You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Turkish Women allowed to wear head scarfs in Universities
- Thread starter Zapages
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Dark Octave
Banned
I was thinking the same thing. But people are so stuck in their traditions.YagizY said:As a Turkish American I am said to hear this. I am a secularist and I find head scarves to be demeaning.
With this being said though this is how I was raised, so their is no sense in trying to argue with me. I think it is wrong, some people don't.
Just because you guys find it demeaning doesn't mean a woman doesn't have the right to wear it if she wants to.
Some of you guys very mistakingly seem to be equating this with forcing women to wear the hijab for some reason.
Like I said before, forcing women to keep it off is equal to forcing women to keep it on, and I'm pretty sure the critics of this move aren't championing Saudi Arabia's mandatory hijab laws (which makes you hypocrites?).
Also remember that we're just talking about covering hair, not hardcore wahabbi style niqab or burqa which covers a woman's face.
Some of you guys very mistakingly seem to be equating this with forcing women to wear the hijab for some reason.
Like I said before, forcing women to keep it off is equal to forcing women to keep it on, and I'm pretty sure the critics of this move aren't championing Saudi Arabia's mandatory hijab laws (which makes you hypocrites?).
Also remember that we're just talking about covering hair, not hardcore wahabbi style niqab or burqa which covers a woman's face.
Chairman Yang said:I can't support a headscarf ban in good conscience, but I'm also concerned at the direction Turkey's taking. Let's face it: in modern times, the more Islamic a country is, the generally crappier it ends up. Turkey's secularism may have come at the cost of some democracy, but other Muslim countries that didn't embrace secularism have even less democracy (and suffer on virtually every other scale as well).
Not really...
Nearly all Muslim nations are sabotaged by
1) Corrupt Leaders/Monarchy
2) Puppet Governments of the west/ or do actions for western interest.
3) Repress Society
a) Egypt
b) Pakistan
c) Saudi Arabia
4) Economy is bad due to lack of diversification in their country
5) Corruption leads to money laundering and lack of money to support the nation.
6) Lack of Resources.
These are just are some of the reasons why Muslims are behind... Its not because of Islam... Its because of lack resources/corruption/and not following Islam through the proper method.
Islam is not repressive religion. Yet everyone here seems to think that way.
Head scarf is just like head covering nuns. Why does the West try to project itself that its righteous in everything, while its not and no better than other region of the world.
Forcing hard hats or dress codes restricts freedom in the same way that forcing people to wear seat belts restricts their freedoms. Now these are restrictions that are valid, reasonable and positive as they lead to greater safety or allows a business to project a certain image but to say they don't restrict freedoms is absurd.Cyan said:How do you figure?
So let's contrast those restrictions to a headscarf ban. There's no reason for it other than "OMG YOU CAN'T LOOK MUSLIM". There's just no corresponding benefit to this imposition.
And advocating a UNIFORM for UNIVERSITIES remains a completely ridiculous position.
You're allowed to have free speech as long as what you say or wear doesn't make my secular self uncomfortable.effzee said:allowing women the right to wear a scarf means they are heading to fundamentalist rule?
wow i knew GAF hated religion but to the degree ppl here hate Islam shocks me.
Dark Octave
Banned
I'm not going to pretend like I'm an expert on the reasons this head dress and covering the face came about, but I remember learning that it was because women were seen as less than men, therefore not allowed to show their faces, bodies, and heads in public. Over the years, things just become the way of life and the original meaning gets lost. Again, I'm not saying this is the way it happened as fact, but it was what I was told. So if what I was taught is correct, then the whole purpose of the head dress is demeaning to women IMO.GSG Flash said:Just because you guys find it demeaning doesn't mean a woman doesn't have the right to wear it if she wants to.
Some of you guys very mistakingly seem to be equating this with forcing women to wear the hijab for some reason.
Like I said before, forcing women to keep it off is equal to forcing women to keep it on, and I'm pretty sure the critics of this move aren't championing Saudi Arabia's mandatory hijab laws (which makes you hypocrites?).
Also remember that we're just talking about covering hair, not hardcore wahabbi style niqab or burqa which covers a woman's face.
DevelopmentArrested
Banned
It's funny how double standards work.
Not allowing headscarfs them is considered a bash against freedom yet I have to take my ballcap and shoes off at the airport while a women in a burka walks right through.
:lol
Not allowing headscarfs them is considered a bash against freedom yet I have to take my ballcap and shoes off at the airport while a women in a burka walks right through.
