PDA

View Full Version : Religious Freedom



clocker
05-27-2003, 08:36 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted on Tue, May. 27, 2003

Veil photo on license to get test in court

ORLANDO - (AP) -- Nine months after Sultaana Freeman obtained a Florida driver's license that had a photo of her face covered in a veil, she received a letter from the state warning that it would revoke her license unless she returned for a photo with her face uncovered.

The 35-year-old Muslim refused, saying that revealing her face would violate her beliefs, and the license was revoked. A judge today will begin hearing her lawsuit, which seeks to have her license reinstated. The case pits religious freedom against the state's argument that allowing hidden faces on driver's licenses would put public safety at risk.

Freeman's attorney, Howard Marks, who was hired by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, said that his client believes that taking a photograph of her face would violate the Koran, the Muslim holy book.

''She believes her religion prohibits taking pictures of facial features,'' Marks said.

SAFETY ARGUMENT

But Florida's attorneys argue that having a license photo in which the driver's face is readily identifiable is an issue of public safety.

The veil reveals only Freeman's eyes.

''Driver's license photos are used by police officers in many circumstances, from using the digital images in a computer data bank to help identify criminals, missing persons, victims of crime,'' said Jason Vail, an assistant attorney general. ``The photo is the primary biometric measure for determining identity.''

Other religious Muslim women have their uncovered faces photographed for their licenses, and the driver's license bureau can make special arrangements, such as asking all men in the area to leave when a religious woman has her face exposed for the picture, Vail said.

''Our position is lifting her veil for the photograph doesn't violate her religious beliefs,'' Vail said.

Both sides plan to call experts on Muslim law.

But Marks said that is beside the point since a person's beliefs don't have to be part of a greater religious doctrine to be protected under Florida law.

''Whether one Muslim woman does it or two Muslim women do it, as long as my client believes her religious beliefs prohibit it,'' Marks said. ``It is not for the court to be an arbiter of religious scripture.''

OTHER STATES

Many other states issue driver's licenses without photographs, and Florida issues thousands of driver's training permits annually that don't have photos, Marks said. Other courts also have ruled that fundamentalist Christians who also have religious prohibitions against having their photographs taken can get licenses without one.

Freeman, a housewife who moved from Illinois more than two years ago, received the letter warning that her driver's license would be revoked three months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Marks said it was not a coincidence.

Vail denied any relation.

''It had nothing to do with [the attacks],'' Vail said. ``The timing was coincidence.''

source: The Miami Herald 5/27/03

So, she can't show her face, but she can drive a car?

J'Pol
05-27-2003, 08:46 PM
In the UK everyone must wear a crash helmet if they are riding a motorcycle on the Queen's highway.

However if someone's religeous beliefs demand that they wear a turban (my apologies if that is the wrong terminology) then they do not have to wear a safety helmet.

I am of the opinion that, if a law exists then it should be the same for everyone. Anything else is discrimination, whether negative or positive.

In your case my opinion is that, if a photographic licence is required, then it is required. If someone does not have one then they should not be allowed to drive. It is her decision not to get the licence, therefore it is her who is controlling this situation.

But you know I take a very simple view of these issues.

clocker
05-27-2003, 08:50 PM
OMG!
We agree!

J'Pol
05-27-2003, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by clocker@27 May 2003 - 21:50
OMG!
We agree!
Would you like to take a contrary postition or should I.

I'm not fussed either way. Tell you what I will argue that the state is wrong and she is right.

OK

ShockAndAwe^i^
05-27-2003, 09:35 PM
OMG
I agree as well.
It's totally ridiculous.
Driving is a privilege not a right.

hobbes
05-27-2003, 11:42 PM
I think all women should have topless photos, for that extra information when an identity is in question.

If women choose not to get a license, that is their decision.

I also think it should be legal to shoot any person talking on a cell phone in their car.

J'Pol
05-27-2003, 11:50 PM
Again I couldn't agree more.

It appears the right thinking element have at last arrived in the same place.

