attract viewers? It has to remain as broadly attractive as possible to the audience. This is business, not charity.
Alternatively, it can set higher standards than that, and help contribute to a change in attitudes. Confirming a prejudice is never a good thing. They would claim that they are being neutral, but saying "you cannot show your faith" sends another message that "your faith is bad and we don't want it here."

If we simply accepted attitudes rather than challenging them, it is easy to think of many things that would still be illegal today.

Which serves to illustrate the biological basis for religious beliefs and acts, yes?
Are you implying that people only believe because of this? I think that is slightly preposterous. Even some entirely rational scientists endorse the possibility of God's existence.

*shrug* Okay. It's true and some people might find it offensive to be called irrational. Profoundly offensive. An adverb and an adjective, easy right?
And you can file those people in the same folder with those who are offended because someone wears a symbol of his/her religious beliefs.

Alternatively, it can set higher standards than that, and help contribute to a change in attitudes. Confirming a prejudice is never a good thing. They would claim that they are being neutral, but saying "you cannot show your faith" sends another message that "your faith is bad and we don't want it here."

If we simply accepted attitudes rather than challenging them, it is easy to think of many things that would still be illegal today.
And in an ideal world, this would be just dandy.

No, agnosticism would make most sense.

Agnosticism is about knowledge, think that you can never truely know one way or the other. You could be Agnostic Theist, or Agnostic Atheist. Agnostic is on a different scale than you beliefs or lack thereof.

Actually, being "religious" apparently has a biological component. Calling being religious the equivalent of being "brainwashed" is rather disengenuous, IMHO.

"Brainwashed" has some heavily negative connotations. I prefer to believe that "being reilgious" can amount to a ( hopefully willful ) suspension of rationality.
why do you think children are exposed from birth to God? Because children will believe nearly anything you tell them. That is the biological component. Very few children escape the mold. People will sometimes find God when they are adults, but then they are making a conscious choice.

Explain them, please.
Can you explain how existence came out of nothingness? Or for that matter, how it is possible for the universe to exist constantly, without beginning or end?

Are you implying that people only believe because of this? I think that is slightly preposterous. Even some entirely rational scientists endorse the possibility of God's existence.
Which would make them agnostics, which is, IMHO, perfectly rational: "We don't know either way, so until there's more evidence upon which to base a decision, we suspend judgment."

How delightfully irrelevant. Science is phased at how humans could have developed from nothingness, or even more so at the possibility of the constant existence of a universe. It cannot explain it. In some ways, it is rational to believe a deity created the universe.

Irrelevant? Since when? You say there's no concrete evidence for either side of the theology debate, I present some other situations where there's no concrete evidence. Science used to be phased at why stars shine too.

Agnosticism is about knowledge, think that you can never truely know one way or the other. You could be Agnostic Theist, or Agnostic Atheist. Agnostic is on a different scale than you beliefs or lack thereof.
It makes more sense to me than complete atheism, or for that matter, complete theism.

And in an ideal world, this would be just dandy.
Why is it only an ideal world? Television has led the way in terms of challenging racial prejudices, and more recently, homosexual prejudices. Unfortunatly, while it has been gradually more progressive with these causes, it has been regressive with regard to religion. It is deeply sad that faith is a dirty word these days.

Which would make them agnostics, which is, IMHO, perfectly rational: "We don't know either way, so until there's more evidence upon which to base a decision, we suspend judgment."
Then what would you say of those who are theists?

Can you explain how existence came out of nothingness? Or for that matter, how it is possible for the universe to exist constantly, without beginning or end?
If I could, I would be busy counting my money instead of posting on some Internet Forum. :p

Those issues are currently beyond the ability of science to explain. Which is one reason why I indicated that being agnostic is a perfectly rational approach.

Then what would you say of those who are theists?
"You have every right to choose to believe what you want to believe, as do I."

If I could, I would be busy counting my money instead of posting on some Internet Forum. :p
You'd leave us? :eek:

The place just wouldn't be the same without you. :(

Why is it only an ideal world? Television has led the way in terms of challenging racial prejudices, and more recently, homosexual prejudices. Unfortunatly, while it has been gradually more progressive with these causes, it has been regressive with regard to religion. It is deeply sad that faith is a dirty word these days.
Perhaps because religion is more important to most people, and thus is more difficult to uproot? Some will deliberately be disinclined from watching news from a person of a particular faith merely because they believe them to hold bias, be they Christian, Muslim, whatever. It may in fact lower ratings.

If I could, I would be busy counting my money instead of posting on some Internet Forum. :p

Those issues are currently beyond the ability of science to explain. Which is one reason why I indicated that being agnostic is a perfectly rational approach.
Even agnostic theism?

It is deeply sad that faith is a dirty word these days.
Not in my vernacular. And certainly not where I live! Heh!

