Muslim Woman Competes in Weightlifting

Off Topic
201

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

[quote]TheJonty wrote:

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I just wanted to point out that allowing her to compete because of her religion would be discrimination. Everyone has to wear proper attire. What she is asking for is to be treated differently based on her religion. Not changing the rules based on religion is the only non-discriminatory thing to do.[/quote]

I agree, but this is also why I think, the in the spirit of FAIRNESS, why not have other competitors vote on it and then go based on popular vote?

Let the people speak for themselves.[/quote]

Perhaps letting the competitors vote on it is not the best solution. If the competitors are given the opportunity to vote for rule changes, and if they perceived a possible advantage to having the rules change, wouldn’t they vote for that, even if it wasn’t necessarily the best thing for the sport? I know this isn’t the best example/comparison, but if olympic athletes were suddenly allowed to vote whether or not they wanted performance enhancing substances banned, what do you think the outcome would be? Isn’t that part of the point of having an international governing body for a sport? (<- none of that was meant to be rhetorical)

All that being said, I compete in olympic lifting, and I don’t think the rules should be changed.[/quote]

Well, I didn’t necessarily mean having the rules changed for everyone, so that everyone’s special requests would be accommodated. I meant the voting to be a show of how many competitors are ok with allowing her to compete with her hijab. That’s it.

If the competitors think it’s “fair” for her to compete with the hijab, then it’s essentially up to her peers–it’s democratic.

It was just a thought.

Strangemeadow,

What was the last “victory mosque” built? When was it built? I’m not testing you; I don’t know, either.

And I’m sure I don’t have to explain that there are MANY antiquated customs (of many religions and cultures) that no longer carry the original message, but are yet carried out for different reasons. Times change.

Check your PM.[/quote]
Ponce,
I’ve been trying to think of a way to save face, but I’ll own up to the fact that I was mislead on many aspects of the proposed Muslim Community Center. I honestly thank you for the info you PM’ed. I did some more research and concerning the Ground Zero Mosque, yeah, it’s kinda all hatred. I do believe I’m correct on historical points, but to one of your points, time changes and so do customs.
Thanks for straightening me out on some things. I will actually look into when and where the last “victory mosques” were built.

202

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
Moral Beauty Contest sounds good to me. Sign me up.
[/quote]

Sure. Ready to convert to Islam, wear a black tent with eyeslits all the time, have to be accompanied by a male relative whenever you want to go anywhere, get bashed and likely raped by roaming gangs of ‘religious police’ for infractions such as talking to a man, get your genitals mutilated, have your husband sell your 11-year-old daughter to a 60 year-old man for a donkey etc? Sounds great yeah! Morally upright too. Did I mention black people are called ‘Abid’ in Saudi Arabia? It means slave.[/quote]

Hey, calm down.

I was being sarcastic.
[/quote]

Sorry. I was being sarcastic too. No hostility towards you intended.

203

Now, can we purify this cesspool of a discussion with some pheromones and endorphins, Greek style?

204

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

[quote]TheJonty wrote:

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I just wanted to point out that allowing her to compete because of her religion would be discrimination. Everyone has to wear proper attire. What she is asking for is to be treated differently based on her religion. Not changing the rules based on religion is the only non-discriminatory thing to do.[/quote]

I agree, but this is also why I think, the in the spirit of FAIRNESS, why not have other competitors vote on it and then go based on popular vote?

Let the people speak for themselves.[/quote]

Perhaps letting the competitors vote on it is not the best solution. If the competitors are given the opportunity to vote for rule changes, and if they perceived a possible advantage to having the rules change, wouldn’t they vote for that, even if it wasn’t necessarily the best thing for the sport? I know this isn’t the best example/comparison, but if olympic athletes were suddenly allowed to vote whether or not they wanted performance enhancing substances banned, what do you think the outcome would be? Isn’t that part of the point of having an international governing body for a sport? (<- none of that was meant to be rhetorical)

All that being said, I compete in olympic lifting, and I don’t think the rules should be changed.[/quote]

Well, I didn’t necessarily mean having the rules changed for everyone, so that everyone’s special requests would be accommodated. I meant the voting to be a show of how many competitors are ok with allowing her to compete with her hijab. That’s it.

If the competitors think it’s “fair” for her to compete with the hijab, then it’s essentially up to her peers–it’s democratic.

It was just a thought.

Strangemeadow,

What was the last “victory mosque” built? When was it built? I’m not testing you; I don’t know, either.

And I’m sure I don’t have to explain that there are MANY antiquated customs (of many religions and cultures) that no longer carry the original message, but are yet carried out for different reasons. Times change.

Check your PM.[/quote]

Oh, for fuck’s sake! Yeah check your PM. I just sent you the latest edition of Pravda and a pamphlet from CAIR. Now we can all agree the Saudis want a fucking Mosque at Ground Zero to build bridges and for interfaith dialogue. Jesus Christ!

205
206

[quote]alexus wrote:

[/quote]

Apologies to the OP for turning this into a religious debate, but I’m pretty sure we all saw that coming, right?