It must be the Universal Law of diminishing entropy.

clocker
05-28-2003, 12:41 AM
Yeah, that must be it.

myfiles3000
05-28-2003, 01:08 AM
ah, you whitebread, milquetoast honky crackers. the challenging of culturally-biased state policies is the status quo, whether you like it or not, so sit there and complain. But don't be mistaken, history will paint you the savages.

clocker
05-28-2003, 01:14 AM
Requiring a visible face in a drivers license photo is a culturally biased state policy?

clocker
05-28-2003, 01:17 AM
http://www.lysistrataproject.org/assets/veiled_pakistani_women.jpg

Yes officer, I'm sure. The second from the left.
How could I ever forget those pupils?

myfiles3000
05-28-2003, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by clocker@28 May 2003 - 02:14
Requiring a visible face in a drivers license photo is a culturally biased state policy?
well, lets just stop and think about it for a second -- is there such a culture that fundamentally rejects the taking of photographs? if yes, proceed to question 2: does the state demand photos under certain circumstances? if yes, then you have a culturally-biased state policy.

technology and bureacracy don't evolve in a vacuum, they are shaped by many things, including cultural values. cracker.

clocker
05-28-2003, 01:41 AM
Ah, I see your point myfiles.
Too bad for her that the US isn't an Islamic state, eh?
And I guess that forcing American women to comply with Islamic dress codes when they visit is somehow totally different?

Of course it is. They couldn't be wrong.
They are not, after all, culturally biased American crackers. ;)

hobbes
05-28-2003, 01:47 AM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@28 May 2003 - 02:08
ah, you whitebread, milquetoast honky crackers. the challenging of culturally-biased state policies is the status quo, whether you like it or not, so sit there and complain. But don't be mistaken, history will paint you the savages.
This is awesome, I'm going to be rich!

First, I obtain a license and hide my face.

I then "lose" it, lather rinse repeat.

Do you know how many adolescents want a fake ID to enter bars?

Next, I get my veiled passport..... Who wants an anonymous passport?

To be serious, I think anyone who refuses a picture needs to offer a legitimate substitute, like a fingerprint. Unfortunately, this is a cumbersome alternative as computer matching would be necessary.

How about an artist sketch?

Well Myfiles, being critical takes no talent, propose a solution so we may become edukated.

clocker
05-28-2003, 01:55 AM
Hobbes it's always a pleasure to see you posting up here.

Now if I didn't have to clean up these fu*king pellets!

MagicNakor
05-28-2003, 02:08 AM
Now, I think the Amish/Mennonite/related groups (some of them) also prohibit the taking of personal photographs.

:ninja:

hobbes
05-28-2003, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by MagicNakor@28 May 2003 - 03:08
Now, I think the Amish/Mennonite/related groups (some of them) also prohibit the taking of personal photographs.

:ninja:
And they ride horses and buggies and make candy. They also don't believe in electricity or driving cars.

They DO believe in long, hot, wet kisses that last for hours, but that's a different story.


Sorry, I couldn't wait....

http://www.nolmsted.k12.oh.us/nohs/Building/Photo/images/Mvc-097f.jpg

myfiles3000
05-28-2003, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by hobbes@28 May 2003 - 02:47
To be serious, I think anyone who refuses a picture needs to offer a legitimate substitute, like a fingerprint. Unfortunately, this is a cumbersome alternative as computer matching would be necessary.

How about an artist sketch?

Well Myfiles, being critical takes no talent, propose a solution so we may may be edukated.
hobbes, i think you answer your own question: artist sketch. plus any combination of other technologies that just might have to be refined/developed/employed to prevent society from unfairly burdening certain members of society.

I realize most of you think I'm a pain in the ass. what you may not know is that is precisely my goal -- there is way too much agreement on this board to be healthy. a good chunk of you aren't nearly as interested in debating, as you are in having your own opinions echoed in the words of others. the world is an incredibly complex place, and you can either embrace the complexity, and wrestle with it, or sit back and criticize. just remember, as my current idol christopher hitchens is fond of saying, you need heat to have light.

or, in the words of Mr. Wolf, "Hang on a second here, guys, before we all start sucking eachothers' dicks..."

hobbes
05-28-2003, 02:49 AM
Originally posted by myfiles3000+28 May 2003 - 03:31--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfiles3000 @ 28 May 2003 - 03:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--hobbes@28 May 2003 - 02:47
To be serious, I think anyone who refuses a picture needs to offer a legitimate substitute, like a fingerprint.* Unfortunately, this is a cumbersome alternative as computer matching would be necessary.

How about an artist sketch?

Well Myfiles, being critical takes no talent, propose a solution so we may may be edukated.
hobbes, i think you answer your own question: artist sketch. plus any combination of other technologies that just might have to be refined/developed/employed to prevent society from unfairly burdening certain members of society.

I realize most of you think I&#39;m a pain in the ass. what you may not know is that is precisely my goal -- there is way too much agreement on this board to be healthy. a good chunk of you aren&#39;t nearly as interested in debating, as you are in having your own opinions echoed in the words of others. the world is an incredibly complex place, and you can either embrace the complexity, and wrestle with it, or sit back and criticize. just remember, as my current idol christopher hitchens is fond of saying, you need heat to have light.

or, in the words of Mr. Wolf, "Hang on a second here, guys, before we all start sucking eachothers&#39; dicks..."[/b][/quote]
Yes, I understand the need to show the other perspective.

