What the actual fuck is all this about?
That’s what the French Riviera wants to know. So much so that they don’t want it on their beaches. That, friends, is what they are dubbing a “burkini”. This is a way for Muslim women to enjoy the beach while adhering to the Koranic dictate for women’s modesty .
Now when I read the Koran, I never ran into anything in it that demanded that woman cover herself the way that so many Muslim women do. It’s rather unspecific; the term is “modest”. I think we’ve all seen how far that’s been taken. And I really don’t think Muhammad intended for women to suffer discomfort or shame because of the weather. I’ve been to the big sandbox-it’s like being under a broiler. Then again, who knows because Muhammad was insane, believing he had talked to God.
The French beaches are wrong to discriminate against burkini wearers. As fucking stupid as it is to wear one, there is nothing inherently wrong with it. There’s no talking anyone out of their absurd religious beliefs. If a woman wants to roast in a full body wetsuit, let ’em have at it. Forbidding them from public space is only going to make their communities more isolated. You’re not teaching them anything-perhaps you think you are engineering liberation, but really you are fostering intolerance and discrimination. Leave them alone. It’s probably tough enough as it is to be a Muslim woman living in a doctrinaire household, where your husband can slap you around with God’s blessing.
We are cursed with the scourge of religion everywhere we look in this world. Yet in America, we are entreatied by our highest laws to respect it. As a nonbeliever here, I have to walk a fine line, wishing for its dissolution while acknowledging its importance to people. The French, who are more secular than we are, should be more practical about assimilating its Muslim community. It goes against all my fibers to rule in favor of respecting strict Islamic women’s dress codes, but it can’t be stopped just by covering women even more.
Maybe I’m missing something, but we do have one legal system in America, do we not? One story makes me think otherwise:
A bill that would have made Sharia law an illegal defense in South Carolina courts was narrowly defeated in the Senate Wednesday after no discussion.
The bill, sponsored by Republican Rep. Chip Limehouse, would have prevented an attorney from arguing that the laws of a client’s home country allow for certain actions.
Sharia law is the legal framework where the public and some private aspects of life are regulated under legal systems based on Islam.
Now if there’s one thing I hate, it’s making me agree with a conservative. I’m sorry; I’m not “Mr. Law and Order” but I still believe in the primacy of our native judicial system.
I must be missing something. I wish someone who is a Muslim would reach out and see my plea for clarity.
As anti-gay laws sweep across the country after the marriage ruling, we see the main theme is simple-people can no longer “practice their faith” without the ability to discriminate.
Eventually, the high courts will rid us of these scourges and we can have a more just society.
I’m sick to death of all of it. I’m tired of the faithful trying to get their way at the expense of others. I’m tired of having to soothe them and succor them. Their special snowflake proclivities have got to go.
Now I know, I know the government can’t curtail freedom to practice one’s faith. This pernicious little clause has been the source of much controversy. I yield to the document. I don’t like it, but I yield. But you better be on terra firma when you exercise this right.
I want to approach this “religious freedom” thing in another way. In no way am I relating the push for freedom above with the push for freedom below. It’s just on my mind a lot lately.
I’m known to love an underdog. Which is why I usually defend American Muslims who want to be respected as they practice their religion. Maybe I shouldn’t give them special preference because as I said, what’s good for the goose ain’t good for the gander. So it is with regret that I find favor towards the Citadel in disallowing the traditional headdress of a Muslim woman to be worn while training. Islam and the military have something in common with each other when it comes to adornment. All men are shorn to the skin and are not allowed to have facial hair during training. Women, in training and in regular service, must keep their hair up so it does not pass their collar. What I’m trying to say is that there’s an enforced modesty and a rejection of finery in the military-one that I believe satisfies the requirements laid down in the Koran (it is, if I remember right, not terribly specific as to how a woman should dress necessarily, it seems that the coverings evolved as the religion did).
It looks like CAIR is going to address this; there is, in one sense something to abridging one’s religious freedom here, and that applies to the armed services. But I think we’re going a bit too far-you can’t just practice your faith whenever it pleases you, just as you cannot always speak or assemble wherever you wish.
Maybe I’m just an ex-soldier griping about change in the military, something I never thought I would do. Maybe I’m just a cranky atheist who’s tired of religious exemptions and special treatment for believers. You tell me. Personally, I think all this covering of women is bullshit and I can’t believe so many women choose to cloak themselves and perhaps that’s what my problem is. I can’t tell.
One may or may not cause the other, but both of them together often produces a tragedy:
A Muslim nanny, accused of decapitating a baby girl in her care and brandishing her severed head outside a metro station in Russia, smiled at the cameras after confessing that Allah ordered her to carry out the heinous act.
In pictures that shocked the world, the hijab-wearing woman was seen strutting the streets of Moscow with the severed head of Nastya Meshcheryakova in her hands for as long as an hour until the police finally arrived at the scene and detained her.
