| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/09/2010 02:05:19 PM · #151 |
| If you go to FreeRice.com you can practice your geography skills, while earning free rice which is distributed through the United Nations World Food Program. They have two geography tests: identify countries on an outline map, and world capitals, and they have several other sections as well. If you have kids, turn them loose and see who can earn the biggest pile of rice; it's also good practice for taking mutiple-choice tests ... |
|
|
|
09/09/2010 04:33:38 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If you go to FreeRice.com you can practice your geography skills, while earning free rice which is distributed through the United Nations World Food Program. They have two geography tests: identify countries on an outline map, and world capitals, and they have several other sections as well. If you have kids, turn them loose and see who can earn the biggest pile of rice; it's also good practice for taking mutiple-choice tests ... |
Thanks, lots of cool tests on there. Not only geographic. |
|
|
|
09/14/2010 04:08:48 PM · #153 |
| I might as well throw this in here, because it's not worth starting a new thread, but I would be curious as to the view of our liberal/atheist contingent on France's decision to ban burkas? |
|
|
|
09/14/2010 04:14:28 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I might as well throw this in here, because it's not worth starting a new thread, but I would be curious as to the view of our liberal/atheist contingent on France's decision to ban burkas? |
I suppose they wouldn't allow my gorilla suit. How unfair is that? |
|
|
|
09/14/2010 04:16:42 PM · #155 |
| I have never thought of myself as part of a contingent, but I am both an atheist and what I believe would be referred to by Americans as a liberal. I have mixed views on the banning of burkas - on a personal level, I do see the burka as a means of oppressing women, and would be glad to see it voluntarily given up, but I also believe that each should be able to follow their own choices in life, providing that in the process it doesn't hurt others. I fail to see how wearing the burka hurts others (aside from reinforcing views of the place of women etc) and as such I fail to support the French government. |
|
|
|
09/14/2010 04:59:20 PM · #156 |
Not full burkas, but with my catholic upbringing, when ever I see a woman with a head covering, I always think of them as holy and deserving more respect (comes from the years I had in catholic school with nuns as teachers.)
It was a church discipline for women to wear head coverings in the church up until the 1980s (1983?). Now I'm seeing more women wearing head coverings in church again. I think it's pretty neat.
Edit (not worth another post):
Very interesting situation. I wonder what would happen if I always wore a ski-mask and site religious reasons. Not certain I'll be accepted in a bank, but then again, I haven't gone into a bank in months (just us ATMs).
Message edited by author 2010-09-14 19:51:21. |
|
|
|
09/14/2010 06:02:05 PM · #157 |
| Where are the folks who usually can't wait to share their opinion? (Thanks for the input Sara!) |
|
|
|
09/14/2010 08:14:23 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Where are the folks who usually can't wait to share their opinion? (Thanks for the input Sara!) |
We're sitting here in stunned amazement watching another religious thread.
Perhaps we should have a challenge that shows our version of religious intolerance. Ahhhhhh, never mind. Someone would probably burn a "____"
(insert your favorite revered holy book here). |
|
|
|
09/14/2010 08:20:30 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I might as well throw this in here, because it's not worth starting a new thread, but I would be curious as to the view of our liberal/atheist contingent on France's decision to ban burkas? |
My views mirror Sara's, really. However, I didn't really even know about it until just now. Not knowing anything about the background, reasons, etc. I can't go into more detail or really even safely HAVE an opinion other than on a general scale, like Sara. |
|
|
|
09/14/2010 08:32:24 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I might as well throw this in here, because it's not worth starting a new thread, but I would be curious as to the view of our liberal/atheist contingent on France's decision to ban burkas? |
My views mirror Sara's, really. However, I didn't really even know about it until just now. Not knowing anything about the background, reasons, etc. I can't go into more detail or really even safely HAVE an opinion other than on a general scale, like Sara. |
FWIW:
According to AFP, those who refuse to adhere to the new rules will face a $195 fine or a course of citizenship lessons. A man who forces a woman to wear the veil will be fined approximately $39,000.
The ruling will also be applied to tourists from the Middle East and elsewhere who visit France.
President Nicolas Sarkozy, a staunch advocate for the law, said the ruling is to protect women from being forced to cover their faces and to uphold France's secular values.
Once enacted, the legislation allows a six-month "education" period to explain to women that they could be arrested or fined if they wear their veil in public.
France has Europe's largest Muslim population, estimated at 5 million of the country's 64 million people. Fewer than 2,000 women there are believed to wear face-covering veils.
Kenza Drider told The Associated Press that she would continue to wear her veil.
"It is a law that is unlawful," said Drider, a mother of four from Avignon, in southern France. "It is ... against individual liberty, freedom of religion, liberty of conscience," she added.
linky |
|
|
|
09/15/2010 01:32:07 AM · #161 |
I'll share my opinion on the veils. For a moment, I was strongly against banning them. Freedom to believe and practice as you wish is a view I uphold. But I am also strongly for equal rights. Chinese foot binding comes to mind as a historical comparison. It was a strong part of the culture, the mothers did it to their daughters... that was their choice right? Well, its more complicated than that. You don't bind your feet, you don't find a husband and have very little chance at a good life. The consequences of not doing it were dire, hence, not really a choice in the end. Finally the government stepped in and stopped it. There were some growing pains and anger but over time, society was better off.