But pick your battles, don&#39;t be a quibbler or you will become as trivial as the flag waver who heralds every fart by Dubyah to be a message from God.

Intellectual honesty is all that we care about, not someone who takes a position and makes every square peg fit into his round hole, regardless of how much he has to distort it.

Sometimes we will all agree on something, but don&#39;t disrespect me by thinking I&#39;m some sort of Clocker, J2K4 back slapping drinking buddy.

J2 and I have serious issues when it comes to Rush Limbaugh, but we do respect the integrity of the others position.

The main thing we want from you is this. When you post something, we want to repect the honesty of your position and not get some knee-jerk anti-American response. A post to consider, then respond to, appreciating it&#39;s merits and commenting on it&#39;s deficiencies.

Don&#39;t disrespect ole Hobbes, I am my own man, and my posts reflect this.

sArA
05-28-2003, 02:58 AM
Originally posted by hobbes@28 May 2003 - 00:42
I think all women should have topless photos, for that extra information when an identity is in question.


I also think that all men should have full monty pics on their drivers licences.....legitimately to catch flashers and rapists etc&#33; lol.

hobbes
05-28-2003, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by sara5564+28 May 2003 - 03:58--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sara5564 @ 28 May 2003 - 03:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--hobbes@28 May 2003 - 00:42
I think all women should have topless photos, for that extra information when an identity is in question.


I also think that all men should have full monty pics on their drivers licences.....legitimately to catch flashers and rapists etc&#33; lol. [/b][/quote]
Now I&#39;m regretting that candy cane tattoo I have on my p*nis.

clocker
05-28-2003, 03:22 AM
Originally posted by hobbes@27 May 2003 - 21:01

Now I&#39;m regretting that candy cane tattoo I have on my p*nis.
Surely this isn&#39;t the first time?

j2k4
05-28-2003, 04:49 AM
I will admit at the outset a lack of familiarity with the Islamic strictures regarding the viewing of the female visage. :P

Not to sound totally stupid, but what would be the Islamic rationale for a woman "of the faith" to be allowed to look at her own face (for example, to pick a zit)? Is this allowed?

Or this: An Islamic woman develops a carcinoma on her nose/chin/cheek-is she precluded from seeking medical treatment?

If the visage cannot be viewed, can it be touched? If so, who may do the touching? Do members of the medical profession have some sort of dispensation with regard to this rule?

How are we (or anybody else) to assure ourselves these people are, indeed, women?

Seems alot of weaponry could be stashed under the voluminous garb they wear-should we be concerned?

Will the wearing of a veil become criteria for a renewed spate of &#39;profiling&#39;?

Could a female caucasian who was on the FBI&#39;s &#39;Ten Most-Wanted List&#39; convert to Islam in an attempt to wear the veil and thus escape detection?

So many questions-

Here is another:

What ever became of assimilation? Wasn&#39;t that, at one time, a critical ingredient in "The Great Melting Pot"?

If you want to hew to religious teachings, fine-if that same impetus somehow precludes your becoming a licensed driver, why shouldn&#39;t that also be fine? :huh:

myfiles3000
05-28-2003, 05:03 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@28 May 2003 - 05:49
If you want to hew to religious teachings, fine-if that same impetus somehow precludes your becoming a licensed driver, why shouldn&#39;t that also be fine?
its a matter of where to draw the line...presumably you wouldn&#39;t make it a requirement to swear on the christian bible, for example, to get a drivers license. or eat pork. or engage in ritual sacrifice. You mention "assimilation." But what is it, exactly? Who gets to decide on a definition? Who does it favour? Its an inherently conservative notion, wheras culture/society is inherently dynamic. Smashie-smashie.

myfiles3000
05-28-2003, 05:07 AM
Originally posted by hobbes@28 May 2003 - 03:49
we want to repect the honesty of your position and not get some knee-jerk anti-American response.
something we can all agree on.

echidna
05-28-2003, 05:16 AM
Originally posted by j2k4+28 May 2003 - 14:49--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 28 May 2003 - 14:49)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I will admit at the outset a lack of familiarity with the Islamic strictures regarding the viewing of the female visage. :P

Not to sound totally stupid, but what would be the Islamic rationale for a woman "of the faith" to be allowed to look at her own face (for example, to pick a zit)? Is this allowed?

Or this: An Islamic woman develops a carcinoma on her nose/chin/cheek-is she precluded from seeking medical treatment?

If the visage cannot be viewed, can it be touched? If so, who may do the touching? Do members of the medical profession have some sort of dispensation with regard to this rule?

