Why has religion retained its appeal?

[danot 10]

10 hours ago, Cyclone said:

So now you've admitted that things other than religious (or cultural) items can cover the face in public (I think we had motorbike helmets 20 pages ago).

So you've now concluded that there is no special treatment for the religious in this case and you've just been wasting everyone's time?  (although you do now seem to be fixated on balaclavas and how unjustly the police treat balaclava wearers, perhaps you see that as a form of secular oppression?).

What's the bias then?  This should be funny.

I haven't wasted anyone's time.  Here's my original point.

On ‎19‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 04:29, danot said:

 You and I wouldn't be allowed to wear face concealing headwear unrestrictedly in public, unless the headwear had religious significance attached to it. Religious face concealing headwear is exempt from restrive measures that may prevent you and I from wearing none religious face concealing headwear in certain public places. 

 

This exemption is most definitely exclusively placed on religious headwear, so I feel you're not being entirely honest with me here.  Care to redress the point, or are you standing by it?

This was in response to RootsBooster who then asked-

On ‎19‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 06:02, RootsBooster said:

What would prevent you or I from wearing something that conceals our faces?

To which  I replied-

On ‎19‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 06:53, danot said:

Nothing at all.  We're allowed to wear face concealing headwear, but when we're out in the public domain, there's restrictive measures in place that would prevent us from Doing so in certain places and establishments. Not so when wearing face concealing headwear headwear that has religious significance.

 

Where are we going with this?

 

There, you see. In post 700  I acknowledged that there's nothing stopping us from wearing face concealing headwear in public, but added that we wouldn't be allowed to do so unrestrictedly, unlike wearers of face concealing headwear that has religious significance.

 

And the bias lies here below, where you say- "on a sunny day like today, wearing a balaclava on the high street would be a little weird, and the police tend to take an interest in weird". But, like I said, wearing joke spectacles, nose and moustache would be just as weird, but the police wouldn't approach someone to discuss how weird they look, they wouldn't waste their time on 'weird', but,  if they'd been wearing a balaclava for no apparent reason they'd have most definitely wanted a chat with them.    

On ‎21‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 17:33, Cyclone said:

So, what is it you think that you've now established?

After what, 10 pages, you think that you've proven that reality isn't how RootsBooster thinks it should be?

But you've not really have you.  As you say, on a sunny day like today, wearing a balaclava on the high street would be a little weird, and the police (if you happen to be so lucky as to see one in person) tend to take an interest in weird.

They won't of course demand that you remove it, as you claimed, they can't, they have no legal power to do that, and to do it forcibly would be assault.

But if you were wearing a niquab, they probably wouldn't approach you at all, as it's not weird.

 

So, you've established that the police will possibly speak to people behaving strangely in public, is that it?

And this brings me back to asking why there's stigma attached to wearing a balaclava out in public when doing so is meant to be a unrestricted freedom?

Edited March 23, 2019 by danot

[danot 10]

8 hours ago, Halibut said:

You referred to the 'stigma' associated with wearing a balaclava. There isn't one. What has been explained to you on more than one occasion though, is the idea that a police officer on seeing someone wearing one in public in warm weather might be curious, or even suspicious, of their motive and ask questions of the wearer.

It's also been explained to you that a person wearing niqab probably wouldn't arouse such suspicion, given that the motive to wear one (modesty, not wishing to show their face to anyone other than husband/close family) is known and understood.

I'm comfortable with all of that.

You still seem (for reasons that to me are as clear as mud) to find the two ideas (balaclava/niqab) representing some kind of injustice that needs addressing - even to the point where you came out with the spectacularly poor sentence ''The crime associative prejudices against certain none religious face concealing headwear being lawfully and socially accepted as a hate crime. ''

 

From my point of view, you appear to be completely unable to sustain a clear line of thinking.  Lets look at that sentence again. You appear to be suggesting that asking someone who is wearing a balaclava why they are doing so constitutes some kind of offence and should be regarded as a hate crime. To me (and I suspect many others) that's simply absurd and makes no sense at all. Who is being hated in that scenario?

Just a point of grammar. The word you should have used is 'biased'.

Precisely.  You've hit two birds with one stone here Halibut.

 

Firstly,  I'm pleased to see you're  openly acknowledging  that there is stigma attached to wearing a balaclava in public by saying balaclava wearers might arouse curiosity and be thought of as being suspicious characters, which would warrant a police officer stopping and questioning them. You say this  while simultaneously supporting the view that anyone who subjected a niqab wearer  to such prejudicial unfair treatment would be committing  a hate crime.  You're also adamant that there are no actual restrictions on wearing a balaclava in public.  

