Feed on Posts or Comments 01 October 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 18 Aug 2010 12:15 am

Why we must ban the burqa

Here is an article, written by a woman, that succinctly explains why the burqa must be banned:

Ban the Burqa

The case FOR the burqa seems like a clear cut freedom-of-choice issue:

I moved here five years ago. In the beginning, I was sympathetic to the argument that Turkey’s ban on headscarves in universities and public institutions was grossly discriminatory. I spoke to many women who described veiling themselves as an uncoerced act of faith. One businesswoman in her mid-30s told me that she began veiling in high school, defying her secular family. Her schoolteacher gasped when she saw her: “If Atatürk could see you now, he would weep!” Her pain at the memory of the opprobrium she had suffered was clearly real.

Why had she decided to cover herself? I asked. As a teenager, she told me, she had experienced a religious revelation. She described this in terms anyone familiar with William James would recognize. She began veiling to affirm her connection with the Ineffable. “Every time I look in the mirror,” she said, “I see a religious woman looking back. It reminds me that I’ve chosen to have a particular kind of relationship with God.”

Seen thus, the covering of the head is no more radical than many other religious rituals that demand symbolic acts of renunciation or daily inconvenience. I have heard Jews describe the spiritual rewards of following the laws of kashrut in much the same way. It is inconvenient, they say, and seemingly arbitrary; it demands daily sacrifice. But a Jew who keeps kosher cannot eat a meal without being reminded that he is a Jew, and thus the simple act of eating is elevated to a religious rite.

More pointedly:

To prevent them from [wearing a burqa] is discriminatory, persecutory, and incompatible with the Enlightenment traditions of the West. It is, moreover, cruel to demand of a woman that she reveal parts of her body that her sense of modesty compels her to cover; to such a woman, the demand is as tyrannical, humiliating, and arbitrary as the passage of a law dictating that women bare their breasts.

Unfortunately, these arguments are irrelevant because the Muslim religion tends to be a completely misogynistic:

All true. And yet the burqa must be banned. All forms of veiling must be, if not banned, strongly discouraged and stigmatized. The arguments against a ban are coherent and principled. They are also shallow and insufficient. They fail to take something crucial into account, and that thing is this: If Europe does not stand up now against veiling — and the conception of women and their place in society that it represents — within a generation there will be many cities in Europe where no unveiled woman will walk comfortably or safely.

The logic is simple:

Parents in [Muslim] neighborhoods ask gynecologists to testify to their daughters’ virginity. Polygamy and forced marriages are commonplace. Many girls are banned from leaving the house at all. According to French-government statistics, rapes in the housing projects have risen between 15 and 20 percent every year since 1999. In these neighborhoods, women have indeed begun veiling only to escape harassment and violence. In the suburb of La Courneuve, 77 percent of veiled women report that they wear the veil to avoid the wrath of Islamic morality patrols. We are talking about France, not Iran.

The association of Islam and crime against women is seen throughout Europe: “The police in the Norwegian capital Oslo revealed that 2009 set yet another record: compared to 2008, there were twice as many cases of assault rapes,” the conservative Brussels Journal noted earlier this year. “In each and every case, not only in 2008 and 2009 but also in 2007, the offender was a non-Western immigrant.” These statistics are rarely discussed; they are too evocative of ancient racist tropes for anyone’s comfort. But they are facts.

The debate in Europe now concerns primarily the burqa, not less restrictive forms of veiling, such as the headscarf. The sheer outrageousness of the burqa makes it an easy target, as does the political viability of justifying such a ban on security grounds, particularly in the era of suicide bombings, even if such a justification does not entirely stand up to scrutiny. But the burqa is simply the extreme point on the continuum of veiling, and all forced veiling is not only an abomination, but contagious: Unless it is stopped, the natural tendency of this practice is to spread, for veiling is a political symbol as well as a religious one, and that symbol is of a dynamic, totalitarian ideology that has set its sights on Europe and will not be content until every woman on the planet is humbled, submissive, silent, and enslaved.

In short: If we give Muslims the freedom to wear burqas and veils, that freedom is then used, through constant harassment, to force every woman to wear one. And once every woman is forced to wear a veil, women have been enslaved.