How are we (or anybody else) to assure ourselves these people are, indeed, women?

Seems alot of weaponry could be stashed under the voluminous garb they wear-should we be concerned?

Will the wearing of a veil become criteria for a renewed spate of &#39;profiling&#39;?

Could a female caucasian who was on the FBI&#39;s &#39;Ten Most-Wanted List&#39; convert to Islam in an attempt to wear the veil and thus escape detection?

So many questions-

Here is another:

What ever became of assimilation? Wasn&#39;t that, at one time, a critical ingredient in "The Great Melting Pot"?

If you want to hew to religious teachings, fine-if that same impetus somehow precludes your becoming a licensed driver, why shouldn&#39;t that also be fine?&nbsp; :huh:[/b]
the islamic prohibition on depiction is related to the ten commandments
<!--QuoteBegin--http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Exodus&#043;20%3A1-17&version=ESV

You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God[/quote]
and as humans are said to be made in the image of god, making realistic likenesses of folks is off the show [thus the amazing and wonderful abstract geometric art of islam :) ]
thus faces of pious women can be seen by other women or the men of her family so medical treatment isn&#39;t really a problem, nor is there any issue with looking at yourself in the mirror
[not that chistians, jews and muslims share much of the same scripture, with different collections, translations and interpretations]

this is a harder question than most here assume - at the least it is a great way for a few people to avoid inevitably awful license photos :lol:

@j2k4 :: be careful about the term assimilation, assimilation is a term firmly associated with genocide in much of the world, genocide can be undertaken by the forced removal of language, religion or cultural practises, it doesn&#39;t need gas-chambers or smallpox-infected-blankets or a thousand psychos with machetes :( :angry: :(

j2k4
05-28-2003, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by myfiles3000+28 May 2003 - 00:03--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfiles3000 @ 28 May 2003 - 00:03)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@28 May 2003 - 05:49
If you want to hew to religious teachings, fine-if that same impetus somehow precludes your becoming a licensed driver, why shouldn&#39;t that also be fine?
its a matter of where to draw the line...presumably you wouldn&#39;t make it a requirement to swear on the christian bible, for example, to get a drivers license. or eat pork. or engage in ritual sacrifice. You mention "assimilation." But what is it, exactly? Who gets to decide on a definition? Who does it favour? Its an inherently conservative notion, wheras culture/society is inherently dynamic. Smashie-smashie. [/b][/quote]
A pleasure to see you, myfiles.

This, I believe, is one of those situations where the &#39;black and white&#39;-ness
(which I will take the liberty of stipulating as the fortuitous availability of an applicable logic) of the conflict may serve as a guide to the proper solution, although not a solution resolvable in favor of the woman in question. I feel all questions of "motive identity&#39; should default to alignment with the overriding concern for the personal safety of all, but particularly of our peace officers.

(I apologize for the regrettable but necessary density of the preceding paragraph)

Fair enough?

j2k4
05-28-2003, 05:44 AM
Originally posted by echidna@28 May 2003 - 00:16
j2k4 :: be careful about the term assimilation, assimilation is a term firmly associated with genocide in much of the world, genocide can be undertaken by the forced removal of language, religion or cultural practises, it doesn&#39;t need gas-chambers or smallpox-infected-blankets or a thousand psychos with machetes :(&nbsp; :angry:&nbsp; :(
I meant &#39;assimilation&#39; as it is commonly used; that is to say as defined by the Oxford dictionary, to wit: "to absorb into the body or into a group, system, or culture".

Echidna-sorry, but you just committed what to me would serve as a splendid example of attempted politically correct word/definition/speech expropriation.

I will not let you steal from my palette to assuage your mis-guided sensibilities.

Ain&#39;t NOBODY gonna obsolete my dictionary&#33; :D

echidna
05-28-2003, 06:10 AM
Originally posted by j2k4+28 May 2003 - 15:44--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 28 May 2003 - 15:44)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--echidna@28 May 2003 - 00:16
j2k4 :: be careful about the term assimilation, assimilation is a term firmly associated with genocide in much of the world, genocide can be undertaken by the forced removal of language, religion or cultural practises, it doesn&#39;t need gas-chambers or smallpox-infected-blankets or a thousand psychos with machetes :(* :angry:* :(
I meant &#39;assimilation&#39; as it is commonly used; that is to say as defined by the Oxford dictionary, to wit: "to absorb into the body or into a group, system, or culture".

Echidna-sorry, but you just committed what to me would serve as a splendid example of attempted politically correct word/definition/speech expropriation.

I will not let you steal from my palette to assuage your mis-guided sensibilities.

Ain&#39;t NOBODY gonna obsolete my dictionary&#33; :D [/b][/quote]
you seem to think that the US democratic party is &#39;liberal&#39; and we all know how many feel that american means a citizen of the USA [BTW i&#39;m not entering that argument that here]

words aren&#39;t fixed as defined by the dictionary
they acquire and lose meanings as they are used by people in different contexts
eg. &#39;gay&#39; &#39;reform&#39; &#39;spam&#39; &#39;leech&#39; &#39;site&#39; etc.

i didn&#39;t mean that you shouldn&#39;t use the word, i just wanted to bring the other possible meanings to your notice [as language is undoubtedly complex and pedantic/semantic exploration and deconstruction seems to be a pillar of this discussion]

MagicNakor
05-28-2003, 07:42 AM
It&#39;s unfortunate. I had to.

http://wnyweb.com/features/graphics/images/borg.jpg

:ninja:

Mivaro
05-28-2003, 07:50 AM
When i read the word &#39;assimilate&#39; , the first thing i thought of was the Borgs. :lol:
Maybe integration is a better word?

Barbarossa
05-28-2003, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by MagicNakor@28 May 2003 - 07:42
It&#39;s unfortunate. I had to.

http://wnyweb.com/features/graphics/images/borg.jpg

:ninja:
That&#39;s just what I was thinking... :lol:



@echidna - you seem to have quoted from the book of Exodus there out of the Old Testament, which I thought was the basis for Judaism and Christianity, I may be ignorant here but I thought the Koran was the Islamic holy book?...

Also, "I am a Jealous God".... but isn&#39;t Jealousy one of the Deadly Sins? Therefore God is a Sinner, the original sinner in fact, so heaven is actually hell, Satan is Santa, and religion is dead.

Paradox, paradox, does not compute, fatal exception, whizzz, pop, bang&#33;

Religion pisses me off. :angry: It&#39;s just a self-righteous excuse for gross stupidity, cruelty and awkwardness.

opivy
05-28-2003, 09:36 AM
I can see the point of her not wanting her picture takin and I dont beleive she should have to I think instead of the state saying she cant maybe they should be looking at allternative ways of identification such as fingerprints or something of that sort. She cant be the only one in Florida who believs they shouldnt have to have there picture takin and in this case is going to get them all going to court to fight it.

MagicNakor
05-28-2003, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by barbarossa@28 May 2003 - 10:08
Also, "I am a Jealous God".... but isn't Jealousy one of the Deadly Sins? Therefore God is a Sinner, the original sinner in fact, so heaven is actually hell, Satan is Santa, and religion is dead.

Nope. The Seven Deadly Sins are:

Greed
Sloth
Gluttony
Pride
Wrath
Envy
Lust


:ninja:

echidna
05-28-2003, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by barbarossa@28 May 2003 - 19:08
@echidna - you seem to have quoted from the book of Exodus there out of the Old Testament, which I thought was the basis for Judaism and Christianity, I may be ignorant here but I thought the Koran was the Islamic holy book?...

Also, "I am a Jealous God".... but isn't Jealousy one of the Deadly Sins? Therefore God is a Sinner, the original sinner in fact, so heaven is actually hell, Satan is Santa, and religion is dead.

christianity judaism and islam all lay claim to being of the lineage of abraham
mohamed is the penultimate prophet interpreting god for islam while christ is just another prophet to islam, while christians see christ as the son of god and judaism generally doesn't see either of these two as revealing divinity to them.
the qur'an is the word of god written by mohamed [BTW :: the qur'an has a chapter named after mary the mother of christ]

[also BTW :: the qur'an is said to be fundamentally different to translations of the qur'an and that the qur'an can only be properly understood in it's original arabic, as opposed to christianity which since the reformation has translated the bible extensively, and believes (seemingly) that all bibles are the word of god] :blink:

all three of these feuding ideologies are essentially theological cousins, aren't family fights always the worst and civil war the same? <_<

oh yeah god can sin all it wants, stupid, it's god [see. all the plagues set on egypt, the dead from the noah flood, genocide at Sodom and Gomorrah, turning lots wife to a pillar of salt and other un-nice things]


[b]
Religion pisses me off.&nbsp; &nbsp; :angry:&nbsp; &nbsp; It's just a self-righteous excuse for gross stupidity, cruelty and awkwardness.
it sure isn't the only excuse for these things :(

@MagicNator :: do you know what the difference is between jealousy and envy? [they're a bit mushy in my messy post-post-modern vocab :P and seem almost synonymous with each other] :huh:

hobbes
05-28-2003, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by echidna@28 May 2003 - 12:42


[also BTW :: the qur&#39;an is said to be fundamentally different to translations of the qur&#39;an and that the qur&#39;an can only be properly understood in it&#39;s original arabic, as opposed to christianity which since the reformation has translated the bible extensively, and believes (seemingly) that all bibles are the word of god] :blink:



[
I was speaking with a co-worker about the many translations of the bible and how each translation reflects the interpretation of the translator. It is akin to the game "post office", where you give a person a sentence and have him repeat it to the person next to him. 30 people later, the last person stands up and states the sentence. Everyone laughs, as it bears no resemblance to the original.

