It's a stupid strategy to get aggravated and argue, I agree with that,  and that's not something I would encourage. But by meditation, the  children's playground doesn't become any safer for the children. You  need smarts for bringing change about, but the will to effect a change is a prerequisite for that!

Every one is bringing  changes into the world just by the fact of existing.  The changes they bring is according to their understanding. And understanding is based on one's knoweledge of oneself. As it has been said: "know yourself and you will know the universe and it's Gods".  And those who know themselves do good,because they act according to reality. The others just create more confusion.  Being very active is not necessarily doing a lot of good.

Every fool wants to change the world.  Hitler had noble intentions.  He wanted to to create a master race, so people would live more happily.  Stalin wanted to modernise Russia. For good too.   Pol Pot wanted an egalitarian society. For the good of the people.  Why do all of these people and a few other "do gooders" end up creating havoc in the world instead? Because they act with what Buddhists call "idiot compassion", compassion without wisdom to carry  out the good intentions.They don't understand what they want to change. What they want to change is based on ignorance and so they create more evil with their acions.

Self inquire is not the opposite of action.  Meditation is the highest form of action.  If you see meditation as just sitting cross legged, avoiding the world,  you don't have the slightest notion of what meditation is and dismniss it according to superficial appearences.
Wise people bring good changes, fools create havoc.  And fools are the one who get involved in mindless activities based on by preconceived notions of what "should be"

Emphasising action without understanding the motives on which the action is based, may make ego feel good, but  will just bring more problems that it will solve.

Mar 23, 2011 -- 12:28PM, BDboy wrote:

Mar 20, 2011 -- 7:44PM, Jstanl wrote:

 

Exactly!  That is the issue of the burqa.  It represents the intimidation and subjegation of women.

 

>>>>>>>> That is not how practicing Muslims see it. Rather obeying God's command.

Besides when you see "Burqa" you may see "Intimidation" and "Subjugation".

However one may argue banning the Burqa may represent "Intimidation" and "Subjugation" of women by state of France.

All depends how you want to narrate your point of view. All are valid depending on situation.

When I was living and traveling in the Middle East in the late 70s (especially on international flights to Europe/USA) the burqa/headscarf/etc. came off as soon as the plane left the ground and on return flights they went on when the plane was in the landing approach.

I saw many Saudi women in Europe who were not even wearing a headscarf.  And yes, when you have lived there, you can recognize them.

This post of yours is just more evidence for you lacking discernment, but instead having a very big pot for brewing everything into a meaningless and indiscriminate stew. This post contains so many factual errors, not even counting the jokingly inserted ones, that it's indeed pointless to let reason shine onto it.

Mar 24, 2011 -- 10:29AM, Erey wrote:

Well you consider yourself a practising muslim - must your women wear a burka or they are defying God's command?

>>>>>>>> Erey I am a man. So it is between God and women of my family. None of them wears any burka. Some wear the headscarfs. The important point is no one is forcing others.

Mar 24, 2011 -- 10:29AM, Erey wrote:

There is typically some latitude in how one responds to the command of God at least that is what i have seen.  Afterall, one can find multitude of passages where seemingly God is commanding a believer to do something that is considered highly illegal.  Those who choose to take the literal interpretation are prosecuted to the fullest - in some countries executed.  Which is why most people wisely choose to arrive at a more pragmatic interpretation. 

>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if you read my posts in this thread or not. I have stated many many times that, most Muslims do not wear Burka. A tiny minority does. Burka requires to cover your face as well. However most Muslims wear "Hear covering" or hijab.

You assumed that, I am supporting Burka or niqab. I am only discussing it. The point is SOME women "Decided" to wear Nurka and some only hear covering and rest don't care about it. If state of France is pro-women, it should just leave it to WOMEN to decide for themselves. Not SELECTIVELY dictate women what to wear.

Mar 24, 2011 -- 10:29AM, Erey wrote:

Hey BD boy, it is not just muslims that society is focusing on.  Christians in the UK and maybe in France are being prosecuted for publicly speaking out against homosexuality or beseaching homosexuals to turn away from their wickedness.

>>>>>>>> As long there is no violence from Christians, I do not see what is wrong with sharing your values? Everyone does it, why only target people of faith?

Mar 24, 2011 -- 10:29AM, Erey wrote:

Societies change.  40 years ago most muslim women in europe typically did not feel compelled to wear it - why would they? Were they bad muslim women?   But socio-policial climates changing put the burka back in vouge as a statement.   I have a hard time believing that the upswing in burka wearing has every thing to do with sincere, intrinsic piety - but we can disagree on that.  I think it was Jesus who said something about people wearing their piety as a fashion statement. 

>>>>>>>> God is the only to decide who is bad among us. Having said that, there were only few Muslims in Europe 40 years ago. So no one even noticed if one of two women wear any Burka. Upswing in Burka is only visible because the population growth, migration and convertion (Towards Islam). Even though I do not think face covering is required in Islam, I do not think I have the right to dictate others about how to dress. Don't re-call Jesus talking about fashion statement but I do not claim to know everything. Would you be kind enough to share the chapter and verse number of this statement?

Mar 24, 2011 -- 10:29AM, Erey wrote:

You know you would not appreciate non-muslims moving into muslim dominated countries and demanding alot of rights that the general population would find unpleasant.  Western societies also have rules based on what we find distastefull.  Western society is never going to accept the burka as a simple expression of piety.  In our mind it is monsterous and dysfunctional on so many levels.  In the US you are free to wear a burka but the american public does see the burka as a horrific way to walk around in public. 

>>>>>>>> As I stated before, I am not a burka fan. However I do not like to "Tell" others how to dress. Similarly I do not like abortion but I [ Respect privacy] do not like to "Force" women to keep her child. I cannot care for a child more than the mother. Those women who wear burka must be passionate about it, otherwise [ As you have stated] it is not a fashion statement [ to put it mildly!]. :-D

Mar 24, 2011 -- 10:29AM, Erey wrote:

Hey, I woudl think muslims for all their weeping about Islamaphobia would not want to advocate walking around in somehting that frankly makes muslims look like misogynistic cave men. 

>>>>>>> Erey lesson number one

Men do NOT wear any burka. Maybe you have an issue about Muslims. Otherwise after so many years of discussion, you have not learnt anything about Islam. Why is that?

You can call KKK misogynistic cave men. That would be accurate. If you are from south, you know what the heck I am talking about too. ;-)

Mar 24, 2011 -- 10:29AM, Erey wrote:

Muslims would want to show the good, pro-woman side of Islam.    You might disagree with WHY people find burkas so horrible but the fact is we do.    For instance, I completely disagree that there is any problem wearing shorts and a tank top in public and I have excellent reasons for this.  But the good people outside of the tourist areas in the muslim world just are not going to adopt my feelings. 

>>>>>>>>>> Nope. It is about fundamental right of WOMEN to dress as they please. I have the same argument those who want to force women to burka. I am sure you understand the difference.

It is not a "Muslim" issue but a "Woman" issue.

If you ever went anywhere other than the US, you would know that, people generally try to be respectful of local customs, culture, laws and or religion. It is call being polite.

You will not going to dress like( Or undress like)  "Spring break festival" inside a church, will ya?

It is just good old common sense.

On a different note, If you think Islamophobia does not exist, you may want to re-connect with "Mother earth". ;-)

Shalom.

Try walking naked up any main street in any town in Europe, North America or Australia and you’ll be detained. For a first offence you’ll probably be released on caution. If you persist you’ll be hauled before a magistrate who, in desperation, will probably send you for psychiatric evaluation.

Governments pass and usually enforce laws that dictate how little we may wear in public. But why should they? If I want to flaunt my “wares” on Circular Quay in Sydney why shouldn’t I? Isn’t it my body? Shouldn’t it be my choice? Doesn’t this arbitrary ban on public nudity oppress sexy women who want to strut their stuff in public?

The argument usually given in favour of laws against public nudity is that other people would be offended by the sight of my naked body. But why should that be my problem? If people don’t like what they can see they can look the other way. Shouldn't I be free to do my own thing?

The reality is that by general consensus we allow governments to dictate how little we may wear in public. But then how can we argue that governments may not impose other limitations on public dress? If we allow governments to pass laws against wearing too little how can we argue that they may not pass laws against wearing too much?

Don’t get me wrong. I do not advocate banning the burqa. I think ban the burqa laws are the height of foolishness and I can foresee endless legal wrangles. (For one, define how much of a face must be covered before the law comes into effect.)

But I do not see any great issue of principle here. I think after a while passions will cool and the law will fall into desuetude – mainly because I suspect hardly anyone will want to wear a burqa anyway.

Or, alternatively, we can strike a grand bargain with nudists. The law allows both burqas and public nudity and if I want I can sunbathe naked on Bondi Beach while women (in burqas) tell their husbands to stop staring.