It makes more sense to me than complete atheism, or for that matter, complete theism.

Who said they were mutually exclusive? I think that, unfortunately, we'll never know one way or another, so I'm agnostic. However, I have to reason to believe, so I don't, and thus I'm Atheist.

Even agnostic theism?
To me, that's an oxymoron. To be agnostic means to suspend judgment about whether there is a God or not. "Theism" contends that there is a God ... somewhere, somehow.

Irrelevant? Since when? You say there's no concrete evidence for either side of the theology debate, I present some other situations where there's no concrete evidence. Science used to be phased at why stars shine too.
What if though, Science cannot explain all? What if it indeed has some permanent limits that may never be surpassed? To believe that Science is absolute is slightly naive.

To me, that's an oxymoron. To be agnostic means to suspend judgment about whether there is a God or not. "Theism" contends that there is a God ... somewhere, somehow.
Not necessarily an oxymoron, it simply means you are more towards the belief that a deity exists.

why do you think children are exposed from birth to God? Because children will believe nearly anything you tell them. That is the biological component. Very few children escape the mold. People will sometimes find God when they are adults, but then they are making a conscious choice.
I escaped.

What if though, Science cannot explain all? What if it indeed has some permanent limits that may never be surpassed? To believe that Science is absolute is slightly naive.

We have no reason to think it can't, at some point in the future, explain this paticular thing. Obviously, there are some realms science doesn't go into, and some it we just can't reach with it yet. We'll have to wait and see.

Not necessarily an oxymoron, it simply means you are more towards the belief that a deity exists.
Then you're not agnostic. [ shrug ]

We have no reason to think it can't, at some point in the future, explain this paticular thing. Obviously, there are some realms science doesn't go into, and some it we just can't reach with it yet. We'll have to wait and see.
Indeed. Ultimately though, Science is human. Thus I remain unconvinced that it is limitless.

Then you're not agnostic. [ shrug ]

No, agnostic is without knowledge, that we can't know, while (a)theist is about believing in it or not. You can believe and not think you can know.

Then you're not agnostic. [ shrug ]
So you cannot believe that a deity (or creator of any sort) exists (hence, theist/creationist) but that you are unknowing (hence agnostic) of its form?

Actually, I'm sure Jews could find it offensive if a woman wore a Yarmulka as it's something for men to wear...
(I could be wrong though.)

It wouldn't be offensive.

Married women have to cover all their hair, Jewishly speaking, so it's pointless, and unmarried women - being on a higher spiritual plane than men - have no need to cover their head.

That said, there is nothing stopping a woman wearing one if she wants. Either under her hat if she is married, or otherwise if not.

In fact, some modern non-orthodox women wear kippahs at prayer &c, to promote gender equality.

Take that for what you will.

It's quite idiotic to cast a woman wearing a headscarf, which is the symbol of the oppression of the woman :rolleyes:
As it says in the article:
"Religion should remain private," Vibeke Manniche recently told Germany's Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper. "That's why a headscarf doesn't belong on a TV host on public television." Manniche, a critic of Hamid who has started a petition to get the show taken off the air, heads the Women for Freedom Association. "The choice of Asmaa as a co-host is an insult to Danish and Muslim women," said Manniche. "She sends the message that an honorable woman can't go out unless she's covered up."

I escaped.
here is an amusing anecdote. a friend once said to me that she didn't believe in God, she believed in Science. What is the difference? The difference is where children are told whence come the answers.

Similarly, last year, my roommate got fed up with me, and told me to go pray to Darwin, 'or whatever prophets i have' (can't remember why). He assumed, because of his upbringing, that I share a similar structure of information.

Religion prospers because of the children, and because of culture and community. The only way for it to continue is to convince those elements that they are one and the same. If the children are raised knowing that religion, culture, and community are the same thing, and there is no alternative, then they are brainwashed. It does not matter if you give them alternatives afterwards, the vast majority will think their training is their own thoughts.

No, agnostic is without knowledge, that we can't know, while (a)theist is about believing in it or not. You can believe and not think you can know.

Agnostic (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/agnostic):

1.

a.. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.


2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

So you cannot believe that a deity (or creator of any sort) exists (hence, theist/creationist) but that you are unknowing (hence agnostic) of its form?
I posted the generally accepted definition of agnostic above.

It's a suspension of belief based on lack of evidence either way, and is difficult for most people to do.

Agnostic (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/agnostic):

1.

a.. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.


2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
Use definition 2. Then attach it to the nature of the creator/deity. There you have agnostic theism. :rolleyes:

here is an amusing anecdote. a friend once said to me that she didn't believe in God, she believed in Science. What is the difference? The difference is where children are told whence come the answers.

I totally disagree, but that's probably another thread.

