The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Heh, two controversial threads about Muslim values by me in a couple of weeks ... think it's just a subject I find interesting, all religion and its effect on our way of life. Being non-religious I'm concerned that religious values are dictating our laws in a country that is supposed to enjoy 'freedom of speech'. I'm not picking at the Islamic faith ... but it's all over the media right now and some things I find hard to ignore ...
I feel the same about any group of people that tries to force others to live by it's values ... whoever that might be.
So here's the next controversial topic, shown tonight on C4 ...
The Dispatches Debate:
Muslims and Free Speech
Channel 4 Monday 23 October 2006, 8pm
Jon Snow chairs a special Dispatches debate on whether Muslims are threatening freedom of speech in the UK. Recent events such as the protests over remarks made by the Pope about the nature of Islam; to demonstrations over the publication of Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed; to the censorship of works of art depicting holy scriptures have all raised an urgent question: whether the objections made by Muslims are legitimate reasons to prevent publication or display? Jon Snow will question a series of guests who have been directly involved in these controversies.
Anyone any views on this they wish to share?
I feel the same about any group of people that tries to force others to live by it's values ... whoever that might be.
So here's the next controversial topic, shown tonight on C4 ...
The Dispatches Debate:
Muslims and Free Speech
Channel 4 Monday 23 October 2006, 8pm
Jon Snow chairs a special Dispatches debate on whether Muslims are threatening freedom of speech in the UK. Recent events such as the protests over remarks made by the Pope about the nature of Islam; to demonstrations over the publication of Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed; to the censorship of works of art depicting holy scriptures have all raised an urgent question: whether the objections made by Muslims are legitimate reasons to prevent publication or display? Jon Snow will question a series of guests who have been directly involved in these controversies.
Anyone any views on this they wish to share?
Page:
hippyman wrote:
If I were to go out
> covering my face and acting the way some Muslims have been known
> to act whilst facing this issue, then I'd be arrested. So what
> makes them any different from us?
And with that comment, you have crossed the line from being concerned with your country to closet Nazi. There's so much ignorance and contradictions in that statement alone, I'm genuinely shocked if people think like this.
> I think it's to do with the continuous decline in our native
> rights
>
Your rights have stayed the same throughout?
If I were to go out
> covering my face and acting the way some Muslims have been known
> to act whilst facing this issue, then I'd be arrested. So what
> makes them any different from us?
And with that comment, you have crossed the line from being concerned with your country to closet Nazi. There's so much ignorance and contradictions in that statement alone, I'm genuinely shocked if people think like this.
> I think it's to do with the continuous decline in our native
> rights
>
Your rights have stayed the same throughout?
Well there's no jobs going around here :(
Flower wrote:
> I think that children under the age of 16 should be allowed to
> work if they want to, and I mean proper work not paper rounds.
You can have part-time jobs before that, it's just that at under 16 years of age, there's no legislation concerning minimum wage and so on... at least as far as I know; a few people I know had jobs before then, but these were very small-scale, and only at local businesses. Remember also, education is compulsary up to the age of 16, so employment is regulated up to that age.
As for all this stuff on headscarfs and so on... if you believe covering yourself is part of your faith, you have every right to go ahead with it, it's no different from wearing a whacking great cross, a turban etc in theory.
What this stems from is Jack Straw stating that he prefers to have face-to-face conversations, which is fair enough; however, he said it in a manner which some deemed offensive. A veil does hide peoples' emotions and identities, as the face gives those away; however, it does appear to be a barrier. He made a fair point, but it did offend people, and maybe he should have said that veils can hide much, and that he prefers for people not to wear them, not a statement which in [/I]effect[/I] implied he had something seriously against them. I can see where he was coming from, as talking to someone who is dressed in a somewhat Mrs Grim Reaper fashion is a tad impersonal, but such clothing is designed (As far as I know) for respect, to stop men staring at women or something similar, I'm relatively ignorant on the subject. Is this a matter of freedom of speech? It's more a matter of being careful about what goes into the public domain.
The solution? If you're an MP, let alone a government minister and former foreign secretary, be careful what you say or write, as you'll be subject to the media.
Freedom of Speech and Religion? You've got the right to both, exorcise them with care, as alienation of others is rather a social problem.
