Top Leaderboard, Site wide
September 22, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


The Mystifying Election
Record CO2 Levels Fuel Urgent Calls for Emissions Cuts




A Chronicle of Echoes


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Ear to the Ground

How Rude: France Condemns the Veil

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on May 11, 2010
Flickr / Ranoush. (CC-BY-SA)

It isn’t an outright ban—yet—but the French parliament agreed unanimously (except for 30 protesters who walked out) to condemn the face veil worn by some Muslim women as “an affront to the nation’s values of dignity and equality.”

BBC:

The non-binding resolution was passed unanimously, although 30 communist deputies walked out in protest.

Legislation to ban the full-face veil in public is expected later this year.

The proposal has provoked intense debate about religious freedom in a secular society, and the position of Muslims in France.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 22, 2010 at 7:32 pm Link to this comment

Many people may not know this but the Germans started the concept of the bragging scar, the idea was for the upper crust Germans to have scars on their faces to pick up German women. Some of the German women I have met seem like they could inflict their own scars, it German women have a fetish for hideousness.  It could be said, Freddy Kruger would have been quite the ladies man back in early 1900 Germany and Austria.  I know some welders who wear welders scars as the welders bragging scar or a macho welder thing,  like guys and gals displaying tattoos and nose rings, but I am not sure about the women thing, I suspect welders do it only to impress other welders?

Now as a plumber getting hit in the head with a pipe wrench is sort of a bragging thing for me, one can tell by the knots on me head.  Many other vocations probably have a bragging scar concept, depending on their vocation. As one climbs the vocational ladder of success to the top, a CEO of a large corporation for instance has bragging scars, except inflected on other people. All one need look at is Donald Trump?

Hemi, you have bragging scars, you should wear them proudly, for it seems , Nemesis has actually elevated you to a much higher plane. In my case, the only thing I have been scared with is being called an apple polisher by a loony self righteous hypocrite who is very full of himself. So being insulted by someone like Nemesis is actually and honor, and should not be taken as an insult, though Nemesis may disagree! By the way, this would seem the same for me if I had the honor of being insulted by the Shester!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 21, 2010 at 10:18 pm Link to this comment

Maani, yes you and I do have a long intermittent history of
interaction on TD.  And I did say in my prior post to you that I
don’t recall you and I ever involved ourselves in name calling or
character assassination even though we strongly disagreed with
each other.  I did say ‘might’ with respect to nemesis2010’s
description of you.  I did so to put it into the realm of hypothetical in
order to deal directly with his personal attack.  It is my bad if I did not
make myself clearer doing that and I offer an apology.  My next
comment about minds that I think need sobered up had to do with
what you said about women choosing to be subjugated and that kind
of sentiment is what cause stagnation in the world about the horrid
conditions that face women. 

I do not countenance name-calling or character assassination and for
that I would implore nemesis2010 to refrain from either of those
practices as I think it is absolutely counterproductive.  It is a demeaning
action and does not open dialogue in an effort to communicate, which
in the first place in directing or ricocheting by way of others comments
to another on a forum is in fact opening a dialogue. 

The nature of dialogue can be one of seeking truth, or to make
pronouncements.  nemesis2010 has expressed in my opinion
truthful descriptions about the condition of women, which seems to be
counter to yours.  And it seems both of you make pronouncements
rather than seek truth from each other.  Since he has never committed
to a dialogue with me regardless of my comments about what he says, I
appear to be making pronouncements but, in fact, I am seeking the
truth.  He does make clear arguments about the things that concern me
and for that I feel he is an asset.  The use of disparaging and abusive
names I believe an unfortunate detriment to his otherwise superlative
arguments.

From the first time I have interacted with you, I believe we opened
dialogue to seek truth.  I don’t recall that we ever left a dialogue
completely successful but maybe a modicum of truth emerged, but that
does not mean I would not interact for the same purpose with you. 
Sometimes truth takes a good deal of dialogue to be seen.

I don’t believe I have a double standard.  I am not impressed when
name-calling and character assassination happens and actually feel
repulsed.  Good grief, Maani, it has happened enough to me!  I
get horrifically stung regularly with name-calling and character
assassination with such hatred that it is astounding how a person lives
with such hatred, rather than the perpetrator seeking to dialogue with
me over the view they find offensive.  I have had many and have
currently as a matter of fact faced fierce battles over this kind of
interaction.  So I think I know what you might feel. 

While I passionately disagree with you in your sentiment of women, I
did not assassinate your character for it nor called you any names.  I
sought to dialogue so that truth might, just might emerge.  I even
invited you to join another forum even though, and I made mention of
it, that you would most probably be on the “other side” of the issue
than me.  I obviously have respect for you else I would not have made
the invitation.  I do not mind opposing views, as that is how I learn. I
am not afraid to dialogue with anyone!  I do not think I have all the
answers even though I may feel right on particular things. I prefer to
seek together in a respectful and promising way.

I hope I have adequately answered your earnest appeal.

Report this

By Maani, May 21, 2010 at 3:23 pm Link to this comment

“[I]t might be that Maani is of the description you have given…”

Shenonymous: Do YOU believe this?  Given our many, many interactions - even when we disagreed - would you classify me as he has?  If not, why are you cozening his unrelenting and completely uncalled-for personal attacks?  Why will you not call HIM out the way you do others?

Seems you have a double standard with respect to those with whom you agree…Please tell me I’m wrong about that…

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 21, 2010 at 12:51 pm Link to this comment

I am sorry, nemesis2010, it might be that Maani is of the
description you have given, but I think such minds ought to have
a forum as well as those who represent my own conclusions about
life.  Also such minds needs to be sobered up by minds such as
yours.  Else the world never progresses but remains stagnant.  You
may not be interested in furthering the causes of which we have here
spoken, though your last comment would say otherwise, but further
than that.  I would beseech that you stick around as your clarity is
sorely needed.  I have learned much from your many posts and I never
mind how long they get.  It is as if a magazine article has come freely
through some beneficence, ala Truthdig.  I am more interested in
elevating the dialogue to a place where vacant ideas may be unearthed
so that those who hold them and others may reflect and possible make
modifications.  Much in the way for which Socrates lost his life.

Report this

By nemesis2010, May 21, 2010 at 11:55 am Link to this comment

By Leefeller, May 21 at 11:35 am

”Wonder if one asked the slaves before the Civil War
what they thought, some would have said,  “I prefer
and like being a slave.”  Possibly because they knew
nothing else?”

You’ve just hit the nail squarely on the head Leefeller!

Muslim countries are extreme male dominated societies. I’ve worked in Saudi, the Arab Emirates, the Persian Gulf, Egypt, and a host of African nations that are either heavily Muslim influenced or dominated.

The treatment of women in those countries is abhorrent to anyone with a minimum of 21st. century morality. These supporters of abuse would have you believe that these reports are simply fabrications and AmeriCorp propaganda designed to reflect badly on Islam. It’s Islam and its adherents that reflect badly on Islam.

What that so-called evangelical pastor neglects to address—hoping that you’ll be as stupid as he-—is that these women know nothing else. They’ve been inculcated with that detestable theology since their earliest years. Many, if not most, are probably illiterate and have suffered clitoral circumcision and infibulation at a very young age.