According to witnesses, Bobokulova shouted in the street, “I hate democracy. I am a terrorist. I want you dead. You have become so hardened, you have eliminated so many of us. Look, I am a suicide bomber. I will die. Doomsday will come in a second,” before pulling out the baby’s severed head from a red bag and swaying it in front of the entrance to the metro station.
Bobokulova’s appearance in court came a day after police officials revealed that the nanny kept her schizophrenia a secret after a bitter divorce led to her being homeless.
I don’t want to give the impression that her faith did that. No faith tells you to kill children (the Bible does come close, though-you won’t find it in the Koran). What I find more interesting is how the mentally ill use religion to justify what they do when they lose their fucking minds like this disgusting bitch did. In this sense, they are intertwined. Is it guilt by association? You be the judge.
Oh, great. It’s time for the “Things Donald Trump Will Look At And What A Great Thing He Will Do To Fix It” game:
Donald Trump went on Fox Business Wednesday and said he would emulate the British government and not only revoke passports but close mosques in the United States in order to fight the Islamic State.
Stuart Varney: “Now, in the UK, in Britain, they’ve obviously got a terror problem. They’ve got a lot of youngsters going over to fight for ISIS, about — just under 1,000 are going over there, and they’ve got a whole new series of proposals to deal with this, including withdrawal of passports from some of these people who’ve gone over just to fight-“
Trump: “Absolutely. Good, good.”
Varney: “…and closing some mosques. Would you do the same thing in America?”
Trump: “I would do that. Absolutely, I think it’s great.”
Trump: “Well, I don’t know. I mean, I haven’t heard about the closing of the mosque. It depends, if the mosque is, you know, loaded for bear, I don’t know. You’re going to have to certainly look at it. But I can tell you one thing ,if somebody goes over and they want to fight for ISIS, they wouldn’t be coming back.”
No shit, Donald. I’m pretty sure that anyone we find who has fought with ISIS or any other terrorist group is going to see himself or herself not treated well upon their return. What’s a “loaded for bear” mosque? Would anyone like to get back to me as to what that means?
I loved how he backtracked on this “great” idea after Varney brought up freedom of religion. But I’m willing to let that slide-he got stopped in medias res and muddied the water. That’s a whole lot more than I can say for the person breathing down his neck in this crazy race.
Ben Carson never gets put back on his heels like this.
That’s primarily because he doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
I can appreciate someone who tries to tread into unfamiliar territory while learning someone else’s culture. We should all stretch a little to expand our knowledge of the greater world around us.
But I have a real problem with using these little bits of knowledge to disparage those cultures.
Ben Carson has learned a new word. Oh, he already fancies himself a keen scholar on ‘Shari’a’. All conservatives shit their pants when the specter of Islamic law looms, threatening to take over our justice system. Believing this is lunacy and reeks of kneejerk bigotry. If you are here, you are bound by our laws, and no court anywhere is going to adjudicate based on the principles of your religion. Just won’t happen(although I do worry about raving Christians like Judge Moore who happily barf their beliefs up into their courtrooms). But try to tell that to a con.
Ben, expert on Islam such as he is, wants to tell us about “taqiyya”.
In an interview with The Hill after his “Meet The Press” appearance, Carson repeatedly brought up the concept of “taqiyya,” a concept in Shia Islamic law that’s historically given dispensation to Muslims to conceal their religion if they’re facing dangerous persecution. Carson defined the word as “a component of Shia that allows, and even encourages you to lie to achieve your goals.”
“Because obviously if a Muslim was running for president, there would be a lot more education about Sharia, about taqiyya,” Carson said.
Obviously. But there it is-Muslims can recant their faith if they are facing persecution. That simply isn’t the same as “lying” to people to serve some sinister purpose. Any sociopath can do this, let alone a Muslim. Hell, our whole foreign policy rests on lies like this. George W. Bush’s war, for example. We lied our asses off to get into Iraq so we could spread utter disorder, sell the country to the highest bidder, and provide oodles of contracts to Dick Cheney’s business associates.
It’s the same kind of bullshit that made “jihad” into a household word. Anyone who has done the slightest bit of research knows that jihad refers mainly to a struggle with oneself to be a good Muslim.
Ben Carson has clearly been instructed by the worst our media has to offer. He may be a good doctor, but he’s a shitty historian and anthropologist. I mean, fuck, why does he have any credibility regarding the mind of a Muslim? Has he even bothered to pick up a Koran? I guess he doesn’t need to, because his type of baseless demagoguery is what brings people in line with him.
Let me be clear; I am not a fan of any religion. But it probably looks like I just bash Christians.
I need to be more, er, inclusive in my disdain. It only seems like I have a bone to pick with Christians-but that’s only because you are the dominant religion in America. You’re everywhere, and I catch you looking stupid more often than I do any other faith.
I’ll fix it. I think that this picture I am about to post is fucking awesome and should be shared like crazy.
There, I’ve insulted someone else. Thank you, Atheist Republic. Up you go on the ‘roll.