41 Responses to “Why we must ban the burqa”

  1. on 18 Aug 2010 at 11:53 am 1.Adrian said …

    Claim: if the freedom to wear the burqa is given, every woman will be forced to wear one.
    Fact: in Belgium, out of a population of 500,000 Muslims fewer than 30 wear a burqa.

    Claim: the natural tendency of Islam is to become more and more totalitarian.
    Fact: in Belgium, the Islamic population is becoming less and less religious, with mosque attendance now lower than for Belgian Catholics.

    The logic is simple, but the anger is directly at the wrong target. If you want to men forcing women to wear the burqa you have to punish the men, not the women. Enforce currently existing domestic abuse laws, assign a case worker to every woman wearing a burqa if you have to. Come down like a ton of bricks on any man who tries to force a woman to wear anything against her will. But don’t take a woman from behind a “virtual prison” and put her in an actual prison.

    Essentially, you need a harm minimisation approach. What has happened after decades of throwing the law against prostitutes and drug users? They have become the most marginalised members of society. Smoking marijuana may be bad for one’s health, but is a marijuana user better off in jail? Clearly not. The best way to help the situation of a prostitute, drug user or any other marginalised member of society is to legalise their actions, while criminalising the actions of those in a position of power (drug dealers, pimps, etc). The idea of banning the burqa may be driven by good motives (in some, pure racism in others), but the idea is as misguided as the “war on drugs” is, and for roughly the same reasons.

  2. on 18 Aug 2010 at 3:25 pm 2.Rufus said …

    You’re still hoping for laws that restrict what people wear? What a terrible idea.

    Instead, how about laws against harassing people over the way they dress?

  3. on 18 Aug 2010 at 11:10 pm 3.Anonymous said …

    > Instead, how about laws against harassing people over the way they dress?

    You apparently are unfamiliar with religion. There is no way to stop them. Gay marriage is illegal in most of the U.S. why? Because of Christianity.

  4. on 19 Aug 2010 at 2:08 am 4.Joe said …

    I can understand both sides of the debate, and I have to admit that so far I have not been able to come to a conclusion. I think it is very difficult to make a decision here.

    I agree with Adrian that there is a tendency in the younger generation to become less religious. (This is certainly a fact in Germany, which has a large Turkish community, and I am not surprised to hear that this is the case in other European countries, too.)
    Nevertheless, I agree with the author of the anti-burqa text that there is a risk.

    The main problem that I see with banning the burqa is that most “burqa women” will probably not be allowed anymore to leave their home. (If a woman wears a burqa, her husband is likely to have a very strong influence on her.)

    So, while a burqa ban might save the next generation, it is likely to lead to imprisonment of the current generation.

    As I said, a burqa ban is a very, very difficult question. So far, I have been unable to come to a conclusion.

  5. on 19 Aug 2010 at 12:45 pm 5.X said …

    Why not ban religion? That would solve most of these problems.

  6. on 19 Aug 2010 at 12:46 pm 6.X said …

    Joe, good comment.

  7. on 19 Aug 2010 at 5:41 pm 7.Burebista said …

    X

    Bad comment. There is this little detail of human rights and freedom. See we allowed atheist to do just that, band religion, in the USSR and, well, the experiment didn’t go well. Now we realize you atheist think you know what is best for everyone, however we prefer to make our own choices.

  8. on 19 Aug 2010 at 5:54 pm 8.3D said …

    7.Burebista said …

    X
    Bad comment. There is this little detail of human rights and freedom. See we allowed atheist to do just that, band religion, in the USSR and, well, the experiment didn’t go well. Now we realize you atheist think you know what is best for everyone, however we prefer to make our own choices.

    I don’t agree with banning religion.

    I agree with marginalizing it, ridiculing it publicly and denying religious organizations tax breaks and government funding, so that people accept it as an outdated joke a few generations down the line. But banning ideas is a mistake, and is unconstitutional. People should have the right to believe whatever cuckoo shit they want, and others should have the right to mock it and criticize its stupidity.