> I think that children under the age of 16 should be allowed to
> work if they want to, and I mean proper work not paper rounds.
You can have part-time jobs before that, it's just that at under 16 years of age, there's no legislation concerning minimum wage and so on... at least as far as I know; a few people I know had jobs before then, but these were very small-scale, and only at local businesses. Remember also, education is compulsary up to the age of 16, so employment is regulated up to that age.
As for all this stuff on headscarfs and so on... if you believe covering yourself is part of your faith, you have every right to go ahead with it, it's no different from wearing a whacking great cross, a turban etc in theory.
What this stems from is Jack Straw stating that he prefers to have face-to-face conversations, which is fair enough; however, he said it in a manner which some deemed offensive. A veil does hide peoples' emotions and identities, as the face gives those away; however, it does appear to be a barrier. He made a fair point, but it did offend people, and maybe he should have said that veils can hide much, and that he prefers for people not to wear them, not a statement which in [/I]effect[/I] implied he had something seriously against them. I can see where he was coming from, as talking to someone who is dressed in a somewhat Mrs Grim Reaper fashion is a tad impersonal, but such clothing is designed (As far as I know) for respect, to stop men staring at women or something similar, I'm relatively ignorant on the subject. Is this a matter of freedom of speech? It's more a matter of being careful about what goes into the public domain.
The solution? If you're an MP, let alone a government minister and former foreign secretary, be careful what you say or write, as you'll be subject to the media.
Freedom of Speech and Religion? You've got the right to both, exorcise them with care, as alienation of others is rather a social problem.
I think that children under the age of 16 should be allowed to work if they want to, and I mean proper work not paper rounds.
I want a job, to make some extra money, but I'm too young to work. Does anyone else agree with me?
I want a job, to make some extra money, but I'm too young to work. Does anyone else agree with me?
hippyman wrote:
> I think it's to do with the continuous decline in our native
> rights
But how does someone (anyone) having the right to wear what they choose indicate a decline in our rights? It has no effect on them. For years people have been able to wear what they choose, and they still can...
> How can a child understand |English from ateacher who has her
> mouth and face covered. A message is portrayed much clearer if
> you look at the face whilst the person is speaking. If you face
> away, not only does it look rude, you only understand about 60%
> what is being said.
Okay, I said the teacher issue I wasn't sure about, I guess thinking about it if someone can't see the mouth it becomes harder to understand, and that is a problem when teaching... Teachers need to communicate well with their students for them to learn.
> Makes things a lot more civilised - covering a face gives an
> impression that somone is hiding something - like if someone
> covers their mouth whilst talking - it's perceived as rude.
I don't get why people see it as rude... Surely it's more rude to tell people they're not allowed to wear an item of clothing they want to, for no other reason than some people feel it's 'uncivilised' for some reason. Hell, I'd much prefer to interact with a polite person wearing a veil than an obnoxious person whose face I could see...
> True, but the fuss made/insult to the person being asked to do
> so will hit the headlines - lawsuits and compensation claims for
> harrassment plagueing the papers. If they cover up in public and
> someone asks them to take it of, then what is the answer? Same
> answer will ome out in a security situation.
There's a difference between someone randomly asking another to take off an item of clothing, and having to remove the clothing due to security. If you want to go into some security critical area, people need to confirm your identity, which can't be done with your face obscured, obviously. If compensation claims come through because people were required to prove their identity, then yeah, that's stupid.
> But your face will be familiar. Ok, if a crime was committed,
> all you would have to do is look for the veil. But if they take
> it off... What have people got to go on. A glimpse at a set of
> eyes - so what can that prove? I know the iris pattern is
> uniques, but could you individually ID someone based on their
> eyes? I bet nobody really knows what their eyes look like!
But this is kind of getting into the territory of saying that people should do things specifically to make life easier for the police... Like we should ban veils because it's hard to ID someone wearing a veil... So why not completely ban hoodies? Ban motorcycling helmets (unless you're on a motorbike!)? Take everyone's DNA at birth and stick it on a national database? Put tracking chips in everyone? While veils are a pretty minor issue compared to those last two, it's still legislating to take away rights simply because it could make life a little easier for the police, and just because it doesn't affect the majority of people in this country, doesn't mean we should welcome it.
