The Devil allows freedom of all false religions but not the true one.

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because:

(1) Act on knowledge (knowing is not enough)
(2)Interpretation matters of Quran and Sunnah
(3) Provide proofs to people their interpretation is correct to be elected (or at least try their best to convince majority through proper proofs)
(4)Held accountable if they go wrong and become corrupt.

Then elections is not the way to go about it.
What you want is a test to check for credentials and qualifications.
Who it is, is literally unimportant. So elections would not serve you well, if this is your goal.

 

[Link]

Then elections is not the way to go about it.
What you want is a test to check for credentials and qualifications.
Who it is, is literally unimportant. So elections would not serve you well, if this is your goal.

Who is going to decide who has best credentials. Maybe you are right though. Maybe we should elect experts on this and they elect the leader. I don't know.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What if a religion taught racism towards blacks is holy and sacred, should they be allowed to propagate that in public?

You're changing the topic. The topic is not racism.

There are limits to freedom of religion

Ow? Does that go for your religion as well, or just all others?

Human sacrifices,

My hypothetical religion doesn't advocate human sacrifices. Another red herring.

Sexual corruption leads to people going into prostitutions which leads to slavery of some of those prostitutes, and human trafficking, which leads to even children being human trafficked.

Another red herring.
My hypothetical religion is against human trafficking and against prostitution.

The Quran in both places it talked about scarf (hijaab) did it contrast with the other extreme which is forced prostitution.

Another red herring.

And if you don't control the urges, the result, is as today: human trafficking including that of children is rampant in the world including the west.

Another red herring.


If you don't want to answer the challenge, just say so, instead of wasting both our time as well as webspace.


So, same questions.
Try again.

 

[Link]

Or we can elect experts, and they elect some candidates that we can vote for (all have credentials), and we then decide.

 

[Link]

I answered you. Sexual corruption leads to the other things whether your religion promotes them or not, it's important to tackle sexual corruption in society for the reasons I stated (it ends up creating human trafficking in black-market).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They aren't allowed wearing in public places, how can they wear it in work places? Come on dude.

I have already corrected your mistake on that one, why are you repeating it?
The public places ban concerns FULL FACE COVERINGS. Not hijabs.

Seriously....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sikhs for example the men should be able to wear head covering.
If it's mandated by their religion, what's wrong with wearing it. You are trying to justify what has no justification. Secularism gone to extreme.

When you work in governmental services, then you represent the state.
The state is secular.

The rule is that people working in public service shall not exhibit religious affiliation.
It's a simple rule. There's nothing extreme about it.

It goes for everyone. Shiks, buddhists, jews, christians, hindu's, muslims, scientologists, ............
Yet muslims like you are the only ones complaining.

Why?
If it's that important to you, just get a job elsewhere, like all those from those other faiths are doing.

Also, why do you make it all about muslims? Why do you pretend as if this is a "muslim oppression" law?
Again, I challenge you to look up the actual law.

You'll notice that it won't be mentioning "islam", "hijab", "quran", or anything similar like that. It doesn't mention a single religion. It mentions "religious affiliation".

 

[Link]

I have already corrected your mistake on that one, why are you repeating it?
The public places ban concerns FULL FACE COVERINGS. Not hijabs.

Seriously....

The wikipedia link said this:

Banning of full face covering in public[edit]
Main article: French ban on face covering
In 2010, a public debate arose and France passed a law that bans the wearing of full-face covering, including but not limited to burqas and niqābs, in public. The law was constitutionally cleared so that it came into force in April 2011. That debate and ban are separate from the above-discussed debate on the hijab in public schools, in that the new law does not pertain to Islamic scarves but rather to the much rarer full-face versions, as well as other full-face coverings (such as masks and balaclavas), and in that the new law applies to all citizens in public spaces regardless of religion or claimed tradition (and regardless of gender).



You are mixing that ban, with the Hijaab. The ban to Burqas was way before ban to Hijaab.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Whether there are some Muslims out there who disagree or not, the fact is it's clear in the Quran, with no wiggle room out of it in the linguistics. So they can choose to not believe in it, but it's still there in Quran if they ever want to check the verse out.

Please don't be so arrogant as if you are the only one who has read the book.
Did I mention that half my family is actually muslim?

Perhaps not in your no-true-scottsman book though.
But they are muslim.

You didn't expect that, did you?
Well, it's true. I'm a second generation immigrant with a belgian mother.

FYI: I can assure you that not a single one of them wants to live in an islamic theocracy. And several of them are quite serious about their religion. You might have difficulty comprehending that in this black and white world bubble you have created for yourself.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's complicated and there are many reasons, they aren't your business, and I can do good here too and don't mind living in Canada.

It doesn't sound like you don't mind it though........................

 

[Link]

I don't have anything against your family of Muslims but simply with my experience of Muslims, I find you hard to trust in what you are saying.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Who is going to decide who has best credentials.

There you go.

The reason why every theocracy fails eventually.

