Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/14/08 09:21 PM, Christopherr wrote: So France doesn't want extremists running around making demands, unlike most of Europe. That's admirable. They're acting on the pretense that wherever extremist Muslims go, trouble goes. It's not racist or prejudice, but logical.

The question is to whether she's an extremist. I don't believe that just because she's a muslim who wears a burka she's automatically a radical extremist who's out to take over the world. Its not about her being kicked out of France. She already lives there. Its about her getting citizenship and having protections under the law granted to other people living in France.

At 7/14/08 09:55 PM, tritiumnitrate wrote: The question is to whether she's an extremist. I don't believe that just because she's a muslim who wears a burka she's automatically a radical extremist who's out to take over the world. Its not about her being kicked out of France. She already lives there. Its about her getting citizenship and having protections under the law granted to other people living in France.

There's no question still. France has the ultimate authority in deciding who is allowed and who is not. If they feel she is extremist, it would be wrong not to let them exercise their authority.

So... I don't care whether she is or is not. The fact of the matter is that France thinks she is, so they're acting on it.

At 7/14/08 10:02 PM, Christopherr wrote:
There's no question still. France has the ultimate authority in deciding who is allowed and who is not. If they feel she is extremist, it would be wrong not to let them exercise their authority.

As long as someone isn't endangering the welfare of someone else, it is not the role of the government to decide who gets to live in the country.
If she owns property, or is living in the property of someone who willingly houses her its none of the governments business what her views are.
The only criteria is, will you infringe in some way on the rights of a citizen while you are here?
If the answer is no the government has no right to deny anyones right to live there.

At 7/14/08 10:28 PM, therealsylvos wrote: As long as someone isn't endangering the welfare of someone else, it is not the role of the government to decide who gets to live in the country.
If she owns property, or is living in the property of someone who willingly houses her its none of the governments business what her views are.
The only criteria is, will you infringe in some way on the rights of a citizen while you are here?
If the answer is no the government has no right to deny anyones right to live there.

No, there is no right to live where you want to, unless you are a citizen of the country you are living in. Whatever law you think allows them a right to become a citizen of the country of their choice does not exist.

It's ridiculous to even think that the government is not allowed a say in who may become a citizen and who may not, because they are. It is a power specifically delegated to them in their law codes.

At 7/14/08 10:40 PM, Christopherr wrote: No, there is no right to live where you want to, unless you are a citizen of the country you are living in. Whatever law you think allows them a right to become a citizen of the country of their choice does not exist.

It's ridiculous to even think that the government is not allowed a say in who may become a citizen and who may not, because they are. It is a power specifically delegated to them in their law codes.

Dude fuck laws, obviously i'm not a french legal scholar and I'm sure they are acting legally.
I'm talking about rights.
Just because they have the legal right to do it, doesn't mean they have the moral right to do it.

At 7/14/08 11:27 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Dude fuck laws, obviously i'm not a french legal scholar and I'm sure they are acting legally.
I'm talking about rights.
Just because they have the legal right to do it, doesn't mean they have the moral right to do it.

How is there a moral wrongdoing?

They're not doing this just to pick on Muslims. They're doing it because they feel she does not bring anything worthwhile to the French country.

At 7/14/08 11:41 PM, Christopherr wrote:

They're not doing this just to pick on Muslims. They're doing it because they feel she does not bring anything worthwhile to the French country.

Why does she have to?
She doesn't OWE anything, except taxes of course.
If she has somewhere to love the French government doesn't have any right to deny her right to live there. Its none of their goddamed business.

At 7/14/08 11:46 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Why does she have to?
She doesn't OWE anything, except taxes of course.
If she has somewhere to love the French government doesn't have any right to deny her right to live there. Its none of their goddamed business.

To become a citizen, the government needs to see you as useful. What would be the benefits that would come from naturalizing her?

I've said it already, it is their business who wishes to become part of their government and their country. I'm sorry that offends your moral codes, but the legal codes hold much more weight.

At 7/14/08 11:50 PM, Christopherr wrote:
To become a citizen, the government needs to see you as useful. What would be the benefits that would come from naturalizing her?

Taxes...
You really think a baby is of more value than her? just because its born there?
Of course I'm also pretty sure that citizenship for all peoples is a pretty basic tenet of democracy, and that all people are equal in rights...