 

Secondly, you've inadvertently (I'm sure) taken the liberty of illustrating why I've been  dismissing your explanations that I called  bias.  (sorry biased)  so I'll take this opportunity to remind you that it has been you  (and others) that have persistently claimed  that wearing either a niqab, or a balaclava in public is a "unrestricted freedom" that anyone is entitled to do since there's no laws or restrictions that prevent, restrict, or  favour either wearer.  Once again, you've managed to demonstrate that your hypocrisy actually  does know no bounds. 

 

 

Edited March 23, 2019 by danot

[Hots on 10]

8 hours ago, Halibut said:

You referred to the 'stigma' associated with wearing a balaclava. There isn't one. What has been explained to you on more than one occasion though, is the idea that a police officer on seeing someone wearing one in public in warm weather might be curious, or even suspicious, of their motive and ask questions of the wearer.

It's also been explained to you that a person wearing niqab probably wouldn't arouse such suspicion, given that the motive to wear one (modesty, not wishing to show their face to anyone other than husband/close family) is known and understood.

I'm comfortable with all of that.

You still seem (for reasons that to me are as clear as mud) to find the two ideas (balaclava/niqab) representing some kind of injustice that needs addressing - even to the point where you came out with the spectacularly poor sentence ''The crime associative prejudices against certain none religious face concealing headwear being lawfully and socially accepted as a hate crime. ''

 

From my point of view, you appear to be completely unable to sustain a clear line of thinking.  Lets look at that sentence again. You appear to be suggesting that asking someone who is wearing a balaclava why they are doing so constitutes some kind of offence and should be regarded as a hate crime. To me (and I suspect many others) that's simply absurd and makes no sense at all. Who is being hated in that scenario?

Just a point of grammar. The word you should have used is 'biased'.

I'm impressed Halibut, that's the longest post I've seen you do.  Go and have a lie down now 😁

[Halibut 12]

6 hours ago, danot said:

 

 

Firstly,  I'm pleased to see you're  openly acknowledging  that there is a stigma attached to wearing a balaclava in public by saying balaclava wearers might arouse curiosity and be thought of as being suspicious characters, which would warrant a police officer stopping and questioning them. You say this  while simultaneously supporting the view that anyone who subjected a niqab wearer  to such prejudicial unfair treatment would be committing  a hate crime.  You're also adamant that there are no actual restrictions on wearing a balaclava in public.  

 

Secondly, you've inadvertently (I'm sure) taken the liberty of illustrating why I've been  dismissing your explanations that I called  bias.  (sorry biased)  so I'll take this opportunity to remind you that it has been you  (and others) that have persistently claimed  that wearing either a niqab, or a balaclava in public is a "unrestricted freedom" that anyone is entitled to do since there's no laws or restrictions that prevent, restrict, or  favour either wearer.  Once again, you've managed to demonstrate that your hypocrisy actually  does know no bounds. 

 

 

I might respond to this latest outbreak of ridiculousness in the morning. I'm away to focus on more pressing matters - wine, food, social intercourse and such.

[danot 10]

16 minutes ago, Halibut said:

I might respond to this latest outbreak of ridiculousness in the morning. I'm away to focus on more pressing matters - wine, food, social intercourse and such.

Was about to tell you to stop dreaming then realised I misread  social intercourse. 

[Halibut 12]

18 hours ago, danot said:

 

 

Quote

Firstly,  I'm pleased to see you're  openly acknowledging  that there is a stigma attached to wearing a balaclava in public by saying balaclava wearers might arouse curiosity and be thought of as being suspicious characters, which would warrant a police officer stopping and questioning them.

I do not acknowledge any such thing. It's you who uses the word stigma. Incorrectly. There is no stigma attached to wearing balaclavas.

Quote

You say this  while simultaneously supporting the view that anyone who subjected a niqab wearer  to such prejudicial unfair treatment would be committing  a hate crime.

 

Politely asking a stranger wearing a niqab about why they choose to wear it wouldn't be committing a hate crime.  Probably rather rude  to ask any stranger why they're wearing anything though isn't it? Unless there's a good reason - like you're a police officer and you think someone might be wearing a balaclava for nefarious purposes.

 

Quote

 

You're also adamant that there are no actual restrictions on wearing a balaclava in public.  

 

That's right, because there aren't any.