I guess I'm still undecided. The veils don't physically hurt the women, but emotionally, I'm not sure. |
|
|
|
09/15/2010 01:45:36 AM · #162 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Where are the folks who usually can't wait to share their opinion? (Thanks for the input Sara!) |
We're sitting here in stunned amazement watching another religious thread.
Perhaps we should have a challenge that shows our version of religious intolerance. Ahhhhhh, never mind. Someone would probably burn a "____" |
Actually, this was intended to represent racial intolerance hiding behind supposed religious (Christian) values and symbols -- the challenge topic was Hate -- rather than sectarian intolerance.
With regard to the French law -- I don't know enough details to give a truly authoritative opinion (you know that won't stop me though), but I think women should be allowed, but not forced, to wear whatever they please. However, there may be occasions when the veil would have to be lifted, e.g. in a security line, government buildings, perhaps banks.
I think they probably should carry a photo ID which shows more than the eyes, and if they need to be ID'd I imagine it could be done in a screened area, perhaps by female personnel. For ordinary walking around, shopping, etc., it shouldn't matter if they wear a veil or not.
All you Gallic wedding photographers might want to keep an eye out for the first time a ceremony is broken up by the cops busting a veiled bride ... ;-) |
|
|
|
09/15/2010 08:11:09 AM · #163 |
This is a little off the current topic but it's interesting and fits well with the OP...
liberalism is evolutionarily novel
ETA: Please don't get the wrong idea, i don't agree with the article, my husband is a highly intelligent conservative and I'm not that big-headed.
Message edited by author 2010-09-15 15:54:41. |
|
|
|
09/15/2010 12:11:46 PM · #164 |
Frankly I think this is a pretty poor piece of writing. |
|
|
|
09/15/2010 06:58:55 PM · #165 |
I will say that the general lack of response about the headscarf ban in France (or the responses presented) help illustrate why religious people in the United States get prickly when they feel their rights are being suppressed even a tiny bit. The fear, justified or unjustified, is that we are heading down that road. The fear may not be completely unjustified because the usual participants here don't feel it's worth the effort to back religious freedom in the context of the conversation and the few that did back it did so only with qualification. On the other hand, the usual suspects here are more than willing to seek out opportunities to ridicule and rubbish religion. In the ultimate irony, the cloak of toleration is often worn as a banner at the same time. I'm only pointing this out because there seems to be a portrayal that religious people are far too reactionary to the smallest incursions on their faith.
I disagree with wearing headscarfs. It's not part of my religion, although, like Nullix, I think it is an honorable sign of respect when women cover their head in church (although I'm not at all offended if they don't). BUT, I'll be damned if I let my country walk down the anti-religious road that France is embarking upon. Ever since the revolution France has seemingly had an anti-religious bent and I can't say that they are holding themselves up as a secular "city upon a hill"...
Message edited by author 2010-09-15 19:05:14. |
|
|
|
09/15/2010 07:20:27 PM · #166 |
| I have been following this thread but I haven't a clue what you are trying to say, DrAchoo. Can you speak a bit more plainly? |
|
|
|
09/15/2010 07:41:45 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
BUT, I'll be damned if I let my country walk down the anti-religious road that France is embarking upon. Ever since the revolution France has seemingly had an anti-religious bent and I can't say that they are holding themselves up as a secular "city upon a hill"... |
Wow this post is probably the closest I've seen you come in supporting gay marriage. Just replace "anti-religous" with "anti-gay" and "secular" with "religious" and you're all the way there. FWIW, I agree with you on the French ban. Banning never works. It didn't work for drugs, sex, alcohol, marriage, books or words and it won't work for headscarfs.
Message edited by author 2010-09-15 19:48:59.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2010 07:50:22 PM · #168 |
Hehe. I'll take that as not a joke. :)
I mean this. Take the whole gay marriage thread as an example (and please, let's not argue about the specifics any more). Much of the argument against the religious position was that nobody was trying to change a religious person's belief, but that people who did not agree with the religion could do what they wanted out of a sense of liberty. A few times future scenarios were brought up where churches might be forced to perform gay marriages or hold them in their buildings. These scenarios were often scoffed at as being reactionary and henny-penny. People didn't understand what the big deal was.
I present two pieces of evidence to show why it may be a big deal after all. A country like France (not some backwoods dictatorship) has embarked upon a program of religious suppression for an activity that affects nobody outside the faith. That, in itself, should be a warning. But I would also put up for exhibit the attitudes presented here. While nobody has outright supported the French, the two(?) responses supported the religious freedom but only with the qualification that they were torn because part of them wanted to endorse the suppression because they didn't agree with the idea of headscarves. The rest of the usual crew (and we all know who they are) who usually can't wait to give us their opinion didn't speak up. So one worries that in the hypothetical future, when religious freedoms are being suppressed the people who formerly said, "don't worry, we wouldn't ever push for that!" would silently allow the suppression because, in reality, their aim is to eradicate religion instead of coexisting with it.