 

[Link]

There you go.

The reason why every theocracy fails eventually.

Let's see who will fail.

 

[Clara Tea]

There is battle between good and evil, one side will be in heaven and the other in hell.

In heaven, we'll drop angel food cake so you can bake it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I answered you. Sexual corruption leads to the other things whether your religion promotes them or not, it's important to tackle sexual corruption in society for the reasons I stated (it ends up creating human trafficking in black-market).

You didn't answer anything.
You just repeated your bare assertion and then started rambling on with one red herring after the other.
And then added some more bare assertions.

It's clear that you aren't able to properly address the challenge.
I assume you don't want to because you know how it will expose the obvious hypocrisy.

 

[Link]

It is the answer the Quran gives even as to why Hijaab is commanded. This is why I believe enforcing Hijaab by the structure of human rights (I took philosophy of human rights course) should be implemented by government and ensued in the constitution. Because the Quran introduces it as the only way along with other commands (but this is part of it) to stop sexual corruption and put an end to forced human trafficking. That's why it contrasts the Hijaab with it, to show, we either going to this extreme (hijaab, modest, etc) or the other extreme where black market does human trafficking. I believe the wisdom in putting Hijab is to control desires and urges and put limits in male to female interaction and make them modest with another. The Hijaab is not enough, but the Sunnah and Quran explaining modesty has to be taken too.

And human rights is such that if there is a greater good for society (which I believe Hijaab is) and it takes not a lot of sacrifice in terms of money or other hardships that can ensue (like much time from the citizens or something), then it should be implemented.

The only refutation to the greater good is why not men. And that's different avenue and has it's own reply.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The wikipedia link said this:

Banning of full face covering in public[edit]
Main article: French ban on face covering
In 2010, a public debate arose and France passed a law that bans the wearing of full-face covering, including but not limited to burqas and niqābs, in public. The law was constitutionally cleared so that it came into force in April 2011. That debate and ban are separate from the above-discussed debate on the hijab in public schools, in that the new law does not pertain to Islamic scarves but rather to the much rarer full-face versions, as well as other full-face coverings (such as masks and balaclavas), and in that the new law applies to all citizens in public spaces regardless of religion or claimed tradition (and regardless of gender).



You are mixing that ban, with the Hijaab

Errrrrrrr.... no, that's what YOU are doing.

Here's what you said:

They aren't allowed wearing in public places, how can they wear it in work places? Come on dude.
Work place is understood to be public.

And the topic we were talking about was the HIJAB

The ban to Burqas was way before ban to Hijaab.

Again, there is no general ban for hijabs at work places like you keep claiming.

Is it Legal to Ban the Hijab in the French Workplace? | Le Club de Mediapart

The short answer to the question in the title is "no".
The long answer is "sometimes, when there are justifiable professional reasons".

They give the example of a secular nursery where the caretakers are in constant and close contact with children and parents of all kinds of faiths and backgrounds.

Again, inform yourself.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let's see who will fail.

We have already seen.

Societal health indexes are a thing.
The higher the religiosity of a country, especially when it's state imposed through theocracy, the lower the societal health.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is the answer the Quran gives even as to why Hijaab is commanded. This is why I believe enforcing Hijaab by the structure of human rights (I took philosophy of human rights course) should be implemented by government and ensued in the constitution. Because the Quran introduces it as the only way along with other commands (but this is part of it) to stop sexual corruption and put an end to forced human trafficking. That's why it contrasts the Hijaab with it, to show, we either going to this extreme (hijaab, modest, etc) or the other extreme where black market does human trafficking. I believe the wisdom in putting Hijab is to control desires and urges and put limits in male to female interaction and make them modest with another. The Hijaab is not enough, but the Sunnah and Quran explaining modesty has to be taken too.

And human rights is such that if there is a greater good for society (which I believe Hijaab is) and it takes not a lot of sacrifice in terms of money or other hardships that can ensue (like much time from the citizens or something), then it should be implemented.

The only refutation to the greater good is why not men. And that's different avenue and has it's own reply.

Still arguing a red herring.
Still ignoring the point made.
Still putting your own religion above all others.

Still exposing your hypocrisy when you speak about "freedom of religion".

 

[Link]

The sometimes, is actually, the norm now isn't it not?

Employers cannot enforce a total ban on all displays and expressions of religious belief within their company. However, they are allowed to restrict religious freedom, provided that such restrictions are justified by the specific nature of the employee’s duties and that they are proportionate to the objective sought (Code du travail art. L. 1121-1).

Therefore, corporate bylaws can include restrictions on expressions of religious belief, provided that this twofold condition of justification and proportionality is met (Code du travail art. L. 1321-3, 2°).

This is what it says... but people are doing it on Hijaab or am I wrong in this?

Opinion polls suggest the public are overwhelmingly in favour of a ban on religious symbols at work – some 84 percent according to a 2014 poll.

This is from: French firms told they can ban staff from wearing Muslim headscarves at work - The Local