Australian Politics Forum - Women in Solidarity with Hijabs

Annie Anthrax Gold Member Offline Take the plan, spin it sideways Posts: 7057 Gender:	Re: Women in Solidarity with Hijabs Reply #30 - Oct 4^th, 2014 at 9:36am Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 9:30am: I wonder if the left would respond differently to this issue if they were Christian women in hijabs/burqas and not a minority ? They'd all be crying sexism. Yes. The left are screaming at the oppression of those nuns in habits.
Back to top	I can't do this, but I'm doing it anyway. IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 42248

Re: Women in Solidarity with Hijabs
Reply #31 - Oct 4^th, 2014 at 2:52pm

Redmond Neck wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 9:12am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 8:03pm:

Yadda, thanks for putting your bigotry on view for everybody, again. Roll Eyes

So someone actually reads it.

More patience than me Gunga Din!

I tried to suggest to him sometimes less is more!

I suspect most readers do as I do and move on to the next post rather than try to wade through that long list of stuff

The key to reading Yadda I've found is that his real message is in the first few lines of his posts. The rest is just fluff he adds to try and puff the piece up and annoy people. Skip anything in large or coloured type and the pictures he keeps reposting. Do that it is possible to actually make some sense out of his posts (as in being able to read them, not that they are actually sensible). Takes some effort to divine something useful but it can be done. Grin

As to his bigotry, that is constantly on display. Wink

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 42248

Re: Women in Solidarity with Hijabs
Reply #32 - Oct 4^th, 2014 at 2:58pm

Annie Anthrax wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 9:36am:

Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 9:30am:

I wonder if the left would respond differently to this issue if they were Christian women in hijabs/burqas and not a minority ? They'd all be crying sexism.

Yes. The left are screaming at the oppression of those nuns in habits.

Nuns choose to wear those habits and have not been required to since Vatican II. The Right refuses to recognise that the veil for most Muslim women is a choice as well. The Right prides itself on it's claim that it supports freedom and allows choice but in reality, it is dictatorial and forces conformity on people by determining that women cannot wear what they choose, whereas the Left does the reverse. For myself, I believe that if I am going to support the right of women to wear what they want, such as a bikini or a miniskirt, then I must also accept that some women will choose to wear the Hijab/Niquab/Burqa/etc. It is a question of personal and religious freedom in our society. You cannot IMHO support it for one group of women and deny it to another.

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96364

Re: Women in Solidarity with Hijabs
Reply #33 - Oct 4^th, 2014 at 4:08pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 2:52pm:

Redmond Neck wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 9:12am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 8:03pm:

Yadda, thanks for putting your bigotry on view for everybody, again. Roll Eyes

So someone actually reads it.

More patience than me Gunga Din!

I tried to suggest to him sometimes less is more!

I suspect most readers do as I do and move on to the next post rather than try to wade through that long list of stuff

The key to reading Yadda I've found is that his real message is in the first few lines of his posts. The rest is just fluff he adds to try and puff the piece up and annoy people. Skip anything in large or coloured type and the pictures he keeps reposting. Do that it is possible to actually make some sense out of his posts (as in being able to read them, not that they are actually sensible). Takes some effort to divine something useful but it can be done. Grin

As to his bigotry, that is constantly on display. Wink

They key to reading Y is not to answer any of the questions he asks you. You come across a question like, "who is a Moslem?" and you start to wonder. A terrorist? A hater of Freeedom? A moon-god worshipper?

But then Y tells you the answer. "A Moslem is a Moslem". This is useful because you don’t have to think too hard.

Sometimes Y addresses his answers to others. "Who is the Kuffer?"

"You, Mr Moslem, you are the Kuffer".

Y isn’t talking to me, or anyone else really, because there aren’t too many Muslim members of the board. Y is talking to those awful people with signs: "Freeeedom, go to hell"

"Behead all those who insult the prophet!"

You get the impression that Y would give them all a dressing down and put them in their place if they were there to listen, but Y tells us instead. Maybe we can pass the message on if we meet one.

The thing with the Bible quotes is authority. If Y posts a long list of quotes from the Bible, one of them might get read and make someone think a bit. Y rarely relates the quotes to his point - they’re just random passages. Y probably has some search criteria he uses that only Y can make sense of. Still, the Bible is all good, so it doesn’t really matter if the message doesn’t make sense. One day a Moslem might read that quote and convert to Karmic Christianity - Y’s brand of religion.

This would be good, because if they don’t convert, they’ll end up in hell with everybody else. Still, Y realizes quite a few souls are going there, so he’s not too worried.

Gud is great!

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Women in Solidarity with Hijabs
Reply #34 - Oct 4^th, 2014 at 4:32pm

Annie Anthrax wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 9:36am:

Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 9:30am:

I wonder if the left would respond differently to this issue if they were Christian women in hijabs/burqas and not a minority ? They'd all be crying sexism.

Yes. The left are screaming at the oppression of those nuns in habits.

Indeed.
Exhibit(ionists) 1- the sisters of perpetual indulgence.

I am looking forward to these fearless progressives making fun of muslim beards and niqabis at the mardi gras.
But they won’t because they, like everyone else, know that it is way too dangerous.
So they will go after the safe targets, like octogenerian nuns in habits. The Left will cheer them on.

Theo van Gogh was a libertarian progressive but he was disowned by the Left as soon as he came into conflict with sharia Islam. Hirshi Ali was abandoned by the ’progressive’ sisterhood for the same reason.
The Left will side with oppressive sharia-mongers every time when the alternative is peronal libery and freedom of expression.

Back to top

IP Logged

Raven

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Around

Re: Women in Solidarity with Hijabs
Reply #35 - Oct 4^th, 2014 at 5:03pm

Yadda wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 10:49pm:

Raven wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 9:40pm:

So you respect genital mutilation as long as it is only perpetrated against boys?

That is evil. The very evil you say Muslims commit daily.

Your respect for this evil act is noted.

Raven,

I have not been 'mutilated' myself.

I wonder if God will accept me ?

What do you think, Raven ?

You support, respect even, the physical abuse of children. Worry not Yadda there is a very special place reserved for you in the next life.

Hey Raven,

Do you fear God ? [....if he exists. Wink

]

Are you someone that God hates ???

Would you be worried, if you were ?

No

No

No

Back to top

Quoth the Raven "Nevermore"

Raven would rather ask questions that may never be answered, then accept answers which must never be questioned.

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 96364	Re: Women in Solidarity with Hijabs Reply #36 - Oct 4^th, 2014 at 5:03pm Peronal libery, eh? Sounds enticing, old boy. Is there a cure for that, or do we just administer an enema and hope for the best?
Back to top	IP Logged

Raven

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Around

Re: Women in Solidarity with Hijabs
Reply #37 - Oct 5^th, 2014 at 3:27am

Yadda wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 10:49pm:

Yeah.

God is an overly harsh God, isn't he !!!

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

He [God] doesn't want us [his potential children] to have anything to do with murderers and oppressors and criminals.
(Deuteronomy 7:1-4 NLT)

Why is that ????????

Because he prefers for his own children [potential children] to be to be the murderers and oppressors and criminals.

Exodus 15:3
The LORD is a man of war...

Deuteronomy 32:41
If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me.
42 I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy.
43 Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.

Isaiah 42:13
The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies.

So how is your God any different to the Muslim God?

(HINT: The correct answer is no different)

They are both Gods of War, advocating the destruction of those that oppose Them.

Your God is just the same as Allah, they both have a need to sake their bloodlust every now and then.

Back to top

Quoth the Raven "Nevermore"

Raven would rather ask questions that may never be answered, then accept answers which must never be questioned.

IP Logged

Annie Anthrax

Gold Member

Offline

Take the plan, spin it
sideways

Posts: 7057
Gender: female

Re: Women in Solidarity with Hijabs
Reply #38 - Oct 5^th, 2014 at 7:10am

Soren wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 4:32pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 9:36am:

Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 9:30am:

I wonder if the left would respond differently to this issue if they were Christian women in hijabs/burqas and not a minority ? They'd all be crying sexism.

Yes. The left are screaming at the oppression of those nuns in habits.

Indeed.
Exhibit(ionists) 1- the sisters of perpetual indulgence.