I've said it already, it is their business who wishes to become part of their government and their country. I'm sorry that offends your moral codes, but the legal codes hold much more weight.

Dude I'm pretty sure there are no lawyers on the BBS so limiting discussion to just legality is fucktarded.
All we ever do is discuss morality here.

Plus where does legal codes stem from...

At 7/14/08 05:24 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

Or it's a translation issue.

I've never heard of any translation of Genesis that suddenly said the earth was created 4.6 billions years ago or one that said Jesus was just a fictonal character who never actually did miracles.

Playing around with translation is usually completely useless. Maybe you'll get to change a couple incriminating lines, but nowhere near enough. Sometimes, you have to own up.

At 7/14/08 05:51 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

Errr, the entire basis behind the idea of holy Scripture is to put forward the religions message.

You're confusing the definitions here.
The message of religion is the LAWS OF THE BOOK and the "fact" that Jesus was the real son of God who rose from the dead, did miracles etc.
That's their message.

It's not the "underlying overall theme of forgiveness and redemption that Jesus brings, as interpreted by each person".

No, you are to read it literally. Nowhere in the bible does it even suggest that you get to pretend the whole thing is fiction or a metaphor. Only in the light of our current knowledge do we know now that most of this stuff is completely retarded, but 2000 years ago there would have been no way of knowing even if you analyzed the book as much as you could possibly want with your English literature classes.

Yes, because the mere fact that jesus exists is whats important, not what he was teaching which is in fact the message.

Him existing is much more important than what he said to religious people, as evidenced by the fact that they don't do most of what he said anyways.

And if you actually read the Quran you see the context and realise that a lot of the stuff that's in there that's used as 'evidence' agaisnt them is taken out of context.

Oh bullshit.
That's complete and utter bullshit.
here: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/Quran/

I don't get why you're so hellbent on defending those assholes.

At 7/14/08 07:11 PM, Mr-Pope wrote:

Let the disbelievers enjoy life and let false hope beguile them. They will come to know! (Al-Hijr 15:2-3)
There is no compulsion in religion. (2:257)
Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (Al-Kahf 18:29)

on what website did you find these?

And talk about how the death penalty is never actually prescribed for apostasy in the Quran. Yeah, they could do that.

Oh yeah? Ok, I don't remember seeing any lines about it, so I'll go look it up for myself.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/apo stasy.htm

""If they repent and uphold the practice of prayer and almsgiving, then they are your brothers in religion. If after this, however, they break their covenant, then war should be waged against the leaders of kufr (infidelity). Here "covenant breaking" in no way can be construed to mean "breaking of political covenants". Rather, the context clearly determines its meaning to be "confessing Islam and then renouncing it". Thereafter the meaning of "fight the heads of disbelief" (9:11,12) can only mean that war should be waged against the leaders instigating apostasy.[2][7]"

To everyone acquainted with Islamic law it is no secret that according to Islam the punishment for a Muslim who turns to kufr (infidelity, blasphemy) is execution. Doubt about this matter first arose among Muslims during the final portion of the nineteenth century as a result of speculation. Otherwise, for the full twelve centuries prior to that time the total Muslim community remained unanimous about it.

Yeah, apostasy is JUUUUUUUUUUST A MYTH.
It's pretty clear that the only reason they don't do it anymore is purely because they don't have the power to enforce it on a planetary scale and they would look even MORE like assholes if they kept it on.

For someone who constantly tells people to "read the fucking book", you'd do well to take your own advice.

says the guy who hasn't read it himself.

At 7/14/08 05:51 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

Errr, the entire basis behind the idea of holy Scripture is to put forward the religions message.

You're confusing the definitions here.
The message of religion is the LAWS OF THE BOOK and the "fact" that Jesus was the real son of God who rose from the dead, did miracles etc.
That's their message.

No, I'm going on a definition of what a message is. In literature the message is not what is promptly spoken, it is what lies underneath the meaning of it if you will. Using your definition the message of 1984 is that Big Brother took over everything and did nasty shit and were anyone to ever take it as being a holy book ( which isn't that far off in soem circles) the ' message' behind it is tha Facism is good and not ' Holy shit Totalitarian governments are bad!'

No, you are to read it literally. Nowhere in the bible does it even suggest that you get to pretend the whole thing is fiction or a metaphor.