  9. on 19 Aug 2010 at 7:24 pm 9.Observer said …

    #8 3D said-

    “People should have the right to believe whatever cuckoo shit they want, and others should have the right to mock it and criticize its stupidity.”

    Which is probably true, although, the white (and other) trash infiltrating schools trying to teach Christianity, and the Dominionists trying to destroy the country, should be cruelly treated: the former as child abusers, and the latter as traitors.

    It is interesting that the more simple-minded theists claim atheism as the wellspring for Stalinism, and Maoism. Then cite the crimes perpetrated under them proof of atheism’s evil, all the while ignoring the good Christian Hitler (and spare me the after-the-fact judgment Hitler was not a Christian “Deutschland ist einen christliches Land!”). I cannot see the connection between atheism and totalitarianism, nor have I seen a coherent argument making that case. Unchecked power creates totalitarianism be it inspired by Stalin or the Pope. There can be and has been atheist dictators, altruists, humanists, etc. I am sure the same can be said about lovers of Bach contatas.

  10. on 19 Aug 2010 at 7:49 pm 10.Horatio said …

    “spare me the after-the-fact judgment Hitler was not a Christian”

    Hitler was not a Christian. Seems the master of propaganda to this day has baffled Buster. I think I have a 5th grade reader covering Hitler if you need it Buster.

    I too 3D believed in ridiculing the atheist and secular humanist but then it dawned on me. Left my youngest at UNC-Chapel Hill just yesterday. The sad little booth of angry atheist was so pathetic that ridicule was the last thing on my mind. Pity and compassion is now the new confluence. Atheism marginalizes itself so well no need to assist.

  11. on 19 Aug 2010 at 8:13 pm 11.3D said …

    10.Horatio said …

    I too 3D believed in ridiculing the atheist and secular humanist but then it dawned on me. Left my youngest at UNC-Chapel Hill just yesterday. The sad little booth of angry atheist was so pathetic that ridicule was the last thing on my mind. Pity and compassion is now the new confluence. Atheism marginalizes itself so well no need to assist.

    If by “marginalizes” you mean “lots more people becoming atheists at an exponential rate”, then I agree!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/us/27atheist.html

    “Polls show that the ranks of atheists are growing. The American Religious Identification Survey, a major study released last month, found that those who claimed “no religion” were the only demographic group that grew in all 50 states in the last 18 years.

    “Nationally, the “nones” in the population nearly doubled, to 15 percent in 2008 from 8 percent in 1990. In South Carolina, they more than tripled, to 10 percent from 3 percent. Not all the “nones” are necessarily committed atheists or agnostics, but they make up a pool of potential supporters.”

  12. on 19 Aug 2010 at 10:05 pm 12.Horatio said …

    “Nationally, the “nones” in the population nearly doubled, to 15 percent in 2008 from 8 percent in 1990.

    LOL, check your polls before posting. None means no particular religion including atheism! Atheist are just louder and more boisterous. In my early years as atheists we kept it quiet. Now you have the new rude angry atheist. I know it feels good to think you are growing rapidly but you are not. A backlash against Bush does not a committed follower make. Not even on college campuses.

    I like this quote:

    “Despite changing attitudes, polls continue to show that atheists are ranked lower than any other minority or religious group when Americans are asked whether they would vote for or approve of their child marrying a member of that group.”

    I wonder why that would be? Maybe Nose Buster could sheds some light. LOL!

  13. on 19 Aug 2010 at 10:44 pm 13.Anonymous said …

    http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm
    http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

    It seems to me that Hitler was a Christian.

  14. on 19 Aug 2010 at 11:22 pm 14.Anonymous said …

    #10 Hor “I think I have a 5th grade reader covering Hitler if you need it Buster.”

    At last, something to explain the sophistication and depth of your arguments.

    Were you dropping your spawn off for a non-union custodial job as they have lost their driver’s license? realizing the benefit lenient admissions for in-state students? raised a kid who can run, jump and catch better than average? I am not quite sure how your offspring enters into the debate, but now that you have brought them to the forum, please share them around.