That feeble-minded twit would also have you overlook the fact that even some Muslin nations have banned such ridiculous and humiliating clothing. Women are not chattel!

That a so-called “evangelical pastor” could support this onerous subjugation of women is heinous. I’ve two evangelical preachers as neighbors—a father and son—who I call over to read maani’s inanity and they say that there’s no way that poltroon is an evangelical pastor. Can you even imagine what someone as sick as he has shown himself to be would like to do to American women? He probably had to give up his lunch money in school to girls so that they wouldn’t beat him up. He disgusts me!

Ask that jackass how many abused, beaten, battered and mutilated women is okay with him? Ask him at what number would he reconsider that perhaps this is a “proud tradition” that is better thrown into a cesspool with the rest of atrocities that humankind has perpetrated on itself in the name of non-existent gods. Remind him that in Dark Ages Europe it was a “proud tradition” to burn at the stake anyone the Church had a beef with. Even here in the colonies it was a find tradition to burn and hang witches too.

I cannot adequately express the utter contempt and abhorrence I feel when I read any of his remarks.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 21, 2010 at 8:08 am Link to this comment

Manni

Leefeller
““Of course I am prejudiced, I believe all people
should keep their religion in the closet.””

Manni,
‘Interesting comment.  So why not force gays back in
there, too?  Yes, I am stretching a point.  But not as
far as you think.’

Okay, I will rephrase; not the closet! Nor the turkey
baster in reference to other proclivities, but how about
keeping it (religion) to themselves, while we are at it,
how about those clowns who wear their favorite team hat
and sweat shirts, I don’t want to see them either, and
get rid of those damn bill Boards while they are at it!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 21, 2010 at 8:02 am Link to this comment

That aside, I invite you, Maani, to another forum to which you
might contribute your ‘wisdom’ and go to the side of one who will
champion Christianity in a debate he has devised to argue against
secularism.  I hope I have characterized it right.  There are not many
Christians on this rather liberal website, wouldn’t you agree? 
Leastwise who could argue well without being in a highly emotional
state?  It is at this site, you will have to copy/paste the site into your
browser since TD limits the length of a line and all of it is not bolded
to be included in a button click link:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/after_religion_fizzles_were_stuck_
with_nietzsche_20100510/

Since the sight is now 7 pages long, you might want to just pick it up
at the most recent commentaries where OzarkMichael, a well
known Christian and a self-declared conservative, proposes a
discussion about the Spanish Inquisition, at May 17 at 8:57 pm.  Don’t
let his conservatism deter you from joining in the debate since
Christianity knows no political side, right?

I’m afraid you might have to suffer a conflict between a couple of male
posters and myself over non-related to the topic issues such as their
name-calling and character assassination of me and my fierce rebuttal. 
Yes, I am at it once again, sigh. 

As you and I have had a long association on Truthdig, you know I do
not tolerate such behavior even one smidgen and fight with all my
might against that chauvinistic practice.  It can get pretty messy at
times. Actually it is related to the topic on this forum which speaks in
the universal sense of the abuse of women by men of few principles.  I
do not believe you are among that group, but do argue well, even
though I often disagree with it, for your positions.  Have we ever called
each other names?  I do not think so.  Do give it some serious thought
as I am interested in the pursuit of truth even on such a platform as a
blog.  Changes in attitudes begin at the most local level and
clarification can only help in a better vision of the truth.  If one person
be enlightened, then it would be worth it?  Be it known that I think you
and I will be on different sides (if we an call it sides, but then a debate
does have at least two sides) as I am a secularist, an atheist, but
nothing new there.  Be it also known that there will be no rancor
coming from me.  I might have to digress to continue the combat with
those other folks, but that is neither here nor there with regard to this
new discussion.  I hope to see you there.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 21, 2010 at 7:55 am Link to this comment

Maani – I dare to say that I know probably as many Muslim
women as you do.  I even had a student assistant who calls herself
Persian instead of Iranian because of the fact of the history of
oppression of women.  And we have talked at length about this very
subject.  But the number we each personally know is really moot,
isn’t it?  Documentation is unending about the oppression of the
women of Islam.  There is no reason to doubt some women ‘choose’
to wear the veil and all its permutations.  That does not mean they
had not been conditioned by centuries of oppression.  As a
psychologist, which you claim to be, and I don’t doubt your word, you
would know how the longevity of a dogma can affect the mind.  Isn’t it
called the Stockholm syndrome?  Of course, my wondering about how
the women would vote was imaginary, I stated that and qualified that it
was.  From all the accounts I have gathered and it is significant both in
print and in speaking with Muslim women, they are at their final
tolerance with the humiliation, the abuse, and the murder of women on
account of religious belief that encourages the natural impulse of men
to dominate women. 

Now you say that primary focus of the rights with which Muslim women
are concerned puts the veil down on the list (you even go so far as to
say “pretty far down on the list” of their concerns, but you do not offer
any reference or proof of your statement.  But let’s assume you are
right, I would say that bodily harm would come pretty far up on the
list, like maybe first?  What you have accused as fallacy belies your own
fallacies.  Of course those who do not choose to wear the veil would
not form a rights group, that seems obvious and not even worth
stating as it would be stipulated.  It is straw man arguing. The fact that,
as you noted, they have not formed a protest group to force wearing
the veil speaks enormously to the hesitancy they apparently feel.  The
focus instead is on those who do forum such historically
unprecedented groups.

I am glad to read that you sympathize with Muslim women who feel
oppressed.  You would have to demonstrate that though, right?

Report this

By Maani, May 21, 2010 at 7:43 am Link to this comment

Leefeller:

“Is it not possible, by some women allegedly saying
they like and want to wear the Burka, they are
supporting the forced and mandatory wearing of the
burka of other women to wear one?”

Not necessarily.  And, in fact, from what I gather from the Muslim women I know, that is not generally the case; i.e., they do not support the forced wearing of the veil, and many of them are vocal in that regard.  Do SOME possibly do so, whether inadvertently or not?  I suppose so.

“Of course I am prejudiced, I believe all people
should keep their religion in the closet.”

Interesting comment.  So why not force gays back in there, too?  Yes, I am stretching a point.  But not as far as you think.

“I know we always hear the most extreme cases, but
the Saudis not letting the fire men save girls
because they were not dressed ‘properly’ is more
than I can stomach to support.”

I know of no one - Muslim or other - who supports such obnoxious and inhuman behavior.

“Wonder if one asked the slaves before the Civil War
what they thought, some would have said,  ‘I prefer
and like being a slave.’  Possibly because they knew
nothing else?”

Maybe.  But in today’s fully connected world, that is clearly not the case with respect to Muslim women and the veil, since they “know” plenty more than just their own specific situation.

Peace.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 21, 2010 at 7:35 am Link to this comment

Manni,

Is it not possible, by some women allegedly saying
they like and want to wear the Burka, they are
supporting the forced and mandatory wearing of the
burka of other women to wear one?

Of course I am prejudiced, I believe all people
should
keep their religion in the closet. 

I know we always hear the most extreme cases, but
the Saudis not letting the fire men save girls
because they were not dressed “properly” is more
than I can stomach to support.