And nowhere does it actually say that you need to take it literally. there's quotations that allow you to form an argument, but later on there are bits which contradict it. Nowehre is there soemthign that plainly states ' THIS HOYL BOOK SHOULD BE TAKEN LITERALLY AND THIS IS HOW YOU DO THIGS!'

Only in the light of our current knowledge do we know now that most of this stuff is completely retarded, but 2000 years ago there would have been no way of knowing even if you analyzed the book as much as you could possibly want with your English literature classes.

And this is relevant how? That was then this is now. How people used to read the Bible or the Quran is not relevant.

Him existing is much more important than what he said to religious people, as evidenced by the fact that they don't do most of what he said anyways.

Shockingly this coems down to interpretation meaning your whole diea of ' This is how it should be done!' is wrong.

Oh bullshit.
That's complete and utter bullshit.
here: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/Quran/

Yeah...because something entitled the Skeptics Annotated Quran is such a relaible place to get information? That's them putting in THEIR interpretation of it. But consdiering you seem to think that everything in religion needs to be taken literally and everything is black and white then it doesn't matter doe sit?

YOU said it yourself that people look at religious scriptures and come out with it with what they want. How is it that this website and you are suddenly immune from this cosndiering both you and they will have some form of bias agaisnt the Quran?

I don't get why you're so hellbent on defending those assholes.

I'm not hellbent on defending them. I just find it an amusing way to spend my time watching how someone can take such an arrogant view on a subject when they haven't even read the key text. Its like me saying Da Vinci wa s a shit artist without even looking at any of the paintings he did.

At 7/15/08 04:17 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

No, I'm going on a definition of what a message is. In literature

I repeat, holy books are not viewed as litterature by the followers. They are viewed as factual accounts and commands issued by God.
They are not up to interpretation.

Like:
Jesus said to eat a cookie every day.

There's no "underlying message". That means you eat a cookie every day.

And nowhere does it actually say that you need to take it literally.

Yeah, that would be all the parts where it says it's the unshakable law of God and that if you don't do the things he commands, you'll go to hell.

And this is relevant how? That was then this is now. How people used to read the Bible or the Quran is not relevant.

I'm telling you that the only reason you know it's bullshit is because we're 2000 years more advanced scientifically, not because you're using your literature analysis skills.

Shockingly this coems down to interpretation

Not really, they just don't do it because they don't know what he said, and when they don't want to do it they twist the sentences around or just ignore them completely.

Yeah...because something entitled the Skeptics Annotated Quran is such a relaible place to get information?

The entire text is there for you to see, how is it biased or unfair or cheating?
You don't believe it? Check the "context", it's all right there. All they did was take some quotes out of it and organize them, they didn't change anything and they're not hiding anything.

That's pretty damned objective for what it is.

YOU said it yourself that people look at religious scriptures and come out with it with what they want. How is it that this website and you are suddenly immune from this cosndiering both you and they will have some form of bias agaisnt the Quran?

uh I don't see "what I want", I just read what's there. It says "jonas lived in a whale" then I assume it means Jonas lived in a whale. I don't have to interpret anything since I don't believe in this nonsense, but religious people have to twist it around to make it work with their modern view of the world.

At 7/15/08 04:39 AM, poxpower wrote: I repeat, holy books are not viewed as litterature by the followers. They are viewed as factual accounts and commands issued by God.
They are not up to interpretation.

Literature does not mean fiction. Factural books are still literature. But you can still find a meaning in them. I've got a book that lsits cold hard facts about how shit Bush is as a President, doesn't mean that their isn;t a message behidn ti saying ' Bush is shit!'.

Yeah, that would be all the parts where it says it's the unshakable law of God and that if you don't do the things he commands, you'll go to hell.

Yeah...commands you to, which doesn't mean ' GENESIS HAPPENED LIKE THIS!'. Taking it as the word of God is fine and dandy.

I'm telling you that the only reason you know it's bullshit is because we're 2000 years more advanced scientifically, not because you're using your literature analysis skills.

Whether its bullshit or not is irrelevant. Facts get interpretted just as much as made up things. Even if ithe events are taken as fact, that doesn't mean you can't find alternate meanings in it. Jonah gets eaten by a whale. Do we take this to mean that we shouldn't go falling into Whales mouths? Or does it means that we should be patient and eventually in waht looks like the darkest of times we will be saved in some way. Either works, but they'r eboth different interpretations of whatw as considered fact.