 

 

Quote

Secondly, you've inadvertently (I'm sure) taken the liberty of illustrating why I've been  dismissing your explanations that I called  bias.  (sorry biased)  so I'll take this opportunity to remind you that it has been you  (and others) that have persistently claimed  that wearing either a niqab, or a balaclava in public is a "unrestricted freedom" that anyone is entitled to do since there's no laws or restrictions that prevent, restrict, or  favour either wearer. 

Fair comment.

 

 

Quote

Once again, you've managed to demonstrate that your hypocrisy actually  does know no bounds. 

 You're going to have to explain that. What are you claiming I'm hypocritical about exactly?

 

 

[Cyclone 10]

This is entirely pointless.  It's like discussing with a five year old whether they should have a cookie or not.  Reason and logic are not relevant to Danot.  He either doesn't understand or chooses not to understand them.

[danot 10]

53 minutes ago, Halibut said:

 

Of course you're acknowledging that there's stigma attached to wearing a balaclava in public when you're describing the wearer as being a suspicious/nefarious character who arouses curiosity thus making themselves conspicuous to the police.  Again, I find myself having to remind you that it is you, not me, that is proclaiming balaclava wearers and niqab wearers have the exact same unrestricted freedom to conceal their face in public.

In fact, you're adamant that niqab wearers are not protected or favoured in any way and certain of there being no known laws or restrictions that prevent, restrict or favour either wearer. So,  then what is it that makes the police think of balaclava wearers as conspicuous/suspicious/nefarious characters then?  Care to hazard a guess?

 

And, no, no way.  This isn't a case of people being politely asked about their face concealing attire, it's about societal attitudes and prejudices that people have against certain face concealing headwear.  Treating a niqab wearer as a unknown assailants and/or the police stopping then simply because they're wearing a niqab is considered a hate crime, you know it is, and by the way, this in itself is a 'restrictive measure' that  aims to reform social attitudes and prevent the persecution of Muslim women and discourage people from unjustifiably associating the niqab with terrorism. While the balaclava wearer is immediately thought of as being a criminal.       

[danot 10]

18 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

This is entirely pointless.  It's like discussing with a five year old whether they should have a cookie or not.  Reason and logic are not relevant to Danot.  He either doesn't understand or chooses not to understand them.

Cyclone. I don't have to agree with everything you say, it's not compulsory. It's not part of the Brexit deal.  

 

I don't accept hypocrisy and double standards. And you and others are defending both. 

[Halibut 12]

27 minutes ago, danot said:

Of course you're acknowledging that there's stigma attached to wearing a balaclava in public when you're describing the wearer as being a suspicious/nefarious character who arouses curiosity thus making themselves conspicuous to the police.  Again, I find myself having to remind you that it is you, not me, that is proclaiming balaclava wearers and niqab wearers have the exact same unrestricted freedom to conceal their face in public.

In fact, you're adamant that niqab wearers are not protected or favoured in any way and certain of there being no known laws or restrictions that prevent, restrict or favour either wearer. So,  then what is it that makes the police think of balaclava wearers as conspicuous/suspicious/nefarious characters then?  Care to hazard a guess?

 

And, no, no way.  This isn't a case of people being politely asked about their face concealing attire, it's about societal attitudes and prejudices that people have against certain face concealing headwear.  Treating a niqab wearer as a unknown assailants and/or the police stopping then simply because they're wearing a niqab is considered a hate crime, you know it is, and by the way, this in itself is a 'restrictive measure' that  aims to reform social attitudes and prevent the persecution of Muslim women and discourage people from unjustifiably associating the niqab with terrorism. While the balaclava wearer is immediately thought of as being a criminal.       

Total gibberish.

[RootsBooster 24]

On 20/03/2019 at 20:12, Mr Fisk said:

According to the latest Pew survey- the opposite is happening.

 

In fact, it is the unaffiliated (atheists would be in this group) that will decline whilst religion grows.

 

 

 

It actually wouldn't surprise me, what with the resurgence in flat earth believers, the election of Trump, climate change denial along with many other things, it seems that logic, reason, rational and critical thinking may be in a bit of a slump at the moment.

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, RootsBooster said:

It actually wouldn't surprise me, what with the resurgence in flat earth believers, the election of Trump, climate change denial along with many other things, it seems that logic, reason, rational and critical thinking may be in a bit of a slump at the moment.

 

Perhaps so in some cases- but surely you're not suggesting that logic/ reason is somehow a monopoly held by atheism.