French approve ban on burqas...

Textbook wrote: I know of a Jewish guy who experienced Hajj undercover. He said it was really quite mundane. Lots and lots of praying basically. And in response to CPicard's question, all of them basically, though some like Oman can be a little more liberal.

Yeah probably, but I'm big on the experience thing. I can look at a random tavern in Gettysburg and feel overwhelmed, just know "what happened in this place" I personally would probably get quite a feeling from the experience.

And thats amazing, you actually know someone who went undercover? Not that I want to try, but he say anything about how? Like just went in undercover and got through it?

I know him through someone else, he's not a close personal acquaintance. I don't know all the details of the story anyway but I'd like to keep it vague because he doesn't want people identifying him. But basically there was nothing that amazing about it. He said he didn't even have to talk to people as much as he thought he would- he thinks he could have had quite poor Arabic and still gotten away with it and that the examination and moment of truth he was constantly anticipating never really came. What he did has been done more than once anyway.

Textbook wrote: I know him through someone else, he's not a close personal acquaintance. I don't know all the details of the story anyway but I'd like to keep it vague because he doesn't want people identifying him. But basically there was nothing that amazing about it. He said he didn't even have to talk to people as much as he thought he would- he thinks he could have had quite poor Arabic and still gotten away with it and that the examination and moment of truth he was constantly anticipating never really came. What he did has been done more than once anyway.

Nah understood.
Wow, I know every experience will be different but that is fascinating it was, mundane. I know I would be scared out of my mind that an "examination" would occur.
Again, not that I'd do it, but thanks for the story!

Whoops, what a typo. Of course I meant churches in the second instance, not mosques.

To sort of link to my thread about China, it will be interesting if they continue to gain influence in other countries also being influenced by Islam because their government is opposed to religion (or perhaps has made itself and nationalism the religion) and frequently clashes with the minority Muslim populations in the north-west. I expect that a big conflict will never really take place though. I believe that the Islamic thing will never really become bigger than it is now while China's influence, based as it is on money, has a lot more potential to expand. A lot of people can comfortably ignore the Islamic community but if China gets its hands on the purse strings, they will not be able to ignore that because the economy concerns everyone.

Textbook wrote: Whoops, what a typo. Of course I meant churches in the second instance, not mosques.

My motto is that if you are going to make a mistake in posting, make it a funny one because someone will come along and quote you before you get the chance to make a correction.


Edited by Slartibartfast - July 21 2010 at 18:58

Mr ProgFreak wrote: What he said.

I'm convinced!

The T wrote: A religion that treats half of the population as second-class beings is the problem. Really, the burqa is but a symptom. I think, after all, it doesn't solve anything, just will exacerbate tensions. It would be great if one could ban the entire muslim faith entire but alas, it can't be done. I guess it's better if we learnt to tolerate them, though they tolerating us is just as difficult.

But does Islam treat women as second class beings? This is your interpretation. Let me quote this excellent post of Jean again:

BaldJean wrote: all this talk about suppression is quite interesting and amusing. I think almost  everyone will agree that women had been suppressed in the Western world too and that only through years of fighting women finally god rid of this suppression. but actually all of this is complete nonsense, which can quite easily be proven. let me suggest the following scenario: at the beginning of the industrial age a law was made in Germany that all profits from big companies down to the single craftsman had to be shared equally with the whole population. other countries soon followed that example. as the result of that the work of  men suddenly lost its importance as income source, but of course they still had to work to keep the factories going. hence their status deteriorated, and they tried to regain it by taking over territory that had so far completely been reserved to women. they wanted to cook, they wanted to do the washing, they wanted to clean the house and so on. the women felt their domain crumble and did all they could to hold the men back, but they finally had to succumb to their struggle for freedom. soon some men started complaining about the double strain they were under and demanded that women should take care in political affairs too and should vote and pick up duties in parliament. need I continue? no, the real problem was not that women had been suppressed but that with the upcoming capitalistic system only money started to count and all of what they did lost its value. women had not been suppressed, and neither had men be suppressed, they just had their own gender roles, and that was fine. as long as it worked out. today gender roles become less and less important, and both sexes behave and are being treated more or less equally. and that is considered to be  "right", though why this is right no-one can tell. I prophecy that in a thousand years men and women will almost look alike, and the only real difference will be in their sexual organs. but they will no longer be used for proliferation; women would not want to undergo the discriminating pregnancy, so children will be bred in test-tubes, and we will have a real better world. I am grateful I will not be alive then. nothing is wrong with having different roles at all; it only becomes wrong when one role is deemed to be more important than the other. and this is what happened at the beginning of the industrial age, and this is why we had the so-called "emancipation of women". "but women were suppressed then" some may answer. "it was for example impossible for them to enter a university". right, and it was equally impossible that a man would have interfered with the cooking, for example. the deterioration of the female domain actually started before the industrial age, when men suddenly discovered an interest in children in the romantic age. this was the beginning of the landslide which finally started the so-called "female emancipation". and before someone calls me completely outdated: hey, I am a successful business woman myself. but I use my brain, and it always pays to question values that are being taken for granted. it is a good and healthy mental exercise. it is also a good mental exercise to take the side of the opponent in an argument for a change and defend their case with all you can; it helps you understand the opposite side a lot. and it certainly cures you of taking your position as granted and the right one. in the case of the burka this means: put yourself into the mind of someone who is pro-burka and defend your position as best as you can. it is the best way to get rid of misconceptions and prejudices. Friede and I often take the "wrong" position in discussions where everyone else is of the same opinion and play advocatus diaboli for some case. it makes people furious at you for your stupidity and is great fun, and it definitely expands your mind

It's the second time I read this post, and I still have difficulties to understand a single sentence.

Textbook wrote: I understood it, I was just being sardonic about the pretentiousness of the language.

What?