  15. on 19 Aug 2010 at 11:42 pm 15.Observer said …

    #14 was my post. Thanks #13 for the great links to the Christian-Nazi info. What is particularly creepy about the links is how Hitler’s speeches sound just like the rhetoric and propaganda of the dimwitted Christian filth trying to destroy civilization.

  16. on 20 Aug 2010 at 12:38 am 16.3D said …

    12.Horatio said …

    LOL, check your polls before posting. None means no particular religion including atheism! Atheist are just louder and more boisterous. In my early years as atheists we kept it quiet. Now you have the new rude angry atheist.

    Oh. So in other words, Christians used to be more successful at forcing atheists to pretend to be Christians, through fear of societal retribution and even fear of physical violence; but now, not so much.

    Hm. Well, sounds like progress to me. But, I’m not sure that’s the argument you want to go with. Because a couple of posts ago you were arguing that atheists are more and more marginalized by the rude words you use. And now, you’re turning on a dime and saying that more and more atheists are coming out of the closet and being vocal about it. Kinda hard to be marginalized and more vocal at the same time, huh?

    Want me to give you a minute to figure out which one of your contradictory arguments you’re going to go forward with?

    I like this quote:
    “Despite changing attitudes, polls continue to show that atheists are ranked lower than any other minority or religious group when Americans are asked whether they would vote for or approve of their child marrying a member of that group.”
    I wonder why that would be?

    Because, even though the number of atheists is growing rapidly, Christians still make up 80% of the US population, and many Christians are ignorant bigots. A lot of them also don’t want a black person or Jew to be the president or marry their child. It’s because they’re living in the 1820s.

  17. on 20 Aug 2010 at 1:09 am 17.Horatio said …

    Glad to Nose Buster

    Freshman are not allowed to have a car on campus, he is on a partial academic scholarship after graduating third in his class and will be playing baseball. Great kid. Hey, if you ever get a woman with all that sweet talk you might be able to have a child. LOL

    Buster when you get out of school I’m sure things will pick up.

    3d, where is the contradiction? I don’t see it. You are marginalized even though you are loud and boisterous. It could be because you are not trusted. Where is the problem?

    I played some violin music for your last paragraph.

  18. on 20 Aug 2010 at 3:03 pm 18.Observer said …

    #17 Ah yes, the smugness of the newly nearly bourgeois is something to behold. Feel like you have finally made it into the club, huh? You realize your grip is at best tenuous. Live it up while you can. You are too late to the dance, it won’t last.

  19. on 20 Aug 2010 at 4:36 pm 19.Horatio said …

    LOL the club?

    Ah yeah, we leave that for the self-appointed elitist like you Buster. Your club is nothing worth pursing. The elitist, the braggarts and the academic bourgeois are only good for driving up our carbon emissions.

  20. on 20 Aug 2010 at 5:25 pm 20.Severin said …

    7 Burebista
    “See we allowed atheist to do just that, band religion…”

    Who was “we” in this sentence? You? USA government? Some international committee?

    WHO “allowed” atheists to come to power?

    I will tell you again, and will repeat it again and again, untill you understand it, because it happened THAT WAY, and anything different you say is pure falsifying of history:

    “We” was nearly 100% CHRISTIAN, very religious, and mostly absolutely poor and almost 100% illiterate population of Russia!
    THEY (christians!) died for communist revolution! CHRISTIAN POPULATION of Russia SUPPORTED COMMUNIST REVOLUTION. They fighted against the rest of Russians, which wERE minority, but far better armed, better trained and better organized: mostly nobility, state bureurocracy, army, land owners, industry owners, intelligence, higher and middle classes, and some national minorities.
    Western countries sent their troups to help this Russian minority to fight communists! They did not win, because communists had much stronger support from population. Some 6-10 to1!
    How do you think a bunch of communists would win without massive support od ordinary, illiterate (and VERY RELIGIUS) people.
    The whole world was against them!

    In fact Russian christian population only changed its religion, not all of them, but great majority: Before communist revolution they believed in god, then started to believe in communist party and Lenin.
    They litarally WARSHIPED communist party and Lenin!
    Why?
    Beacuse, unlike church, and nobility, clever communists promissed to masses free land, no taxes, approach to education, approach to medical help… SOCIAL changes! Paradise on earth, NOW, not AFTER DEATH!

