Religious Freedom

[hobbes]

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]

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]

I will admit at the outset a lack of familiarity with the Islamic strictures regarding the viewing of the female visage.

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?

[myfiles3000]

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]

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]

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.

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; [/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

@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

[j2k4]

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]

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; &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;

[echidna]

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

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; [/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]

It&#39;s unfortunate. I had to.