I am looking forward to these fearless progressives making fun of muslim beards and niqabis at the mardi gras.
But they won’t because they, like everyone else, know that it is way too dangerous.
So they will go after the safe targets, like octogenerian nuns in habits. The Left will cheer them on.

Theo van Gogh was a libertarian progressive but he was disowned by the Left as soon as he came into conflict with sharia Islam. Hirshi Ali was abandoned by the ’progressive’ sisterhood for the same reason.
The Left will side with oppressive sharia-mongers every time when the alternative is peronal libery and freedom of expression.

The Sisters don't wear habits to protest the sexist oppression of nuns. That was the point of the posters question.

I don't deny that it's dangerous to mock Islam. Or not even mock it - look at Rushdie. I agree that it's wrong. You'll have to look for an argument somewhere else on that one.

Back to top

I can't do this, but I'm doing it anyway.

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49347 At my desk.	Re: Women in Solidarity with Hijabs Reply #39 - Oct 5^th, 2014 at 7:19am Quote: I don't deny that it's dangerous to mock Islam. Or not even mock it - look at Rushdie. I agree that it's wrong. You'll have to look for an argument somewhere else on that one. Gandalf won't deny it either. He won't even see the question.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21872
A cat with a view

Re: Women in Solidarity with Hijabs
Reply #40 - Oct 5^th, 2014 at 9:31am

Raven wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 3:27am:

Yadda wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 10:49pm:

Yeah.

God is an overly harsh God, isn't he !!!

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

He [God] doesn't want us [his potential children] to have anything to do with murderers and oppressors and criminals.
(Deuteronomy 7:1-4 NLT)

Why is that ????????

Because he prefers for his own children [potential children] to be to be the murderers and oppressors and criminals.

Exodus 15:3
The LORD is a man of war...

Deuteronomy 32:41
If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me.
42 I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy.
43 Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.

Isaiah 42:13
The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies.

So how is your God any different to the Muslim God? (HINT: The correct answer is no different)

They are both Gods of War, advocating the destruction of those that oppose Them.

Your God is just the same as Allah, they both have a need to sake their bloodlust every now and then.

Raven,

Your argument is a nonsense.

To realise that, you only need to compare the tenets and laws of Judaism and/or Christianity, compared to the tenets and laws of ISLAM.

e.g.
The teachings of Jesus have - NO - equivalence, in the teachings of Mohammed.

"...the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him."

- DEAD.
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.260

And Torah has - NO - equivalence, in the laws of Allah/ISLAM.

e.g.
The law of ISLAM, declares all mankind who reject ISLAM, to be the servants of SATAN, and therefore WORTHY OF DEATH. [Koran 4.74-76]

In that single 'inerrant' proposition, ISLAM makes moslem violence against infidels 'LAWFUL' [AND, also makes the moslem murder of infidels 'LAWFUL'] !

"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98

"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11

".......And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!"
Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan."
Koran 4.74-76

There is - NO - equivalence [in law] in Judaism and Christianity, ...and ISLAM.

So, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, ...and the 'Allah', cannot be the same spirit entity.

It is true, that both Judaism [and Christianity], and ISLAM, ....declare their 'gods' enmity and wrath against 'wrongdoers'.

But, that is the only 'similarity' of character, between the God of Judaism and Christianity, and the 'Allah' of ISLAM.

And significantly, each entity defines 'wrongdoing' differently.

Deuteronomy 10:12
And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul,
13 To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes....

The commandments and statutes of YAHWEH are embodied, in THE EQUAL TREATMENT [in law] OF EVERY MAN WHO DRAWS BREATH.

Torah law....

Exodus 12:49
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Exodus 22:21
Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him...

Exodus 23:9
Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger...

Leviticus 19:33
And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.
34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself...

Leviticus 25:47-49
[these verses clearly speak of [and reveal that it was entirely 'lawful'] for Hebrews [themselves] to become bond servants [slaves], to prosperous strangers living among the Hebrews.]

Deuteronomy 1:16
And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.

Deuteronomy 10:17-19
For the LORD your God... loveth the stranger, ...Love ye therefore the stranger:
for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Deuteronomy 24:17
Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless; nor take a widow's raiment to pledge:
18 But thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee thence: therefore I command thee to do this thing.

