What the heck, it’s Friday.
True, but you’re taught to avert your eyes from temptations or simply not go to places where you will be tempted, not demand that unbelievers accomodate you.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Very mainstream Christian denominations also teach this. [/quote]
Are you sure you meant to write very mainstream?
One more question, when you say that they’d be called “fundies”, do you not think that a large portion of Muslims consider burqa-wearing women “fundies”? In fact, living in a 99.9% Muslim country, the first time I even knew such creatures existed was in the middle of my teen years.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Very mainstream Christian denominations also teach this.
Are you sure you meant to write very mainstream?
One more question, when you say that they’d be called “fundies”, do you not think that a large portion of Muslims consider burqa-wearing women “fundies”? In fact, living in a 99.9% Muslim country, the first time I even knew such creatures existed was in the middle of my teen years.[/quote]
Your ignorance is no excuse for preferential treatment.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Very mainstream Christian denominations also teach this.
Are you sure you meant to write very mainstream?
One more question, when you say that they’d be called “fundies”, do you not think that a large portion of Muslims consider burqa-wearing women “fundies”? In fact, living in a 99.9% Muslim country, the first time I even knew such creatures existed was in the middle of my teen years.[/quote]
Yes, mainstream denominations teach modesty, and to avoid immodest situations. What are you questioning? I don’t understand the burqa comments, by the way. I didn’t say anything about them.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
entheogens wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And so you don’t have see a problem? Would you have had a problem had this been devout Christian men?
Like I said, I wouldn’t dismiss their request, nor would I have necessarily accepted it. It would have to be determined, as described in my previous post.
For example, if some devout Christian men came to me and
showed me precedent in their tradition that they should not exercise with other women, were apparently sincere, then I think there request would need be taken seriously. If they came and were just making an abstract argument as to why they should be given equal treatment but did not demonstrate true sincerity or precedent, I would be inclined to not take their request seriously. It would be a case of just being “spiteful”. Obviously
Again, I don’t know how the Harvard people made their determination. It may be that they did it from “political correctness” or, as I believe Lixy speculated, because Harvard got money from rich Muslims. Or it may be that they did it based upon careful, ethical consideration. That I can’t know for sure…and neither can you. However, based upon the little I know, it seems the request by the Muslim students is, at least, reasonable.
Had this been a group of Christian men, who had these hours set aside, and someone shared the story on this board, you’d be as lukewarm about this? Be honest now. It’s just that, well, I supect the more left leaning amongst us would be crying foul.
“Christian right-wing fundies! They’re not the only one’s paying fees! And, how can Harvard accept tax funded government money, while giving the Christian right special privileges!” Come on, you know this would be a crapstorm.[/quote]
I get Sunday off from school. What if my religion cannot study on Wednesdays, will I be accommodated?
Of course not.
We get Sunday and Saturday as the “weekend” because they are Christian/Jewish days of worship. I don’t cry “foul!” because of this. It’s logical, and fair that if we have to pick two days to traditionally get off, these two should be them.
What if my religion states I cannot be in the presence of women when I eat lunch, will I be allowed to eat in a class room?
Of course.
Muslims at my school get a specific room to pray in, and are excused for short, four to five minute periods a few times a day to pray. This is not ridiculous at all, and even though they are not “conforming to the rules the rest of us have to obey,” they are hurting no one, and one one whines about not being able to take 5 minutes to go running around the halls.
If you can’t see the difference between the above, you’re mentally unstable. Why must we draw a line in the sand? Why can’t we just use our reason to determine when something has gone to far, and than correct or prevent it? I certainly think GB has gone a bit too far in some places, but those calling for a total rollback are equally as ridiculous.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
What if my religion states I cannot be in the presence of women when I eat lunch, will I be allowed to eat in a class room?
Of course.
Muslims at my school get a specific room to pray in, and are excused for short, four to five minute periods a few times a day to pray. This is not ridiculous at all, and even though they are not “conforming to the rules the rest of us have to obey,” they are hurting no one, and one one whines about not being able to take 5 minutes to go running around the halls.[/quote]
Your example is not apt - accommodating someone’s religious preferences in the instance you mention does not deprive another person a benefit. If a Muslim disappears for a few minutes to go pray, that doesn’t affect me. If I really wanted equal time to go do my own thing, there is no doubt I would be accommodated - but the accommodation doesn’t deprive me of something I would otherwise be entitled to.
But access to a gym involves limited resources - and granting a privilege on the basis of religion at the exclusion of other religious preferences is a problem.
Moreover, you have no problem granting the exception to Muslims as a courtesy. No problem - do you allow it for Christians? What about differing Christian denominations? How about an hour for Sikhs? Wiccans? How about an hour for my own personal religion - worship of Zogdor - with me being the only adherent? Or do your accommodation policies apply only to mainstream religions that are on a list, and the school gets to decide which religion is “good enough” and which ones are “oddballs”? Who makes the decision, and how?
If you grant a privilege to one, can you deny the privilege to others if they ask for it? If not, why not?
If you prefer not to draw a line in the sand, and pick and choose which accommodations to grant and which to deny, then if the laws apply, now you are privileging one religion over another - and you’ve got First Amendment problems.
Again, when you pull back the curtain of the political correctness that you are driven by here - what would your opinion be if Christians and Jews were granted a privilege that Muslims were not?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Yes, mainstream denominations teach modesty, and to avoid immodest situations. [/quote]
“Mainstream is, generally, the common current of thought of the majority.” – Wiki
I know that Jesus, as all the other prophets, stressed out the importance of modesty. But I can’t, for the life of me, figure out how you can say that “very mainstream Christian denominations” stress modesty. It seems to me that Christians avoiding “immodest situations” constitute the minorities. They can thus hardly be called “mainstream”.
You speculated that had the group been Christian women, they would have been labeled “fundamentalists” and “fundies”. I noted that burqa wearing women take fundamentalism a couple of steps further. In fact, you can’t get more “fundamentalist” than that in Islam if you tried. So, people would be right to describe both groups (eyour hypothetical group of Christian women and the OP’s Muslim women) in this case as “fundamentalists” because they are just that; “fundamentalists”!
Clear? No? Let me try again.
Roughly 80% of American women are Christian. Most of them, have no problem at all frequenting gyms with males. A group of Christian women who would demand a segregated gym are hence, by definition, members of a fundamentalist movement. You wouldn’t need to “label” them fundies because that is just what they are. Just like a Muslim wouldn’t need to label those burqa-wearing Harvard girls as fundamentalists, because the very fact that they wear burqas wreaks of fundamentalism.
[quote]:
Sloth wrote:
Yes, mainstream denominations teach modesty, and to avoid immodest situations.
Lixy:
“Mainstream is, generally, the common current of thought of the majority.” – Wiki
I know that Jesus, as all the other prophets, stressed out the importance of modesty. But I can’t, for the life of me, figure out how you can say that “very mainstream Christian denominations” stress modesty. It seems to me that Christians avoiding “immodest situations” constitute the minorities. They can thus hardly be called “mainstream”.
[/quote]
Yes, the mainstream Christian denominations DO stress modesty. I’m talking about the actual CHURCHES, tenets, doctrines, etc. Not individuals. Please pay attention.
Furthermore, that’s the point of the debate! Christian folk know even asking for seperate times, or other arrangements aimed at maintaining a sense of modesty and prudence, would have them picketed and the accomadating institution sued by the ACLU or an individual atheist!
[quote]
Sloth:
What are you questioning? I don’t understand the burqa comments, by the way. I didn’t say anything about them.
Lixy:
You speculated that had the group been Christian women, they would have been labeled “fundamentalists” and “fundies”. I noted that burqa wearing women take fundamentalism a couple of steps further. In fact, you can’t get more “fundamentalist” than that in Islam if you tried. So, people would be right to describe both groups (eyour hypothetical group of Christian women and the OP’s Muslim women) in this case as “fundamentalists” because they are just that; “fundamentalists”!
Clear? No? Let me try again.
Roughly 80% of American women are Christian. Most of them, have no problem at all frequenting gyms with males. A group of Christian women who would demand a segregated gym are hence, by definition, members of a fundamentalist movement. You wouldn’t need to “label” them fundies because that is just what they are. Just like a Muslim wouldn’t need to label those burqa-wearing Harvard girls as fundamentalists, because the very fact that they wear burqas wreaks of fundamentalism.[/quote]
What? Christians asking for seperate times would be labeled fundamentalists in this country, period. I think even the lefties who aren’t so quick to anger over this case would admit, that in the US, any Christian group asking for such treatment would be labelled fundamentalists, or Christian Right.
And, Roughly 80% of American women may choose to label themselves Christian when asked, but being a Christian is a little bit more involved than attending church for Christmas mass every year. Actual attendance to Christian churches is far lower than what surveys would lead you to believe.
I don’t think you understand the different standards being played out here. Again, not only would Christians have been laughed at and ridiculed for this suggestion, they would’ve been picketed by left-leaning student clubs. And, the school would have a lawsuit against it, etc. Lixy, not even actual Christian organizations are safe. Again, read up on Catholic Charities and hospitals, and their battles with the likes of the ACLU.
About Church attendance, and the problem of polling.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=frontlines_18_4i
In 1992 C. Kirk Hadaway, a sociologist employed by the United Church of Christ, assembled an army of researchers and counted noses in every Protestant church in Ashtabula County, Ohio. Only 20 percent of adult members were there, half what Gallup predicted…
…Yet when the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) redesigned its mammoth General Social Survey (GSS), church attendance figures declined sharply. For many years GSS data had supported Gallup’s; the redesigned 1996 GSS reported that only between 29 and 30.5% of Americans attended church in the last week, a figure similar to Presser and Stinson’s.[/i]
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=237
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/church1.htm
Forget what the polls say. Actual, devout church going folk aren’t that common. “Christian” is what people think they should answer when surveyed, because their Grandpa was a god-fearing Baptist or Catholic. So, yeah, Christianity is often a family tradition, instead of an actual religion to be adhered to. Oh, and we (the public) also lie very heavily about how often we give to charity and tithe (not many will tithe, especially if they aren’t truly attending). Christianity has taken a severe beating in this country, don’t kid yourself. Sure, it get’s popular for a time when something like the ‘Passion of the Christ’ hit’s the big screen, but then another blockbuster movie comes out and you never see them at Church again.
Meanwhile, over here in atheist Japan, millions of women have lobbied for, and gotten, special train cars that, during the morning and evening rush hours, will accommodate women only.
Their request has nothing to do with feminism, pious modesty or anything other than a desire to be able to ride to school and work without some lecherous sociopath feeling up their tits and asses.
Unbelievable as it may be, some women don’t like being the object of male sexual attention while they’re trying to concentrate on other things. I think that if any other group of women beside Muslims had made the request at Harvard, it probably would have been granted, and it would have garnered considerably less attention, except by a few people who would view it as evidence of the University caving to radical feminism.
Incidentally, where was it ever mentioned that any of the women at Harvard wore burqas?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Meanwhile, over here in atheist Japan, millions of women have lobbied for, and gotten, special train cars that, during the morning and evening rush hours, will accommodate women only.
Their request has nothing to do with feminism, pious modesty or anything other than a desire to be able to ride to school and work without some lecherous sociopath feeling up their tits and asses.
Unbelievable as it may be, some women don’t like being the object of male sexual attention while they’re trying to concentrate on other things. I think that if any other group of women beside Muslims had made the request at Harvard, it probably would have been granted, and it would have garnered considerably less attention, except by a few people who would view it as evidence of the University caving to radical feminism.[/quote]
The first thing I said on this thread is that I personally don’t care about the request being granted. It’s the double standard that’s obnoxious. I find it very unlikely that had devout Christian men asked for the same it would’ve been granted. And if so, even less unlikely they could’ve done so, and not have been immediately challenged by the ACLU or some sue happy atheist.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Incidentally, where was it ever mentioned that any of the women at Harvard wore burqas?[/quote]
I don’t know. Lixy said something about them.
What I find unlikely is that any devout Christian men would ever ask for their gym to become a girl-free-zone in the first place.
Unless they were gay, of course, but we all know that there is no such thing as a devout Christian gay man.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
What I find unlikely is that any devout Christian men would ever ask for their gym to become a girl-free-zone in the first place.
Unless he’s gay, of course, but we all know that there is no such thing as a devout Christian gay man.[/quote]
Whether they would or not is not the issue. It is whether they could receive the same preferential treatment as the women of murder got.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
What I find unlikely is that any devout Christian men would ever ask for their gym to become a girl-free-zone in the first place.
[/quote]
Yeah, nowadays. The devout Christian male is a fire breathing ogre, so I’m told. Overall, he’s been beaten into submission on a number of social items, and wouldn’t begin to imagine that an institution which collects money from a diverse student body, and which accepts some government dollars, would even consider such a request. And even if said institution did, would only reverse the decision due to the inevitable lawsuit.
Maybe in the 1950’s, but not today.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Meanwhile, over here in atheist Japan, millions of women have lobbied for, and gotten, special train cars that, during the morning and evening rush hours, will accommodate women only.
Their request has nothing to do with feminism, pious modesty or anything other than a desire to be able to ride to school and work without some lecherous sociopath feeling up their tits and asses.
Unbelievable as it may be, some women don’t like being the object of male sexual attention while they’re trying to concentrate on other things. I think that if any other group of women beside Muslims had made the request at Harvard, it probably would have been granted, and it would have garnered considerably less attention, except by a few people who would view it as evidence of the University caving to radical feminism.[/quote]
If sexual battery was a common occurrence on train cars, then there would be a bona fide reason for the segregation, no?
If something similar was a common occurrence in the Harvard Gym, that would be a bona fide reason for segregation. However, to my knowledge, nothing like that had been happening.
Like entheogens’ unisex bathroom hypothetical, there are situations where bona fide reasons (often female safety concerns) for gender segregation exist. But the Harvard Gym did not sound like such a situation.
I haven’t read every post in this thread down to the last comma, but I don’t recall any people arguing that segregation is never acceptable, under any circumstances.
Most of us that are against the Harvard policy are arguing that the situation of the gym did not warrant a segregationist policy to remedy any wrong. There was no bona fide reason for it.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Meanwhile, over here in atheist Japan, millions of women have lobbied for, and gotten, special train cars that, during the morning and evening rush hours, will accommodate women only.
Their request has nothing to do with feminism, pious modesty or anything other than a desire to be able to ride to school and work without some lecherous sociopath feeling up their tits and asses.
Unbelievable as it may be, some women don’t like being the object of male sexual attention while they’re trying to concentrate on other things. I think that if any other group of women beside Muslims had made the request at Harvard, it probably would have been granted, and it would have garnered considerably less attention, except by a few people who would view it as evidence of the University caving to radical feminism.[/quote]
Sexism is much more acceptable in Japan.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Sexism is much more acceptable in Japan.[/quote]
That’s the truth. Things are changing, though, and in any case, the women have always held the financial power in Japan.
So the high-powered salaryman might insist that his female underlings serve tea, and treat them like sex objects, but in the end he hands his entire paycheck over to his wife, and if he’s lucky he gets a small allowance from her.
Now you know why everything in Japan is so nauseatingly cute. It’s all marketed to women.
Just an excerpt from an article dealing with the same issues, but in a differet situation. And on a larger scale, in my view.
[i] TIZA uses the language of culture rather than religion to describe its program in public documents. According to its mission statement, the school “recognizes and appreciates the traditions, histories, civilizations and accomplishments of the eastern world (Africa, Asia and Middle East).”
But the line between religion and culture is often blurry. There are strong indications that religion plays a central role at TIZA, which is a public school financed by Minnesota taxpayers. Under the U.S. and state constitutions, a public school can accommodate students’ religious beliefs but cannot encourage or endorse religion.
TIZA raises troubling issues about taxpayer funding of schools that cross that line.[/i]