> What freedoms are we really taking away? If I were to go out
> covering my face and acting the way some Muslims have been known
> to act whilst facing this issue, then I'd be arrested. So what
> makes them any different from us? Apart from the belief system
> - to which I have no problem with
What do you mean by "acting the way some Muslims have been known to act"...? From my somewhat limited experience, Muslims in general do not act differently from other people...
> Sorr Sibs, not picking on you here, but you made a few points
> that I'd like to respond to.
Nono, I'm not one to get offended because someone doesn't agree with me. If I was I'd probably spend a lot of my time annoyed and angry!
> I think it's to do with the continuous decline in our native
> rights
But how does someone (anyone) having the right to wear what they choose indicate a decline in our rights? It has no effect on them. For years people have been able to wear what they choose, and they still can...
> How can a child understand |English from ateacher who has her
> mouth and face covered. A message is portrayed much clearer if
> you look at the face whilst the person is speaking. If you face
> away, not only does it look rude, you only understand about 60%
> what is being said.
Okay, I said the teacher issue I wasn't sure about, I guess thinking about it if someone can't see the mouth it becomes harder to understand, and that is a problem when teaching... Teachers need to communicate well with their students for them to learn.
> Makes things a lot more civilised - covering a face gives an
> impression that somone is hiding something - like if someone
> covers their mouth whilst talking - it's perceived as rude.
I don't get why people see it as rude... Surely it's more rude to tell people they're not allowed to wear an item of clothing they want to, for no other reason than some people feel it's 'uncivilised' for some reason. Hell, I'd much prefer to interact with a polite person wearing a veil than an obnoxious person whose face I could see...
> True, but the fuss made/insult to the person being asked to do
> so will hit the headlines - lawsuits and compensation claims for
> harrassment plagueing the papers. If they cover up in public and
> someone asks them to take it of, then what is the answer? Same
> answer will ome out in a security situation.
There's a difference between someone randomly asking another to take off an item of clothing, and having to remove the clothing due to security. If you want to go into some security critical area, people need to confirm your identity, which can't be done with your face obscured, obviously. If compensation claims come through because people were required to prove their identity, then yeah, that's stupid.
> But your face will be familiar. Ok, if a crime was committed,
> all you would have to do is look for the veil. But if they take
> it off... What have people got to go on. A glimpse at a set of
> eyes - so what can that prove? I know the iris pattern is
> uniques, but could you individually ID someone based on their
> eyes? I bet nobody really knows what their eyes look like!
But this is kind of getting into the territory of saying that people should do things specifically to make life easier for the police... Like we should ban veils because it's hard to ID someone wearing a veil... So why not completely ban hoodies? Ban motorcycling helmets (unless you're on a motorbike!)? Take everyone's DNA at birth and stick it on a national database? Put tracking chips in everyone? While veils are a pretty minor issue compared to those last two, it's still legislating to take away rights simply because it could make life a little easier for the police, and just because it doesn't affect the majority of people in this country, doesn't mean we should welcome it.
> What freedoms are we really taking away? If I were to go out
> covering my face and acting the way some Muslims have been known
> to act whilst facing this issue, then I'd be arrested. So what
> makes them any different from us? Apart from the belief system
> - to which I have no problem with
What do you mean by "acting the way some Muslims have been known to act"...? From my somewhat limited experience, Muslims in general do not act differently from other people...
> Sorr Sibs, not picking on you here, but you made a few points
> that I'd like to respond to.
Nono, I'm not one to get offended because someone doesn't agree with me. If I was I'd probably spend a lot of my time annoyed and angry!
Sibs wrote:
> I really don't understand why there's been this sudden outrage > at people wearing veils...
I think it's to do with the continuous decline in our native rights
> Obviously there are some situations where a veil would not be
> appropriate, but even the teacher situation I don't really
> understand... Is a veil really detrimental to childrens
> education? I don't know really, I'd assume as long as they can
> hear and understand the teacher properly, there should be no
> problem.
How can a child understand |English from ateacher who has her mouth and face covered. A message is portrayed much clearer if you look at the face whilst the person is speaking. If you face away, not only does it look rude, you only understand about 60% what is being said.
> Anyway. What's the big deal about veils? Oh noes, you can't see
> the persons face!!! If they don't want you to see their face for
> whatever reason, big deal... Get over it.