With such a program as the French are instituting, it isn't a completely paranoid person who wonders if someday they will not be able to read their Bible on a public bus or put a nativity scene in their front yard.
Message edited by author 2010-09-15 19:51:33. |
|
|
|
09/15/2010 07:54:32 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by frisca:
I have been following this thread but I haven't a clue what you are trying to say, DrAchoo. Can you speak a bit more plainly? |
It seems to me that he doesn't like France infringing on personal liberty and that when it happens to religious folks it gets ignored by atheists. His evidence for that seems to be that there hasn't been enough non-believers denouning it to his liking.
Message edited by author 2010-09-15 19:58:12.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2010 08:07:36 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The rest of the usual crew (and we all know who they are) who usually can't wait to give us their opinion didn't speak up. So one worries that... |
You know, this kind of thing really pisses me off. This is just as bad as individual baiting. You are formally called. Just because "the usual crew" doesn't take your bait, or doesn't feel like talking about your issue-du-jour, or doesn't have an opinion one way or another, "one worries that". What nonsense. What kind of agenda are you driving here?
So there, you got your response and I took the bait. |
|
|
|
09/15/2010 08:18:30 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The rest of the usual crew (and we all know who they are) who usually can't wait to give us their opinion didn't speak up. So one worries that... |
You know, this kind of thing really pisses me off. This is just as bad as individual baiting. You are formally called. Just because "the usual crew" doesn't take your bait, or doesn't feel like talking about your issue-du-jour, or doesn't have an opinion one way or another, "one worries that". What nonsense. What kind of agenda are you driving here?
So there, you got your response and I took the bait. |
But why was there no response when it was posed as a real question for discussion? Ask yourself that. I'm not baiting here at all. At best I can only think of Elaine from Seinfeld who was dating a guy wearing a fur. "I thought you were anti-fur." to which she replies with a shrug, "Meh, who has the time?"
Let's put it this way, if France was making EVERYBODY wear a headscarf, I think it would be an issue on the threads... |
|
|
|
09/15/2010 08:22:54 PM · #172 |
| Why does everybody have to discuss everything? People don't have an opinion on each and every issue. Others think they smell a trap. I think the latter, especially in light of your two responses. You'd already decided how "the usual people" were going to respond, and you had your smack-down at the ready. That's how it reads, and if there's any truth at all to that, then that isn't an honest discussion. That's the kind of thing that ticks me off. |
|
|
|
09/15/2010 08:24:59 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The rest of the usual crew (and we all know who they are) who usually can't wait to give us their opinion didn't speak up. So one worries that... |
You know, this kind of thing really pisses me off. This is just as bad as individual baiting. You are formally called. Just because "the usual crew" doesn't take your bait, or doesn't feel like talking about your issue-du-jour, or doesn't have an opinion one way or another, "one worries that". What nonsense. What kind of agenda are you driving here?
So there, you got your response and I took the bait. |
But why was there no response when it was posed as a real question for discussion? Ask yourself that. I'm not baiting here at all. At best I can only think of Elaine from Seinfeld who was dating a guy wearing a fur. "I thought you were anti-fur." to which she replies with a shrug, "Meh, who has the time?"
Let's put it this way, if France was making EVERYBODY wear a headscarf, I think it would be an issue on the threads... |
So are you implying that you're different?
|
|
|
|
09/15/2010 08:39:26 PM · #174 |
| Think of it as a bridge-building opportunity lost. The intellectually honest position for those advocating liberty would be to call out anti-liberty laws as such even if they did not agree with the activity itself. Sara, Monica and Paul managed to make a response and I think that's great. |
|
|
|
09/15/2010 08:39:54 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The rest of the usual crew (and we all know who they are) who usually can't wait to give us their opinion didn't speak up. So one worries that... |
You know, this kind of thing really pisses me off. This is just as bad as individual baiting. You are formally called. Just because "the usual crew" doesn't take your bait, or doesn't feel like talking about your issue-du-jour, or doesn't have an opinion one way or another, "one worries that". What nonsense. What kind of agenda are you driving here?
So there, you got your response and I took the bait. |
But why was there no response when it was posed as a real question for discussion? Ask yourself that. I'm not baiting here at all. At best I can only think of Elaine from Seinfeld who was dating a guy wearing a fur. "I thought you were anti-fur." to which she replies with a shrug, "Meh, who has the time?"
Let's put it this way, if France was making EVERYBODY wear a headscarf, I think it would be an issue on the threads... |
I'm not one of the "usual crew" in these threads (except on rare occasion), but I'll give you my opinion. A Burka is not a headscarf. A Burka completely obstructs any means of identifying a person. It could be man or woman underneath, you wouldn't know. I don't have a problem banning them, just like I didn't have a problem with schools in the US banning hoodies in school due to the fact it made it hard to identify students. I also don't mind the ban on ski masks or sunglasses at banks. I think the fact that terrorist have used people dressed in burkas (as a means to conceal both identity and explosives) makes for a good enough argument to ban them. Just my opinion. |
|