    They did not realize their promisses, of course, but turned their regime to terror and horror.
    It was late to do anything when poor christians sobered up.

    So: CHRISTIANS BROUGHT COMMUNISM TO POWER!
    It was the same in Germany with Hitler (christians WOTED for Hitler!), and in China with Mao, except population in China was very religious, but not christian.

    You can try to falsify facts but not to really change them!

  21. on 20 Aug 2010 at 5:37 pm 21.Xenon said …

    severin,

    Please provide some supporting evidence for your theory.

    Thanks

  22. on 20 Aug 2010 at 6:07 pm 22.Severin said …

    10 Horatio
    “Hitler was not a Christian.”
    Hitler declared himself a Christian, but it is of no importance whether he really was or was not one. He declared himself as christian before German christians to fool them, and they made themselves fools by trusting him, and great majority of them VOTED for Hitler. On free elections.
    if he was an atheist, as you claim, your christians were even greater fools! THEY VOTED FOR HIM!
    Fact:
    CHISTIANS woted for Hitler and brought to power him and his bloody regime!

    Lenin and a bunch of his communists were obviously not christians. They found other ways to fool christian masses and to charm them for their goals. Religious masses caught themselves on their propaganda and died for communism.
    Fact:
    CHRISTIANS brought Lenin and his bloody regime to power!

    Maotsetung was neither christian nor religious, but there were no atheists in China of that time.
    Fact:
    RELIGIOUS masses died for Mao and communism (as in Russia)and brought him and his communist regime to power.

    You can deny those facts as much as you wish, but you can not change them!

    It happened THAT VERY WAY in REAL HISTORY!

    What you have in your head is irrelevant compared to facts.

  23. on 20 Aug 2010 at 6:24 pm 23.Severin said …

    12 Horatio
    “Now you have the new rude angry atheist.”

    After a few 1000 years of religious barbarity, atheist have both reason and right to be a little bit angry.

    If theypracticed their religions at their homes and churches, it would be O.K.

    But when they aggressively go to public with their ideas, it deserves some anger.

    You are trying to teach our children that, when god massacred children and ripped pregnant women, it was O.K.

    Etc: so you directly act aganst existing laws, and we do not like our children to become criminals.

    You act agains scientific laws too, and we do not like our children to became idiots either.

  24. on 20 Aug 2010 at 8:01 pm 24.Xenon said …

    Do you have a link to support your theories Severin?

  25. on 21 Aug 2010 at 8:47 am 25.Severin said …

    Xenon
    Then please see:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/jun/23/religion-russia-atheism-orthodoxy
    You will see there support to “my theory” about how one religion (christianity) was replaced with another one (communism):
    “Soviet Russia effectively replaced the church with the party (while keeping a shadowy official church onside.)“

    Maybe the most pitoresque description of “mixed feelings” of Russian ordinary people of thet time is given in:
    http://www.marxists.org/archive/chamberlin-william/1929/soviet-russia/ch13.htm
    „This struggle for the Russian soul between the Communists, with their goal of a new society in which religion shall have no place, and the Orthodox Church, the sectarians, Orthodox Jews, and Mohammedans, each group offering some special appeal to its own worshipers, is one of the most complicated and interesting of the psychological dramas which are being enacted in the Soviet Union to-day. The struggle is symbolized in one of the main squares of Moscow, where, on a brick building, opposite the famous shrine of the Iberian Virgin, were inscribed the words:
    “Religion is opium for the people.”

    „In many a worker’s home one can find similar evidences of this struggle. In one corner of the room the wife continues to burn candles before the traditional Russian ikons, or carved images representing Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and scenes from the Bible and the lives of the saints. In another place the Communist husband has arranged his “Lenin corner,” strikingly and suggestively SIMILAR TO THE IKON CORNER IN GENERAAL IDEA (my bold), with the pictures of Lenin from childhood to death, portraits of other Communist leaders, and a few Communist books and pamphlets.“

    „An adherent of the Russian church with whom I talked once said: –
    “The Communists say that religion is opium for the people. But we can say, with much more reason, that COMMUNISM IS OPIUM FOR THE PEOPLE (my bold).”