He looked at me, clipped his finger nails, and said, "Well, I&#39;m sure God made sure this didn&#39;t happen".

Wow, welcome to world of faith. :blink: Damn, smart guy too, it just blows my mind.

j2k4
05-28-2003, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by echidna@28 May 2003 - 06:42
abraham came from Ur, which is just a few hours south-east of Baghdad]

I&#39;d bet in Abraham&#39;s day it was more than "just a few hours south-east of Baghdad". :D

So, the meanings of words can no longer be regarded as "fixed"?

Are previously accepted meanings to be obsoleted, or held in some sort of linguistic limbo?

Echidna-I can, believe me, go along with all the silliness the politically correct crowd can dole out, but I don&#39;t have to buy in; to do so is to vindicate and/or legitimize the essential idiocy of their endeavor, which is to limit speech, not to define it.

Recently, some bureaucrat (I don&#39;t remember the exact circumstances; they don&#39;t bear, here) was excoriated and fired for a correct usage of the word "NIGGARDLY" while describing what he thought was merely in instance of budgetary stinginess; he was pilloried by those who preferred to hear only the first six letters of the word (and, I suppose, were prepared to impeach him on the basis of having "orally mis-spelled" the distasteful word, "nigger", also).

I propose, rather than suffering and allowing this heretofore unchecked stupidity to continue, that instead of universal health care, we invest in dictionaries and possibly hearing aids for the P.C. crowd. ;)

j2k4
05-28-2003, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by hobbes@28 May 2003 - 08:29
He looked at me, clipped his finger nails, and said, "Well, I&#39;m sure God made sure this didn&#39;t happen".

Wow, welcome to world of faith. :blink: Damn, smart guy too, it just blows my mind.
Might he have been humoring you, Hobbes?

BTW-You, me, and Clocker: drinks in the pub at six sharp. Be prepared to have your back slapped. :lol: :lol:

echidna
05-28-2003, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by j2k4+29 May 2003 - 00:22--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 29 May 2003 - 00:22)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--echidna@28 May 2003 - 06:42
abraham came from Ur, which is just a few hours south-east of Baghdad]

I&#39;d bet in Abraham&#39;s day it was more than "just a few hours south-east of Baghdad". :D

So, the meanings of words can no longer be regarded as "fixed"?

Are previously accepted meanings to be obsoleted, or held in some sort of linguistic limbo?

Echidna-I can, believe me, go along with all the silliness the politically correct crowd can dole out, but I don&#39;t have to buy in; to do so is to vindicate and/or legitimize the essential idiocy of their endeavor, which is to limit speech, not to define it.

Recently, some bureaucrat (I don&#39;t remember the exact circumstances; they don&#39;t bear, here) was excoriated and fired for a correct usage of the word "NIGGARDLY" while describing what he thought was merely in instance of budgetary stinginess; he was pilloried by those who preferred to hear only the first six letters of the word (and, I suppose, were prepared to impeach him on the basis of having "orally mis-spelled" the distasteful word, "nigger", also).

I propose, rather than suffering and allowing this heretofore unchecked stupidity to continue, that instead of universal health care, we invest in dictionaries and possibly hearing aids for the P.C. crowd. ;)[/b][/quote]
sounds to me like the bureaucrat got what they deserved, someone in public office should be aware of and use their words carefully and he should have had, and used, a thesaurus

words change their meaning in terms of context, historical time and even through modification by a preposition
this isn&#39;t left wing silliness it&#39;s the confusing nature of english
it gets worse in speech, eg.
which two bored witches blessed by sense would buy for four cents a ticket to board a plane to a plain that was too plain? :P
[and at least the spelling does change here sometimes]

[i know that example sux but to think that language gets &#39;set&#39; by dictionaries or is somehow fixed is a joke :: you can&#39;t tell me that apparent meaning of the phrase &#39;your site&#39; hasn&#39;t changed radically in its meaning in the last thirty years]

and i fail to see what limitation of speech is caused by the nuance of english it&#39;s just a lot more difficult to ensure congruent comprehension. but provides for much humour and richness through metaphor and subtext

which is really what bit the bureaucrat&#39;s ass

clocker
05-28-2003, 04:32 PM
sounds to me like the bureaucrat got what they deserved, someone in public office should be aware of and use their words carefully and he should have had, and used, a thesaurus