Makes things a lot more civilised - covering a face gives an impression that somone is hiding something - like if someone covers their mouth whilst talking - it's perceived as rude.
> The security angle? If they're going into some security critical
> area they will surely get checked and have to remove the veil...
> If they're not in a security critical area then it'd be just as
> easy for you or I to hide our identity...
True, but the fuss made/insult to the person being asked to do so will hit the headlines - lawsuits and compensation claims for harrassment plagueing the papers. If they cover up in public and someone asks them to take it of, then what is the answer? Same answer will ome out in a security situation.
> Shave your head or get
> a strange looking haircut, whatever, if people want to they will
> find a way to make themselves look 'different' so they are
> harder to recognise... So I really don't see what the big fuss
> is with regards to security...
But your face will be familiar. Ok, if a crime was committed, all you would have to do is look for the veil. But if they take it off... What have people got to go on. A glimpse at a set of eyes - so what can that prove? I know the iris pattern is uniques, but could you individually ID someone based on their eyes? I bet nobody really knows what their eyes look like!
> Isn't it slightly ironic that this thread is discussing our
> freedom to talk about taking away other peoples freedoms...?
What freedoms are we really taking away? If I were to go out covering my face and acting the way some Muslims have been known to act whilst facing this issue, then I'd be arrested. So what makes them any different from us? Apart from the belief system - to which I have no problem with
Sorr Sibs, not picking on you here, but you made a few points that I'd like to respond to.
> I really don't understand why there's been this sudden outrage > at people wearing veils...
I think it's to do with the continuous decline in our native rights
> Obviously there are some situations where a veil would not be
> appropriate, but even the teacher situation I don't really
> understand... Is a veil really detrimental to childrens
> education? I don't know really, I'd assume as long as they can
> hear and understand the teacher properly, there should be no
> problem.
How can a child understand |English from ateacher who has her mouth and face covered. A message is portrayed much clearer if you look at the face whilst the person is speaking. If you face away, not only does it look rude, you only understand about 60% what is being said.
> Anyway. What's the big deal about veils? Oh noes, you can't see
> the persons face!!! If they don't want you to see their face for
> whatever reason, big deal... Get over it.
Makes things a lot more civilised - covering a face gives an impression that somone is hiding something - like if someone covers their mouth whilst talking - it's perceived as rude.
> The security angle? If they're going into some security critical
> area they will surely get checked and have to remove the veil...
> If they're not in a security critical area then it'd be just as
> easy for you or I to hide our identity...
True, but the fuss made/insult to the person being asked to do so will hit the headlines - lawsuits and compensation claims for harrassment plagueing the papers. If they cover up in public and someone asks them to take it of, then what is the answer? Same answer will ome out in a security situation.
> Shave your head or get
> a strange looking haircut, whatever, if people want to they will
> find a way to make themselves look 'different' so they are
> harder to recognise... So I really don't see what the big fuss
> is with regards to security...
But your face will be familiar. Ok, if a crime was committed, all you would have to do is look for the veil. But if they take it off... What have people got to go on. A glimpse at a set of eyes - so what can that prove? I know the iris pattern is uniques, but could you individually ID someone based on their eyes? I bet nobody really knows what their eyes look like!
> Isn't it slightly ironic that this thread is discussing our
> freedom to talk about taking away other peoples freedoms...?
What freedoms are we really taking away? If I were to go out covering my face and acting the way some Muslims have been known to act whilst facing this issue, then I'd be arrested. So what makes them any different from us? Apart from the belief system - to which I have no problem with
Sorr Sibs, not picking on you here, but you made a few points that I'd like to respond to.
Garin wrote:
> I can only guess
> of course but I'd suggest the majority of people who said they
> are christian probably believe in god in some form but otherwise
> dont give the whole matter a great deal of thought.
This is where my problem lies. If we are to label this country a Christian country, it needs to be based on more than a large amount of people holding a wishywashy believe in God.
My point is this: our society is dominated by money; rampant consumerism is everywhere; sexual promiscuity is a normality, etc. I'm not saying these things are bad or wrong, but it seems to me that our culture could just as easily be labelled Satanic, or being more sensible: Secular.
