haha again with 'da joos'There is a difference between freedom of speech and hate speech. Also if freedom of speech applies to everyone, why is it that religious clothing (such as the hijab and sikh turban) are banned in France. Why is it that in America, 'negative' publications of Jews/Israel is limited and branded anti Semitic.
You should also note that Pew (a main publisher of statistics) is run by Jews. They can make up any shit, how do you know? Why blindly believe in these statistics.
i'm still learning a lot about it but from what i understand secularism is a huge part of the french culture and really there's like 20+ muslim countries they could leave to if they can't respect the indigenous culture (their parents up and left somewhere for france, they can too)Laïcité relies on the division between private life, where adherents believe religion belongs, and the public sphere, in which each individual, adherents believe, should appear as a simple citizen equal to all other citizens, devoid of ethnic, religious or other particularities.
Except that wasn't what u were sayingWhat's your problem?
What did i say wrong? I was pointing out a fallacy in that guy's argument where he stated that Islam should be removed from featuring in society. Is that not going against freedom of expression
Don't tell me you sympathise with Zionists or Sunni Wahhabis...
except it's not public places it's public institutions and people are allowed to wear whatever they want in publicI agree that the ban on religious clothing in public places is silly (ppl should be allowed to wear whatever they want in public imo) but pointing out whether or not hypocrisies in the french government's policies and attitudes to liberty exist is completely irrelevant to the fact that reacting with violence towards a bunch of cartoons is fucking stupid and barbaric
but yah agree with you on the last portion lmao"Ahead of president Francois Hollande's visit to India on February 14 and 15, France has clarified that there is no ban on wearing the Sikh turbans in public. But displaying religious symbols - which include turban and the cross - have been banned in public schools, diplomatic sources said.
The Sikh organisations such as International Sikh Confederation have protested against the ban on turban and wrote to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, urging him to take up the issue with the French president. The National Commission for Minorities (NCM) had also taken up the issue with the external affairs ministry.
The diplomatic sources said there were misunderstandings on the issue.
"There is no ban on wearing turban in public places such as streets. The diktat is that while being on the streets, no one should cover their faces. Turban doesn't fall under this category, the way burkha (veil) is," they explained.
But the sources said France has decided that there shouldn't be any display of religious symbols in public schools. "You cannot wear the cross as well."
"We have this policy in place for sometime now and French people are supportive of it. This is a policy in accordance with our secularism," sources said.On March 15, 2004, the then French President, Jacques Chirac, had brought an amendment to the French code of education that banned wearing clothing or symbols in state schools which "conspicuously exhibit a religious affiliation."
Of course, i agree with this 100%. No justification for reacting with violence.I agree that the ban on religious clothing in public places is silly (ppl should be allowed to wear whatever they want in public imo) but pointing out whether or not hypocrisies in the french government's policies and attitudes to liberty exist is completely irrelevant to the fact that reacting with violence towards a bunch of cartoons is fucking stupid and barbaric
Do you even know what the fuck you are on about...isnt it remarkable how every time a muslim does something bad, 'moderate' muslims manage to convince leftists that "real" islam is actually based on what are seemingly enlightenment ideals
of course, countries with sharia law being backward, repressive shitholes is just because theyre doing it wrong, somehow
Many of those countries are backward and repressive irrespective of the majority religion thoughisnt it remarkable how every time a muslim does something bad, 'moderate' muslims manage to convince leftists that "real" islam is actually based on what are seemingly enlightenment ideals
of course, countries with sharia law being backward, repressive shitholes is just because theyre doing it wrong, somehow
> Countries with sharia lawMany of those countries are backward and repressive irrespective of the majority religion though
Unsurprisingly none of them are remotely the western liberal vision of islam touted by moderatesNot to mention the application of sharia law in those countries is considered controversial even in the Muslim community since Sharia law isn't even a concrete set of laws anyway
Operated under theocratic lawthe Ottoman Empire operated under Sharia law for about 600 years all while embracing secular ideals and laws
If you knew anything about the ottoman empire you would know what a load of baloney that was in practice, retard... they also acknowledged freedom of all religious practices, etc... retards gon' retard...
ok...Operated under theocratic law
Embraced secular law
pick one
If you knew anything about the ottoman empire you would know what a load of baloney that was in practice, retard.
Among many others, the ottoman persecution of christians is well documented. heck, they even persecuted heterodox muslim groups. Retard.
1. It's not a confusing concept, most of those countries also happen to be any combination of poor, culturally quite backward, war-ravaged and/or politically corrupt which are all factors in making a country repressive. One only has to look at a plethora of other countries that fit those categories that aren't Muslim majority and see they suffer from the same pitfalls of oppressive behaviour.> Countries with sharia law
>regardless of majority religion
?????
Unsurprisingly none of them are remotely the western liberal vision of islam touted by moderates
which makes sense considering most muslims don't hold such views personally
You said those countries regardless of majority religion, but they all have the same majority religion (islam)1. It's not a confusing concept,
yes because there's no way that islam could POSSIBLY affect the culture of a country or cause armed conflicts. No, these are obviously just inherent parts of these countries' geography, apparently.most of those countries also happen to be any combination of poor, culturally quite backward, war-ravaged and/or politically corrupt
Yeah, you're reight actually. Being oppressive is actually the norm and europeans are the exception.which are all factors in making a country repressive. One only has to look at a plethora of other countries that fit those categories that aren't Muslim majority and see they suffer from the same pitfalls of oppressive behaviour.
false2. Um most Muslims don't hold such extreme views and are pretty moderate (take it from someone within the Muslim community). Furthermore, there are Muslim countries with secular laws precisely because they interpret this as being compatible with their interpretation of Sharia law