Wonder if one asked the slaves before the Civil War
what they thought, some would have said,  “I prefer
and like being a slave.”  Possibly because they knew
nothing else?

Report this

By Maani, May 21, 2010 at 7:08 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous:

“I wonder if there were a secret ballot and all the Islamic women got to vote without duress or fear of reprisal…if the veil or hijab and burqa would not be torn to shreds.”

That is the point.  You DON’T know.  Yet you debate as though you do.  In my opinion, and from what I gather from the many Muslim women I know, you would likely be quite surprised by the outcome of that vote.

“[C]omments found among those on this forum are typical of the men who would keep women in their place!: ‘...many, of these women wear the veil voluntarily’...What of the women who don’t wear the veil voluntarily? What about the Muslim women who are regularly beaten, even murdered?”

Firstly, I am hardly a person “who would keep women in their place.”  It would be both unhumble and pointless to go into just how wrong you are in my case (and I focus on myself here because I am the one who made the comment you cite).

In actual fact, I sympathize with Muslim women who feel oppressed.  But the two situations are mutually exclusive.  There ARE many Muslim women who wear the veil voluntarily (even happily and proudly).  And there ARE many Muslim women who are forced to wear it, and are beaten or murdered.

But should those who CHOOSE to wear it be forced NOT to simply because there are others who wear it who feel forced to do so?

Finally, with respect to “It is peculiarly odd logic that if women of Islam were tickled pink about the hajib and burqa there would not be the number of Muslim Women’s Rights groups.”

There are two fallacies here.

First, obviously those who choose to wear it are not going to form a “rights” group, are they?  (Although I suppose they could form a “rights” group to support their right to WEAR it…and that may yet happen, if it hasn’t already.)

Second, either you do not actually follow (i.e., read about or from) these groups, or you are willfully misrepresenting them: although the veil is addressed by some of them, it is by no means the primary focus of most of these groups and, in fact, is pretty far down on the list of their concerns.

Peace.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 21, 2010 at 2:36 am Link to this comment

The repressiveness of women had been even notable here on Truth Dig, simply from my observations of what has happed on occasion to She, at first I did not understand, but over the the course of time here on TD and reading some of these links, I now do understand. 

The following Link; “Iranian Women and Girls - Victims of Exploitation and Violence, Sarvnazhas” caught my eye in support of my comment above,

“Even if a righteous accredited woman possesses all qualifications, she cannot assume a leadership position nor can she pass judgment, because she is a woman.” In the words of another Iranian official, women are “immature” and need “guardians.”

My respect for Muslims and their laws has dropped a few notices, in fact quite a few.

Guess I will look at it this way; our government sucks, but Iran’s government sucks in a different way, for when the corruption of politics discounts 50 percent of its population, (women) they would seem more corrupt and be more inclined to stay that way.

Revelations never cease; I empathize with womens rights and always have, the sexist nature of some comments present and past on TD were suspected by me, but now substantiated.

Plus now more so, my empathy for the government of Iran has dissipated and I feel sadness for the women and people of that country for the ignorance which leads them supersedes even our own GOP.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 20, 2010 at 11:55 pm Link to this comment

An impressive set of posts by nemesis2010 whose truth is the truth.
As one of my continuous concerns and involvements about the
miserable state of women in the world, I am dazzled at both the
fact that the information is known by a man and that he writes so
eloquently about it. 

Arguments and explanations in all three links of Maani’s post at
5:09pm are perfect examples of the oppression of women by male
dominated religion and the kind of apologetics that is the usual
response.  It is true that the same thing happens in the Catholic
religion where the habit of the nuns also symbolizes of their
subjugation.  More and more nuns are trading the old traditional fully
covered (except for the face) penguin habit for a simple
skirt/shirt/blazer form of dress.  I wouldn’t be a bit surprise if some
day they weren’t wearing the pants in that religion.  They did side with
with the Health Care Reformers that included the covering abortion
portion of the bill.  That was a major event.

Seems like part of the psychology of keeping the women of Islam
covered and oppressed is also that as they become uncovered they look
more westernized and looking westernized would lead to sympathy
with the West.  We plainly see from tv coverage and the twitter info that
leaks out of Iran that there is a revolution within Islam these days. 

I wonder if there were a secret ballot and all the Islamic women got to
vote without duress or fear of reprisal (which in itself says much about
the kind of dangerous road Islamic women tread down) if the veil or
hijab and burqa would not be torn to shreds.

These comments found among those on this forum are typical of the
men who would keep women in their place!:  ”...many, of these
women wear the veil voluntarily.”

What of the women who don’t wear the veil voluntarily? What about the
Muslim women who are regularly beaten, even murdered?

”...given all the sluts in westernized society,”
It is more exact to say…“given all the men who need to use sluts in
westernized society.”

Just to add to the wealth of information nemesis2010 provided…

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/mhviran.htm
Iranian Women and Girls - Victims of Exploitation and Violence, Sarvnaz
Chitsaz and Soona Samsami - Fundamentalist Views on Women
For credentials of the author see:
http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/
Donna M. Hughes, Ph.D.Professor - ?University of Rhode Island

http://missioneuropakmartell.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/sharia-law-
would-harm-aussie-muslim-women/
Sharia law would harm Aussie Muslim women
by Pauli Poldie on March 27, 2010

http://www.islamfortoday.com/ummzaid06.htm
Women, Shari’a, and Oppression - Where are the Voices of Conservative
Muslims?

http://www.jannah.org/sisters/wifeabuse.html
Isalmic Articles - Wife Abuse in the Muslim Community
by Kamran Memon

It is peculiarly odd logic that if women of Islam were tickled pink about
the hajib and burqa there would not be the number of Muslim Women’s
Rights groups.

Report this

By Maani, May 20, 2010 at 6:22 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller:

LOL on the Scotsmen…

Re nudists, I suppose it depends on the jurisdiction…for example, most people don’t know it, but NYC (and possibly NYS) law allows women to go topless (but not bottomless).  Little known law, even less used.  LOL.

Re nuns, it is true that only their face shows: and isn’t this the entire argument here?  It seems that what really seems to “matter” is whether “we” can see more than just the eyes.  Thus, as silly as it sounds (and it does!), we are talking about a nose, a mouth and cheeks.

In this regard, the only “legitimate” discussion here should be one of “security”; i.e., the ability to see a facial expression in toto, rather than just a pair of eyes.  And one can agree to disagree in this regard.

However, with respect to the religious discussion, it is ultimately moot, since for every citation that someone can provide about the “oppressive” nature of the veil, burqa, etc., there is a counter citation suggesting that this is simply not the case, and that the veil is a “choice”- one which many Muslim women make voluntarily, and even happily.

Peace.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 20, 2010 at 1:59 pm Link to this comment

All right thanks Manni, now my assimilation process is taking over and I have it all figured out. Women wear the veil so they don’t have to spend a fortune on cosmetics and so guys can say her veil is okay, but she has a great personality!

