Quebec tramples religious freedoms as Canadian freemen dither

[arayder]

Originally Posted by baron

You're still labouring under the falsehood that wearing a face covering is a religious mandate. And that's not the only misapprehension you have. Perhaps the most obvious is that the right to practice one's religion is an inalienable right. This is patently absurd and I can't imagine why you said it. That right only extends as far as the law restricts. A person who murders a homosexual, sells their daughter into slavery or beats up their neighbours for objecting to the odour of a sacrificial bull will find that protesting religious exemption won't help them much (although in Canada it's probably worth a try).

No, I never said any religious practice was a mandate. I say the decision to practice one’s religion as one sees fit is a fundamental right.

The idea that somebody else uses their religious beliefs to break the law doesn’t mean I am divested of my right to practice my religion as I see fit. Equating the practice of covering one's face to killing gay people or selling your kids into slavery is a specious argument.

Sure, some of a religious practice may be culturally based.

If I read the Bible and come to a conclusion about how I should dress or behave one might wrongly assume assumed to be a purely “cultural” decision because various forces of the culture have affected my decision.

My priest or pastor preached on the subject and I am affected. When I was a kid my parents quoted the same passage of the Bible and that affects me. The guy down the street whose behavior I admire says he acts the way he does because he reached the same conclusion I did.

So what? It’s still my religious belief.

[baron]

Originally Posted by arayder

No, I never said any religious practice was a mandate. I say the decision to practice one’s religion as one sees fit is a fundamental right.

Yet it isn't.

Originally Posted by arayder

The idea that somebody else uses their religious beliefs to break the law doesn’t mean I am divested of my right to practice my religion as I see fit. Equating the practice of covering one's face to killing gay people or selling your kids into slavery is a specious argument.

No, it's the same thing. Religious practice within the law is a freedom of which anybody can avail themselves, but so is every other freedom. If I choose to wear a pineapple on my head as a fashion statement I'm just as free to do it as if I believed the great god Bromeliad had commanded it.

Of course, examples exist of religious people being given extra freedoms, such as the right to hold down five year old girls and hack at their genitals with a knife, but the point is that there is no blanket right to practice religious observance.

Originally Posted by arayder

Sure, some of a religious practice may be culturally based.

If I read the Bible and come to a conclusion about how I should dress or behave one might wrongly assume assumed to be a purely “cultural” decision because various forces of the culture have affected my decision.

My priest or pastor preached on the subject and I am affected. When I was a kid my parents quoted the same passage of the Bible and that affects me. The guy down the street whose behavior I admire says he acts the way he does because he reached the same conclusion I did.

So what? It’s still my religious belief.

There are relatively few restrictions on dress so in almost all instances it would be a moot point. There are good reasons to ban face coverings, not just for Muslims but for everyone. If it was a law specifically directed at Muslim you would have a point and I would not support it. In addition, people need to understand that the burqa is a symbol of cultural patriarchy and repression of women, and in many countries has come into prominence very recently as a social statement. It has little if anything to do with religion.

[arayder]

Quote:

Yet it isn't [fundamental right].

Congratulations, you just trashed several fundamental charters of human rights.

The practical side of the side of this argument goes to the question of the authority of the government to mandate religious practices.

Menard, the “freeman” inexplicably, says the government can outlaw harmless religious practices because they’re really just cultural practices that somehow threaten Canada.

Your argument is similar. He can’t explain how a face coverings harm others or the larger society and you can’t either. As close as you can get is to site abhorrent practices wrongly justified by a religious belief and infer that this somehow justifies giving the government the authority to outlaw face coverings or maybe tell me not to wear ashes on Ash Wednesday.

After all the churches that give me the ashes have some bad history. The Inquisition? The Crusades?

Originally Posted by baron

There are good reasons to ban face coverings, not just for Muslims but for everyone.

I await one solid reason why it is in the state's compelling interest to ban face coverings. . .

[baron]

Originally Posted by arayder

Congratulations, you just trashed several fundamental charters of human rights.

The practical side of the side of this argument goes to the question of the authority of the government to mandate religious practices.

Menard, the “freeman” inexplicably, says the government can outlaw harmless religious practices because they’re really just cultural practices that somehow threaten Canada.