:lol
Azih said:Forcing hard hats or dress codes restricts freedom in the same way that forcing people to wear seat belts restricts their freedoms. Now these are restrictions that are valid, reasonable and positive as they lead to greater safety or allows a business to project a certain image but to say they don't restrict freedoms is absurd.
So let's contrast those restrictions to a headscarf ban. There's no reason for it other than "OMG YOU CAN'T LOOK MUSLIM". There's just no corresponding benefit to this imposition.
And advocating a UNIFORM for UNIVERSITIES remains a completely ridiculous position.
Is it? Is there anything preventing you from not wearing that seatbelt? Is there anyone preventing people from showing up to work in their boxers? No, you still have that freedom but you are punished for it on the basis of reneging your assent to the institution.
You've not defended your position in the least and instead relied on vacuous statements of "is absurd" or "completely ridiculous".
Why is a uniform for a university absurd? Many universities around the world employ uniforms, even my cousins post-secondary in Malaysia employs a uniform. Given the immaturity of religious convictions that sparked the topic, it's more than a welcome solution to the problem. In this way everyone is treated equally and there's no issues about headscarfs, mitres, kippah, judenhaut, or other headwear. You can freely wear them, just as the institution can freely suspend or kick you out for it.
DSWii60 said:Wait a second, some people are arguing that giving women more freedom to choose what they want to do is a bad thing. They're not forcing anyone, they are giving them the FREEDOM to choose for themselves.
Onix said:Isn't this kind of the opposite though? The government preventing someone from doing something 'religious' ... basically secularism going too far and turning oppressive.
Fundamentalists gaining more power would be if the government mandated that women must wear a head scarf whether they want to or not.
The point is that allowing the headscarf shifts it the other way, you will see articles from now on with women being pressured to cover themselves up and I have no doubt that Turkey will become less secular and more religious along the lines of Indonesia .
Laws and enforcement of said laws.Atrus said:Is it? Is there anything preventing you from not wearing that seatbelt?
My boss.Is there anyone preventing people from showing up to work in their boxers?
By that standard I have the freedom to go on a killing spree, I am merely punished for it by jail time.No, you still have that freedom but you are punished for it on the basis of reneging your assent to the institution.
Further by your standard:
Places where the hijab is banned in University, women have the freedom to wear it to University, they are merely punished by being kicked out.
Places where the hijab is required in University, women have the freedom to not wear it to University, they are merely punished by being kicked out.
Edit: And it was Yang that was making the point that Malaysia wasn't very muslim (only 60%) in an attempt to explain why Malaysia has a higher GDP than secular Turkey. I disagreed. You jumped into the middle of a conversation and didn't even realize that you were agreeing with me.
Azih said:Laws and enforcement of said laws.
My boss.
By that standard I have the freedom to go on a killing spree, I am merely punished for it by jail time.
Certainly. You still have the freedom to commit acts, however you are punished for breaking or attempting to break (depending on the severity) the contract that binds those acts from taking place.
Its essentially social contract theory and how it forms the underlying basis of understanding individual liberties and freedoms within a society. Your right to action extends only so far as it obstructs an institutions right to carry on its desired functions, or do they not have that right?
Edit: Yang didn't say it wasn't very Muslim, he said that the high proportion of non-Muslims blunts the impact of Islamification, and it does up to a point. There's nothing wrong with what he said.
Once again by your definition, there are no restrictions of freedoms in any place on the planet, just punishments for breaking contracts. Your definition sucks.Atrus said:Certainly. You still have the freedom to commit acts, however you are punished for breaking or attempting to break (depending on the severity) the contract that binds those acts from taking place.
Edit: Cyan this all started with my statement that Allowing people the freedom to wear what they wish was a good thing.
Upon which he made the claim that enforcing an unifrom doesn't restrict freedoms. Which is a crazy statement to make especially since it means that *requiring* head scaves doesn't restrict freedom either, in fact no law or rule or regulation does. And while he tries to defend that position the main point is lost which is that supporting the ban of head scarves while decrying the enforcement of them is hypocritical and it's much better to just let people to wear what they wish free of the threat of being (in Atrus's words) 'punished for breaking or attempting to break (depending on the severity) the contract that binds those acts from taking place'.
Which is what Turkey has done.
Azih said:Once again by your definition, there are no restrictions of freedoms in any place on the planet, just punishments for breaking contracts. Your definition sucks.