I do not believe the veil is quite the same thing as the hung jibe! How far should people be able to express their religion on the street? Does seem similar to a Nun wearing the penguin outfit, How about nudists, is that a religion and then their is always the Scotsman wering their kilts, who the hell wants to see their knobby knees?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 20, 2010 at 12:40 pm Link to this comment

Nemisis2010, checked out the links, thank you!

I suppose they must all be untruths, for they were not told by Muslim scholars.

Disgusting as Christianity has been, I am no longer on the agnostic fence sitter, when it comes to the religious sanctioning of abuses towards women. Appriciate the enlignement!

Report this

By nemesis2010, May 20, 2010 at 11:58 am Link to this comment

@ To all of you who think the veil is a good thing and should be respected:

These four women would like to thank you for your positions on the veil.
http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2009/11/23/under-the-islamic-veil-faces-disfigured-by-acid/

Then there’s that dirty opposition who wants to ban the veil asking…

If Muslim Countries Can Ban the Veil Why Can`t Infidels?
http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2010/05/if_muslim_countries_can_ban_the_veil_why_cant_infi.html

And we also have this guy who thinks the veil should be respected…

Suspect in terror hunt used veil to evade arrest
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article666149.ece

While the Muslim world thinks infidels are intolerant they demonstrate just how tolerant and understanding and enlightened they are…

   
Lars Vilks, Swedish Mohammed Cartoonist, Target Of Suspected Arson
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/15/lars-vilks-swedish-mohamm_n_577614.html

And for those of you who scoff at the idea that the ultimate goal of Islam is to undermine Western civilization and institute a Sharia law based society…

Hezbollah Leader Calls For ‘Islamic United States’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/15/hezbollah-leader-calls-fo_n_577618.html

Ahhhhh… the wonders of a sharia based society. One can see the pulpit pimps wetting their pants now thinking of ways to sneak a peak at the private lives of others; especially the bedrooms. In Saudi they’re called religious police. They are from the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.

While maani—and those of his ilk—can opine this nonsense:

” Did it ever occur to you that some, possibly many, of these women wear the veil voluntarily - even proudly - as a symbol of their faith?  That far from feeling that they are not “people,” or any feelings of “inequality,” they feel it is their right to do so, NOT an obligation?  Why should they be refused that right? “

Saudi women are praising this:

Saudi woman beats up virtue cop
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=175779

And we shouldn’t forget the fire in a girls’ school where 15 young girls burned to death because police from the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice ordered them to stop rescue attempts because the girls might not be properly dressed. Yes, much better that they burn like victims of Catholic inquisition than that some guy see and ankle or a boob.

Saudi police ‘stopped’ fire rescue
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1874471.stm

What can one expect from adherents of theologies (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) that treat women as chattel… smile

”You cannot play the song of freedom on an instrument of oppression.” –Stanislaw J. Lec

@ maani:

See if you can figure this out … -4 GMT. 

No, it’s not demon code although I must advise you that the evil blue unicorn knows all and sees all. You’re in a world of poop if you don’t take steps for spiritual covering because those unicorns can be evil. They can even make your children to be born bald-headed and barefooted.

”The mind of the fundamentalist is like the pupil of the eye: the more light you pour on it, the more it will contract.” -unknown

Report this

By Maani, May 14, 2010 at 3:35 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis:

First, re the time of my post, you have been here long enough to know that time stamps mean nothing: I might submit something at 3pm and the time stamp might indicate otherwise.  However, there is something clearly wrong with your arithmetic (to say nothing of your logic).  I posted my comment on the Baldwin thread on 5/12 at 4:48.  Your comment to me on this thread - the first one that brought our “dispute” over there to this thread - was on 5/13 at 3:36.  Besides, it doesn’t take a whole lot of logic to realize that I could not have commented on a post that did yet exist, does it?

As for whether I have a degree in psychology, maybe I do and maybe I don’t.  But the point is that you ASSUME that I don’t, and proceed thusly - in the same bullying, mean-spirited and peevish vein that is your trademark.

Finally, with respect to your comment about bringing commentary from one thread to another, there doesn’t need to be a “rule” in this regard, but “etiquette” would suggest that it is inappropriate - particularly where the commentary is irrelevant to the second thread.

Ultimately, I will let others decide for themselves what is going on here.  For me, I will comment when I see fit, but it will not be in response to you, for reasons I have explained.

Peace.

Report this

By nemesis2010, May 14, 2010 at 12:20 pm Link to this comment

By Maani, May 13 at 11:35 pm

”Nemesis:
The fact that you felt the need to bring a dispute from another thread into this one is proof positive of just how mean-spirited, bullying and, ultimately, throubled you really are.  I truly, truly feel sorry for you.
Peace.”

What a tawdry display of spurious indignation from a paragon of pusillanimous pulpit pomposity.

For weeks I’ve withstood your relentless objurgations and calumnies camouflaged with pretentious preachments about respect. Whenever you are challenged after spewing a fusillade of fetid invectives you take it upon yourself to psychoanalyze me. Have you a degree in psychology or psychiatry? Have you a license to practice?

Asking for clarification in order to defend myself against the innumerable strings of mendacious statements pulled out of your lower posterior is not mean-spirited, bullying, or indicates a troubled individual. Your mental myopia has you so fixated on the mote in my eye that you cannot see the California redwood in yours.

Lets take a look at the facts, shall we?

By Maani, May 12 at 4:48 pm

” Second, Nemesis:
After reading your posts here, and your post today on the thread re Islamic veils in France,”

Look at the time/date stamp maani; it’s almost a full 24 hrs. before my post here. You sir, are the one who involved commentary from one article into another. Even though, is there a rule written by an imaginary sky fairy that says this is not allowed? What is your source for proper etiquette in article commentary?

We both know what the real problem is here maani, it’s your inability—ensconced in windy pontifications—to adequately defend your positions whenever they are questioned and countered. One-way conversations from the pulpit to a stupefied audience of inculcated and fleeced lambs that have been trained not to question is not the way to prepare for debate in the real world. 

How soon can I expect your apology for having unjustly maligned me?

Report this

By Maani, May 13, 2010 at 7:35 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis:

The fact that you felt the need to bring a dispute from another thread into this one is proof positive of just how mean-spirited, bullying and, ultimately, throubled you really are.  I truly, truly feel sorry for you.

Peace.

Report this

By nemesis2010, May 13, 2010 at 11:45 am Link to this comment

By gerard, May 12 at 6:18 pm

“Question:  If it weren’t for suicide bombers, would we be so worried (concerned) about this?
  I may be dead wrong, but I doubt it.
  Before we get to feeling too self-righteous, we might compare this fear of disguised violence with our infamous sneak-attack “drones”—a much more dangerous disguised violence.
  Well, come to think of it, they both have come about due to the same despicable quality in too many human males—the untamed urge to rape and pillage.
  (Thanks to all you gentle men out there who don’t fit this stereotype!)
  PS: I could go on and on about this lightening/darkening subject, but will stop before I get any deeper.”

Yes Gerard, I know there would be some if not many. Human and women’s rights groups have been concerned by this for a very long time. They simply don’t get the press. This whole style of dress is indicative of the mindset of manmade religions. They’re not only man made; they’re made by men, for men. In the big monotheistic religions women are little more than chattel. In many cases they are nothing but chattel. This is especially true of Judaism and Islam. Enlightenment and consciousness raising over the past 300 years or so, has forced the adherents of Christianity and Judaism to soften their interpretations of or gloss over certain scripture passages.