Your argument is similar. He can’t explain how a face coverings harm others or the larger society and you can’t either. As close as you can get is to site abhorrent practices wrongly justified by a religious belief and infer that this somehow justifies giving the government the authority to outlaw face coverings or maybe tell me not to wear ashes on Ash Wednesday.

Now you're talking about the specific OP as opposed to the religious significance of the face covering. With respect, then, to your assertion that the government has no possible reason for its actions I suggest you read your own article.

You go on to hold forth on another unfounded allegation, that I can't explain how face coverings have negative affects on society. You're wrong on this too, I could write pages about it, and have done.

Originally Posted by arayder

After all the churches that give me the ashes have some bad history. The Inquisition? The Crusades?

Say what?

Originally Posted by arayder

I await one solid reason why it is in the state's compelling interest to ban face coverings. . .

Then read the article you cited where numerous reasons are given.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by baron

You go on to hold forth on another unfounded allegation, that I can't explain how face coverings have negative affects on society. You're wrong on this too, I could write pages about it, and have done.

Then read the article you cited where numerous reasons are given

So let me sum up your argument. . .You can’t make the connection between the practice of face coverings and harm to others or the greater society so you say Muslim women shouldn’t be allowed to wear face coverings because there are other Muslims who use the same religion to do bad things.

Am I being unfair?

[baron]

Originally Posted by arayder

So let me sum up your argument. . .You can’t make the connection between the practice of face coverings and harm to others or the greater society so you say Muslim women shouldn’t be allowed to wear face coverings because there are other Muslims who use the same religion to do bad things.

Am I being unfair?

I wouldn't say unfair, more like utterly wrong with every single word you posted. So well done on that.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by baron

I wouldn't say unfair, more like utterly wrong with every single word you posted. So well done on that.

Well, I wouldn't have to make your argument for you if you'd just make it yourself.

I suspect the "I-could-write-pages-but-I-won't" argument is a cover for no argument at all. I suspect the core of your argument is that you don’t like the practices of some Muslims (I don't either) so we should empower the state to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Again, how is the outlawing of face coverings in the compelling interest of the state?

[baron]

Originally Posted by arayder

Well, I wouldn't have to make your argument for you if you'd just make it yourself.

I suspect the "I-could-write-pages-but-I-won't" argument is a cover for no argument at all. I suspect the core of your argument is that you don’t like the practices of some Muslims (I don't either) so we should empower the state to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Again, how is the outlawing of face coverings in the compelling interest of the state?

Have you even read your own article? They are not outlawing face coverings.

Quote:

...religious neutrality bill Wednesday that will oblige citizens to uncover their faces while giving and receiving state services

Quote:

...enshrine into law what is considered to be a fundamental Quebec value that the state should not promote religion of any kind.

[arayder]

Quote:

Again, how is the outlawing of face coverings in the compelling interest of the state?

Originally Posted by baron

Have you even read your own article? They are not outlawing face coverings.

Oh, please. Without an argument you are forced to mistate the issue by posting snippets of disingenuous arguments made by Muslim haters and pretend I didn't read the article I posted.

You can't show why it's in the interest of the state to outlaw face coverings so you pretend that's not even the issue.

Quote:

...enshrine into law what is considered to be a fundamental Quebec value that the state should not promote religion of any kind.

So now allowing people to practice their religion is promoting that same religion?

What next? War is peace? Freedom is slavery? Ignorance is strength?

[baron]

Originally Posted by arayder

Oh, please. Without an argument you are forced to mistate the issue by posting snippets of disingenuous arguments made by Muslim haters and pretend I didn't read the article I posted.

You can't show why it's in the interest of the state to outlaw face coverings so you pretend that's not even the issue.

Here's a tip. Next time you fabricate obvious nonsense, don't include in your OP an article that disputes your own claims. That likely explains why this thread has failed so badly.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by baron

Here's a tip. Next time you fabricate obvious nonsense, don't include in your OP an article that disputes your own claims. That likely explains why this thread has failed so badly.

How telling. Religious freedom is now nonsense.

All you are doing is assuming you have made your argument. You told us you don't like some practices of some Muslims and then did a 180 on the purpose of the law pretending it's really about religious freedom.