Everyone is born to self-determine whatever they will, it just so happens that they are meaningless without a context to society and that yes, people are bound by social contracts that best allows them to recognize and exercise their rights equally to others. Without such contracts there'd be inequity and from there tyranny.
To quote JJ Rousseau:
"Man was born free and everywhere he is in chains."
You may call it my definition but you ignore what I said earlier. Go ahead and try to file a lawsuit against a company for restricting you from dressing how you like, hell why can't all those people banned from Neogaf file suit for limiting their freedom of speech? They can't because your position is wrong.
This definition may suck to you but it's namely because you haven't given much thought to how society works.
polyh3dron
Banned
Hell, let them wear what they want I say. It's when you force them to wear it that I have a problem.
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
Zapages said:Not really...
Nearly all Muslim nations are sabotaged by
1) Corrupt Leaders/Monarchy
2) Puppet Governments of the west/ or do actions for western interest.
3) Repress Society
a) Egypt
b) Pakistan
c) Saudi Arabia
4) Economy is bad due to lack of diversification in their country
5) Corruption leads to money laundering and lack of money to support the nation.
6) Lack of Resources.
These are just are some of the reasons why Muslims are behind... Its not because of Islam... Its because of lack resources/corruption/and not following Islam through the proper method.
There have been plenty of other countries that have faced similar problems but eventually transcended them. Look at some of the East Asian nations for examples. They've had corrupt puppet governments, repressive societies, poor economies, scarce resources, etc. but have overcome all these things (Korea is an easy example).
Zapages said:Islam is not repressive religion. Yet everyone here seems to think that way.
Islam doesn't have to be practiced in a repressive way, but it often is, just like any other ideology that claims exclusive truth, is expansionist, and punishes those who turn away. Some ideologies lend themselves to "good" societies, and some don't. I've seen no evidence that Islam (as most people practice it) lends itself to the former, and I think I've already given some trends that may imply the opposite.
At a very basic level, do you agree that an ideology that holds one truth and law above all others may hurt the promotion of other truths and other laws?
That's because you completely ignored my response to Cyan, who I was actually having a conversation with. You on the other hand were busy painting yourself into a semantic corner that denied any concept of a 'restriction on freedom' in an attempt to claim that uniforms don't do that. And no quoting Rousseau won't help you out of it.Atrus said:Go ahead and try to file a lawsuit against a company for restricting you from dressing how you like, hell why can't all those people banned from Neogaf file suit for limiting their freedom of speech? They can't because your position is wrong.
And my response was:
Forcing hard hats or dress codes restricts freedom in the same way that forcing people to wear seat belts restricts their freedoms. Now these are restrictions that are valid, reasonable and positive as they lead to greater safety or allows a business to project a certain image but to say they don't restrict freedoms is absurd.
So let's contrast those restrictions to a headscarf ban. There's no reason for it other than "OMG YOU CAN'T LOOK MUSLIM". There's just no corresponding benefit to this imposition.
well the 'as most people practice it' is a pretty major qualifier and I would add to it another one ''as most people practice it TODAY'. You can take a look at the Abbasid Dynasty when the Muslim world was by far the most progressive and tolerant society on the planet and the center of knowledge and progress.Chairman Yang said:I've seen no evidence that Islam (as most people practice it) lends itself to the former
How things change huh?
Azih said:That's because you completely ignored my response to Cyan, who I was actually having a conversation with. You on the other hand were busy painting yourself into a semantic corner that denied any concept of a 'restriction on freedom' in an attempt to claim that uniforms don't do that.
And my response was:
Let's put it into simple terms; An institution that affirms a dress-code is not a restriction on individual freedoms because it requires the consent of the individual to take part. The participation is the benefit gained from such a consent.
This is how it applies when McDonald's makes its employees pay for their mandatory uniforms, and this is why you cannot sue them for it because you do have a choice not to work for them if you so disagree with the concept.
As I've said, if you do not think this is true, go and file a civil liberties complaint and see how far you get. You are wrong and have made arguments almost completely void of substance in light of that.
What does this have to do with muslim? Doesn't this have to do with dresscodes and exemptions on it? Or the other way around?Azih said:And my response was:
Giving assent to a restriction of freedom, does not make it any less of one. Especially when it's the only game in town. Suing or not suing has no bearing on this whatsoever.Atrus said:Let's put it into simple terms; An institution that affirms a dress-code is not a restriction on individual freedoms because it requires the consent of the individual to take part. The participation is the benefit gained from such a consent.