Alexus,

Great link. I posted once–likely in PWI forum–that, if the West wants to “fix” the Middle East, i.e. to rid those countries of theocratic dictatorships in hopes of establishing more democratic, secular societies, then instead of demonizing their predominant religious framework of those cultures, the West could suggest that in order for faith to be preserved in its original context and beauty, it should be separated from politics, else it will forever be the fuel of propaganda, forever distorted.

Secularization should be pitched as a BENEFIT, rather than saying, “Don’t you see how evil Islam is?” The latter dialogue is futile and is too polarizing.

207

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Oh, for fuck’s sake! Yeah check your PM. I just sent you the latest edition of Pravda and a pamphlet from CAIR. Now we can all agree the Saudis want a fucking Mosque at Ground Zero to build bridges and for interfaith dialogue. Jesus Christ![/quote]

Please don’t use the Lord’s name in vain.

strangemeadow,

No need to save face. I shouldn’t have attacked you–well, that wasn’t “attacking” in my opinion, just my usual tone–and there’s honestly no place in a true debate for belittlement.

Take care.

208

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Oh, for fuck’s sake! Yeah check your PM. I just sent you the latest edition of Pravda and a pamphlet from CAIR. Now we can all agree the Saudis want a fucking Mosque at Ground Zero to build bridges and for interfaith dialogue. Jesus Christ![/quote]

Please don’t use the Lord’s name in vain.

strangemeadow,

No need to save face. I shouldn’t have attacked you–well, that wasn’t “attacking” in my opinion, just my usual tone–and there’s honestly no place in a true debate for belittlement.

Take care.
[/quote]
It’s all good by me. A testy discussion is healthy.
Respect!

209

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

[quote]alexus wrote:

[/quote]

…if the West wants to “fix” the Middle East, i.e. to rid those countries of theocratic dictatorships in hopes of establishing more democratic, secular societies, then instead of demonizing their predominant religious framework of those cultures, the West could suggest that in order for faith to be preserved in its original context and beauty, it should be separated from politics, else it will forever be the fuel of propaganda, forever distorted.

Secularization should be pitched as a BENEFIT, rather than saying, “Don’t you see how evil Islam is?” The latter dialogue is futile and is too polarizing.[/quote]

1938:

If the West wants to ‘fix’ Nazi Germany, i.e. to rid that country of Nazi dictatorship in hopes of establishing a more democratic, sane society, then instead of demonising Nazism, the West could suggest that in order for Nazism to be preserved in its original context and beauty, it should be separated from politics, else it will forever be the fuel of propaganda, forever distorted.

Yes, Islamic fundamentalist regimes are likely to respond well to ‘suggestions’ of democracy, that we should interpret their religion for them and that they should separate religion from politics.

‘Ah, Mr Ahmadinejad. May I make a suggestion? How about you interpret Islam in such a manner that doesn’t involve decapitating everyone? How about some elections that don’t comprise the votes of tens of thousands of people who don’t exist or who are dead? How about telling the Ayatollah and the clerics that they must stay out of your new democratic political system? Just a suggestion mind. You will consider it won’t you?’

210

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
So to clarify: I’m not an idiot.[/quote]
Lets not jump to conclusions.

211

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
So to clarify: I’m not an idiot.[/quote]
Lets not jump to conclusions.[/quote]

^^

212

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

Well, I didn’t necessarily mean having the rules changed for everyone, so that everyone’s special requests would be accommodated. I meant the voting to be a show of how many competitors are ok with allowing her to compete with her hijab. That’s it.

If the competitors think it’s “fair” for her to compete with the hijab, then it’s essentially up to her peers–it’s democratic.

[/quote]

That is discrimination. You are talking about changing the rules for one specific person based on her religion.

If it’s okay to wear some form of head covering, it’s okay for anyone.

213

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
So to clarify: I’m not an idiot.[/quote]
Lets not jump to conclusions.[/quote]

bravo, good sir.

you win at the internets

214

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

Well, I didn’t necessarily mean having the rules changed for everyone, so that everyone’s special requests would be accommodated. I meant the voting to be a show of how many competitors are ok with allowing her to compete with her hijab. That’s it.

If the competitors think it’s “fair” for her to compete with the hijab, then it’s essentially up to her peers–it’s democratic.

[/quote]

That is discrimination. You are talking about changing the rules for one specific person based on her religion.

If it’s okay to wear some form of head covering, it’s okay for anyone. [/quote]

hell yeah. My ass is lifting in a ski mask from here on out

215

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

Well, I didn’t necessarily mean having the rules changed for everyone, so that everyone’s special requests would be accommodated. I meant the voting to be a show of how many competitors are ok with allowing her to compete with her hijab. That’s it.

If the competitors think it’s “fair” for her to compete with the hijab, then it’s essentially up to her peers–it’s democratic.

[/quote]

That is discrimination. You are talking about changing the rules for one specific person based on her religion.

If it’s okay to wear some form of head covering, it’s okay for anyone. [/quote]

hell yeah. My ass is lifting in a ski mask from here on out
[/quote]

I was thinking hockey mask, but to each his own.

216

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

Well, I didn’t necessarily mean having the rules changed for everyone, so that everyone’s special requests would be accommodated. I meant the voting to be a show of how many competitors are ok with allowing her to compete with her hijab. That’s it.

If the competitors think it’s “fair” for her to compete with the hijab, then it’s essentially up to her peers–it’s democratic.

[/quote]

That is discrimination. You are talking about changing the rules for one specific person based on her religion.

If it’s okay to wear some form of head covering, it’s okay for anyone. [/quote]

You are reaching. That falls beyond the spirit of discrimination because it’s validated by peer review.

If the “peers” feel it is discrimination, they’ll vote against allowing her to compete. Simple.

217

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

Well, I didn’t necessarily mean having the rules changed for everyone, so that everyone’s special requests would be accommodated. I meant the voting to be a show of how many competitors are ok with allowing her to compete with her hijab. That’s it.

If the competitors think it’s “fair” for her to compete with the hijab, then it’s essentially up to her peers–it’s democratic.

[/quote]

That is discrimination. You are talking about changing the rules for one specific person based on her religion.

If it’s okay to wear some form of head covering, it’s okay for anyone. [/quote]

You are reaching. That falls beyond the spirit of discrimination because it’s validated by peer review.

If the “peers” feel it is discrimination, they’ll vote against allowing her to compete. Simple.[/quote]

So was segregation.

Voting doesn’t change what is or is not discriminatory. You are wanting discrimination.

218

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

[quote]alexus wrote:

[/quote]

…if the West wants to “fix” the Middle East, i.e. to rid those countries of theocratic dictatorships in hopes of establishing more democratic, secular societies, then instead of demonizing their predominant religious framework of those cultures, the West could suggest that in order for faith to be preserved in its original context and beauty, it should be separated from politics, else it will forever be the fuel of propaganda, forever distorted.

Secularization should be pitched as a BENEFIT, rather than saying, “Don’t you see how evil Islam is?” The latter dialogue is futile and is too polarizing.[/quote]

1938:

If the West wants to ‘fix’ Nazi Germany, i.e. to rid that country of Nazi dictatorship in hopes of establishing a more democratic, sane society, then instead of demonising Nazism, the West could suggest that in order for Nazism to be preserved in its original context and beauty, it should be separated from politics, else it will forever be the fuel of propaganda, forever distorted.

Yes, Islamic fundamentalist regimes are likely to respond well to ‘suggestions’ of democracy, that we should interpret their religion for them and that they should separate religion from politics.

‘Ah, Mr Ahmadinejad. May I make a suggestion? How about you interpret Islam in such a manner that doesn’t involve decapitating everyone? How about some elections that don’t comprise the votes of tens of thousands of people who don’t exist or who are dead? How about telling the Ayatollah and the clerics that they must stay out of your new democratic political system? Just a suggestion mind. You will consider it won’t you?’[/quote]

Nice sensationalism there, buddy.

I’m pretty sure Nazism as a movement was isolated to “Nazi Germany” and was the predominant movement at the time.

You are saying that fundamentalism is the predominant interpretation of Islam among the Muslim countries, to which I would say, again, lay off the Wikipedia and anecdotes.

Difference: there is partisanship in the interpretation of Islam. What I’m suggesting would in theory appeal to the level headed Muslims who would take offense to the fundamentalists and there would (hopefully) be a Renaissance that ends in secularization and the fall of theocracies, because the “true Muslims” will see that the fundamentalists pollute the image of Islam with politics.

Didn’t know there were rednecks in Australia. Thanks for the education.

219

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

Well, I didn’t necessarily mean having the rules changed for everyone, so that everyone’s special requests would be accommodated. I meant the voting to be a show of how many competitors are ok with allowing her to compete with her hijab. That’s it.

If the competitors think it’s “fair” for her to compete with the hijab, then it’s essentially up to her peers–it’s democratic.

[/quote]

That is discrimination. You are talking about changing the rules for one specific person based on her religion.

If it’s okay to wear some form of head covering, it’s okay for anyone. [/quote]

You are reaching. That falls beyond the spirit of discrimination because it’s validated by peer review.

If the “peers” feel it is discrimination, they’ll vote against allowing her to compete. Simple.[/quote]

So was segregation.

Voting doesn’t change what is or is not discriminatory. You are wanting discrimination.[/quote]

Segregation of what? You mean in THIS country, i.e. 50s & 60s ?

If the community (of all peers, the competitors) feels it is discrimination, it will vote against it (in theory). The system would self-correct. “Market forces” and all that sexy stuff.

Voting allows the peers to express whether or not they feel it is discriminatory. Who is being “discriminated” against? All the people who’ve wanted to compete with hockey masks and Halloween costumes?

Again, I don’t think governing body should give her an allowance, I’m just suggesting (as a compromise) that the competitors be allowed to weigh in and decide so they can’t blame the governing body with “discrimination.”

I wish there was an actual competitor here to weigh in.

EDIT: Or do you mean the option of peer review denying her admission amounts to discrimination, and thus the rule of a 3rd party / ruling body is meant to keep the neutrality in this matter?

220

Definition of DISCRIMINATION

1
a : the act of discriminating
b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2
: the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3
a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment

From merriam-webster