I ask again how the law is in the compelling interest of the state?

[baron]

Originally Posted by arayder

I ask again how the law is in the compelling interest of the state?

It states this in your own article! I even quoted it for you! The state is perfectly entitled to regulate the behaviour and appearance of its employees and of the public during state service interactions. It's not unreasonable to mandate that state employees do not cover their heads with black bags whilst pursuing their duties.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by baron

It states this in your own article! I even quoted it for you! The state is perfectly entitled to regulate the behaviour and appearance of its employees and of the public during state service interactions.

Your ruse reminds me of the old Menard/freeman canard to “do your own research” used when they had no argument or proof.

So far all you told us is that the bill is really about religious freedom. . . at the same time you tell us that the law denies state services to Muslim women with face coverings.

For decades some Muslim women in Canada have been covering their faces while they ride buses, take nursing exams and live their lives? And what substantive harm has this ever caused anyone? Yeah, I know the folk tales about bad people dressing up in burkas and robbing liquor stores.

In the end, IMHO, this is legislation is government at its worst. A gaggle of Muslim hating legislators with a solution looking for a problem.

Quote:

It's not unreasonable to mandate that state employees do not cover their heads with black bags whilst pursuing their duties.

Careful, your bias is showing. Face coverings are not “black bags”.

[baron]

Rarely do we see a poster so eagerly misrepresent everything they read, even the article they themselves cited. I'll take my leave and let this thread die a well deserved death.

[arayder]

Readers, see this. The constitutional challenge to Bill 62: https://ccla.org/cclanewsite/wp-cont...y-AS-FILED.pdf

[arayder]

Originally Posted by baron

Rarely do we see a poster so eagerly misrepresent everything they read, even the article they themselves cited.

LOL. . .you tried to pretend the article backed you up. When your hand was called you realized you had no cards and are now pretending that some magic unread part of the article sustains your argument.

As you can see I have not only read the article but have followed the court challenge. I "did my own research".

Quote:

I'll take my leave and let this thread die a well deserved death.

Declare yourself the winner and go home? Taking your ball, too?

Bye!

[Hlafordlaes]

Originally Posted by arayder

Maybe I am mincing words, but the right to practice one's religion is not what I would call a "mandate", but rather an inalienable right.

I beg to differ. The right to believe in or subscribe to one's religious beliefs is indeed a right, aka freedom of conscience. However, there can be no right to act along religious beliefs if and when they conflict with civil law; say, refuse to perform duties as a public employee in processing a marriage license application from a same sex couple. There are plenty of truly horrible and illegal examples of religious practices from a wide variety of faiths and sects, but I'll avoid the gory/perverted details.

No inalienable right to practice, then. All behavior must conform to civil law. Goes for wingnut Christians as much as Muslims, or 3% alt-right crazies for that matter. As for facial veils, I consider any full or significant facial covering in public a threat, a real and present danger. As reading facial expressions to judge the state of mind of others is an undeniable and critical skill for higher-order social animals, I consider blocking the ability of others to read one's facial expression a declaration of potential malice and an expression of animosity to peaceful coexistence, and thus not fit for civil society.

[arayder]

Quote:

I beg to differ. The right to believe in or subscribe to one's religious beliefs is indeed a right, aka freedom of conscience. However, there can be no right to act along religious beliefs if and when they conflict with civil law; say, refuse to perform duties as a public employee in processing a marriage license application from a same sex couple. There are plenty of truly horrible and illegal examples of religious practices from a wide variety of faiths and sects, but I'll avoid the gory/perverted details.

I agree. I was not clear enough in stating that I don't think all religious practices are protected. I have a problem with Christian snake handlers, for instance, exposing their minor children to possible harm.

Quote:

. . . reading facial expressions to judge the state of mind of others is an undeniable and critical skill for higher-order social animals, I consider blocking the ability of others to read one's facial expression a declaration of potential malice and an expression of animosity to peaceful coexistence, and thus not fit for civil society.

I hear you, but I think the harm to religious freedom is a greater concern than the need of men to "read" the faces of Muslim women. But i hear you. When I see faces covered a little part of my brain says I am going to be asked to throw the strong box and the scatter gun down from the stage and keep my hands where Black Bart can see them.