It’s important not to forget that this particular issue has to do with émigrés to France. Why should the French have to modify their culture to fit that of the émigrés? Shouldn’t people immigrating to another country understand that they are the ones that have to meld into the culture that is affording them the opportunity to leave their homeland and a better future?

If these women really like living as and being treated like chattel, why leave their homelands in the first place? They can immigrate to one of many other Muslim shitholes around the world.

Why do Western societies have to conform to the demands of Muslim émigrés? Why must they be tolerated? Go to Saudi Arabia and have your girlfriend/wife walk around in a bikini and when you return tell us how pleasant and tolerate they were of you. I’ve been there.

Your comparison to Predator drones is apples to oranges. The two issues aren’t even closely related. There are many public safety issues to be considered. Just a few would be men dressing in these ridiculous tents and assaulting, robbing, etc. citizens; assassinations? Many times when women in Western societies live with abusive husbands the only way it is found out is by someone noticing bruises on the afflicted woman. Can you see if one of these cowering, afraid for her life, women has been recently beaten or perhaps mutilated in some way while wearing such ridiculous and inhuman dress?

Perhaps you should sit down and try thinking this issue through a little more thoroughly.

Report this

By nemesis2010, May 13, 2010 at 11:36 am Link to this comment

By Maani, May 12 at 4:48 pm

”After reading your posts here, and your post today on the thread re Islamic veils in France, it is clear to me that you are unquestionably the most angry, fearful person I have ever met on these boards.  ”

Manni, instead of jaded exaggeration why don’t you try to articulate, with literal exactness, not lying equivocations, nor meretricious allurements, which statements you could have possibly misconstrued as pestiferous and cause you to postulate such an unthinkable hypothesis.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, May 13, 2010 at 4:26 am Link to this comment

Where does one draw the line between religious freedom and public safety?  Many religious practices are banned in the USA, such as polygamy and animal and human sacrifices. Forced female genital mutilation (mis-labeled “circumcision”) is banned as well.  Curiously, tattooing, branding and piercing are NOT banned here.  Identity hiding is definitely a security threat.  I cannot go to Germany or Italy and walk around with a hockey or ski mask on and claim it’s my “religion” and/or “culture” and they must permit it.

Notice that the head scarf is NOT identity hiding.  I have friends who are Sikh and NEVER reveal their hair—and nobody thinks anything of it (I hope).

The French have long had a national policy that immigrants to France must become French, and do not share our “melting pot” self-image.  They also have a large Arab immigrant population that is not nearly as integrated into their society as Arabs in America are.

But it’s funny how the same people who argue we should leave Afghanistan and let the Taliban rule as they will, will not grant France, our oldest ally, the same right.

Report this

By Maani, May 12, 2010 at 9:12 pm Link to this comment

mrfreeze:

“I have to disagree with you about what Westerners are or are not permitted to DO in Muslim countries. If Muslims expect western countries to accept Islamic symbols or religious monuments such as Minarets, then they need to allow western customs as well (alcohol, public shows of affection between men and women, freedom of speech, etc..)”

There are two fallacies here.

First, it is not the individuals moving from one place to another that set the rules for the countries from which they come.  That is, to blame the policies of Muslim countries on the people who emigrate from them is clearly unfair.  Should Muslim women not be permitted to wear the veil in France because the country they come from does not permit them to drink alcohol?  I think you see the absurdity here.

Second, almost every Muslim country (including Iran) has churches, and even synagogues.  Thus, they at very least allow the “Western” customs of those religions to exist within their borders.

As for freedom of speech, etc., obviously you will get no argument from me here.  However, again, this has little or nothing to do with France’s law, or the women to whom it applies - none of whom, as you yourself note, had or have any say in the policies of the countries from which they come.

Report this
mrfreeze's avatar

By mrfreeze, May 12, 2010 at 8:40 pm Link to this comment

Maani - I realize using Iran as an example was problematic; however, I find that Iran is in that “in-between” place when it comes to the “outward” appearance issues of Islam. It’s also a good example of how fragile the notion of the veil is.

But, I have to disagree with you about what Westerners are or are not permitted to DO in Muslim countries. If Muslims expect western countries to accept Islamic symbols or religious monuments such as Minarets, then they need to allow western customs as well (alcohol, public shows of affection between men and women, freedom of speech, etc..).

Report this

By Maani, May 12, 2010 at 8:31 pm Link to this comment

mrfreeze:

You are painting with a significantly broad brush.

First, Iran is not the Muslim country (or Muslim majority country, or even country with a significant Muslim population) in which women choose or choose not to wear the veil.  Indeed, I don’t know how you zeroed in on Iran as the be-all and end-all of your position.

Second, even in Iran, the “law” re wearing a veil (or other religious garment) is by no means enforced particularly broadly or regularly.  For example, at the universities, the female students can and do wear Western clothes.

Finally, in most countries with significant Muslim populations (and even most country’s with Islamic leadership), visitors from the West are not expected to wear galabeyahs, burkas, veils or any other Arab apparel.  Indeed, those countries wouldn’t have much tourism if they did, and many of those countries rely (to varying degrees) on tourism for income.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 12, 2010 at 8:29 pm Link to this comment

After reading the posts I find myself leaning towards the French camp! If I ever make it to France, I would prefer to see the real France, instead of a religious statement from the Middle east. What are French artist’s to do?

Hiding women from my lusting xray vision will never do, for my imagination would turn me into a lusting slobbering beast, if I could not see the beauty of women in public places it would be like solitary confinement! For me the exact opposite of the intended supposes purpose of the veil would happen. I like to even talk to women, if inclined, but especially on warm days!

Lusting on the streets seems a judgmental problem seemingly by those who judge others as themselves! Sort of reminds me of the fist banging anti gay politicians doing foot tapping in airport restrooms!

Hypocrisy anyone!

Again when in Rome! This does seem to smack of some sort of entitlement, plus it is my opinion, women should be both seen and heard and not separated and treated as live stock!

Control over one segment of society, in this case women is not acceptable! An absolutism by any means.

Report this
mrfreeze's avatar

By mrfreeze, May 12, 2010 at 7:33 pm Link to this comment

I have, perhaps, a unique perspective about the influence of Islam. I have a lot of Iranian friends whose culture pre-dates even the Greeks and Romans. Islam is a relative new comer to Iran and if it weren’t for the oppressive regime in Iran, the women there would cast off their veils in a heart beat. The Iranian relationship with Islam is one of coercion not equanimity. Iranians see Islam as a Johnny-come-lately-scarcity-religion, a violent interloper to a far more complex and interesting culture.

Let me just say that when Westerners can travel in uber-Muslim countries, wearing their own clothes, practising their own brand of life without the threat of molestation by the authorities/citizens, then those who believe in Islam can criticize the French. Until then, the French have the right to articulate what they consider to be their social/cultural or legal values.