Not really, they just don't do it because they don't know what he said, and when they don't want to do it they twist the sentences around or just ignore them completely.

Wait...so you're syaing that Islam is bad cause it's based on the Quran which has some bad stuff in it. yet you're saying that Muslims will just ignore it when it suits their purpose? That would mean that the Quran itself wasn't a problem as it would meand that people could look at the bits that were stupid such as the apostasy ot whatever and say ' ah...actually, no'. Whcih would appear to be your main gripe is the negative aspects of the Quran and other religious scripture. If those aspects are ignored as they often are by most rational and non evangelical brainwashed idiots

The entire text is there for you to see, how is it biased or unfair or cheating?

Because it provides interpretations of it already in the annotations. It's like when you're staring at clouds and someon says ' That one looks like a rabbit'. Before you were told about you may not have noticed, but when tis pointed out you can see that it does in look like a rabbit.

You don't believe it? Check the "context", it's all right there. All they did was take some quotes out of it and organize them, they didn't change anything and they're not hiding anything.

I'm gonna read through it properly as i've yet to read the Quran all the wya through anyway, but the very existense of an interpretation in the side lines does undemrine it validity soemwhat as does cloud the perception of the reader.

That's pretty damned objective for what it is.

No, objective, if there is such a thing, is reading the text in an unaltered form, preferably in its original language. Providing a single interpretation is not objective. Providing all interpretations? possibly.

uh I don't see "what I want", I just read what's there.

Welcome to the wonderful world of postmodernism. The basis of the entire school of thought is that everyone is inherently biased and views things through clouded glasses. There is no universal truth. There is only perception. There is no singular reality. There is only objective truth.

It says "jonas lived in a whale" then I assume it means Jonas lived in a whale. I don't have to interpret anything since I don't believe in this nonsense, but religious people have to twist it around to make it work with their modern view of the world.

And this may be why you don't get religion. What's the point of having the story of Jonah and the whale unless there is a purpose behind it? If the whole point of it, is just ' This 'happened'' then why bother with it?

Hell, I'm an historian, I spend my time looking at things and determining ' This happened' but even I, and the Professors I study under and the like don't just leave it at that, we look for lessons to be learned and the like.

Also, got a very good reason why Skeptics annotatetd bible is a shit site for you to source pox. it doesn;t take it seriously. One of the interpretations is as follows.

Verse 2:23

And if ye are in doubt ... then produce a surah of the like thereof."

If you doubt that the truth of the Quran, then try making some stuff up and see how it compares. (Whatever you come up with will be better than the Quran.)

Now lets look at what the text says:

And if ye are in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto Our slave (Muhammad), then produce a surah of the like thereof, and call your witness beside Allah if ye are truthful.

The sites interpretation is ' make soemthing up and it'll be better than the Quran' which is is what it says. No room for error. The actual menaing of the verse is ' If you do not believe the Quran make or find your own book and ask God to bear witness on whether or not it is accurate'.

The fact they aren't even taking the damn tning seriously is automatic fail as valid sources go. It's the equivalent of me citing Colbert to show why Conservatives are stupid.

At 7/15/08 05:28 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

Factural books are still literature.

A science book is not meant for you to go and "find the theme" or some shit.
I mean, why are you arguing this? Can't you just admit there's obviously books that are meant to be only taken on the first level and for you to do what it says?

Laws? Contracts? Cookbooks? science? etc. etc.
Religious texts are books of law.

Even if ithe events are taken as fact, that doesn't mean you can't find alternate meanings in it.

look, you can do that too if you want, but you also have to do what it tells you to do on the first degree.

That would mean that the Quran itself wasn't a problem as it would meand that people could look at the bits that were stupid such as the apostasy ot whatever and say ' ah...actually, no'.

Religious text become a problem because the base material IS horrible and it gives an excuse to any extremist/radical douche to do what they want because IT IS IN THE BOOK.

There's probably not a single Christian who does everything in the book. One guy actually tried for one year to write a book, but that didn't really work out too well.

Anyways, what these books do is slow down social change. Right now, there's no slavery here. But 200 years ago, the bible was used to enforce it. What changed? It's not the bible.

So obviously: let's get rid of that shit. I think the point is clear.

Because it provides interpretations of it already in the annotations.