How many times do we hear the phrase "We live in a secular society". But recently, and as a consequence of this Muslim/veil/terrorist debate, all I keep hearing now is "We live in a Christian country". It's a nonsense, in my opinion. This is much more a secular country than it is a Christian country, yet all I keep hearing is the latter.
> I can only guess
> of course but I'd suggest the majority of people who said they
> are christian probably believe in god in some form but otherwise
> dont give the whole matter a great deal of thought.
This is where my problem lies. If we are to label this country a Christian country, it needs to be based on more than a large amount of people holding a wishywashy believe in God.
My point is this: our society is dominated by money; rampant consumerism is everywhere; sexual promiscuity is a normality, etc. I'm not saying these things are bad or wrong, but it seems to me that our culture could just as easily be labelled Satanic, or being more sensible: Secular.
How many times do we hear the phrase "We live in a secular society". But recently, and as a consequence of this Muslim/veil/terrorist debate, all I keep hearing now is "We live in a Christian country". It's a nonsense, in my opinion. This is much more a secular country than it is a Christian country, yet all I keep hearing is the latter.
Sibelius wrote:
> The entire population ... I wonder how many people responded.
The 2001 census recorded 58,789,194 people. Religion was an optional question of course, but 92% of people completed it. I'd say thats a fair cross section of the population wouldnt you?
> Are you serious? Are you saying you can be a Christian and not
> accept Jesus Christ as the light and the truth?
Are you saying they cant? I think a far better question is what makes you qualified to judge who is christian and who isnt? As biglime already wrote, only a small percentage of those people will be practicing christians (church going). I can only guess of course but I'd suggest the majority of people who said they are christian probably believe in god in some form but otherwise dont give the whole matter a great deal of thought. However if they feel their leanings are christian and wish to register themselves so, who are you or I to say they cant? After all, christian culture/beliefs are ingrained into our laws/society already so people considering themselves so isnt that unreasonable.
Perhaps a better question is to ask yourself why you have such a problem with this. I dont believe in god and I have no religious inclinations at all. Yet if the majority of the country wants to call itself christian I have no problem with this.
> The entire population ... I wonder how many people responded.
The 2001 census recorded 58,789,194 people. Religion was an optional question of course, but 92% of people completed it. I'd say thats a fair cross section of the population wouldnt you?
> Are you serious? Are you saying you can be a Christian and not
> accept Jesus Christ as the light and the truth?
Are you saying they cant? I think a far better question is what makes you qualified to judge who is christian and who isnt? As biglime already wrote, only a small percentage of those people will be practicing christians (church going). I can only guess of course but I'd suggest the majority of people who said they are christian probably believe in god in some form but otherwise dont give the whole matter a great deal of thought. However if they feel their leanings are christian and wish to register themselves so, who are you or I to say they cant? After all, christian culture/beliefs are ingrained into our laws/society already so people considering themselves so isnt that unreasonable.
Perhaps a better question is to ask yourself why you have such a problem with this. I dont believe in god and I have no religious inclinations at all. Yet if the majority of the country wants to call itself christian I have no problem with this.
Garin wrote:
> Erm...its the census, the entire population is asked.
The entire population ... I wonder how many people responded.
> And how are any of those questions relevant.
Are you serious? Are you saying you can be a Christian and not accept Jesus Christ as the light and the truth?
> Erm...its the census, the entire population is asked.
The entire population ... I wonder how many people responded.
> And how are any of those questions relevant.
Are you serious? Are you saying you can be a Christian and not accept Jesus Christ as the light and the truth?
Sibelius wrote:
> And how many people did they ask in this census?
Erm...its the census, the entire population is asked.
> And how many of the 72% genuinely follow a Christian lifestyle?
> And how many really accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and
> Saviour?
> How many of them read the Bible?
And how are any of those questions relevant. Are you saying somebody can only be a christian if they adhere to some criteria you lay down? Perhaps you should contact the government and suggest in the next census we have a christianness rating for everybody too. :)
> And how many people did they ask in this census?
Erm...its the census, the entire population is asked.
> And how many of the 72% genuinely follow a Christian lifestyle?
> And how many really accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and
> Saviour?
> How many of them read the Bible?
And how are any of those questions relevant. Are you saying somebody can only be a christian if they adhere to some criteria you lay down? Perhaps you should contact the government and suggest in the next census we have a christianness rating for everybody too. :)
Page: