• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Denmark Plans to Limit "Non-Western" Residents in Disadvantaged Areas

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
Did I say specifically men?
That was an erroneous inference on my part, my apologies. Would you have answered the question if I had said "people" instead?
Because many of them are reluctant to acknowledge the Quran has many horribly violent passages and teachings just like they Bible, they are terrified of being labeled "Islamophobe" (and, indeed, people who are Muslim and who did come here fleeing for their lives have been labeled Islamaphobe for criticizing the cultural norms and practices that prompted them to flee in the first place), because the Loony Left has created a double standard where it's year-round open season on criticizing all things Christian but Muslims are off limits.
This is what I find so immensely frustrating about debating these culture war issues on this forum - all this talk in vague and oblique allusions with nothing concrete to hold onto, no clear reference as to what the heck anybody is talking about.

Like... just who are these "they" you are alluding to? All Muslims? Only Muslims living in Western countries? A specific undefined subset of these Muslims that we have, so far, failed to properly define or delineate?

And where have you lived in these past two decades to come to the conclusion that it's somehow not incredibly popular in Western societies to criticize, mock, harass, or even outright attack Muslims both verbally and physically? Can you name a single Western country where criticism of Muslim is factually and provably "off limits" in any shape or form? Or is this one of those "free speech" issues where certain people frequently appear to think "free speech" means "freedom from criticism", and expecting to never be called out on the opinions they voice in public or private?

And, yes, many governments around the world have banned them. Including some Muslim majority states.
Do you consider that a good thing?

That is where I am getting at they do not respect our ways. They come here and expect us to be ok with them fining women and forcing them to stay at home because you can see some of her flesh.
Being fined and forced to home IS repression. It IS taking away freedom and choice, and IS relegating women to less than fully entitled citizens.
This response has me genuinely confused about your position on the issue. Do you support burqa bans in Western countries or not?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
This is what I find so immensely frustrating about debating these culture war issues on this forum - all this talk in vague and oblique allusions with nothing concrete to hold onto, no clear reference as to what the heck anybody is talking about.
Did you miss the examples I've been giving? Muslims who come here from Muslim majority nations and expect us to cater to their ways. This has included them (male amd female) harassing our women for not being covered up to their standards. They demand we give up and limit our freedom of speech. To the point one of these radicals recently beheaded a teacher in France.
And where have you lived in these past two decades to come to the conclusion that it's somehow not incredibly popular in Western societies to criticize, mock, harass, or even outright attack Muslims both verbally and physically? Can you name a single Western country where criticism of Muslim is factually and provably "off limits" in any shape or form? Or is this one of those "free speech" issues where certain people frequently appear to think "free speech" means "freedom from criticism", and expecting to never be called out on the opinions they voice in public or private?
Maajid Nawaz and Ayan Hirsi Ali have both been labeled as Islamaphobic by the Southern Poverty Law Center. These two are Middle Eastern, they are Muslim, they did flee violence and oppression, they criticized the societal elements there that leads the troubling issues we see in many Muslim majority countries, amd for doing so they are labeled the bad guys.
Do you consider that a good thing?
Yes, I do. They are forced upon women and extremely dehumanizing because they remove all means of communication and identification but the voice. And even that is muffled.
And there should be no confusion. This is why I'm asking why is it even Muslim majority will ban the burqa, but many in the West for some inexplicable reason believe they are protecting women by viewing the burqa as something they have a choice in wearing and would naturally want to wear without anyone forcing her and raising her to believe it's appropriate.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
Did you miss the examples I've been giving? Muslims who come here from Muslim majority nations and expect us to cater to their ways. This has included them (male amd female) harassing our women for not being covered up to their standards. They demand we give up and limit our freedom of speech. To the point one of these radicals recently beheaded a teacher in France.

Is a woman wearing traditional clothing "expecting us to cater to their ways"? Or is she merely taking part in the free expression of her own identity that is, allegedly, one of the core values of Western civilization?*



Maajid Nawaz and Ayan Hirsi Ali have both been labeled as Islamaphobic by the Southern Poverty Law Center. These two are Middle Eastern, they are Muslim, they did flee violence and oppression, they criticized the societal elements there that leads the troubling issues we see in many Muslim majority countries, amd for doing so they are labeled the bad guys.
And since you agree with them, the SPLC must be wrong.


Yes, I do. They are forced upon women and extremely dehumanizing because they remove all means of communication and identification but the voice. And even that is muffled.

So we have arrived at the counterintuitive position that forcing dresscodes on women is a net good for society, because otherwise these women might be forced to dress in other ways instead. In essence, we are now argueing which enforced dresscode is superior, and which code therefore all women must submit to.

What we have abandoned with this position, is questioning why we force women into dresscodes in the first place.


And there should be no confusion. This is why I'm asking why is it even Muslim majority will ban the burqa, but many in the West for some inexplicable reason believe they are protecting women by viewing the burqa as something they have a choice in wearing and would naturally want to wear without anyone forcing her and raising her to believe it's appropriate.
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that almost nobody in the West actually wears a burqa to begin with.

*) It isn't really, of course, but us Westerns enjoy fooling ourselves into thinking that it is
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Is a woman wearing traditional clothing "expecting us to cater to their ways"? Or is she merely taking part in the free expression of her own identity that is, allegedly, one of the core values of Western civilization?*
The burqa is not traditional.
And I am referring to Muslim men and women who come here from places like Iran or Afghanistan, places where the adherence of Islam is extreme, and harass our women for not being covered enough to their standards. They complain when we eat when it is their holy month they observe. They do try to set up zones where they enforce Sharia law.
They are being rude guests who are inconsiderate and impolite towards their host.

And since you agree with them, the SPLC must be wrong.
In this case they are wrong amd are trigger happy when it comes to labeling any criticism against Islam or Muslim majority societies as Islamaphobic.
So we have arrived at the counterintuitive position that forcing dresscodes on women is a net good for society, because otherwise these women might be forced to dress in other ways instead. In essence, we are now argueing which enforced dresscode is superior, and which code therefore all women must submit to.
Women should be able to wear what they want. The burqa and niqaab, however, are both birthed in an ideology so extreme and absurd that a woman is held guilty for her own rape unless a man speaks on her behalf.
I still hold in my position no one, man or woman, would chose to wear such a thing in sound health.

What we have abandoned with this position, is questioning why we force women into dresscodes in the first place.
Religion has a very long and well established history of doing this. Even Christianity has some ludicrous and absurd restrictions no one would accept. And we don't uphold those ideals or practice them anymore.
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that almost nobody in the West actually wears a burqa to begin with.
That's because they are a thing of Islamic extremism, and we don't have much of that in the West. Most Muslims who come here are fleeing such heinous and atrocious repressions.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
The burqa is not traditional.
I wasn't talking about the burqa. There is plenty of opposition to women wearing traditional Middle Eastern garb. Should we ban them from wearing headscarves, for example? Hardly any non-Muslim women wear headscarves, after all, so clearly banning such a piece of cloth must make people more free as a result.

And I am referring to Muslim men and women who come here from places like Iran or Afghanistan, places where the adherence of Islam is extreme, and harass our women for not being covered enough to their standards. They complain when we eat when it is their holy month they observe. They do try to set up zones where they enforce Sharia law.
They are being rude guests who are inconsiderate and impolite towards their host.
Dressing according to our own gender identity in public in the way we personally choose is not rude, is is the fundamental way we express ourselves, our culture and our identities publically in human civilization.

If somebody were to prescribe a dress code for you, would you be happy about it, say politely "thank you for granting me this freedom", or would you rather resist and choose your own way to dress and look in public? I am going to venture a guess that it would be the latter, not the former.
And yet, you seek to deny that option to women whose dress code you disapprove of, based on whatever values you infer from their sense of dress.

Women should be able to wear what they want. The burqa and niqaab, however, are both birthed in an ideology so extreme and absurd that a woman is held guilty for her own rape unless a man speaks on her behalf.
I still hold in my position no one, man or woman, would chose to wear such a thing in sound health.
If nobody chose to wear a burqa or niqab of their own volition anyway, then why would we need to draft a law specifically so that the women who wear them can be punished by our police? This whole chain of logic just doesn't compute.


  • Either the women who wear them are being oppressed - in which case, punishing a woman for something she did not choose to do is not only cruel, it is downright sadistic, and I would argue, also misogynistic on top of that.
  • Or the women who wear them are doing so of their own volition - in which case, you are very emphatically argueing that they should not be allowed to wear whatever they want, but are rather only allowed to pick from a limited selection of politically and culturally approved garments.
Religion has a very long and well established history of doing this. Even Christianity has some ludicrous and absurd restrictions no one would accept. And we don't uphold those ideals or practice them anymore.
You think so? I know a few places I've worked that prescribed certain skirt lengths for their female employees, based on the premise that showing too much leg would be inappropriate. How is that not directly derived from religious strictures on the female body that we have internalized both personally and collectively as a culture?
That's because they are a thing of Islamic extremism, and we don't have much of that in the West. Most Muslims who come here are fleeing such heinous and atrocious repressions.
Fortunately, being fined or jailed for wearing the wrong piece of clothing is not repression, but will only make them freer and more Western as a result!
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
You seem fairly sure that the cultural backgrounds of a subset of migrants have nothing to do with the problem. To what factors would you attribute the sexist attitudes (which sometimes result in sexual assault) demonstrated by some refugees in Sweden, for example?

Supposedly Sweden changed their definition of "rape," so more actions were included in the term. That's what I heard anyway.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I think the only flaw in this idea is the labeling. It's not about "non-westerners". It's about de-concentrating people who are socially and economically disadvantaged to avoid creating pockets of intense poverty and crime.

It's not a new idea. The city of Chicago has been doing this for decades, after having spent prior decades doing it the wrong way around, only to create horrifically dense concentrations of poverty and crime in big public housing projects, as a way of keeping it 'out of sight and out of mind' of the rest of the city's residents. So for the last 30 years they have been tearing down those projects and spreading the poor throughout the rest of the city's neighborhoods to avoid creating powerful criminal enclaves, and hopefully help the poor to assimilate better into the city's mainstream.
And everyone knows how low crime and poverty are in Chicago.
 
Top