"You are a bad Belgian and you have signed your own death warrant."

[Bozo Erectus]

I live in a neighbourhood with a muslim majority, right here, on a 5 minute walk form the Dutch parliament en ministeries.
I see veils every single day.
And though I am a principle liberal, and thus will never even think of making rules on what people want to wear when they are at home, on the street or in factories, I do have what you might refer to as veil-hatred.

I've analysed it with a VERY open mind, but I don't think anyhting can change my opinion now:

The veil is a symbol of female oppresion, rather than a symbol of religion.
I perfectly understand it is not a black-and-white thing. It can (and thus will) be a very complicated issue in many cases.

I hate the veil too. Im sure many people here think I have some kind of veil fetish, nothing could be further from the truth. What I have is a fetish for fairness and personal liberty. Like you, I see it as a symbol of oppression and it offends me. But to many other people, the veil isnt a symbol of oppression, its a symbol of how their country is changing, and being 'taken over' by strange foreigners who have nothing but disdain for the native population and its ways. The veil is a symbol of the clash of civilizations. People pass hundreds of Muslim men all the time on the street, and are hardly aware of it, because for the most part they dress just like everyone else. But a woman with a veil or burkha turns the corner all of a sudden and BOOM, theyre instantly confronted with a symbol of all their worst fears about whats happening to their country.

Whereas hatred towards religious symbols is wrong, fighting symbols of female oppresion is most defenitely not.

When the symbols of female oppression are strongly associated with religion and culture, and largely supported by the women themselves, we have no choice but to mind our own business.

Bozo,
Quite frankly, I think your insinuation that veil hatred must be muslim hatred is quite annoying.

Like I said above, you dont hate Muslims, you just hate the veil, but I think most people dont have the subtlety to differentiate between the two.

 

[Renata]

Up until fairly recently, it was quite common for only a woman to wear a wedding ring in the US. Now, both sexes commonly do, but still, only women wear engagement rings. Is that a symbol of female oppression? I think it is, technically -- the woman has to show the sign that she's taken, but the man does not. The symbolism of circles and binding makes it even worse. Yet I don't hear people demanding that women not wear engagement rings. Why? Because 99.9% of its discriminatory meaning is gone; it's essentially just a nice gesture and a symbol of an upcoming wedding nowadays.

Headscarves don't have to be a symbol of oppression. They could conceivably turn into simple religious tradition if allowed to. (Does anyone truly believe that Sikh men not cutting their hair and having to wear turbans is symbolic of their oppression, for example?) I've known two very liberal, very educated Muslim women who wear them; doing so doesn't hold them back in any way.

Renata

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Renata, good point. Other symbols of female 'oppression' in our culture are make-up and revealing clothing. Looking in at our culture from the outside, it would be easy for someone to say that women with lipstick on and wearing short skirts offends them, because these things are symbols of womens status as sexual objects in our society. We'd scratch our heads and say HUH? It seems so natural to us, just a part of life, nothing at all controversial about it. This is exactly whats happening in the West with the veil these days. Most people tend to forget that theyre looking at a culture through the lenses of their own culture.

 

[MaisseArsouye]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Antwerp ruled by the Flaams Blok, easily one of the most right-wing extremist parties in charge anywhere in Europe? The FPÖ or Berlusconi's coalition are liberals compared to them...

It was called "Vlaams Blok" ( Flemish Bloc ) but it had to change its name after being condamned for racism ( actually, it's a few more complicated but well ... ). It's now called Vlaams Belang. Their website has an english version if someone is brave enough to face that rubbish !

Vlaams Belang is the most important in Antwerpen and some other towns. It also is the first flemish party, ex-aequo with CD&V ( flemish christian democrats ). But VB is in no government because all democratic parties refuse to make a coalition with them... until ?

FPö is in Austria, not in Italy

BTW, VB is not "belgian" extreme-right. It's a flemish party, they want the end of Belgium and an ethnically pure Flanders !!! They're anti-walloon ! The extreme-rught in french-speaking Belgium ( including Wallonie ) is much weaker ( about 7%, a very low score in this area of Europe !!!!!! ) and could disappear soon because of internal problems And they never say they're walloon, they claim they are belgian. There's no nationalist walloon party.

 

[Stapel]

Up until fairly recently, it was quite common for only a woman to wear a wedding ring in the US. Now, both sexes commonly do, but still, only women wear engagement rings. Is that a symbol of female oppression? I think it is, technically -- the woman has to show the sign that she's taken, but the man does not. The symbolism of circles and binding makes it even worse. Yet I don't hear people demanding that women not wear engagement rings. Why? Because 99.9% of its discriminatory meaning is gone; it's essentially just a nice gesture and a symbol of an upcoming wedding nowadays.

Headscarves don't have to be a symbol of oppression. They could conceivably turn into simple religious tradition if allowed to. (Does anyone truly believe that Sikh men not cutting their hair and having to wear turbans is symbolic of their oppression, for example?) I've known two very liberal, very educated Muslim women who wear them; doing so doesn't hold them back in any way.

Renata

Indeed, headscarves do not HAVE to be a symbol of oppression, but as long as muslims, here in NL on TV, claim that a women not wearing one, are dressed like whores........
As I've said before: It's not a black-and-white issue. But it's really out of line to cover a symbol of oppresion, as a harmless symbol of religion.
The Islam also has a dress-code for men.
And here comes the funny thing, Renata:
Whereas muslim male juviniles are allowed to dress up as they like, their sisters are not. By whom not? By their families, their culture, their whatever. It's a simple fact religion has not too much to do with it.
It's based on oppression of women by men.
Men are not bound to a dress-code. Women are.
Those are the facts.

The liberal educated women who wear them by free will, are usually an exception.
And what is free will? Are you sure there is no traditional family pressure?

About the wedding/engagement ring tradition in the US:
I consider the US-culture to be pretty backward too, when it comes to these matters.
When I hear stories about men spending 2 or 3 months income on an engagement ring, I am left in laughter.

Most people tend to forget that they're looking at a culture through the lenses of their own culture.

No, I am fully aware I am judging another culture through my own culture. My culture sais women and men, or gays and heteros are equal. My culture also sais that people who don't agree with these views, must be stuck in the 19th century (for instance the few strictly calvinist communities we still have here in NL). My culture also regards these people as utterly backward.
If people think women must wear a headscarve to prevent them from being nothing but lust objects, I consider these people backward. If these backward thought are based on a culture, I consider this culture backward.

 

[Stapel]

It was called "Vlaams Blok" ( Flemish Bloc ) but it had to change its name after being condamned for racism ( actually, it's a few more complicated but well ... ). It's now called Vlaams Belang. Their website has an english version if someone is brave enough to face that rubbish !

Vlaams Belang is the most important in Antwerpen and some other towns. It also is the first flemish party, ex-aequo with CD&V ( flemish christian democrats ). But VB is in no government because all democratic parties refuse to make a coalition with them... until ?

Do you consider the VB undemocratic?
Or the other parties for denying them?

FPö is in Austria, not in Italy

Why do you think, Doc T thought is was in Italy?????

BTW, VB is not "belgian" extreme-right. It's a flemish party, they want the end of Belgium and an ethnically pure Flanders !!! They're anti-walloon ! The extreme-right in french-speaking Belgium ( including Wallonie ) is much weaker ( about 7%, a very low score in this area of Europe !!!!!! ) and could disappear soon because of internal problems And they never say they're walloon, they claim they are belgian. There's no nationalist walloon party.

The VB does not want an ethnically pure Flanders. That is nothing but annoying propaganda.
It's a stupid lie, and I think you should rectify it.

Whether the VB is extreme-right, is arguable.
Being anti-Belgium most certianly is not necissarilly extrem-right. There are good arguments agaisnt the Belgium union, whether you like it or not.


Is "Belgie barst" a wish or a conclusion?
Answer that question honoustly please!

 

[Bozo Erectus]

No, I am fully aware I am judging another culture through my own culture. My culture sais women and men, or gays and heteros are equal. My culture also sais that people who don't agree with these views, must be stuck in the 19th century (for instance the few strictly calvinist communities we still have here in NL). My culture also regards these people as utterly backward.
If people think women must wear a headscarve to prevent them from being nothing but lust objects, I consider these people backward. If these backward thought are based on a culture, I consider this culture backward.

Then youre just as trapped within your culture as the women who happily wear the veil. You cant step outside of your culture and see that its just one of many cultures in the world. To you, your culture isnt A culture, its THE culture. Yours is the only worthy culture in the world. Other cultures which happen to see things differently from yours arent just different, no, theyre 'backward'. Dont you see Stapel? Your way of thinking is no different than that of extremist Muslims. You and your culture are 'right'. Other cultures are 'wrong'. Its a short step from the sort of thinking you exhibit here, and sending hate letters and bullets in the mail. After all, this 'backward' culture is invading your pristine, oh so superior culture. Surely a few hate letters is a small thing to do to save ones superior culture from being polluted by a backward one, right?

 

[jonatas]

i am reposting a few points i just posted in the other thread... i hope that doesn't bother anyone i find this a very interesting debate and there are some important points to consider

French secularism and its concepts of protecting the individual are very different from the concept of freedom envisualized in English speaking countries. in english speaking countries, the group (ie. religious group) is what is protected and untouchable, in laicism, the individual is who is protected, especially what can be termed the weak individual or child.... a child, who is vulnerable and can be shaped, can be taken advantage of by parents in an extreme religion and forced to isolate themselves.... in laicism, every child should have the right to become a fully functioning member of society... it aims at preventing any sort of fundamentalist religion or crazy cult from deciding the future of children, who can be exploited.....the problem with what i would call the american system, is that it protects the rights of Fundamentalism.... in my opinion, french secularism is the most advanced train of though in this matter in the world.... of course, this is not the whole definition of laicism by any means.... another concept of laicism is that religion should be out of the classroom, again, so that everyone can learn freely, and even children who might be surrounded by fundamentalism or extremism have the opportunity to be on an equal setting with others and become a full citizen, by virtue of living in a secular country..... everyone should be equal in the classroom, and everyone is together over religion... it is a beautiful concept in my opinion, and that's why i love french secularism


again, religion should not define a child's individuality/personality, especially in a classroom

also, to have a better understanding of laicism, you should be aware that France has also passed anti-sect laws, which target basically crazy cults and some extreme christian fundamentalists.... this must be taken into consideration as part of laicism, it is not just against Muslims..... France has also passed laws against religious extremism in general, it's just that they don't get the press.... France really goes after cults and fundamentalism, whether Christian or Muslim, which i applaud them for

it really is a cultural difference.... like i said earlier, the American concept of freedom in this regard protects groups, while the French protects individuals from groups

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Jonatas, your post is a perfect example of what I said in the other closed thread about the difference in how Americans and Europeans view religion. Most Europeans clearly view religion as a problem in society that the government has to protect people from. Meanwhile, most Americans view religion as a foundation of our society, and a major source of its strength. With such vast differences of opinion regarding religion, its little wonder we dont understand each other when it comes to these sorts of issues. Look how different the U.S. is from Europe. Kids in America sing a shortened version of this every single morning in schools (Im sure youve heard it before):

America, The Beautiful

Oh, beautiful for spacious skies
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountains' majesty
Above the fruited plains.
America, America,
God shed His grace on thee;
And crowned thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea.

Oh, beautiful for pilgrim's feet
Whose stern impassion'd stressed
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness.
America, America,
God mend thy every flaw
Confirm thy soul with self control
Thy liberty in law.

Oh, beautiful, for hero's feet
Proved in liberating strife;
Who more than self their country loved
And mercy more than life.
America, America,
May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness
And every gain divine.

Oh, beautiful for patriot's dream
That sees beyond the years;
Whose alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears.
America, America,
God shed His grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea....

If a French (or any European) government tried to make school kids sing a song like this every morning, there'd be a new French revolution.

 

[Stapel]

Dont you see Stapel? Your way of thinking is no different than that of extremist Muslims.

Thank you!
Don't you think thta was a bit out of line?

Then youre just as trapped within your culture as the women who happily wear the veil. You cant step outside of your culture and see that its just one of many cultures in the world. To you, your culture isnt A culture, its THE culture. Yours is the only worthy culture in the world. Other cultures which happen to see things differently from yours arent just different, no, theyre 'backward'. Dont you see Stapel? Your way of thinking is no different than that of extremist Muslims. You and your culture are 'right'. Other cultures are 'wrong'. Its a short step from the sort of thinking you exhibit here, and sending hate letters and bullets in the mail. After all, this 'backward' culture is invading your pristine, oh so superior culture. Surely a few hate letters is a small thing to do to save ones superior culture from being polluted by a backward one, right?

You won't hear me claim my culture is superiour.

Let's put it in another, maybe a bit extreme window:
Is our culture better than a culture where children are sacrified to 'the gods'?
If I consider thougts about children's sacrifice as backward, does that bring me only a small step away from hate letters or bullet-mail?

Let me put it this way:

I very strongly believe in equality of people. And I consider people who don't, as backwards, totally regardless of their cultural heritage.

 

[amadeus]

Bozo, are you really going to say that all cultures and equal and that there are no superior or inferior cultures?

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

Unlike Christians, if a Muslim is struck, he will strike back twice as hard.

Not this Christian, if I'm struck, I plot, plan, blackmail and make every possible attempt to make this persons life as miserable as possible.

 

[Stapel]

Not this Christian, if I'm struck, I plot, plan, blackmail and make every possible attempt to make this persons life as miserable as possible.

That's not what Jesus Christ was teaching .

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Bozo, are you really going to say that all cultures and equal and that there are no superior or inferior cultures?

No Im not going to say that, there are some really lousy cultures out there from the point of view of my own culture. Naturally, I find many of them to be repugnant because of my cultural POV. Do you think that people in these 'inferior' societies sit around moaning, 'Oh gosh, our culture is so crappy and backward!' Of course they dont. Like us, they dont question the culture they were born and raised in, any more than they question the reality of mountains, trees and rocks. Its just the way the world is. Anybody who lives differently is clearly weird, stupid, or just backward. Do you understand what Im saying?

 

[betazed]

Bozo, are you really going to say that all cultures and equal and that there are no superior or inferior cultures?

Yes, I am going to say that, unless you can precisely define what makes cultures 'superior' and 'inferior' and why. Unless, that why and what is clearly stated, viewing any culture superior or inferior is pure dogma. No different from fundamentalism.

@Bozo: Writeup coming soon.

 

[Stapel]

Yes, I am going to say that, unless you can precisely define what makes cultures 'superior' and 'inferior' and why. Unless, that why and what is clearly stated, viewing any culture superior or inferior is pure dogma. No different from fundamentalism.

I think that cultures that have managed to step away from dogma, are superior to cultures that still are based on dogmas .

I sense some philosophical stuff here!

 

[betazed]

I think that cultures that have managed to step away from dogma, are superior to cultures that still are based on dogmas .

If that is what you are saying then all cultures are perfectly same. Every culture has dogmas, dogma being defined as 'any belief that is not provably substantiated'. Whether it is religious, economic, or social, every culture is steeped with dozens, nay hundreds, of dogmas.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Without dogmas, you couldnt even have a culture Im pretty sure.

 

[betazed]

Living in Manhattan, or for that matter NYC, is a cathartic experience. Many years ago when i moved here I viewed quite a few behavior of New Yorkers with suspicion and sometimes with downright disdain. Over time though the disdain and susupicion has worn off, not because I have come to like those behaviors but because I have come to appreciate the utilitarian value of it. One such behavior is aptly described in one word.

Neighbours (or rather the lack of them).

In my apartment building like everybody else's, everyone has neighbours. But how many neighbours do we really know or get to meet or visit? That number would be close to 0. In a way we are almost xenophobic. Anything that is not within my apartment walls is not me and mine and i do not care about the rest. Although keep in mind we are in a building. Technically speaking anything happening to me could affect my neighbour. So logic would dictate that we closely cooperate on everything. Instead we do not follow logic. Apart from a occassional hello we take extra caution ot stay out of each other's way. Why?

Simple, really. When you are putting hundreds of individuals of a very aggressive species within a few cubic decameters, it is wise to clearly demarcate territory and follow strict rules that no one violates those territory rules.

Why can't we apply the same logic to nations?

The building earth is getting overcrowded. So let us demarcate territories (we have already done that) and divide it up and stay within our territories. Any violation of such a territory by an immigrant it so violently reacted against that noone thinks of doing it. Wouldn't that lead to a lot less strife among nations? (with one caveat of course, but i will let you point it out).

However, this does not mean that each nation although xenophobic has to be isolationist. Although I do not invite my neighbours I invite my friends over from time to time. This is because i have a lot of commanalities with my friends. Same way nations can invite people from other nations who have a lot of things common to them (specifically similar looking, i.e. whites inviting whites, blacks blacks, browns oscillating between blackish whites and whitish blacks, yellows... you get the picture) humans being very superficial in nature and beauty truly being skin-deep. That way we can be social and xenophobic at the same time, and everyone can be happy.

So, what's wrong with xenophobia?

 

[betazed]

Without dogmas, you couldnt even have a culture Im pretty sure.

Why?

abcdfg