Report this

By nemesis2010, May 12, 2010 at 2:47 pm Link to this comment

By Commune115, May 12 at 4:09 pm

”rfidler, Rome and Greece? That’s your argument? Is France a Roman or Greek state? NO. Islam is much older than the French Republic and while Europeans were walking around their own filth, Muslims were at least building bath houses and making important scientific discoveries. What a brute you are. My point is that NO ONE, Muslim, Christian etc., deserves to have these kinds of laws passed.”

1. The Romans had bath houses all over the Roman Empire long before Mohammed was a nasty thought in his dad’s head. Paganism was the religion of our most advanced and cultured societies of antiquity. Rome and Greece.

2. The Europeans were walking around in their own filth because Jesus’ Holy Roman Catholic Church was in charge of almost everything. That’s why it’s known as the Dark Ages.

3. Enlightenment—not religion—is the only reason we are able to come here and discuss this issue.
 
4. No one has to suffer those laws. They can stay in the country of their birth or move to many other Dark Ages Muslim shitholes available to them. Try going to Saudi Arabia and have your wife/girlfriend walk around in a bikini. Then come here and tell us how nice and tolerant they were.

5. The people living in France have a right to expect that émigrés entering their country are aware of, and agree to abide by, their cultural standards rather than the whole nation conforming to the religious practices of the few.

6. When they’re separating your head from your shoulders try to think about your post today. You’re last thoughts should be something like: “G-damn was I stupid.” smile

Report this

By gerard, May 12, 2010 at 2:18 pm Link to this comment

Question:  If it weren’t for suicide bombers, would we be so worried (concerned) about this?
  I may be dead wrong, but I doubt it.
  Before we get to feeling too self-righteous, we might compare this fear of disguised violence with our infamous sneak-attack “drones”—a much more dangerous disguised violence.
  Well, come to think of it, they both have come about due to the same despicable quality in too many human males—the untamed urge to rape and pillage.
  (Thanks to all you gentle men out there who don’t fit this stereotype!)
  PS: I could go on and on about this lightening/darkening subject, but will stop before I get any deeper.

Report this

By Maani, May 12, 2010 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment

Warbad:

Thank you for your thoughtful, measured and appropriate response.  It is a breath of fresh air.

The only thing I would take some issue with is your relation of fascism to women and their specific rights.  You say that, historically, women had no role in fascist regimes.  But then, historically, women had no role in MOST political regimes: women didn’t get the right to vote in the U.S. until AFTER blacks got it, and we still haven’t had a woman vice president, much less president.

As for their rights vis-a-vis fascist regimes, dictators don’t respect the rights on ANYONE but themselves and their cronies; i.e., the rights of ALL people (both men and women) are generally trampled - though, perhaps in some cases, men have extra rights that women do not.

Still, that is ultimately a quibble with respect to the overall position of your post, with which I very much agree.  Bravo.

Report this

By warbad, May 12, 2010 at 12:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Isn’t this a position that societies have found themselves in before? The question seems to be, what’s the definition of the act of covering up the female form in public. Is someone being protected and honored, or is someone being repressed and subjugated?
We’re faced with a problem of identifying what is really going on when a woman hides not only her identity, but her entire form as well from pedestrians, police, security cameras and viewers of all kind outside her home.
I think we have to take it on trust that some women prefer and may even enjoy this anonymity, whether it’s induced through custom or not. This kind of ‘hiding’ from the sloppy crudeness of unwanted male intrusion in the public arena could be just the solution for a girl who’s not ready to present herself- who doesn’t feel strong enough to weather the catcalls, the stares and propositions that face every young woman who walks down every street in every town in every country. If you’re skeptical, go out on the street in any big city, look for a young girl, walk five paces behind her and watch what she encounters with men. Watch degradation and the presumption of promiscuity by the men whom she must pass to go to the market or school or the park. It’s ugly and unrelenting. A burqa would seem like a blessing under these conditions.
But that is not the totality of the issue. Not every girl or woman needs or wants this kind of insulation from the social traffic out there. Not every Muslim society insists on the full get-up.
But a more touchy aspect is this: Every society that becomes fundamentalist or fascist starts by controlling its women. Nazi Germany held women to be baby producers and nothing more. Without getting into specific types, no fundamentalist religion allows women any power outside the home and even there only with strick limitations. (That’s a categorical statement, but finding the few exceptions, I think, would only serve to prove the rule.) Historically, women have not figured prominently in the authority structure of any fundamentalist society. In fact, it is one of the hallmarks of any repressive regime- silence the women and hide their presence.
So what are we to make of the veil? Well if it’s a sheer veil that might have the opposite of the intended effect, because it’s just a tease. And frankly I think that’s the next fashion movement. Also, the ‘abaya’, the cloak and headdress alone, seems unimportant in this discussion in as much as nuns, prudes, and Eskimos find themselves in the same wardrobe.
But ‘niqab’, the dark mask covering all but the eyes or the heavy burqa with only a thick mesh to peer through is another thing altogether and the heart of the issue.
Some in the Islamic community hold that by cutting off the visual temptations that the female presence incites in the minds of men, they are preserving the chastity and honor of their women. But since assaults and rapes of girls and young women are statistically more likely to be perpetrated by acquaintances and relatives, how can you measure the effectiveness of the garment in preventing such crimes.
There are other traditional reasons for the veil, but the question remains: At what point does France have right to say, “To hide your face in public is not French.” And in France, ‘French-ness’ is seen as a national quality to preserve. They do not consider themselves a ‘nation of immigrants’. In fact, having felt the boot of oppression only seventy years earlier, they are determined to maintain their national identity at high cost. It seems to me it’s their right to do so.
But more consequentially, when does the State have an interest in responding to what it might consider a ‘red flag’, as it relates to acts of repression, that outweighs the individual’s right to dress as she or he pleases? Can the State draw a line when it comes to personal behavior if it sees that behavior as indicative of a slide toward, say, Fascism? Don’t know yet.

Report this

By Commune115, May 12, 2010 at 12:09 pm Link to this comment

rfidler, Rome and Greece? That’s your argument? Is France a Roman or Greek state? NO. Islam is much older than the French Republic and while Europeans were walking around their own filth, Muslims were at least building bath houses and making important scientific discoveries. What a brute you are. My point is that NO ONE, Muslim, Christian etc., deserves to have these kinds of laws passed.

Report this

By koran for the lose, May 12, 2010 at 11:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“an affront to the nation’s values of dignity and
equality.”

Interestingly, the veil is accurately described by the
above quote because the Koran + Hadith and their
contents are an affront to humanity’s values of dignity
and equality.

Report this

By nemesis2010, May 12, 2010 at 10:08 am Link to this comment

By call me Roy, May 12 at 12:17 pm

“Jeffrey Herf, a professor of history at the University of Maryland, has written an eye-opening book about the effectiveness of Nazi ideas in the Middle East during the Second World War called,
“Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World.” In it, he describes the Nazi campaign for the minds and hearts of the Arab world in great detail—particularly the Axis radio programs that ran in Arabic around the clock from late 1939 until March of 1945.”

The Nazis weren’t stupid. Germany of the early 20th century was the cultural, educational, and technological center of the world. They simply parlayed ongoing, many centuries’ long, religious hatred into their favor.