The text is right there, if you don't agree with their interpretation, fine, but you can't say they're being dishonest. Everything is there unedited.

There is only objective truth.

Cats are furry and this sentence doesn't mean anything more.

There, interpret that.

What's the point of having the story of Jonah and the whale unless there is a purpose behind it?

That's not what I'm saying. It's obvious those stories have a message most of the time, but they're also supposedly true.
If you're a Christian, you have to believe in something supernatural, i.e. Jesus is the son of God, he made miracles and he came back to life.

So why not everything else? You're already saying "God can bend the rules for this" so you might as well stretch it where you want.

Because there's nothing in the bible that says "ok Jesus was real, but Jonas and Noah weren't". From historical records, we know, but give that book to some aliens and they won't have a clue who's real and who's not in there and it's pretty damn important when you live in a world of science and logic.

Do you believe a guy can live in a whale and make frogs rain or not? I mean, that's got pretty big implications on someone's world view.

I agree with just about every word Pox has said in this thread.

If you live in the middle east and you want to mvoe somewhere civilized like the US or western Europe then forget your barbaric customs and prepare to either become spirtual but not religious(Like me, a chirtstan or a athiest.

Don't spread the virsus of vanity and flith to civilization, acceptance of that would be blasphemy and pure venom to society.

At 7/15/08 06:12 AM, poxpower wrote: I mean, why are you arguing this? Can't you just admit there's obviously books that are meant to be only taken on the first level and for you to do what it says?

Boredom mostly. Got to wait in all day for my landlord to turn up and for some PC repair place to pick up my housemates laptop.

Religious texts are books of law.

Only if you read them as such. I read them as being stories. Stories with a message but stories none the less.

Its the nasty thing called interpretation again isn't it?

look, you can do that too if you want, but you also have to do what it tells you to do on the first degree.

Only if you treat like a book of law. I'm saying it doesn;t have to be treated as such.

There's probably not a single Christian who does everything in the book. One guy actually tried for one year to write a book, but that didn't really work out too well.

I am aware of this. Its called adpation. Evolution if you will. Changing to suit the circumstances so it can survive. Happens to human concepts as well as organisms. And I'm sitll failing to see a problem with this. You're saying rleigion is bad because of some of the stuff the texts proclaim correct? But now you're saying but adherents to the religion don't follow it toally, meaning the bad bits can quite easily be left out.

What's the problem?

Anyways, what these books do is slow down social change. Right now, there's no slavery here. But 200 years ago, the bible was used to enforce it. What changed? It's not the bible.

Peoples morals did. And then when it become not nice to have slaves people stopped bothering with belieivng that aspect of the bibe. As I said, evolution of a concept. Following the spirit of the book rather than the literal words.

Cats are furry and this sentence doesn't mean anything more.

There, interpret that.

Interpretation 1) You're saying that cats possess fur on their body.

Interpretation 2) You're trying to disprove a statement by drawing what you think is an uninterpretable sentence.

Care to deny either of those? Cause you re stating that cats have fur, but you are also trying to disprove what i'm saying about interpretation. Both my responses are legitimate, one only makes sens ein the context of the argument, and the other is a simple statement of fact. Still room for interpretation though.

That's not what I'm saying. It's obvious those stories have a message most of the time, but they're also supposedly true.

Then what the hell are you saying?

You've basically been arguing with over whether or not holy Scripture should be taken at face value only and there is no hidden meaning behind it and no room for interpretation. If this isn't what you mean then explain what you do mean.

If you're a Christian, you have to believe in something supernatural, i.e. Jesus is the son of God, he made miracles and he came back to life.

And? The fact that these things are supposed to thought of as facts does not undermine the message in the stories themselves. The meaning of the stories is the main aspect of the religious scripture, not the events in the stories themselves.

Because there's nothing in the bible that says "ok Jesus was real, but Jonas and Noah weren't". From historical records, we know, but give that book to some aliens and they won't have a clue who's real and who's not in there and it's pretty damn important when you live in a world of science and logic.

And the level of historical innacuracy in religious scripture is irrelevant to my point that you can, interpret stuff all the time and that there is no ' one clear message' to come out of scripture which was what you said to begin with when you claimed you knew what was contained within the Quran without even reading it.

Do you believe a guy can live in a whale and make frogs rain or not? I mean, that's got pretty big implications on someone's world view.

Considering I'm a Deist no I don't. i don't believe in the abrahamic concept of a personal God. And the thing is, even Christians now days don't even beleive that jonah survived in a whale. they have a different interpretation of it. Ie that it teaches certain lessons.

This is my entire point: There is no singular interpretation of a religious text. There is no definitive article which says ' THIS IS WHAT THIS MEANS!' everybody brings soemthign different to it when they read it. There own experiences and bias has an affect on their understanding, albeit a subconcious one.

At 7/15/08 06:12 AM, smc316 wrote: Don't spread the virsus of vanity and flith to civilization, acceptance of that would be blasphemy and pure venom to society.

The irony here is killing me. you're claiming that an entire relgion of the earth is without civilisation which is:

1) Exactly what the extremists you seem to dislike so much say about us.
2) Pretty damn vain that you assume that there is only a single definition of what civilisation is.

At 7/15/08 06:38 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: The irony here is killing me. you're claiming that an entire relgion of the earth is without civilisation which is:
1) Exactly what the extremists you seem to dislike so much say about us.
2) Pretty damn vain that you assume that there is only a single definition of what civilisation is.

The irony here is killing me. :3

If you couldn't tell I was joking about the whole vanity and spreading flith and shit....the only part that was serious at all about my post was the fact I agree with PoxPower, but I would never say anything so selfesh, selfcentered and stupid as that in all seriousness.

You people take things way to seriously in this forum....that is the problem here.

I added in that angry face by accident, I didn't mean to press it if that caused confusion. (I usually type out several posts at once before posting any, i'm weird like that.)

Also i would never call myself an extremist btw.

Lighten up and calm down, thats my advice to you.

At 7/15/08 06:38 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

Boredom mostly.

heeeeell yeah.

Only if you read them as such.

If you're truly religious, that's how you're supposed to read it.
Problem is that any lazy schmoe comes along calling himself a "christian" even though they haven't read the bible and they don't even believe in 99% of it.
They're "cultural christians" I would say, and the same goes for many religions.

But in the context of this thread, if you're talking about a woman who's going so far as to wear a Burka and refuse to take it off when threatened with deportation, It's safe to assume we're talking about a muslim woman who takes the texts literally.

I am aware of this. Its called adpation. Evolution if you will. Changing to suit the circumstances so it can survive.

I'm just saying that pretty much proves how the books are useless since people choose what they want to do and how they want to live even before ever opening the damn thing.

Why bother?

Interpretation 2) You're trying to disprove a statement by drawing what you think is an uninterpretable sentence.

You can't interpret that just from the sentence unless you're ON DOPE.

Then what the hell are you saying?

I'm telling you that fundamentalist religious people don't think like you. They don't "interpret it", to them they get it 100% right and there's no other valid interpretation.

Considering I'm a Deist no I don't. i don't believe in the abrahamic concept of a personal God. And the thing is, even Christians now days don't even beleive that jonah survived in a whale. they have a different interpretation of it. Ie that it teaches certain lessons.

But at the same time, they believe Jesus came back from the dead.
See the problem here?

At 7/15/08 07:04 AM, poxpower wrote: But in the context of this thread, if you're talking about a woman who's going so far as to wear a Burka and refuse to take it off when threatened with deportation, It's safe to assume we're talking about a muslim woman who takes the texts literally.

I wouldn't be so sure, actually. I don't think she wears the burka because there's some verse in Quran that tells her to, I think she wears it because she's afraid that if she takes it off in public, she will be beaten or even killed by her husband and male relatives. She even said that she wears the burka "more out of habit than any conviction", which to me sounds like a huge euphemism. Being a woman like her, she doesn't have to read, think or interpret anything at all, she just has to obey. I doubt she even knows she has the right to sue those men and put them on restraining order.

And the men, well, they are probably more religious than she is. But I doubt that even they would beat up the woman solely because of religious texts, I think they have a large circle of equally religious friends and don't want to ashame themselves in front of them. If the wife took off the burka, she would destroy the "honor" of her family by "dressing up like a whore". The men in her family would be mocked and ridiculed, and the only way to "restore the honor" would be to beat her up, put her in her place and force her to wear the burka again, or go even further and murder her. No matter how much Quran is involved in there, it's a barbaric culture all the same.

That's why I think the ruling was unfair to her on a personal level, if her only crime was being a slave, although it's obvious that she hasn't managed to adapt to the French society and it's a miracle if she ever will. However, on a cultural level, I agree with the message of the ruling. It's a shame that the men in her family are probably French citizens and can't be deported, because they seem like the real culprits for her behavior. Why would she have to take responsibility for her actions, if she can never decide a thing on her own?

At 7/14/08 11:58 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

At 7/14/08 11:50 PM, Christopherr wrote: To become a citizen, the government needs to see you as useful. What would be the benefits that would come from naturalizing her?

Taxes...

What taxes ?
She doesn't work...she sits in a corner & does what she's told, when she's told to do it...like a dog, only without as much freedom as a dog enjoy's.

You really think a baby is of more value than her? just because its born there?

No I don't if she's had a baby & has to leave France, take your baby & get out.

Of course I'm also pretty sure that citizenship for all peoples is a pretty basic tenet of democracy, and that all people are equal in rights...

No it's not actually. as a matter of fact if after you do become a citizen (at least in Canada) if information about you comes out later that would have blocked your citizenship being granted ,,, you are stripped of your citizenship & you are deported, no matter how good & /or great a person you are now pretending to be...your gone ; which is as it should be.

I've said it already, it is their business who wishes to become part of their government and their country. I'm sorry that offends your moral codes, but the legal codes hold much more weight.

Dude I'm pretty sure there are no lawyers on the BBS so limiting discussion to just legality is fucktarded.

Morality has no basis in a discussion on Law.
Insulting Christopherr , just because he's right & it pisses you off that your wrong ,solves nothing either.
The reason you see images of the scales of justice being held by one who is blindfolded ,should be a bit of a hint there dude.

All we ever do is discuss morality here.

Plus where does legal codes stem from...

If legal codes were only about morality, pot wouldn't be illeagal. Parking your car longer than the posted time...wouldn't be illeagal.
Law & Morality do not always go hand in hand.

Besides a woman like that would be much happier if she was in Iraq or Iran or best place for her...Saudi Arabia . Where there are police to beat women if they move outside without their burrka, or will beat them & jail them if they drive a car.
Why would she or her fucked up family want to be in France?
Go to Saudi Arabia and fit in with all the other mental giants.

At 7/15/08 08:02 AM, AapoJoki wrote:

That's why I think the ruling was unfair to her on a personal level, if her only crime was being a slave,

She was in court and thus had every opportunity to denounce the man without any fear of reprisal.
She's nuts. Is it so hard to believe that some women are dumb enough to voluntarily subject themselves to this horrid way of life?

Like, yeah of course I can't know the exact reason why she's wearing the stupid thing, but I know she had the opportunity to take it off and she didn't take it, so gooooood riddance.

At 7/15/08 09:03 AM, poxpower wrote: She was in court and thus had every opportunity to denounce the man without any fear of reprisal.

Well it's just like every pedophile victim and rape victim is afraid to testify.

Even if she managed to escape her family and religion, don't you think that someone in her former Muslim community isn't going to find out where she lives?

not like they'd recognize her face, lol

At 7/14/08 05:56 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: This is actually quite releveant with the Quran. Guy called Luxemburg bsically re-translated the Quran using Syrian Aramaic ( apparently some of the phrases in the original Quran are borderline unintelligble ( hence the interpretations and but make sens eif you apply the other language, which historically speaking makes sense as its actually the lanugage that was largely in use at the time the Quran is supposed to have been written ) or something which actually changed the meaning of the text entirely. The one I like si that instead of getting 72 virgins they end up with a bunch of grapes.

But yeah, another is that instead of a veil, women should wear a chastity belt or there abouts.

That's bullshit, of course. You could translate a book to mean a lot of things. That's why translators are paid pretty good money to actually understand the context of what they're translating. They don't just run it through Google translator.

At 7/15/08 09:13 AM, AapoJoki wrote:

Even if she managed to escape her family and religion, don't you think that someone in her former Muslim community isn't going to find out where she lives?

Look even IF you were right about this: she's going to get deported.
So if her husband would rather see her be sent back to her country than just stop being a dick, then tough shit.

But I mean, read it. Seriously, she wants to wear it. She feels she has to, so tough shit. She's a victim of Islam and it's too late for her and I feel sorry for her and it's just one more thing to pile on the "fuck religion" pyramid that is already reaching beyond the stratosphere.

At 7/15/08 09:55 AM, Gunter45 wrote: That's bullshit, of course. You could translate a book to mean a lot of things. That's why translators are paid pretty good money to actually understand the context of what they're translating. They don't just run it through Google translator.

Meh, not an expert, just going on what I've heard

At 7/15/08 10:24 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Meh, not an expert, just going on what I've heard

Hebrew and Greek have similar problems with the different meanings. Yet, you don't hear nearly the drastic changes you hear with the Qu'ran. I'm assuming that it's because the violent sections of the Bible are written off already, so it's not a big deal that the Bible tells people to stone adulteresses, because that part doesn't apply anymore.

The Qu'ran doesn't really have that benefit.

At 7/15/08 10:02 AM, poxpower wrote:

But I mean, read it. Seriously, she wants to wear it. She feels she has to, so tough shit. She's a victim of Islam and it's too late for her and I feel sorry for her and it's just one more thing to pile on the "fuck religion" pyramid that is already reaching beyond the stratosphere.

News Alert: "PoxPower was kicked out of France for having "pox" in his name. The French Government released a statement saying that due to the selective choosing of such an identity, he is too submissive of chicken pox. They have decided not to grant him citizenship"

At 7/15/08 08:13 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

What taxes ?
She doesn't work...she sits in a corner & does what she's told, when she's told to do it...like a dog, only without as much freedom as a dog enjoy's.

I have absolute faith in any governments ability to find a way to tax someone.

No I don't if she's had a baby & has to leave France, take your baby & get out.

You misunderstand.
Any random baby that is born is automatically a citizen. At that time, the baby has no value to the french government...

No it's not actually. as a matter of fact if after you do become a citizen (at least in Canada) if information about you comes out later that would have blocked your citizenship being granted ,,, you are stripped of your citizenship & you are deported, no matter how good & /or great a person you are now pretending to be...your gone ; which is as it should be.

What does that have to do with my claim? Sure if it comes out that you killed 18 people and are a fugitive from the south african government ok, but democracy is ALL about how every person has equal worth and equal say and equal rights, regardless of social stature.

Morality has no basis in a discussion on Law.

Are you serious?
"We should make murder illegal because it immoral to murder someone"
"that is irrelevant to our discussion"

Insulting Christopherr , just because he's right & it pisses you off that your wrong ,solves nothing either.

I wasn't insulting him, merely his premise that we limit the discussion to whether or not it was legal.
Since we don't have any lawyers on hand, limiting all discussion to legality would be fucktarded.
Thats exactly the same if me and you are discussing the death penalty and then I say, "well its legal in the U.S. so I'm right."

The reason you see images of the scales of justice being held by one who is blindfolded ,should be a bit of a hint there dude.

That all persons are equal under the law?
That law does not discriminate between black and white, rich and poor?
I don't get you.

All we ever do is discuss morality here.

Plus where does legal codes stem from...

If legal codes were only about morality, pot wouldn't be illeagal.

lulz. You really don't think that the reason pot is illegal is because a lot of people believe it is immoral to get high?

Parking your car longer than the posted time...wouldn't be illeagal.

Of course it would be. You are parked on a busy public road that doesn't belong to you. being obnoxiously self-centered is immoral in most circles.

Law & Morality do not always go hand in hand.

That is true, because many people have different laws on morality.
When discussing what SHOULD be legal, views on morality are always brought to the forefront.

Besides a woman like that would be much happier if she was in Iraq or Iran or best place for her...Saudi Arabia . Where there are police to beat women if they move outside without their burrka, or will beat them & jail them if they drive a car.
Why would she or her fucked up family want to be in France?
Go to Saudi Arabia and fit in with all the other mental giants.

I agree.
I personally wouldn't want to live near a family like that, or even have them in my country.
I do think that they belong in a homogenous society that they fit in with.

That being said I have no right to tell someone where she can and can not live.

At 7/15/08 11:39 AM, Memorize wrote: News Alert: "PoxPower was kicked out of France for having "pox" in his name. The French Government released a statement saying that due to the selective choosing of such an identity, he is too submissive of chicken pox. They have decided not to grant him citizenship"

If Paris had been on the brink of collapse due to an outbreak of chicken pox, I would agree with that decision.