Similarly, last year, my roommate got fed up with me, and told me to go pray to Darwin, 'or whatever prophets i have' (can't remember why). He assumed, because of his upbringing, that I share a similar structure of information.

Religion prospers because of the children, and because of culture and community. The only way for it to continue is to convince those elements that they are one and the same. If the children are raised knowing that religion, culture, and community are the same thing, and there is no alternative, then they are brainwashed. It does not matter if you give them alternatives afterwards, the vast majority will think their training is their own thoughts.
Like I said, I escaped. Primarily because my father gave me permission to ( indeed, insisted ) that I think. :)

I posted the generally accepted definition of agnostic above.

It's a suspension of belief based on lack of evidence either way, and is difficult for most people to do.
Sigh, I hate it when words lose their flexibility and become rigid and inalterable. As you showed earlier, the word agnostic has more than one meaning.

Like I said, I escaped. Primarily because my father gave me permission ( indeed, insisted ) that I think. :)
I first rebelled and broke against being Christian, becoming atheist. Then I, of my own volition, decided to return to it, except that now I am agnostic as to the nature of God, and use a more purposive and contextual approach to interpreting the Bible.

Religion prospers because of the children, and because of culture and community. The only way for it to continue is to convince those elements that they are one and the same. If the children are raised knowing that religion, culture, and community are the same thing, and there is no alternative, then they are brainwashed. It does not matter if you give them alternatives afterwards, the vast majority will think their training is their own thoughts.
Right, so if you don't tell children about religion you are denying them knowledge, but if you do you are brainwashing them?

"Where are you off to Daddy?"
"I can't tell you that, it's a secret."

I would say your idea of keeping children seperate from religion is somewhat impractical.

#5 on the list of things that allow terrorists to win: cultural and religious tolerance.

Right, so if you don't tell children about religion you are denying them knowledge, but if you do you are brainwashing them?

"Where are you off to Daddy?"
"I can't tell you that, it's a secret."

hmm...I would say your idea of keeping children seperate from religion is somewhat impractical.
I agree. They should have the freedom of choice of either accepting or rejecting a religion. The only thing I am against is dogmatic indoctrination to it, without questioning it first.

#5 on the list of things that allow terrorists to win: cultural and religious tolerance.
There is a difference between tolerating and embracing things.

I agree. They should have the freedom of choice of either accepting or rejecting a religion. The only thing I am against is dogmatic indoctrination to it, without questioning it first.
I rasied mine in the church because it provides them with a good moral anchor. I also insisted that they think for themselves. The combination seems to have worked, by and large.

There is a difference between tolerating and embracing things.
Now, I may have missed a few pages, but I'm pretty sure this topic is about a woman wearing a hijab on tv.

Use definition 2. Then attach it to the nature of the creator/deity. There you have agnostic theism. :rolleyes:
Definition number two refers to the use of "agnostic" in a non-religious sense:

"ADJECTIVE:

1. Relating to or being an agnostic.

2. Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin)."

Now, I may have missed a few pages, but I'm pretty sure this topic is about a woman wearing a hijab on tv.
About religious differences.

Now, I may have missed a few pages, but I'm pretty sure this topic is about a woman wearing a hijab on tv.
And it comes as a surprise to you somehow that people on General have strayed from the original topic? Heh!

Definition number two refers to the use of "agnostic" in a non-religious sense:

"ADJECTIVE:

1. Relating to or being an agnostic.

2. Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin)."
As I said, words are used in certain ways because that is how people choose to use them. I am against the dogmatic usage of words when they are capable of being used in so many other ways. In the sense that I used agnostic theism, it works quite well. No mutual exclusion.

I rasied mine in the church because it provides them with a good moral anchor. I also insisted that they think for themselves. The combination seems to have worked, by and large.
Are you Christian then, or did you do so for them? And yeah, it is a good combination.

I first rebelled and broke against being Christian, becoming atheist. Then I, of my own volition, decided to return to it, except that now I am agnostic as to the nature of God, and use a more purposive and contextual approach to interpreting the Bible.
Then I would call you a theist with doubts about the nature of God. :)

About religious differences.
No, it was about a woman wearing a hijab on tv and apparently about how this will bring the downfall of society. There is a girl at my school that wears a hijab, I saw it and didn't feel like going and oppressing women afterwards.

What on earth is offensive about covering one's head? I have met enough young headscarf-wearing Muslim women to know that is far from being a symbol of oppression, it's just a cultural artifact, and in many cases a fashion statement.
The headscarf is a symbol of oppression. All effective systems of people-control ensure that their subjects internalise the methods of discipline (i.e., the women "want" to wear the headscarf).

That said, I don't have a problem with women who wear headscarves that don't cover their face. In fact given that this is a multi-cultural TV show it is appropriate that the Muslim woman wears it.