Deuteronomy 27:19
Cursed be he that perverteth the judgment of the stranger...

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21872
A cat with a view

Re: Women in Solidarity with Hijabs
Reply #41 - Oct 5^th, 2014 at 10:45am

Yadda wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 9:31am:

The commandments and statutes of YAHWEH are embodied, in THE EQUAL TREATMENT [in law] OF EVERY MAN WHO DRAWS BREATH.

Torah law....

Exodus 12:49
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Exodus 22:21
Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him...

Exodus 23:9
Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger...

Leviticus 19:33
And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.
34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself...

Leviticus 25:47-49
[these verses clearly speak of [and reveal that it was entirely 'lawful'] for Hebrews [themselves] to become bond servants [slaves], to prosperous strangers living among the Hebrews.]

Deuteronomy 1:16
And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.

Deuteronomy 10:17-19
For the LORD your God... loveth the stranger, ...Love ye therefore the stranger:
for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Deuteronomy 24:17
Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless; nor take a widow's raiment to pledge:
18 But thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee thence: therefore I command thee to do this thing.

Deuteronomy 27:19
Cursed be he that perverteth the judgment of the stranger...

CONSIDER;

In ISLAM, if a moslem 'stands beside' an infidel, ...the moslem is accounted as innocent [because he is a moslem] ....and the infidel is accounted as guilty [because he is NOT a moslem].

And that 'difference' [in status], is why, in a Sharia court, a non-moslem is not permitted to testify against a moslem.

Why so ?

Because to allow a non-moslem to testify against a moslem [in a Sharia court], ....IT WOULD BE AN INJUSTICE TO THE INNOCENT MOSLEM !!!!

REPEATING;
This is because the moslem is already accounted [by ISLAM] to be the innocent party/person [because he is a moslem].

!!!!!

as per Allah's 'inerrant' declaration of 'fact'....

"Ye [moslems] are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors."
Koran 3.110

Is there any circumstance in a Sharia court, where a moslem and a non-moslem are accounted equal in law ?

No!

ISLAMIC tradition, scripture, and Sharia law instructs - the moslem - that there is no 'equality' in punishment to be applied to a moslem, and non-moslem!

Why so ?

Because such a circumstance [equality in law] would be an injustice to the moslem!

[....

and this is the explanation as to why moslems HATE and DESPISE secular law systems

within host non-moslem nations. i.e. Because Western secular law systems do not - AT THE OUTSET - accredit the moslem as being the innocent party, as Sharia law demands!!!]

e.g.
In ISLAM, if a non-moslem should kill a moslem [even accidentally] it is accounted as a grave and serious crime, COMMITTED BY AN INFIDEL.

Whereas [in ISLAMIC law] if a moslem should kill a non-moslem, it is never accounted as murder [or wrongdoing] in the sight of Allah...

"I asked Ali, "Do you have the knowledge of any Divine Inspiration besides what is in Allah's Book?" 'Ali replied, "No, by Him Who splits the grain of corn and creates the soul. I don't think we have such knowledge, but we have the ability of understanding which Allah may endow a person with, so that he may understand the Qur'an, and we have what is written in this paper as well." I asked, "What is written in this paper?" He replied, "(The regulations of) blood-money, the freeing of captives, and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel." "
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.52.283

"I asked 'Ali "Do you have anything Divine literature besides what is in the Qur'an?" Or, as Uyaina once said, "Apart from what the people have?" 'Ali said, "By Him Who made the grain split (germinate) and created the soul, we have nothing except what is in the Quran and the ability (gift) of understanding Allah's Book which He may endow a man, with and what is written in this sheet of paper." I asked, "What is on this paper?" He replied, "The legal regulations of Diya (Blood-money) and the (ransom for) releasing of the captives, and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for killing a Kafir (disbeliever)." "
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #009.83.50

ISLAMIC law instructs, and 'common sense' dictates,

that there must be no 'equality' in law, to be applied to a moslem, and to a non-moslem!

Because that would be an injustice - to the 'innocent' moslem!!!

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Women in Solidarity with Hijabs
Reply #42 - Oct 5^th, 2014 at 12:57pm

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 7:19am:

Quote:

I don't deny that it's dangerous to mock Islam. Or not even mock it - look at Rushdie. I agree that it's wrong. You'll have to look for an argument somewhere else on that one.

Gandalf won't deny it either. He won't even see the question.

Gandalf sees the question and agrees with Annie.

FD loves to construct strawmen.

Either that or he really can't understand the difference between saying "you have no evidence that mainstream muslims are threatening our freedoms" and claiming that the non-mainstream muslims pose no threat to our freedoms.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49347
At my desk.

Re: Women in Solidarity with Hijabs
Reply #43 - Oct 5^th, 2014 at 3:55pm

After about ten pages of me asking Gandalf the same, simple question, I got two responses that were close to being direct. This is where we were up to before Gandalf changed the subject yet again:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 7:11pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 6:46pm:

can we finally have a response from you regarding your own views on whether people should have the right to depict and mock Muhammed?

Your amnesia on this forum is simply breathtaking FD. For someone who seems to remember every keyboard stroke of Abu, you have remarkable lapses when it comes to discussions that were over 20 pages long.

Its a loaded question - yes people should have the right to make cartoons depicting and mocking any historical figure, sacred or otherwise. But there is a fine line between free speech and vilification - and people should not have the right to use such depictions to vilify and entire group. And by the way, mainstream Australians agree with me - even more so, as most Australians support laws to protect against mere offense. I don't go that far.

All been discussed before of course.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 7:26pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 5:57pm:

Should the recent Muhammed cartoons be banned?

No, and no one is saying it should be. You clearly miss the point of what the debate is about.

freediver wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 8:09pm:

Quote:

No, and no one is saying it should be. You clearly miss the point of what the debate is about.

Wow. We have no come the equivalent of two posts on this issue, hidden among pages and pages of you obfuscating. Getting back to your statement that originally prompted the question:

Quote:

yes people should have the right to make cartoons depicting and mocking any historical figure, sacred or otherwise. But there is a fine line between free speech and vilification - and people should not have the right to use such depictions to vilify and entire group.

Where do you draw the line? Are the cartoons OK, so long as they are not used in a certain way?

No idea what the reference to 20 pages is about. Gandalf has spent most of the discussion pretending my question about the right to mock Muhammed is a question about whether he supports terrorism, or section 18c, or denying the holocaust - basically any question where he can provide an answer that makes him and his fellow Muslims appear mainstream.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Women in Solidarity with Hijabs
Reply #44 - Oct 5^th, 2014 at 4:42pm

Annie Anthrax wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 7:10am:

Soren wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 4:32pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 9:36am:

Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 9:30am:

I wonder if the left would respond differently to this issue if they were Christian women in hijabs/burqas and not a minority ? They'd all be crying sexism.

Yes. The left are screaming at the oppression of those nuns in habits.

Indeed.
Exhibit(ionists) 1- the sisters of perpetual indulgence.

I am looking forward to these fearless progressives making fun of muslim beards and niqabis at the mardi gras.
But they won’t because they, like everyone else, know that it is way too dangerous.
So they will go after the safe targets, like octogenerian nuns in habits. The Left will cheer them on.

Theo van Gogh was a libertarian progressive but he was disowned by the Left as soon as he came into conflict with sharia Islam. Hirshi Ali was abandoned by the ’progressive’ sisterhood for the same reason.
The Left will side with oppressive sharia-mongers every time when the alternative is peronal libery and freedom of expression.

The Sisters don't wear habits to protest the sexist oppression of nuns. That was the point of the posters question.

I don't deny that it's dangerous to mock Islam. Or not even mock it - look at Rushdie. I agree that it's wrong. You'll have to look for an argument somewhere else on that one.

The point is this - people are are afraid of Muslims because of Muslim terrorism.
No-one dares to dress in a niqab on a Mardi Gras float. No one inDenmark was game to publish a book for children with drawing of Mohammed in it - that was the origin of the cartoons - they were astonished about the cowardice to cross Islam before the cartoon riots.

Nobody is afraid of mocking Christians because there is no danger in taking the Mickey Brian. It is safe.

Back to top

IP Logged