Advertisement
by Galloism » Mon Dec 24, 2018 4:59 pm
Teachian wrote:This is the best shift in thread topic I’ve seen yet, hands down
by VoVoDoCo » Mon Dec 24, 2018 5:24 pm
by Galloism » Mon Dec 24, 2018 5:41 pm
by Kaggeceria » Mon Dec 24, 2018 7:12 pm
by Diopolis » Mon Dec 24, 2018 8:04 pm
TURTLESHROOM II wrote:Diopolis wrote:Actually, in Christianity, modesty rules vary significantly based on the particular sect or interpretation. Islam is likely the same way.
As the Muslim gentleman above me commented: "it's not what you deem modest, it's what your religion deems modest".
1 Corinthians 11 is universal and isn't something you can dismiss if you practice Christianity.
As for modesty, I was mostly stating the bare minimum requirements: particularly, the ones my sister follows. She doesn't see a problem with short shorts as long as they completely cover the backside.
How I define modesty for men and women is the exact standard I apply to myself: pants to the knees, no midriff, no cleavage (thankfully I don't have to deal with that), no backside, no glutial folds, no sexual attire.
by El-Amin Caliphate » Mon Dec 24, 2018 8:07 pm
Diopolis wrote:TURTLESHROOM II wrote:
As the Muslim gentleman above me commented: "it's not what you deem modest, it's what your religion deems modest".
1 Corinthians 11 is universal and isn't something you can dismiss if you practice Christianity.
As for modesty, I was mostly stating the bare minimum requirements: particularly, the ones my sister follows. She doesn't see a problem with short shorts as long as they completely cover the backside.
How I define modesty for men and women is the exact standard I apply to myself: pants to the knees, no midriff, no cleavage (thankfully I don't have to deal with that), no backside, no glutial folds, no sexual attire.
I'm not disputing this. However, different interpretations of Christianity exist with more or less strict requirements. My interpretation bans showing the shoulders and requires the knees to be covered(and women must cover their heads in church with a hat or veil). The heresy of Mahommet probably has a similar set of variations- so because not all moorish sects require the hijab doesn't mean they all don't.
https://americanvision.org/948/theonomy-vs-theocracy/ wrote:God’s law cannot govern a nation where God’s law does not rule in the hearts of the people
Plaetopia wrote:Partly Free / Hybrid regime (score 4-6) El-Amin Caliphate (5.33)
by Novo Razcon » Mon Dec 24, 2018 8:10 pm
by United Muscovite Nations » Mon Dec 24, 2018 8:28 pm
Ostroeuropa wrote:Myrkvifiord wrote:This rule is so, just, no. Islam doesn't allow shaking of hands from the opposite sex. Just have them shake hands with someone of their own sex. And if the rule is that you must physically shake hands, that leaves other groups out as well. What if you are severely immunocompromised? What if you have no arms? What if you can't control your arms? Denmark is clearly a smart country. After witnessing the persecution of Jews in WWII, they definitely understand what it's like. Now, they are persecuting the minority Muslim community. Disappointing from Denmark, of all nations, renowned for being kind and humble at all times.
You aren't being persecuted because society refuses to accomodate your silly religious rules. They're not being hunted down in the streets. We're merely not facilitating their shite.
What, are we persecuting fundamentalist Jews because we won't pay goyim to stand near crossings to press the traffic light button for them on sundays? Wah wah I can't use these crossings without risk of being run over by traffic, you're excluding me. And that one is an actual threat to life and limb.
No, you've just got a silly, arbitrary, self-imposed limitation, and we're not going to base our society around accomodating it and nor should we.
If you're so hardcore in your religion you wont shake hands with the opposite sex, that's your problem, not ours.
by United Muscovite Nations » Mon Dec 24, 2018 8:32 pm
TURTLESHROOM II wrote:Ors Might wrote:Allah apparently believes his people are incapable of controlling themselves around the opposite sex enough to shake hands.
If your culture is so savage and backwards that it is acceptable for a man to refuse to extend a handshake to a woman (or refuse to take her hand) because she is a woman, you have no place in Europe or the civilized world. Even nations that engage in alternates like bowing honor handshakes.
This is a method of forcing assimilation and it should be applauded, as well as applied in ever coutnry in Europe.
by Thermodolia » Mon Dec 24, 2018 9:36 pm
by Thermodolia » Mon Dec 24, 2018 9:40 pm
TURTLESHROOM II wrote:El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Fine: take off your hijab and beard if you want to be a Danish citizen
Manly Vikings and Danes wear beards, and beards aren't commanded by any religion except Sikhism. To my knowledge, Islam does not demand facial hair out of male followers.
Sikhism and Judaism are literally the only religions whose dress code (for all believers) is explicitly defined, in detail, in their Scriptures. Even then, the Jewish mandates are far more lax (put four tassles on your robe or top/shirt, don't wear mixed fibers, and don't shave the sides of your head are the three I remember) and don't require special accomodation.
While Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all mandate modest dress for men and women, the latter two don't go into detail as to how it is done. The Qu'ran, to my knowledge, doesn't define modest dress as specifically as observing hijab prescribes. Observing hijab seems to be a cultural practice from my outside view; Islam sounds like it demands "cover your breasts", not "cover your head", IMO.
Where, specifically, in the Qu'ran or Hadiths is observing hijab (for women) or wearing long pants that extend to your ankles (for men) located?
In Christianity," modesty" interpreted is not showing cleavage, no gluteal folds, no midriff (etc. etc.), not "cover your body from head to toe".
by Thermodolia » Mon Dec 24, 2018 9:49 pm
Suggesting that equality between people of different religions is somehow less important than equality between sexes, which dare I say is very discriminatory.
Believing that equality under the law, which is defined as "any basic right or freedom to which all human beings are entitled and in whose exercise a government may not interfere (including rights to life and liberty as well as freedom of thought and expression and equality before the law)", somehow permits the use of legislation to target certain social groups. Are you sure you're not conflating equality under the law with entitlement to pointless national folkways?
by Jolthig » Mon Dec 24, 2018 9:50 pm
Thermodolia wrote:TURTLESHROOM II wrote:
Manly Vikings and Danes wear beards, and beards aren't commanded by any religion except Sikhism. To my knowledge, Islam does not demand facial hair out of male followers.
Sikhism and Judaism are literally the only religions whose dress code (for all believers) is explicitly defined, in detail, in their Scriptures. Even then, the Jewish mandates are far more lax (put four tassles on your robe or top/shirt, don't wear mixed fibers, and don't shave the sides of your head are the three I remember) and don't require special accomodation.
While Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all mandate modest dress for men and women, the latter two don't go into detail as to how it is done. The Qu'ran, to my knowledge, doesn't define modest dress as specifically as observing hijab prescribes. Observing hijab seems to be a cultural practice from my outside view; Islam sounds like it demands "cover your breasts", not "cover your head", IMO.
Where, specifically, in the Qu'ran or Hadiths is observing hijab (for women) or wearing long pants that extend to your ankles (for men) located?
In Christianity," modesty" interpreted is not showing cleavage, no gluteal folds, no midriff (etc. etc.), not "cover your body from head to toe".
Any religion which tries to control the dress of its adherents isn’t a religion but a cult.
by Thermodolia » Mon Dec 24, 2018 9:50 pm
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
You aren't being persecuted because society refuses to accomodate your silly religious rules. They're not being hunted down in the streets. We're merely not facilitating their shite.
What, are we persecuting fundamentalist Jews because we won't pay goyim to stand near crossings to press the traffic light button for them on sundays? Wah wah I can't use these crossings without risk of being run over by traffic, you're excluding me. And that one is an actual threat to life and limb.
No, you've just got a silly, arbitrary, self-imposed limitation, and we're not going to base our society around accomodating it and nor should we.
If you're so hardcore in your religion you wont shake hands with the opposite sex, that's your problem, not ours.
We let Jews not go to work on the Sabbath, certainly.
by Jolthig » Mon Dec 24, 2018 9:51 pm
by Thermodolia » Mon Dec 24, 2018 9:52 pm
by Thermodolia » Mon Dec 24, 2018 9:53 pm
by Jolthig » Mon Dec 24, 2018 9:55 pm
by Jolthig » Mon Dec 24, 2018 9:58 pm
by Hurtful Thoughts » Mon Dec 24, 2018 10:02 pm
Duhon wrote:As you may have seen, a huge portion of the Western world is in quite of a broil lately, what with all this xenophobia stirred up by the war in Syria and the rise of ISIS. Hungary, Poland, Italy, Brazil, Britain, the United States, Denmark --
-- Denmark?
Yep.
Home to Europe's longest-running monarchy, the birthplace (and final resting place) of Hans Christian Andersen, and once host to a little refugee girl who I would not mind not knowing if that gave her a chance to live named Anne Frank, Denmark's been up to a few nasty tricks to piss off a certain minority lately.
Let's go to the New York Times for the tidbit:
My literal first reaction to this when I read the above was, "What do you do when the same host who went out of its way to assert your right to live goes full Nazi, Anne? Undone yet, Anne? Undone yet?"
Since 12 February 1849, all physically fit men are obligated to conscription
Mokostana wrote:See, Hurty cared not if the mission succeeded or not, as long as it was spectacular trainwreck. Sometimes that was the host Nation firing a SCUD into a hospital to destroy a foreign infection and accidentally sparking a rebellion... or accidentally starting the Mokan Drug War
Blackhelm Confederacy wrote:If there was only a "like" button for NS posts....
by The Alma Mater » Mon Dec 24, 2018 10:24 pm
United Muscovite Nations wrote:TURTLESHROOM II wrote:
If your culture is so savage and backwards that it is acceptable for a man to refuse to extend a handshake to a woman (or refuse to take her hand) because she is a woman, you have no place in Europe or the civilized world. Even nations that engage in alternates like bowing honor handshakes.
This is a method of forcing assimilation and it should be applauded, as well as applied in ever coutnry in Europe.
This is the most overdramatic thing I've ever heard, get over yourself.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: 0rganization, Aadhiris, Ancientania, Bienenhalde, Bovad, Eahland, Farma, Hidrandia, Maximum Imperium Rex, Nazel Geldiic, Ors Might, Pasong Tirad, Port Carverton, Quasi-Stellar Star Civilizations, Repreteop, Rusozak, San Lumen, Shrillland, Trollgaard, Trump Almighty, Tungstan, Verkhoyanska
Advertisement