Religion is like the black plaque bacilli. It lays dormant for a time and then jumps on to all the rats, seemingly without rhyme or reason, and wreaks havoc on humankind. The problem now is that the rats will have access to technology that can easily render this planet uninhabitable for Homo sapiens.


”The tendency to claim God as an ally for our partisan value and ends is the source of all religious fanaticism.”—Reinhold Niebuhr

Report this

By nemesis2010, May 12, 2010 at 10:05 am Link to this comment

By Maani, May 11 at 10:51 pm

“Did it ever occur to you that some, possibly many, of these women wear the veil voluntarily - even proudly - as a symbol of their faith?  That far from feeling that they are not “people,” or any feelings of “inequality,” they feel it is their right to do so, NOT an obligation?  Why should they be refused that right?”

Has it ever occurred to you that many of these women have suffered clitoral circumcision, vaginal infibulation, and have been inculcated with that sick f—king doctrine since childhood? Have you ever considered that any of those women that would dare to speak out face the very real possibility of being brutally murdered by a fanatical male family member and/or her husband?

Shouldn’t people migrating from backwards, Dark Ages Muslim countries be prepared to conform to the value system of their new home rather than have other cultures conform to their insane religious dominated value system?

Muslims are migrating to Western societies in order to infiltrate the political system and convert the countries to Islam. We have several examples of how this is done. They involve themselves into the democratic system and once in power they simply do away with the Western democratic principles and step by step change everything over to Sharia law.

Westerners’ refusal to face the facts of what is really going on and to take measures against such is going to prove out to be very costly in blood, freedoms, liberties, and money.

”During all the ages that the church had the power to police the world, every time a thinker raised his head he was clubbed to death.”

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 12, 2010 at 9:12 am Link to this comment

Personally it would be nice if people kept their religious and political dogmas to themselves, same as they should maintain their sexual proclivities and other fetishes in private, as long as they are acceptable by society and their laws!

Does not on the public street the nuns habit not emulate the Veil? What if people walked around wearing hockey masks because they worshiped hockey or wanted their identity unknown?

Roy interesting posts, how would one know their validity and even impact? Fear seems most pervasive these days! One never knows if what is being heard or read is fact or propaganda?

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, May 12, 2010 at 8:19 am Link to this comment

Careful Roy. Your uncommon common sense will earn you serious brickbats and personal attacks on this website.

Report this

By call me roy, May 12, 2010 at 8:18 am Link to this comment

Jeffrey Herf, a professor of history at the University of Maryland, has written an eye-opening book about the effectiveness of Nazi ideas in the Middle East during the Second World War called,
“Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World.” In it, he describes the Nazi campaign for the minds and hearts of the Arab world in great detail—particularly the Axis radio programs that ran in Arabic around the clock from late 1939 until March of 1945.
These broadcasts spewed venomous anti-Semitism and pushed every demagogic button imaginable. They were also highly effective. In fact, long after the last vestige of Nazi rhetoric faded from consciousness in Europe, the poisonous seeds planted back then are still bearing deadly fruit. The mind-set that gave way to the Third Reich is very much alive and well in the Muslim world of the Middle East.
When those two senatorial strange-bedfellows offered their visionary resolution in 1944 about a Jewish homeland in Palestine, the “Axis Broadcasts in Arabic” were way ahead of the story. Mr. Herf has accessed a significant cache of transcripts and leaflets produced by the Nazis during the war—materials that have not been adequately examined—until now.

Report this

By nana, May 12, 2010 at 8:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Not long ago France wanted all English words banned from public use- signs, etc. It seems to me that France wants a “national” identity that excludes as much foreign influence as possible. They want to retain their unique “French-ness”. How is this different from what any other country does to promote it’s inherent individuality? Coupled with France’s constitutional secularity, what is the controversy?
Are they going to also forbid Jews from wearing yarmulkas?

Report this

By call me roy, May 12, 2010 at 8:17 am Link to this comment

Jeffrey Herf, a professor of history at the University of Maryland, has written an eye-opening book about the effectiveness of Nazi ideas in the Middle East during the Second World War called,
“Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World.” In it, he describes the Nazi campaign for the minds and hearts of the Arab world in great detail—particularly the Axis radio programs that ran in Arabic around the clock from late 1939 until March of 1945.
These broadcasts spewed venomous anti-Semitism and pushed every demagogic button imaginable. They were also highly effective. In fact, long after the last vestige of Nazi rhetoric faded from consciousness in Europe, the poisonous seeds planted back then are still bearing deadly fruit. The mind-set that gave way to the Third Reich is very much alive and well in the Muslim world of the Middle East.
When those two senatorial strange-bedfellows offered their visionary resolution in 1944 about a Jewish homeland in Palestine, the “Axis Broadcasts in Arabic” were way ahead of the story. Mr. Herf has accessed a significant cache of transcripts and leaflets produced by the Nazis during the war—materials that have not been adequately examined—until now.
So back in 1944, any hopes a couple of well-intentioned voices in Washington might have had to garner widespread national support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine were dashed by forces largely influenced by the hate-speak of Nazi propagandists. Berlin, broadcasting in Arabic, referred to Taft and Wagner as “criminal American senators,” while announcing, “a great tragedy is about to be unfolded, a great massacre, another turbulent war is about to start in the Arab countries.” And in phraseology that sounds eerily familiar to what we still regularly hear from Islamists, the Nazis described the stakes as kill or be killed: “Arabs and Moslems, sons of the East, this menace threatens your very lives, endangers your beliefs and aims at your wealth. No trace of you will remain. Your doom is sealed. It were better if the earth opened and engulfed everybody; it were better if the skies fell upon us, bringing havoc and destruction; all this, rather than the sun of Islam should set and the Koran perish…Stir up wars and revolutions, stand fast against the aggressors, let your hearts, afire with faith, burst asunder! Advance your armies and drive out the menace.” Bear in mind that this is a Nazi broadcast to the Arab/Muslims in Palestine. Of course, the relationship between Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti in Jerusalem, is well known and documented (see my article: “Hitler’s Favorite Jihadist”), but the broadcasts from Berlin to Palestine are just now beginning to be examined. And what is being found is further evidence that to refer to Islamists as Nazi or Fascist-like is no smear—or stretch.
The rhetoric broadcasted to the Middle East 70 years ago is still being noised about—and even more pervasively and effectively. Back then, the attitudes it reinforced, complete with distortion, hate and prejudice, caused U.S. officials, from FDR on down, to “go wobbly”—as Margaret Thatcher would say. It is sadly clear that the most lasting impact of the Nazi propaganda machine is that murderous ideas espoused back then are alive and well in our day and age and still being used to threaten and kill Jews—while nouveau wobblers turn away.