I agree. They should have the freedom of choice of either accepting or rejecting a religion. The only thing I am against is dogmatic indoctrination to it, without questioning it first.
and my point is that you cannot tell a child that (s)he has the freedom to believe something you do not. this is mitigated by your second point though.

#5 on the list of things that allow terrorists to win: cultural and religious tolerance.


No, it was about a woman wearing a hijab on tv and apparently about how this will bring the downfall of society. There is a girl at my school that wears a hijab, I saw it and didn't feel like going and oppressing women afterwards.
So then your position on the matter is? :confused:

Then I would call you a theist with doubts about the nature of God. :)
Perhaps, but flexible use of the word agnostic works just as well. Studying law teaches you that rigid interpretation of words is senseless.

So then your position on the matter is? :confused:
This is a stupid and ignorant debate.

and my point is that you cannot tell a child that (s)he has the freedom to believe something you do not. this is mitigated by your second point though.
Open-minded religiosity, yes.

This is a stupid and ignorant debate.
I see. It's just that what you posted earlier seems contradictory, unless it was sarcasm.

Open-minded religiosity, yes.
i do not accept that such a thing exists. In judaism we are commanded to study Torah (Old Testament) and question it. The leader of my congregation was thrown out of rabbinical school for asking too many questions, and for asking the questions he was told not to ask. religion is at most superficially based on questioning, and some religions less so than others.

i do not accept that such a thing exists. In judaism we are commanded to study Torah (Old Testament) and question it. The leader of my congregation was thrown out of rabbinical school for asking too many questions, and for asking the questions he was told not to ask. religion is at most superficially based on questioning, and some religions less so than others.
Open-minded faith then.

This is a stupid and ignorant debate.
this debate may very well be ignorant, as many debates are. unfortunately you undermine your position when you call it stupid, because this smacks of opinion.

I see. It's just that what you posted earlier seems contradictory, unless it was sarcasm.
How?
If you can't pick out blatant sarcasm, you shouldn't interact with society.

The headscarf is a symbol of oppression. All effective systems of people-control ensure that their subjects internalise the methods of discipline (i.e., the women "want" to wear the headscarf).

That said, I don't have a problem with women who wear headscarves that don't cover their face. In fact given that this is a multi-cultural TV show it is appropriate that the Muslim woman wears it.
I agree with you on this matter, though would you not say that in some cases the headscarf may be worn as a symbol of counter-oppression, to show that a woman dares be Muslim and believe in her freedom? Sort of like how some people take the word "queer" and use it to describe themselves, countering those who would so call them.

Open-minded faith then.
it was not the religion/faith part that i had a problem with, it was the open-mindedness. in your life, you have approached religion from the point of view of someone who left and came back, (i assume) acknowledging the validity of opposing viewpoints. people who never know anything except what they've been trained to believe cannot be expected to be credible sources of opinion on their own state of free will.
Incidentally, this is exactly why amish adults are expected to leave the community. if they return, then they wish to return. if they do not, that is their choice. in most cases though, i think they return simply because the sudden catapulting into the real world is too much, and they would lose touch with their community if they did not return.

How?
If you can't pick out blatant sarcasm, you shouldn't interact with society.
i think his interaction with society is quite alright, thankyou. Your's on the other hand leaves something to be desired.

this debate may very well be ignorant, as many debates are. unfortunately you undermine your position when you call it stupid, because this smacks of opinion.
He asked for my position, my position, thus my opinion, is that a debate over a Muslim woman wanting to wear her headscarf on tv is fucking stupid because how do you disagree with that unless you are ignorant and intolerant.

And moreover, why would anyone care?

How?
If you can't pick out blatant sarcasm, you shouldn't interact with society.
So you resort to personal assaults now? Considering the broad spectrum of opinions some posters espouse here, it is sometimes hard to wonder if they are being blatantly sarcastic or merely expressing their beliefs. I do not know you nor what you believe. The fact that you stated the bit on terrorism and then went to make contradictory statements, such as this entire debate is silly, led to the question.

So you resort to personal assaults now? Considering the broad spectrum of opinions some posters espouse here, it is sometimes hard to wonder if they are being blatantly sarcastic or merely expressing their beliefs. I do not know you nor what you believe. The fact that you stated the bit on terrorism and then went to make contradictory statements, such as this entire debate is silly, led to the question.
Let's see... how is "#5 way to allow terrorists to win: cultural and religious tolerance" not sarcasm?