I have given you equally simple examples that you have ignored time and again.
To wit:
A University that bans head scarves
A University that forces head scarves
Now in both cases there is always a 'choice' of not getting a post secondary education if you don't accept those rules. But what the hell kind of a choice is that?
Well the idea is that dress codes such as hard hats or business attire are restrictions on a person's freedom but there are good reasons for them. Same for laws requiring seat belts and the like. So these restrictions, and the enforcement of these restrictions, are accepted.msv said:What does this have to do with muslim? Doesn't this have to do with dresscodes and exemptions on it? Or the other way around?
Similarly banning head scarves in a university is a restriction on a person's freedom and the only reason for it is intolerance with slippery slope arguments just being plain paranoid. This sort of restriction should not be accepted and what Turkey did is a positive thing for individual freedom.
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
Azih said:well the 'as most people practice it' is a pretty major qualifier and I would add to it another one ''as most people practice it TODAY'. You can take a look at the Abbasid Dynasty when the Muslim world was by far the most progressive and tolerant society on the planet and the center of knowledge and progress.
How things change huh?
I don't agree that the Muslim world was the most progressive, advanced, and tolerant society on the planet (it certainly was compared to Europe, but not, in many respects, compared to China, parts of India, and many tribal societies). But yeah, I'd agree that the Muslim world (and the Islamic ideology) was definitely better than most places and many other ideologies.
However, the problem is that societies change. What was once relatively progressive/tolerant (for example, the jizya) can now be oppressive and discriminatory. Islam didn't have to regress to get to this state (although I think it did in many ways), it just had to stay in one place while other places in the world moved on. In other words, even if people practiced Islam as it was in, say, 1000 or 1200 or 1500, that wouldn't make the Islamic world better off.
msv said:Stop calling atheism a religion, it's not. It's not propagating one's belief, it's calling others out on their fallacies. This is a discussion board isn't it?
Atheism is a belief system.
Atrus said:Bullshit. Malaysia is a Muslim country, though I will say that whatever metric you qualify Malaysia as not Muslim, it's probably a badge of honor given it's pretty much a shining beacon within the OIC, threatened only by whatever you think makes a country Muslim.
I must reply to this (before reading the entire thread) since a good chunk of my friends are Malaysian: while the country is Muslim by law, the people themselves are very ambivalent about it. The country is going through a lot of growing pains because of Westernization (ie. Sharia and apotasy), but I can tell you upfront that it is more or less secular -- or at least a relatively tolerant Muslim country.
A big reason is because Malaysia is home to a lot of ethnic groups -- especially ethnic Chinese. While everyone is born Muslim in Malaysia, not everyone practices.
HokieJoe said:Atheism is a belief system.
I cannot quote this more. Atheism is a belief system just like any other religion because of their foundations on empirical thought. When there is no means of verification or epistemological access, who's to say that it does or does not exist?
You crazy. Where's the system? Where's the belief?HokieJoe said:Atheism is a belief system.
Wikipedia said:Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[3] alternatively called nontheism.[4]
Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities.
A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural being, who is always of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings.
The term supernatural (Latin: super "above" + natura "nature") pertains to entities, events or powers regarded as beyond nature, in that they cannot be explained by the laws of the natural world.
So, NOT believing fictional things or explanations of the unexplainable is a belief system?
I wouldn't agree with that. The Abbasid dynasty was progressive and tolerant by a standard that holds up well decently against everything but late 20th Century Western society. The Golden Age of Baghdad was pretty astounding.Chairman Yang said:I don't agree that the Muslim world was the most progressive, advanced, and tolerant society on the planet (it certainly was compared to Europe, but not, in many respects, compared to China, parts of India, and many tribal societies). But yeah, I'd agree that the Muslim world (and the Islamic ideology) was definitely better than most places and many other ideologies.
And man, when exactly were the Chinese tolerant?
Europe consisted of xenophobic and arrogant colonial powers until after the World Wars. Islam regressed quite a lot after the Abbasids.Islam didn't have to regress to get to this state (although I think it did in many ways), it just had to stay in one place while other places in the world moved on.
I cannot stress how wrong this is. Atheism is exactly the same as not believing in the existence of the x-men, xenu, the flying spaghetti monster, star trek, star wars etc etc etc etc etc is a belief system.SRG01 said:I cannot quote this more. Atheism is a belief system just like any other religion because of their foundations on empirical thought. When there is no means of verification or epistemological access, who's to say that it does or does not exist?
speculawyer
Member
It is a tough call. I strongly support secularism . . . but I also strongly support freedom.
This was the right decision as long as religion doesn't continue advancing and start passing laws based on religion.
This was the right decision as long as religion doesn't continue advancing and start passing laws based on religion.
msv said:So, NOT believing fictional things or explanations of the unexplainable is a belief system?
Well there's a pretty big distinction between weak atheism and strong atheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism
If you say authoritatively that 'God(s) do not exist' then you have made an authorative statement with no way to prove it, which is, y'know, a belief.
speculawyer
Member
SRG01 said:I cannot quote this more. Atheism is a belief system just like any other religion because of their foundations on empirical thought. When there is no means of verification or epistemological access, who's to say that it does or does not exist?
That is complete bullshit. You could say that is true for everything such that it makes the phrase 'belief system' meaningless.
Atheism is not a religion. It is the lack of one.
speculawyer said:That is complete bullshit. You could say that is true for everything such that it makes the phrase 'belief system' meaningless.
Atheism is not a religion. It is the lack of one.
Strong Atheism requires holding a statement that cannot be proven to be true. Weak Atheism does not.
This definition is impossible if you look at the definition of atheism.Azih said:Well there's a pretty big distinction between weak atheism and strong atheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism
If you say authoritatively that 'God(s) do not exist' then you have made an authorative statement with no way to prove it, which is, y'know, a belief.
Wikipedia said:Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
for clarity - gods = deities.Wikipedia said:Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[3] alternatively called nontheism.[4]
Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities.
Weak atheism is not atheism by the given definition.
speculawyer
Member
I agree. I'm speaking about weak atheism which probably encompasses most atheists.Azih said:Strong Atheism requires holding a statement that cannot be proven to be true. Weak Atheism does not.
speculawyer
Member
That's cool. Weak (negative) atheism is by far the most logical approach to these matters. Strong Atheism... not so much.speculawyer said:I agree. I'm speaking about weak atheism which probably encompasses most atheists.
We're not talking about "weak atheism" we're talking about atheism, and as I just pointed out, "weak atheism" is not atheism.Azih said:I don't see what you're getting at. If you're not a theist but do not go so far as to say "Deities do not exist" then you're a weak atheist.
I like the terms negative atheist and positive atheist far better actually.
msv said:We're not talking about "weak atheism" we're talking about atheism, and as I just pointed out, "weak atheism" is not atheism.
Iapetus and speculawyer would probably like to have a word with you on that. But like I said I have no idea how you're coming to that conclusion.
You can reject theism without affirming the non-existence of deities.
Have you read my post containing the definitions? Respond on that please. How is weak atheism, atheism?Azih said:That's cool. Weak (negative) atheism is by far the most logical approach to these matters. Strong Atheism... not so much.
msv said:Have you read my post containing the definitions? Respond on that please. How is weak atheism, atheism?
By rejecting theism without affirming the non-existence of deities.
It's affirming the non-existence of deities that's the sticking point since there's no way to prove or disprove that kind of a statement.
I...just...posted that.Azih said:Iapetus and speculawyer would probably like to have a word with you on that. But like I said I have no idea how you're coming to that conclusion.
You can reject theism without affirming the non-existence of deities.
Wikipedia said:Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
for clarity - gods = deities.Wikipedia said:Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[3] alternatively called nontheism.[4]
Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities.
affirm the nonexistence of gods = gods do not exist, reject theism = gods do not exist.
Do you agree or not agree that weak atheism != atheism?Azih said:By rejecting theism without affirming the non-existence of deities.
It's affirming the non-existence of deities that's the sticking point since there's no way to prove or disprove that kind of a statement.
Which is where you get it wrongmsv said:affirm the nonexistence of gods = gods do not exist, reject theism = gods do not exist.
Reject theism can be "I don't think there are gods" or "I don't believe in gods" , which is very different from "gods do not exist".
Edit:
I think it's pretty clear that I do not agree that weak atheism != atheism?
speculawyer
Member
Then what part of "or rejects theism" do you not understand?msv said:Maybe you should try to read? I just posted all the definitions.
speculawyer said:Then what part of "or rejects theism" do you not understand?
Refusing to believe something = not believing.re·ject (rĭ-jěkt') Pronunciation Key
tr.v. re·ject·ed, re·ject·ing, re·jects
To refuse to accept, submit to, believe, or make use of.
To refuse to consider or grant; deny.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.