His usage was perfectly correct and appropriate in the context.


which is really what bit the bureaucrat&#39;s ass

No, what bit him was people who have never used/had a thesauraus.

j2k4
05-28-2003, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by echidna@28 May 2003 - 11:20
i fail to see what limitation of speech is caused by the nuance of english it&#39;s just a lot more difficult to ensure congruent comprehension. but provides for much humour and richness through metaphor and subtext


Wait a sec, there, Echidna-

You "fail to see what limitation"?

How is language to survive (as it indeed must), then?

Do you propose the dictionary be available by subscription, due to it&#39;s "fluidity"?
Are you shilling for the U.S. Postal Service?

The "humour and richness" you laud accrues to language through the passage of time, not via the mal-informed, agenda-serving whims of those who would do well to study the various shadings (nuance&#33;) already available to those who love, respect, and practice the correct use of words. ;)

myfiles3000
05-28-2003, 05:22 PM
1. its absurd to suggest that a person deserves to lose his job because he said niggardly. get a clue echidna.

2. there&#39;s a difference between connotation (assimilation), and simply using/interpretting a word flat out incorrectly (niggardly). Assimilation is an absolute no-no word where i come from (geographically that is, not socially) for entirely legitimate reasons -- because of connotations with past crimes that are truly indefensible by today&#39;s standards.

3. I defy anyone to find a (credible) linguist who argues that the meaning of words is fixed. while you&#39;re at it, try to find a credible scientist that still believes in heliocentricity.

4. exploiting the fluidity of meaning is done by ALL political parties, all over the world, every day. where you stand politically is a non-issue. its also done by all humans all over the world every day, in all language activities.

5. i would recommend Blair&#39;s Politics and the English Language, and Derrida for anyone interested in the subject.

j2k4
05-28-2003, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@28 May 2003 - 12:22
1. its absurd to suggest that a person deserves to lose his job because he said niggardly. get a clue echidna.

2. there&#39;s a difference between connotation (assimilation), and simply using/interpretting a word flat out incorrectly (niggardly). Assimilation is an absolute no-no word where i come from (geographically that is, not socially) for entirely legitimate reasons -- because of connotations with past crimes that are truly indefensible by today&#39;s standards.

3. I defy anyone to find a (credible) linguist who argues that the meaning of words is fixed. while you&#39;re at it, try to find a credible scientist that still believes in heliocentricity.

4. exploiting the fluidity of meaning is done by ALL political parties, all over the world, every day. where you stand politically is a non-issue. its also done by all humans all over the world every day, in all language activities.

5. i would recommend Blair&#39;s Politics and the English Language, and Derrida for anyone interested in the subject.
You make excellent points, myfiles; you also prompt me to attempt a clarification of my post(s):

I felt entirely comfortable using the word "assimilation", as it has not the connotation, in the U.S., to which you object.
I will bear in mind your caution, if you will, in turn, bear in mind MY demographic.

I will, likewise, not argue the "morphing" of certain definitions amounts to a linguistic high crime.

I will heartily object to the off-hand assignment of obsolescent status to the heretofore "fixed" definitions of words.

I think your linguist might also insist, if for no more than archival purposes. ;)

soopaman
05-28-2003, 07:07 PM
It seems that someone was niggardly when it came to giving Echidna common sense&#33;&#33; :P :lol:

All this political correctness has to stop. It&#39;s getting beyond a joke when you can&#39;t express an opinion without someone accusing you of racism/sexism/etc. I was reading a post in the Lounge asking people to stop using profanities - Fuck Off, I&#39;ll say what I want when I want&#33;&#33;&#33; I can use sentences without profanity as easily but sometimes a bit of emphasis can say a lot more than several long words used incorrectly (which seems to be par for the course on this forum).

As for the religious question: Religion, to me, seems about as realistic as the Teletubbies. It just breeds intolerance and hatred, keeping people in poverty whilst it&#39;s leaders are surrounded by wealth. Hypocrisy on a grand scale&#33;&#33; If that Muslim woman won&#39;t get a photo for her driving licence don&#39;t let her in a car. Religion is no excuse&#33;&#33;

MagicNakor
05-28-2003, 11:58 PM
Well, envy and jealousy are quite different, but people use them interchangably. People seem to do that with a lot of words these days. ;) "Hate" and "dislike" spring to mind.

Envy combines discontent, resentment, and desire for another&#39;s advantages or possessions.