Report this

By call me roy, May 12, 2010 at 8:14 am Link to this comment

Jeffrey Herf, a professor of history at the University of Maryland, has written an eye-opening book about the effectiveness of Nazi ideas in the Middle East during the Second World War called, “Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World.” In it, he describes the Nazi campaign for the minds and hearts of the Arab world in great detail—particularly the Axis radio programs that ran in Arabic around the clock from late 1939 until March of 1945.
These broadcasts spewed venomous anti-Semitism and pushed every demagogic button imaginable. They were also highly effective. In fact, long after the last vestige of Nazi rhetoric faded from consciousness in Europe, the poisonous seeds planted back then are still bearing deadly fruit.
The mind-set that gave way to the Third Reich is very much alive and well in the Muslim world of the Middle East.
When those two senatorial strange-bedfellows offered their visionary resolution in 1944 about a Jewish homeland in Palestine, the “Axis Broadcasts in Arabic” were way ahead of the story. Mr. Herf has accessed a significant cache of transcripts and leaflets produced by the Nazis during the war—materials that have not been adequately examined—until now.
So back in 1944, any hopes a couple of well-intentioned voices in Washington might have had to garner widespread national support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine were dashed by forces largely influenced by the hate-speak of Nazi propagandists. Berlin, broadcasting in Arabic, referred to Taft and Wagner as “criminal American senators,” while announcing, “a great tragedy is about to be unfolded, a great massacre, another turbulent war is about to start in the Arab countries.”
And in phraseology that sounds eerily familiar to what we still regularly hear from Islamists, the Nazis described the stakes as kill or be killed:
“Arabs and Moslems, sons of the East, this menace threatens your very lives, endangers your beliefs and aims at your wealth. No trace of you will remain. Your doom is sealed. It were better if the earth opened and engulfed everybody; it were better if the skies fell upon us, bringing havoc and destruction; all this, rather than the sun of Islam should set and the Koran perish…Stir up wars and revolutions, stand fast against the aggressors, let your hearts, afire with faith, burst asunder! Advance your armies and drive out the menace.”
Bear in mind that this is a Nazi broadcast to the Arab/Muslims in Palestine. Of course, the relationship between Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti in Jerusalem, is well known and documented (see my article: “Hitler’s Favorite Jihadist”), but the broadcasts from Berlin to Palestine are just now beginning to be examined. And what is being found is further evidence that to refer to Islamists as Nazi or Fascist-like is no smear—or stretch.
The rhetoric broadcasted to the Middle East 70 years ago is still being noised about—and even more pervasively and effectively. Back then, the attitudes it reinforced, complete with distortion, hate and prejudice, caused U.S. officials, from FDR on down, to “go wobbly”—as Margaret Thatcher would say.
It is sadly clear that the most lasting impact of the Nazi propaganda machine is that murderous ideas espoused back then are alive and well in our day and age and still being used to threaten and kill Jews—while nouveau wobblers turn away.

Report this

By call me roy, May 12, 2010 at 8:12 am Link to this comment

First, looks like France is waking up (so is Sweden) and do what England did today (and Germany did also) and that’s elect Conservatives. David Cameron of the Conservatives in now Britan’s new Prime Minister. The Liberal agenda has failed in Europe and the people are voting it out. Europe has begun to “wise up” about the liberals being a joke and the radical muslims probably having a short life span, maybe the Swedish could wake up a little more and realize that a Conceal Carry gun law is just what the doctor ordered for defending yourself against “people” who demand their own way. Note to Liberals: When you’re fighting a war and people want to kill you, you can defend yourself.
In America? We are all hearing jokes like this all day:
Question – What is the only thing worse than an incompetent liberal President?
Answer -A competent liberal President.
Or,
Question: What’s the difference between an Iraq terrorist and a liberal?
Answer: The Iraq terrorist makes fewer demands.

Report this

By Jim Yell, May 12, 2010 at 6:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Security is really at the heart of this cover up issue. Really photo ID’s must show the entire face and when security is the issue the face must be checked against the ID by the police, probably by a female police officer, but circumstance would trump that. Let those looking to get furious about this remember it is not unheard of for men to hide behind the veil to commit crimes. Of course if the face is too stimulating than perhaps we could settle for something exposed more private which would solve the question.

To the greater question “freedom of and from religion”. While we must live with the fundamentlist wack jobs that are native born, I don’t see why we must allow people to reside in our country who clearly hate our Bill of Rights and only invoke it to protect themselves from their treason and bad acts. While I think people in general have human rights, they do not have civil rights in countries in which they are not citizens. No citizenship to be granted to people who do not believe in allowing freedom to individuals. People who are unable to tolerate critic of their beliefs are not good citizens in a liberal demcoracy. They will use their access and do use their access to destroy their host countries traditions and laws. Reference Netherlands and Denmark.

For me I think we are crowded enough, we don’t need these people in our country. We have enough crazy people home grown.

Report this

By DasBoot, May 12, 2010 at 6:26 am Link to this comment

Very tricky. But having just seen the video of the Swedish cartoonist being attacked during a lecture, this law doesn’t seem so bad all of a sudden. Western women must cover their hair (if not more) when traveling in Muslim countries. Nobody is forcing Muslim women to dress like Britney Spears.

Report this

By omygodnotagain, May 12, 2010 at 5:55 am Link to this comment

The photo of the woman with the veil on accompanuying this article is incredibly sexy and provocative. Wouldn’t mind a tete-a-tete with her.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, May 12, 2010 at 4:28 am Link to this comment

“cultures far older than ours”?????

Islam was invented 1300 years ago. Greece and Rome are a tad bit older.

Report this

By Commune115, May 12, 2010 at 1:23 am Link to this comment

This is just more insane Islamaphoebia. Societies that show this kind of contempt for cultures far older than ours are doomed to march into some sort of fascist tragedy very soon.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 11, 2010 at 9:24 pm Link to this comment

If a western women went someplace in the middle east would she be told to wear a berka?  The old saying when in Rome, may be prudent when in another country?

Report this

By TheBrix57, May 11, 2010 at 8:53 pm Link to this comment

Perhaps the point that some are missing is that wearing any type of covering about the head and shoulders and wearing any type of clothing that conceals the body interferes with the “security” cameras that are becoming all the rage?

It has never been about religious concepts or demeaning to women or any of the other lies the governments try to bring up. The governments all want to correctly(?) identify everyone that appears on their cameras.

Report this

By faultroy, May 11, 2010 at 7:27 pm Link to this comment

Funny who things come back full circle.To westerners seeing a lot of skin and a sexy bod is a good thing, but not all women want to expose their assets. It is a mark of chastity. We now find the West oppressing people in order to “civilize” them. Next they will probably want to shoot all women wearing hajibs.  Given all the sluts in westernized society, we cannot possibly “insult their femininity,” by implying that some women are more pure than others can we? What would the Feminist Police say of such a thing…ah God Bless Democracy.

Report this

By Maani, May 11, 2010 at 6:51 pm Link to this comment

Did it ever occur to you that some, possibly many, of these women wear the veil voluntarily - even proudly - as a symbol of their faith?  That far from feeling that they are not “people,” or any feelings of “inequality,” they feel it is their right to do so, NOT an obligation?  Why should they be refused that right?

Report this

By Big B, May 11, 2010 at 5:33 pm Link to this comment

While I think everybody should have the freedom to let their “freak flag fly”, These troglodytes from the backward middle east need to realize that it is they that need to assimilate to the west, not the other way around. Most of us in the civilized world recognized that women were people a long time ago (except of course for the evangelical american south)

Besides, the green eyed chick in the photo above looks really hot.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.