He asked for my position, my position, thus my opinion, is that a debate over a Muslim woman wanting to wear her headscarf on tv is fucking stupid because how do you disagree with that unless you are ignorant and intolerant.
because the opposing viewpoint has nothing to do with individual freedoms, but societal represenation. whether or not it is accepted as a religious artefact does not change its symbolism,
The headscarf is a symbol of oppression. All effective systems of people-control ensure that their subjects internalise the methods of discipline (i.e., the women "want" to wear the headscarf).
the debate is essentially whether the good of society overrides the good of the individual, and as such is likely to touch off highly emotional reactions. such as your own.

*snip*
Perhaps so, although I do believe it is possible for an individual to be indoctrinated into a certain faith, but also be taught of what else there is out there, and what the merits and demerits of these alternate viewpoints are.

Let's see... how is "#5 way to allow terrorists to win: cultural and religious tolerance" not sarcasm?
Read posts by some people here like UN Abassororship or Kravania or Switalia? That should answer your question. People routinely post stuff like that, and do believe it, or at least purport to. The forums here are pretty much neutral, so there is nothing to stop individuals with radical viewpoints from expressing themselves as well.

i think his interaction with society is quite alright, thankyou. Your's on the other hand leaves something to be desired.
A plague on BOTH your blouses! :p

Read posts by some people here like UN Abassororship or Kravania or Switalia? That should answer your question. People routinely post stuff like that, and do believe it, or at least purport to. The forums here are pretty much neutral, so there is nothing to stop individuals with radical viewpoints from expressing themselves as well.
No shit! LOL! :eek:

Perhaps so, although I do believe it is possible for an individual to be indoctrinated into a certain faith, but also be taught of what else there is out there, and what the merits and demerits of these alternate viewpoints are.
i do not share your faith in society's neutrality. i have had public-school teachers explain to me why God is the only answer, though it was certainly not their place to do so. to critically examine a situation without bias is a skill and a talent. and my fear would be that your system would lead to an examination of why-our-faith-is-better-than-yours.

despite everything said, i am glad i went to religious school as a child.

i do not share your faith in society's neutrality. i have had public-school teachers explain to me why God is the only answer, though it was certainly not their place to do so. to critically examine a situation without bias is a skill and a talent. and my fear would be that your system would lead to an examination of why-our-faith-is-better-than-yours.

despite everything said, i am glad i went to religious school as a child.
This is one of the human conditions; an inability to completely detatch oneself from bias.

Likewise, I am also thankful for my Christian upbringing.

because the opposing viewpoint has nothing to do with individual freedoms, but societal represenation. whether or not it is accepted as a religious artefact does not change its symbolism,
Bullshit. it's a symbol of whatever you want to read into it; regardless, you have no fucknig say of whether or not she appears on the air with it, that makes you an inteolerant bigot.

the debate is essentially whether the good of society overrides the good of the individual, and as such is likely to touch off highly emotional reactions. such as your own.
I will say it again, I had a class with a girl who wore a hijab, I didn't feel like going out and oppressing women afterwards.

My reaction has nothing to do with the scarf, but it has everything to do with people being stupid.

So you resort to personal assaults now?
He's good at that. Lots and lots of practice. :rolleyes:

He's good at that. Lots and lots of practice. :rolleyes:
http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/5395/rofl4mz.gif
Pot meet kettle.

I agree with you on this matter, though would you not say that in some cases the headscarf may be worn as a symbol of counter-oppression, to show that a woman dares be Muslim and believe in her freedom?
In an Islamophobic society, I can understand.

He's good at that. Lots and lots of practice. :rolleyes:
He misfired this time though.

I will say it again, I had a class with a girl who wore a hijab, I didn't feel like going out and oppressing women afterwards.

My reaction has nothing to do with the scarf, but it has everything to do with people being stupid.
you may have noticed a few pages back that we diverted to a discussion on free will vs. brainwashing. I have no illusions that I am in control of everything I do. I am a product of my surroundings, as are you. It is like people who say that they are nothing like their parents, but I have never met anyone who was not.

further, as i have pointed out to other people, a single counterexample is not enough to discredit an opinion on society. it is not like you have disproven gravity by reporting an apple falling up. and even if you had, i should want proof, just like i would want proof that you do not, intentionally or otherwise, act differently toward men and women.

you may have noticed a few pages back that we diverted to a discussion on free will vs. brainwashing.
Well, that's your fault for going off topic.

further, as i have pointed out to other people, a single counterexample is not enough to discredit an opinion on society.
Your reasoning is ludicrous. I don't remember the last time some one was crucified, but everone has a dead guy ona cross around their neck.

In an Islamophobic society, I can understand.
is the society islamophobic or religiophobic?

is the society islamophobic or religiophobic?
Depends ... as right now world population is more religious then not I would find it hard to believe that they are true "religiophobic"

Depends ... as right now world population is more religious then not I would find it hard to believe that they are true "religiophobic"
You still get countries like Estonia though, where roughly 51% of the population is atheist.

You still get countries like Estonia though, where roughly 51% of the population is atheist.
It could be in localized pockets right now but he was using a vague "society" so I assumed the larger population such as world wide

Well, that's your fault for going off topic.

Your reasoning is ludicrous. I don't remember the last time some one was crucified, but everone has a dead guy ona cross around their neck.

despite your high post count, you have apparently not noticed that General cannot be expected to stay on topic past page 3.

a dead guy on a cross has nothing to do with my point, which was directed at your style of debate. i will take your point at face value however and admit to hypocrisy. nonetheless, a necklace can be hidden, and is not obtrusive. i find it immensely irritating when i see some punk walking around with a four-inch cross on a heavy gold chain. i would further counter that i have never seen evidence that that symbolism originated from oppression.

nonetheless, a necklace can be hidden, and is not obtrusive. i find it immensely irritating when i see some punk walking around with a four-inch cross on a heavy gold chain. i would further counter that i have never seen evidence that that symbolism originated from oppression.
Bling jewelry? It's usually extremely gaudy.

Aren't pentagrams more in fashion though nowadays?

Bling jewelry? It's usually extremely gaudy.

Aren't pentagrams more in fashion though nowadays?
I really have not seen pentagrams nor crosses latly honestly

Not as jewlery

Maybe it is just minnesota but that sort of thing here is more likly to be on clothing (such as a t shirt) then on jewlery

Bling jewelry? It's usually extremely gaudy.
Aren't pentagrams more in fashion though nowadays?
yes, bling. which is not religious in intent, but is religious in connotation. i find it more objectionable than normal bling because of it. i similarly disapprove of the headscarf for its religious connotation, but also its history.

on the other hand, since i do believe society is islamophobic, i think it should be visible in society so that people get used to it, and realize not every muslim has a bomb under their vest. again then, this is a consideration of the use in society as opposed to the use for the individual.

yes, bling. which is not religious in intent, but is religious in connotation. i find it more objectionable than normal bling because of it. i similarly disapprove of the headscarf for its religious connotation, but also its history.
It amuses me though in some cases when people wearing such crosses aren't even Christian. They are just flagrant attention seekers.

on the other hand, since i do believe society is islamophobic, i think it should be visible in society so that people get used to it, and realize not every muslim has a bomb under their vest. again then, this is a consideration of the use in society as opposed to the use for the individual.
You mean until Islam is normalised in non-Islamic societies. In which case I agree.

aye

Here is another thought on it

While I do think that as a busniess they have the right to decide if religous symbolism is something they want to portrey on air (like any other facet of their appearance)

But unlike a cross or some other religious symbolisms this peticular one is tied to "deceny" in many (including the workers eyes)

I know it is a clechet way to think about it but think of it as a shirt

Would it be fair to require that all employees go topless? Even if it is done fairly to males and females alike?

I don't recall her being required to wear it, and since she isn't required to, she can do whatever the hell she wants and thus this is all bigotry.

I don't recall her being required to wear it, and since she isn't required to, she can do whatever the hell she wants and thus this is all bigotry.
oppression by majority. welcome to democracy.

I realise that wearing a headscarf is compulsory for muslim women. But I still don't think that women and girls should be allowed to wear it in schools, workplaces, ect. Islam is the central part of an aggressive, backwards and dangerous foreign culture and should never be treated on equal terms in any western country.

Hopefully it will increase tolerance and education...it would have been better in the US though.

I dislike the whole thing. Next thing you know, they'll be showing the coloured and the Catholics on tv.






(for the slower of you, this is mean to be sarcasm)

Whatever. Never miss a chance to ding the "old guy" is most likely the name of this game. :rolleyes:
It is not a matter of "dinging the old guy", since you are not that much older than me to begin with. However, it is a matter of calling you on your more than obvious intolerance in regards to this topic specifically and your more than obvious intolerance in general.

I could use a stronger word than intolerance, but it shall suffice for now.

As far as "dinging" people is concerned, that is your hallmark. Yes, you are famous for your one line, often acrid, dismissals of others' POV that somehow clashes with your tight to the right views.

I realise that wearing a headscarf is compulsory for muslim women.

Actually, it isn't. There are those who believe it is, but if you look at Islam as a whole, it is not.

But I still don't think that women and girls should be allowed to wear it in schools, workplaces, ect.

If they choose to wear it themselves, why not? If my religious beliefs tell me that I cannot wear short sleeves, should I be forced to expose my arms just because most religions do not believe it?

Islam is the central part of an aggressive, backwards and dangerous foreign culture and should never be treated on equal terms in any western country.

The aggressive and dangerous cultural aspects should not be treated on equal terms, but there is no reason that Islam itself should not be treated on equal terms with all other religions.

Religious belief is, by definition, non-rational.
Non-rational is a word? Perhaps you meant irrational?

By whose "definition" is religious belief, "non-rational" (to use your word)?

You know, I hate to say this and sound like a bigot, which I am not, but if Denmark does not want her to wear the ruddy headscarf, then she shouldn't.

I lived two horribly scarring years (yes, two was enough, thank you) in the Middle East. According to this whole idea of equality, I should have been able to wear what North Americans (and Europeans, in general) do. Right?

Wrong.

Spiralling down a road to conformity, myself, as other 'white' people, were forced to dress in a demure fashion. No knees, no shoulders. Decent, no? I'm glad I did not live in Saudi, as i would have then had to wear the full dress of a normal Arab woman, as does every female with her period.

And yet.

Men could wear whatever they please. Ho-hum. So much for equality. Muslims (Arab Muslims, specifically, as in Asia they are not *very* extreme, and the culture is more tolerant compared to the Arabs') seek respect outside of their own natural habitats, yet condemn us to their traditional standards when we are a guest in their countries.

So damn it. Eye for an eye, though it may not seem diplomatic, as that culture is too old to begin to change now.

You know, I hate to say this and sound like a bigot, which I am not, but if Denmark does not want her to wear the ruddy headscarf, then she shouldn't.

If my country decided it wanted to see me topless, would I have to do it?

I lived two horribly scarring years (yes, two was enough, thank you) in the Middle East. According to this whole idea of equality, I should have been able to wear what North Americans (and Europeans, in general) do. Right?

Right. The fact that this is not the case is a failing of the society in which you lived. There certainly is no reason to go, "They wouldn't let me dress the way I wanted to, so you can't dress the way you want to."

oppression by majority. welcome to democracy.
Irrelevant at best.

I am reading the article, I get to second paragraph and realize this is all a bigger incident of bigotry then first realized.

The co-host of a popular new public television show created to debate religious and cultural differences has divided Danes with her decision to wear a headscarf on air.
Wearing a headscarf seems like a perfect keynote of the premise for the fucking show.

The show is intended as a reaction to the controversy that began after the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad last year and sparked a wave of violent protests and boycotts of Danish products throughout the Muslim world.


She fucking wins and all of the bigots lose, especially Katurkalurkmurkastan, whose name strikes me as trollish.

I lived two horribly scarring years (yes, two was enough, thank you) in the Middle East. According to this whole idea of equality, I should have been able to wear what North Americans (and Europeans, in general) do. Right?
Sounds like an odd case of Stockholm syndrome. Because the theocratic countries in the Middle East oppose general freedom, and because you had to experience it, other countries should be able to limit what people do too (completely disregarding the fact that oppression is something we chastise them for).

Sounds like an odd case of Stockholm syndrome. Because the theocratic countries in the Middle East oppose general freedom, and because you had to experience it, other countries should be able to limit what people do too (completely disregarding the fact that oppression is something we chastise them for).

That's the irony of the situation. Personally, I believe that absolutly no religious symbols should be broadcasted on public television. NONE.

That's the irony of the situation. Personally, I believe that absolutly no religious symbols should be broadcasted on public television. NONE.I dunno. I have nothing against the catholic priest wearing his normal garb when making the official easter statement for the German catholic church on ARD...

You know, I hate to say this and sound like a bigot, which I am not, but if Denmark does not want her to wear the ruddy headscarf, then she shouldn't.
You are entitled to your opinion, but it would be so wrong for the Danes to enforce such a draconian type measure. Denmark is in the "free" world is it not?

This program is "a public television show created to debate religious and cultural differences".

If a Roman Catholic nun was to appear on the show, should she be forced to remove her habit to participate? Would the Pope have to wear a suit?

To be honest with you, I really don't think this whole situation would have raised an eyebrow IF another religion, other than Islamic, was the focus.

That's the irony of the situation. Personally, I believe that absolutly no religious symbols should be broadcasted on public television. NONE.
Earlier, you were complaining about not being able to have freedom of expression in certain Middle East countries, so you would extend that to the entire world? How ironic.

That's the irony of the situation. Personally, I believe that absolutly no religious symbols should be broadcasted on public television. NONE.A lot of bigots say that now, when they see the Muslin scarf for the first time on TV.

These bigots would have more credibility had they protested 5 or 50 years ago.. or whenever was the first time they saw a cross(or other religion symbols) on TV.

...

So we actually had a Muslim woman on this forum, who lives in the Middle East, and would be an invaluable asset to the debates about all this...and you people started bullying her?

WTF?! I would've expected as much from K-P, but not from the others. :(

That's the irony of the situation. Personally, I believe that absolutly no religious symbols should be broadcasted on public television. NONE.

In that case, we can't allow any clothes on TV. After all, many religions state that human beings should dress modestly - and everyone defines modesty differently. Since you see an article of clothing worn because of a person's definition of modesty as a "religious symbol," it follow that the clothing of any person following a religion that requires modesty is a "religious symbol" and thus must be banned.

...

So we actually had a Muslim woman on this forum, who lives in the Middle East, and would be an invaluable asset to the debates about all this...and you people started bullying her?

WTF?! I would've expected as much from K-P, but not from the others. :(
Which Muslim woman are you referring to?

Which Muslim woman are you referring to?
Rashidya.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10763362&postcount=36
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10763378&postcount=38
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10763426&postcount=44

In that case, we can't allow any clothes on TV. After all, many religions state that human beings should dress modestly - and everyone defines modesty differently. Since you see an article of clothing worn because of a person's definition of modesty as a "religious symbol," it follow that the clothing of any person following a religion that requires modesty is a "religious symbol" and thus must be banned.
Then of course if there is no religious symbols, then there should be no military symbols, and then there should be no police symbols, and so on and so forth?

Rashidya.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10763362&postcount=36
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10763378&postcount=38
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10763426&postcount=44
Well, I really don't see where anyone actually "bullied" her, other than K-P's virtual non response? Perhaps I missed something?

Well, I really don't see where anyone actually "bullied" her, other than K-P's virtual non response? Perhaps I missed something?
Well, it is mighty patronising to accuse her of being indoctrinated and not knowing what is good for her. Maybe I'm a little bit sensitive, but I have spent much time with Muslim women due to my mum's profession, and all of them chose to wear the Hijab. None of them was forced.

To me, the choice of wearing it is like the choice we make to not go naked in Summer. There might be no practical reason for it, but it's still a thing of culture, which makes us feel more comfortable.

Well, it is mighty patronising to accuse her of being indoctrinated and not knowing what is good for her. Maybe I'm a little bit sensitive, but I have spent much time with Muslim women due to my mum's profession, and all of them chose to wear the Hijab. None of them was forced.

To me, the choice of wearing it is like the choice we make to not go naked in Summer. There might be no practical reason for it, but it's still a thing of culture, which makes us feel more comfortable.

I was just stating basic brain-washing facts. *shrug*

...

So we actually had a Muslim woman on this forum, who lives in the Middle East, and would be an invaluable asset to the debates about all this...and you people started bullying her?

WTF?! I would've expected as much from K-P, but not from the others. :(

People bullied that Tweet tweet person too.

Are you suggesting there should be a different standard for muslims?

(In re bullying that is).

People bullied that Tweet tweet person too.
Okay, okay. Maybe "bullying" was too harsh a word.

I appologise.

Earlier, you were complaining about not being able to have freedom of expression in certain Middle East countries, so you would extend that to the entire world? How ironic.

But we do not have freedom of expression in our world, even in the West. The mere fact that we are discussing this issue shows that. Besides, she's just feeling bitter. I already helped her see the light, so you guys can stop bullying her.

But we do not have freedom of expression in our world, even in the West. The mere fact that we are discussing this issue shows that. Besides, she's just feeling bitter. I already helped her see the light, so you guys can stop bullying her.

Now Lady, if you can make everyone see the light...

Well, you could be bigger than Ghandi. Or the Beatles.

Now Lady, if you can make everyone see the light...

Well, you could be bigger than Ghandi. Or the Beatles.

Too bad my light is horribly tainted...:p

Too bad my light is horribly tainted...:p

Well then, burn more incense!:p

Too bad my light is horribly tainted...:p

With what, may I ask?

Well then, burn more incense!:p

And a melon scented candle. :D

With what, may I ask?

Oh, blood and flesh. Your usual good stuff.

Oh, blood and flesh. Your usual good stuff.

Could we burn headscarves too? (I only jest...)

Could we burn headscarves too? (I only jest...)

No, my dear kat. We don't burn things like that. Now hand me that pile of pot lying on the ground. :p

No, my dear kat. We don't burn things like that. Now hand me that pile of pot lying on the ground. :p

Only in the land of hippies Lady...:D

Only in the land of hippies Lady...:D

of course. Your redneck land would scorch the pot upon contact!

of course. Your redneck land would scorch the pot upon contact!

Would not. We'd try to make it into beer is all...

Would not. We'd try to make it into beer is all...
:eek:

Pot beer...I can imagine it already...*drool*

:eek:

Pot beer...I can imagine it already...*drool*

Only, Muslims can't drink it. Shame, that. Oh wait, apologies, can't drink it on "Holy Ground". So redneck land should be fine...like we're holy.

Only, Muslims can't drink it. Shame, that. Oh wait, apologies, can't drink it on "Holy Ground". So redneck land should be fine...like we're holy.

Of course, everybody knows only Christian infidels live on redneck land. :p