Jealousy is apprehension of rivalship in cases nearly affecting one&#39;s happiness, suspicion of the faithfulness of husband, wife, or lover, or earnest concern or solicitude.

If that doesn&#39;t clear it up for you, perhaps it&#39;s because I&#39;m more of a thesaurus than a dictionary. ;)

:ninja:

hobbes
05-29-2003, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by j2k4+28 May 2003 - 15:34--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 28 May 2003 - 15:34)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--hobbes@28 May 2003 - 08:29
He looked at me, clipped his finger nails, and said, "Well, I&#39;m sure God made sure this didn&#39;t happen".

Wow, welcome to world of faith. :blink:* Damn, smart guy too, it just blows my mind.
Might he have been humoring you, Hobbes?

BTW-You, me, and Clocker: drinks in the pub at six sharp. Be prepared to have your back slapped. :lol: :lol:[/b][/quote]
/me pours salt in J2K4&#39;s drink while he is in the mens room.

J2 knows Hobbes has a Masters in Non-verbal communication and a PHD in irony.

If he were joking , he has been keeping it a running one for the 5 years I have known him.

/me elbows Clocker, pointing to salt settling in J2&#39;s glass.

Clocker procedes to bounce peanut shells off my forehead.

clocker
05-29-2003, 01:58 AM
Why does it say that the last post (previous to mine ) was by hobbes at 18:23 and I can&#39;t see it?

Have I been unilaterally cut out of the loop?

Bloody hell.. it just showed up after I posted...


Those weren&#39;t peanut shells, hobbes...

echidna
05-29-2003, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by clocker@29 May 2003 - 02:32

sounds to me like the bureaucrat got what they deserved, someone in public office should be aware of and use their words carefully and he should have had, and used, a thesaurus


His usage was perfectly correct and appropriate in the context.


which is really what bit the bureaucrat&#39;s ass

No, what bit him was people who have never used/had a thesauraus.
they clearly misjudged the reaction to their choice of word

i have no question as to the correctness [by definition] of the term

rather, with the appropriateness of his choice re. his audience
niggardly was obviously a poor choice of words for him as the response lost him his job

why not, chintzy, closefisted, illiberal, mean, miserly, narrow, parsimonious, penny-pinching, penurious, skimpy, skinflint, tight, tight-fisted, or ungenerous

would these not have expressed his opinion of the budgeting and kept him his job? while also expressing that opinion to the thesaurus-less community at large?

i mean he got what was coming because he failed to comprehend the political situation of his position

[ :lol: i seem to remember a president having a very unique definition of sex in order to avoid dishonesty :lol: ]
[just don&#39;t inhale :lol:]

surely language must be chosen far more carefully in public life and media, than informally like here

@j2k4 :: i just wanted to provide you with a different perspective on your words, i don&#39;t mean that you shouldn&#39;t use them.
that&#39;s all i meant [never though all would get so cheesed by this]

@MagicNator :: thanx

j2k4
05-29-2003, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by echidna@28 May 2003 - 21:57
@j2k4 :: i just wanted to provide you with a different perspective on your words, i don&#39;t mean that you shouldn&#39;t use them.
that&#39;s all i meant [never though all would get so cheesed by this]


I appreciate your alternate perspective, but it all comes back to "FREE SPEECH", which, by it&#39;s own definition, is.....you get my drift.

Public or not.

Also, the rest smacks of , "say what you want, just don&#39;t say it to me".

The P.C. crowd kinda has my goat these days; can you tell? :angry:

echidna
05-29-2003, 03:37 AM
Originally posted by j2k4+29 May 2003 - 13:32--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 29 May 2003 - 13:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--echidna@28 May 2003 - 21:57
@j2k4 :: i just wanted to provide you with a different perspective on your words, i don&#39;t mean that you shouldn&#39;t use them.
that&#39;s all i meant [never though all would get so cheesed by this]


I appreciate your alternate perspective, but it all comes back to "FREE SPEECH", which, by it&#39;s own definition, is.....you get my drift.

Public or not.

Also, the rest smacks of , "say what you want, just don&#39;t say it to me".

The P.C. crowd kinda has my goat these days; can you tell? :angry: [/b][/quote]
i&#39;m just trying to account for the freedom of interpretation, which prevails on the internet as well ;)

your poor goat does seem in a bit of a shabby mood :: is it bushes new african &#39;war on aids&#39;? or has it been eating the garbage again? :lol:

MagicNakor
05-29-2003, 09:05 AM
If I were him, I&#39;d be suing for wrongful dismissal. It&#39;s a sad day indeed when one is fired for having a larger vocabulary than his neighbour. :rolleyes:

:ninja: