France Bans Hijabs for Under 18s

[Salus Maior]

The priest acts in persona christi, that is, as a symbol of the person of Christ, calling down the holy spirit which proceeds from the Father, to consecrate the Eucharist, all of these actors are male, and the Spirit's procession from the Father, and Christ's begetting from the Father, are male actions. Because of the symbolism involved, the priest has to be male in order to act in this role, because the priesthood is fundamentally symbolic. This is why eunuchs and even men who have had medically necessary surgery which has altered their reproductive system cannot be priests, among other restrictions.

But Jesus (peace be upon him) would not have been begotten were it not for Mary (May God be pleased with her).

Yeah, I don't think you have to tell an Orthodox Christian how important Mary is.

It'd be pretty much the same as telling a Catholic how important Mary is.

[Vassenor]

So are cultural institutions supposed to evolve with the times or not?

Or would religions not be stuck in the dark ages make it harder to turn people against them?

"Dark Ages" never existed, my guy.

No scholars accept that term to describe the Middle Ages anymore, because it's mostly based on false conceptions of backwardness.

I wasn't aware this was a scholarly debate and thus vernacular terms were more acceptable.

[Saiwania]

"Dark Ages" never existed, my guy. No scholars accept that term to describe the Middle Ages anymore, because it's mostly based on false conceptions of backwardness.

There were nonetheless certain periods of regional or world history which was relatively uncivilized/backward compared to what came before or after the time span in question. Where there were real setbacks/difficulties in any sort of advancement happening. Roman empire for example, was great. Then after it was gone, it took a long time for that locale to get anywhere close to what its former glory was in terms of technology/higher learning.

[Salus Maior]

"Dark Ages" never existed, my guy. No scholars accept that term to describe the Middle Ages anymore, because it's mostly based on false conceptions of backwardness.

There were nonetheless certain periods of regional or world history which was relatively uncivilized/backward compared to what came before or after the time span in question. Where there were real setbacks/difficulties in any sort of advancement happening. Roman empire for example, was great. Then after it was gone, it took a long time for that locale to get anywhere close to what its former glory was in terms of technology/higher learning.

Behold, the false conceptions.

Maybe read something more in-date than Gibbon.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

I think it's wrong to assume that Muslims will bring hijabs.As far as I know, hijabs are very secular.Burka,Niqab and Chador they need to be banned.The old grandmother would also wear a square scarf on her head like hijabs .If I can see your face, how much difference is there between a hijabs and a hat?We should pay more attention to whether the religious doctrinal requirements are harmful to women's rights and interests,does it achieve gender equality.

[Sundiata]

I don’t want more people who think like Sundiata in my country,

What did I do now?

[Salus Maior]

“Opinions against the government position aren’t conducive to unity, let’s ban criticism of the government.”

Sounds good to me

No, absolutely not.

[Islamic Holy Sites]

Religious dress is religious dress. If Islamic dress needs to be banned in the name of state secularism then so does Christian religious dress.

Dude, there is A LOT of difference. For instance, the difference is that in modern Christianity women hold far more rights than in Islam.
Second of all, nuns are, mostly, over 18 and are far less common than poor Muslim children.
Take into account that my perception of their religion is heavily biased because I really dislike em and would probably support anything that is bad for them just saying eh

So, more rights, eh? Such as? This isn't exactly saying a lot apart from that you admit that you're probably biased.

[Salus Maior]

Not when they threaten the unity of the state. Religious clothing gets the boot. You can worship at your temple or whatever, if that’s too much than you can go somewhere else.

Nobody is forcing you to stay in France

It doesn't. I don't suddenly feel like the country is falling apart when I see a guy with a Kippah, or a girl with a Hindu pendant, because that does literally nothing to the fabric of the state.

Nobody's forcing you to stay in the United States either. If someone told you to move, would that even be feasible for you? Do you understand how much effort and cost is involved in moving even within a country? Let alone to a whole other country.

The whole "just move if you don't like it" argument is beyond stupid. People can't just uproot themselves and move to another country on a whim.

[Cekovia]

“Opinions against the government position aren’t conducive to unity, let’s ban criticism of the government.”

Sounds good to me

ur a biden supporter u gotta stop larping as a titoist

[Salus Maior]

Sounds good to me

ur a biden supporter u gotta stop larping as a titoist

Thermodolia is a closet fascist in the classic sense. Ex-military and everything.

Don't kid yourself into thinking he's anything else. A cursory look through his posts would tell you as much.

[Cekovia]

ur a biden supporter u gotta stop larping as a titoist

Thermodolia is a closet fascist in very real terms. Don't kid yourself.

no im telling U he's literally a card-carrying biden supporter, he's talked about it a ton in the nsg zoom calls. he just likes acting like a crypto-fascist, he clearly doesn't actually believe any of what he says

[Salus Maior]

Thermodolia is a closet fascist in very real terms. Don't kid yourself.

no im telling U he's literally a card-carrying biden supporter, he's talked about it a ton in the nsg zoom calls. he just likes acting like a crypto-fascist, he clearly doesn't actually believe any of what he says

"Don't worry, his fascism is ironic."

I argue against what I actually see. If Therm wants to disavow his fascist tendencies, recant all his oppressive statements made in the name of "state unity", and so forth he can certainly do so now.

If he keeps acting like a Fascist, believe it or not, it's fair to see him as a Fascist.

[Cekovia]

no im telling U he's literally a card-carrying biden supporter, he's talked about it a ton in the nsg zoom calls. he just likes acting like a crypto-fascist, he clearly doesn't actually believe any of what he says

"Don't worry, his fascism is ironic."

I argue against what I actually see. If Therm wants to disavow his fascist tendencies, recant all his oppressive statements made in the name of "state unity", and so forth he can certainly do so now.

If he keeps acting like a Fascist, believe it or not, it's fair to see him as a Fascist.

bro u r freaking out over a guy who's literally a democrat(which is worse than being a fascist too) please chill

[Salus Maior]

"Don't worry, his fascism is ironic."

I argue against what I actually see. If Therm wants to disavow his fascist tendencies, recant all his oppressive statements made in the name of "state unity", and so forth he can certainly do so now.

If he keeps acting like a Fascist, believe it or not, it's fair to see him as a Fascist.

bro u r freaking out over a guy who's literally a democrat(which is worse than being a fascist too) please chill

I'm sure there's plenty of Fascists in the Democrat party, as there are in the Republican camp. That's the problem with only having two viable parties.

Last I checked, you also weren't his lawyer. If he's not a fascist, it's not our fault to perceiving him as such when he's been acting as a fascist for years.

That's like me suddenly saying "Oh guys, my Catholicism is a meme lol, I'm not actually Catholic" after I've been one of the most vocal Catholics on the forums for years, then blaming people for having the gall to assume I'm a Catholic after all that.

[Vassenor]

Remember, ironic fascism is still fascism.

[Salus Maior]

Remember, ironic fascism is still fascism.

Honestly, I don't think there actually is ironic fascism. Except among the particularly tasteless and immature.

[Insaanistan]

So are cultural institutions supposed to evolve with the times or not?

Or would religions not be stuck in the dark ages make it harder to turn people against them?

"Dark Ages" never existed, my guy.

No scholars accept that term to describe the Middle Ages anymore, because it's mostly based on false conceptions of backwardness.

They did.
The main reason the term is rejected is it reflects a Eurocentric view of the world.
It was Dark if you were in Christian Europe.
Everyone else was straight vibing.

[Insaanistan]

But Jesus (peace be upon him) would not have been begotten were it not for Mary (May God be pleased with her).

Isn't this pretty much the same thing as the prophets of Islam all being male though?

The main opinion is that God was establishing women could be virtuous by having the mothers and wives of Prophets be outstanding individuals. Additionally, there have long been women imams leading women in Islam, and women Islamic scholars since its very beginning.

That being said, it has long been a minority opinion with a significant following that the mother’s of Moses and Jesus and the wife of Abraham (peace be upon them), were all prophets of God, too.

[Insaanistan]

There might be supporters of it who don’t hate Muslims, but the law is definitely anti-Muslim and in a way plays a little bit into the white savior complex.

If you don’t mind me asking what exactly is the white savior complex.

I’m not trying to justify the law, it is against liberalism and basic religious rights. I’m instead trying to see form a different perspective and different view. However I do have to say I am not a French Muslim so I may not fully understand what it is like to be in that position.

The belief white people are meant to save the helpless minorities.

You see a lot of the language used to justify the law paints it as protecting Muslim women from the ebil muzzie men.

[Salus Maior]

"Dark Ages" never existed, my guy.

No scholars accept that term to describe the Middle Ages anymore, because it's mostly based on false conceptions of backwardness.

They did.
The main reason the term is rejected is it reflects a Eurocentric view of the world.
It was Dark if you were in Christian Europe.
Everyone else was straight vibing.

I, and the scholars I'm mentioning, are referencing Europe. What was called the "Dark Ages" referenced the supposed vast decline of Europe post-Rome intellectually, economically, etc. that is not evident.

That might be important to you, as a Muslim, to think of the Islamic Golden Age as some kind of exceptional thing, but Europe was doing fine all things considered. Culture, philosophy, economy, etc. were all still advancing in Medieval Europe in spite of Rome's failures. The Carolingian Renaissance is one such example of this.

[Zurkir]

If you don’t mind me asking what exactly is the white savior complex.

I’m not trying to justify the law, it is against liberalism and basic religious rights. I’m instead trying to see form a different perspective and different view. However I do have to say I am not a French Muslim so I may not fully understand what it is like to be in that position.

The belief white people are meant to save the helpless minorities.

The whole white savior complex is your typical elitist nonsense. The only people who actually shill for it are these Wall Street rich people and do-gooder activist types. One might could say for example that the Twitter brigades and SJW’s are the types that subscribe to this theory, as they see a need to suppress (cancel) anything that offends them or their minority charges.

It’s an unfortunately real mechanism yes but it’s offensive and repressive and more often that not employed in ignorance by those who claim to oppose it. Irony.

[Punished UMN]

They did.
The main reason the term is rejected is it reflects a Eurocentric view of the world.
It was Dark if you were in Christian Europe.
Everyone else was straight vibing.

I, and the scholars I'm mentioning, are referencing Europe. What was called the "Dark Ages" referenced the supposed vast decline of Europe post-Rome intellectually, economically, etc. that is not evident.

That might be important to you, as a Muslim, to think of the Islamic Golden Age as some kind of exceptional thing, but Europe was doing fine all things considered. Culture, philosophy, economy, etc. were all still advancing in Medieval Europe in spite of Rome's failures.

^ The term dark ages in academia does not refer to an intellectual or economic decline, it refers only to a decline in preserved historical records of the period, which is not unprecedented in times of prosperity. Scholars have been encouraged to no longer use the term because of the connotation of the era as being intellectually unenlightened and economically horrible. Some other examples of dark ages being used in this sense would be the Greek Dark Ages between Archaic Greece and Classical Greek, and the period of Roman history from about 190 AD until roughly the ascension of Constantine (including a period of several decades for which there is only a single historical source which is now believed to be a work of historical fiction or even a political satire).

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

To be honest, when it comes to economics, the vast majority of people between the Agricultural Revolution c. 10,000 BCE and the Industrial Revolution c. 1750 CE lived on basically the same living standard - barely enough to put food on the table enough days of the year to stay alive.

"Culture", "scholarship", "philosophy"... when we're talking about these things in pre-industrial society, we are talking about the lives of a tiny minority of social elites that is not at all representative of the societies that they stand for. I'd say that the first society to have "prosperity" worth talking about is the Dutch Republic and even then ehhh.

[Salus Maior]

To be honest, when it comes to economics, the vast majority of people between the Agricultural Revolution c. 10,000 BCE and the Industrial Revolution c. 1750 CE lived on basically the same living standard - barely enough to put food on the table enough days of the year to stay alive.

"Culture", "scholarship", "philosophy"... when we're talking about these things in pre-industrial society, we are talking about the lives of a tiny minority of social elites that is not at all representative of the societies that they stand for. I'd say that the first society to have "prosperity" worth talking about is the Dutch Republic and even then ehhh.

In which case the Middle Ages weren't really all that different before the development of modernity. Which is why the "Dark Ages" are a myth as they're commonly perceived, is my point.