But i can get over that.

I think maybe you overstate the problem. Muslim women can uncover their faces when men are not around. And people (men and women) have been reading these women's eyes and body language for centuries without any problem I can see.

They can also talk, i believe.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes

As for facial veils, I consider any full or significant facial covering in public a threat, a real and present danger. As reading facial expressions to judge the state of mind of others is an undeniable and critical skill for higher-order social animals, I consider blocking the ability of others to read one's facial expression a declaration of potential malice and an expression of animosity to peaceful coexistence, and thus not fit for civil society.

And this is why we can see that support for these bans is nothing more than bigotry, because once again, the things that people claim as a justification for banning veils are things that are just not happening. There is no plague of Muslim women trying to vote without adequately identifying themselves, there is no plague of Muslim women trying to avoid traffic tickets without adequately identifying themselves, there is no plague of Muslim women robbing stage coaches without adequately identifying themselves, there is no plague of Muslim women wandering around mugging people without adequately identifying themselves, there is no plague of Muslim women trying to commit any identifiably nefarious acts without adequately identifying themselves. It's all just based on prejudice and bias.

The greatest threat to peace and security in Canada is not Muslim women who are working as civil servants. Just get the **** over it already, bigots.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Horatius

. . .There is no plague of Muslim women trying to vote without adequately identifying themselves, there is no plague of Muslim women trying to avoid traffic tickets without adequately identifying themselves, there is no plague of Muslim women robbing stage coaches without adequately identifying themselves, there is no plague of Muslim women wandering around mugging people without adequately identifying themselves, there is no plague of Muslim women trying to commit any identifiably nefarious acts without adequately identifying themselves.

I can't get anyone to cite harm caused because some Muslim women wear face coverings. Like I said, Bill 62 is solution looking for problem.

I'm astounded by the people who rail at anti-Semitism, yet get behind this sort of thing. But the amazing thing is that some freeman, like Nazi Bobby Menard, don't have any problem giving tacit approval to Bill 62.

[baron]

Originally Posted by Horatius

And this is why we can see that support for these bans is nothing more than bigotry, because once again, the things that people claim as a justification for banning veils are things that are just not happening. There is no plague of Muslim women trying to vote without adequately identifying themselves, there is no plague of Muslim women trying to avoid traffic tickets without adequately identifying themselves, there is no plague of Muslim women robbing stage coaches without adequately identifying themselves, there is no plague of Muslim women wandering around mugging people without adequately identifying themselves, there is no plague of Muslim women trying to commit any identifiably nefarious acts without adequately identifying themselves. It's all just based on prejudice and bias.

The greatest threat to peace and security in Canada is not Muslim women who are working as civil servants. Just get the **** over it already, bigots.

Another one who hasn't read the article.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by baron

Another one who hasn't read the article.

Yes, there is a mysterious power in the ARTICLE, beyond all human comprehension, which allows the reader to grasp the import and reasoning for discriminating against Muslim women.

The ARTICLE ends all debates!

Read the ARTICLE and find TRUTH, my son!

Blessed be the ARTICLE!

[baron]

Originally Posted by arayder

Yes, there is a mysterious power in the ARTICLE, beyond all human comprehension, which allows the reader to grasp the import and reasoning for discriminating against Muslim women.

The ARTICLE ends all debates!

Read the ARTICLE and find TRUTH, my son!

Blessed be the ARTICLE!

If you want to argue against your own citation be my guest. Bizarre behaviour.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by baron

If you want to argue against your own citation be my guest. Bizarre behaviour.

How very disingenuous. You quoted snippets from the article being careful to quote those in the government who think this sort religious discrimination is a good idea.

You were careful to leave out the several statements of those who thought the law is an infringement of the religious freedoms.

In this way you seek to deceive the reader by pretending the article backs you up. Then you go on to infer that anybody who sees through your ruse is uninformed or hasn't read the article.

[Hlafordlaes]

Originally Posted by Horatius

And this is why we can see that support for these bans is nothing more than bigotry, because once again, the things that people claim as a justification for banning veils are things that are just not happening. There is no plague of Muslim women trying to vote without adequately identifying themselves, there is no plague of Muslim women trying to avoid traffic tickets without adequately identifying themselves, there is no plague of Muslim women robbing stage coaches without adequately identifying themselves, there is no plague of Muslim women wandering around mugging people without adequately identifying themselves, there is no plague of Muslim women trying to commit any identifiably nefarious acts without adequately identifying themselves. It's all just based on prejudice and bias.

The greatest threat to peace and security in Canada is not Muslim women who are working as civil servants. Just get the **** over it already, bigots.

No claim was made of any sort of "plague" or "greatest threat," even if these are, I'll agree, rather sonorous as straw men (kudos); rather, an appeal was made to a general principle involving interpersonal interactions in the public sphere that applies across many situations, as well as across several species, not just humans: facial expressions matter. Nevertheless, in spite of your examples of official situations in which identity may be given, as an average citizen, absent such a ban, I (or you) do not have any recourse for identifying veiled individuals in public encounters. Further, on occasion, veils have indeed been used for terror attacks: Cameroon bans Islamic face veil after suicide bombings. (So, to use your wording, "are happening.")

My well-grounded disagreement with religious doctrine and practice is by no means a form of any sort of bigotry, unless, of course, you wish to classify the ISF itself as a haven of anti-religious bigotry. My blanket precept that civil law trumps religious edict in the public sphere (and private in certain circumstances) applies across the board (and has historical SCOTUS support). I strongly disagree with those who feel sex with minors is appropriate and "holy," to cite an unrelated example that I neglected to mention, since it would distract from the topic at hand. To wit: civil law rules in the civil sphere, and in this example, private as well.

You owe a public apology for gratuitous insult unrelated to the context and intent of my prior post. Thereafter you might choose to present counter-arguments, should you have them.

[Hlafordlaes]

Originally Posted by arayder

I can't get anyone to cite harm caused because some Muslim women wear face coverings. Like I said, Bill 62 is solution looking for problem.

I'm astounded by the people who rail at anti-Semitism, yet get behind this sort of thing. But the amazing thing is that some freeman, like Nazi Bobby Menard, don't have any problem giving tacit approval to Bill 62.

Citation provided above. BTW, you failed to detect the use of strawmen and other defects in the text you quoted as valid argument, and thus joined in a poorly framed form of ad-hom. I'll grant you, it is exceedingly rare to hear someone who is decidedly not a fan of the alt-right take Islamic teachings and practices to task, so you may be on auto-pilot. In my case, I am happy to take on any and every Big Truth that comes along making silly claims, religious or political, especially if that affects the public sphere. Basic trait of a fair skeptic unbeholden to received opinion, I'd say. So let us endeavor to take pause and ensure we are hearing what is said prior to lamenting what are, in the end, mistaken assumptions.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes

You owe a public apology for gratuitous insult unrelated to the context and intent of my prior post. Thereafter you might choose to present counter-arguments, should you have them.

No, actually, I don't because using something that happened in Cameroon to justify targeting completely unrelated individuals in Canada is literally the definition of prejudice and bigotry.

[arayder]

Let's cut to the chase, debatemiesters.

Forbidding someone from the normal practice their religion, whether it be in their worship or in their dress, is a denial of their fundamental right to practice their religion.

As such Bill 62 is a violation of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So far we've been told that Bill 62 is okay because:

1. Muslim face coverings are really culturally, not religiously based.
2. Some Muslims are bad people and do bad things.
3. Bill 62 is really about religious freedom because banding face coverings disengages the state from involvement in religious practices.
4. Not being able to see the face of a Muslim woman harms the viewer by degrading the quality of "interpersonal interactions".

But I have the trump card debatemiesters. It's the same one that's been ignored for countlessly posts. Its a question. . .What real harm is caused by Muslim women wearing face coverings?

Other than some pseudo intellectual babble about "higher order social animals" looking each other in the face, a few obfuscating "read the OP" posts and a couple whines about faulty logic there hasn't been a straight response.

That's because answer to the question is: None.

[arayder]

More from Bobby Menard's Facebook page:

Quote:

Robert Menard shared a post.
December 2 at 1:15 AM ·
So here's an opinion...

Regan Daniel
November 30 at 10:43 AM
Being concerned about a religious takeover of our country is not Islamaphobia. A phobia is an unreasonable fear with no evidence to support it. I have seen all sorts of evidence of the negative influences that religious zealots do to people that would otherwise be happy to live their lives.
If we weren't seeing the reinstatement of slave markets in areas of Muslim influence, then perhaps fearing for our ways of life wouldn't be reasonable, but in these modern times it didn't take very long for the ugly face of the Dark Ages to pop up. If we weren't seeing communities of insular Muslim populations which then tighten into urban compounds of cultural segregation, then perhaps the concerns we have could be written off as a phobia. If there is reason to fear something, then it is not a phobia. If Canadians could date immigrant girls without converting to a religion, perhaps we would feel a little more open to this influx of foreign ideas while we are being told to curtail our own reproduction in the interest of reducing greenhouse gases.
We are being sold out. Our leaders do not respect or represent the wishes of the average Canadian family. ��

Of course Bobby will opine that it's just an "opinion". But one has to ask why a self-styled proponent of individual freedom doesn't call the author out for suggesting that all Muslims should pay for the misdeeds of a few others in "areas of Muslim influence"?

I can't count the number of times Menard cried foul, saying "that's not me", when his critics pointed out the misdeeds and bad behavior of other freemen on the land.

So why should a Canadian Muslim, who has harmed no one, required to pay for the crimes of evil Muslims on the other side of the world?

[Horatius]

Quote:

If Canadians could date immigrant girls without converting to a religion

Poor Bobby, got turned down by a Muslim girl, didn't you?

[baron]

Originally Posted by arayder

More from Bobby Menard's Facebook page:



Of course Bobby will opine that it's just an "opinion". But one has to ask why a self-styled proponent of individual freedom doesn't call the author out for suggesting that all Muslims should pay for the misdeeds of a few others in "areas of Muslim influence"?

I can't count the number of times Menard cried foul, saying "that's not me", when his critics pointed out the misdeeds and bad behavior of other freemen on the land.

So why should a Canadian Muslim, who has harmed no one, required to pay for the crimes of evil Muslims on the other side of the world?

"Pay for the crimes" = "obey the law", in some parallel clown reality.

[epeeist]

Originally Posted by baron

If it did I wouldn't have asked. Your OP assumes that a cultural (and in the West, relatively recent) tradition is mandated by religion. I'm asking for evidence of that.

Originally Posted by arayder

Are you saying that the Quran does not instruct Muslim women to dress in a modest way?

Exactly. If someone genuinely believes wearing a facial covering is mandated by their religion, it's a genuine religious requirement. That other people disagree doesn't mean that that person doesn't have an honest belief that, for them, makes it a religious requirement.

Now, I agree that whether or not religious beliefs of consenting adults should be tolerated when they conflict with laws of general application is another question. But merely because not every Muslim thinks it necessary for women to hide their face or hair or whatever the individual believes, doesn't make it not, for those people, a genuinely held religious requirement. The reasons they believe it a religious requirement may relate back to culture, but it doesn't make the belief any less honestly held.

For Quebec, one thing that especially bothers me is that it's aimed at religious people, with an exception for symbols of Christianity/Catholicism in at least some contexts (e.g. Crucifix in the national assembly, Quebec calls it national even though they're a province). It's not a genuinely neutral law that happens to affect religious people, it was specifically aimed at religious people. I dislike facial coverings, because I tend to see it as fostering inequality, and I prefer exemptions if they be granted be broader than just religion (e.g. anyone with strong beliefs, secular or religious, can have consideration, not only those with strong religious beliefs?), but I still don't like the aiming at non-Catholic religions aspect.

[Whip]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Poor Bobby, got turned down by a Muslim girl, didn't you?

yep. lol

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Horatius

No, actually, I don't because using something that happened in Cameroon to justify targeting completely unrelated individuals in Canada is literally the definition of prejudice and bigotry.

Bigots never know or admit they are bigoted. They always think their attitudes are based on solid evidence.
I also think the poster in question's equating wearing a piece of clothing as part of your religion with sexuall assaulting a minor is way over the mark.
As long as they are not harming..physically..other people. let people wear what they want.
And, in answer to a statement made by the poster yes, I think there is a lot of bigotry against people who have religious beliefs at ISF. I think assuming that anybody holding religious beleifs is an idiot is a form of bigotry. I am a total skeptic when it comes to religion, but don't view peoole who don't agree with me on that to be idiots of enemies of society.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Bigots never know or admit they are bigoted. They always think their attitudes are based on solid evidence.

It's fascinating to see how many freeman on the land harbor prejudices against racial and religious minorities.

From time to time I have something good to say about freemen and in this case it is to say that most freemen find this sort of prejudice intolerable.

But in this case that praise does not extend to the self-style leader/guru of freemanism, Bobby Menard.

Just as he has no problem passing along "alternate histories" which glowingly explain Hitler and Nazism, Menard reposts the unvarnished bigotry of Regan Daniel. Bobby goes on in the Facebook discussion to call Regan "neither a bigot, zealot nor a racist".

Bobby just doesn't get it.

[baron]

Originally Posted by dudalb

As long as they are not harming..physically..other people. let people wear what they want.

Really? That's a bar that few share. You would not, I presume, be happy for people to wander around naked aside from a fez, especially if you have children. I also presume, although correct me if I'm wrong, that you wouldn't be happy to be served by a council employee wearing a Nazi uniform. I could go on but it's probably not necessary to point out the flaw in your reasoning.

The fact is, although you cite yourself as a religious skeptic, you hold religion to be above all other beliefs, whether those beliefs be nudism or Naziism. "Ah, but they're doing it because of their religion." So what?

I personally do not support a blanket ban (no pun intended) on face coverings but I do reserve the right to speak out about them. And that's when the self-serving protectors of religious freedom pop out of the woodwork to shout "Bigot!" (another word that has been stripped of meaning through indiscriminate use) and call the police. The burqa is divisive, oppressive and downright insulting garb and has no place in a progressive Western country.

[arayder]

I am again struck by the contradiction of those in western society, including so called "freemen", who bash Islam and then claim the belief that one has the freedom to do as one pleases provided doing so does not harm others.

Some of these folks claim outrage over the religious garb of Muslim women. It may be that these same folks squeal like pigs when they see Hasidic Jews, Buddhist monks, the Amish or the Quakers. . .but who has seen it? Neither, do we hear a peep from them when these religions use the force of their culture make believers dress according to the teachings of their respective religions.

I think the real problem is that some folks, including our freemen brethren, just can't handle "the other". It is interesting to note that the major religions teach their followers to welcome the stranger.

Maybe these critics need to be more like those they criticize?

[baron]

Originally Posted by arayder

I am again struck by the contradiction of those in western society, including so called "freemen", who bash Islam and then claim the belief that one has the freedom to do as one pleases provided doing so does not harm others.

Some of these folks claim outrage over the religious garb of Muslim women. It may be that these same folks squeal like pigs when they see Hasidic Jews, Buddhist monks, the Amish or the Quakers. . .but who has seen it? Neither, do we hear a peep from them when these religions use the force of their culture make believers dress according to the teachings of their respective religions.

I think the real problem is that some folks, including our freemen brethren, just can't handle "the other". It is interesting to note that the major religions teach their followers to welcome the stranger.

Maybe these critics need to be more like those they criticize?

A somewhat nebulously targeted argument.

But "...Hasidic Jews, Buddhist monks, the Amish or the Quakers. . .but who has seen it?" That's a good question. Who has seen Jews, Buddhists, Amish or Quakers going around with their faces entirely covered by a cloth bag? Because that's what this is about, right? Face covering, not modes of dress. If you've got this far without realising that then heaven help us.

Originally Posted by arayder

It is interesting to note that the major religions teach their followers to welcome the stranger.

If you're including Islam in that then I recommend some research. No other religion large or small comes close to the intolerance exhibited by Muslims against the kafir. Even as you type out your apologetics, Christians are continuing to be cleansed from the Middle East by the Muslim majority, either through persecution or outright murder.

[baron]

The Crusades in 3... 2... 1...

Note I am very careful with my tenses.

[arayder]

“You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 22:21)

"Worship Allah and associate nothing with Him, and to parents do good, and to relatives, orphans, the needy, the near neighbor, the neighbor farther away, the companion at your side, the traveler…" (An-Nisaa’ 4:36)

I have done the research. . . .