  26. on 21 Aug 2010 at 8:48 am 26.Severin said …

    24 Xenon
    “Do you have a link to support your theories Severin?”

    Yes, I have.
    My “theory”, which is not “my theory”, but historical fact, could be summarized in short:
    All modern dictatorship regimes were brought to power by support of highly religious population. There were NO any significant number of atheists in countries like Germany, Russia and China at times when brutal regimes took power there, which could influence their comming to power, on any other history events.
    ALL those regimes came to power DIRECTLY SUPPORTED by HIGHLY RELIGIOUS populations, in one or another way.

    There is no need to prove it for Germany.
    German population in 1930. was totally religious. I have no precise numbers, you can find them yourself if you wish, but I say that there were hardly more than 2-3% atheists in Germany in 1930. If there were even 10 or 20% of them (which was not the case), so what?
    German people VOTED for Hitler on free and fair elections, it is the fact, and almost 100% of them were NOT atheists, but highly religious people (christians!).

    The FACT that CHRISTIANS elected Hitler is irrefutable.
    You can not make it dissapear by just denying it!

    As for Russia, please see:
    http://www.jstor.org/pss/25026239
    “Godless Communists: Atheism and Society in Sowiet Russia, 1917. – 1932.” by William Husband, who claims:

    “One of the major paradoxes concerning the history of religion in the modern world is how Russia, THE MOST RELIGIOUS COUNTRY (my bold!) in early 20th century Europe, became an officially atheistic state after 1917.”

    Then, please see:
    http://www.vladmission.org/history/religiouspoliticalhist.htm
    “In the first twenty years of Communism (1917-37), Russian Orthodoxy, the predominant faith in Russia, was persecuted almost to extinction. Hundreds of thousands of priests, sisters, and brothers were murdered by Communist government agents. The surviving remnant of Russian Orthodoxy was allowed to exist under Communist totalitarian control to help rally the people to fight the Nazi German invasion in 1939.”
    and
    “Within two generations, Russia BECAME a predominantly atheistic society.” (my bold)

    then:
    http://rationalrevolution.net/war/russian_revolution.htm
    “Like the American Revolution, and most other revolutions, the Russian Revolution was a revolution against economic oppression. In addition to this, the Russian Revolution started out as a revolution for democracy.”
    and
    “Basically Russia came into the 20th century as an extremely oppressed country that was ruled by the Czars. Russia was a FEUDAL DICTATORSHIP (my bold, imagine atheists in a feudal country with more than 500 churches only in Moscow of that time!). The people of Russia were horribly oppressed, poor, starving, cold, and without any real direction or hope.”

  27. on 21 Aug 2010 at 9:07 am 27.Severin said …

    Xenon
    In case religious populations of the countries in which revolutions (Russia, China) or other dramatic changes (Germany) occured did NOT support those revolutions and changes, what would be YOUR explanation about HOW those regimes took power?

    Do you claim, maybe, that there were ALREADY so many atheists there, enough to bring „atheist regimes“ to power?
    In that case you can NOT blame those regimes for imposing atheism!

    BUT, where did all those atheists come from BEFORE atheism was imposed to the whole population?
    Was something wrong wih rligion? Did people massively (BEFORE changes) leave religion and became atheists, then brought atheist regimes to power?
    WHY?

    What is YOUR explanation?
    You must have SOME opinion about it!?
    I gave you mine, correct or wrong, now it is your turn.

  28. on 21 Aug 2010 at 11:30 am 28.Xenon said …

    Severin you again are deceptive. Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not fool anyone. They seized power by force. This “Christian people” under Nicholas II did not vote in Lenin. It is not my opinion, it is written history.

    Notice how they forced to people and give up their various religions? This religious-free utopia they attempted to force on others by the murdering of hundreds of millions over 70 years is something to flee from like the plague.

  29. on 21 Aug 2010 at 1:31 pm 29.Severin said …

    29 Xenon
    “Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not fool anyone. They seized power by force.”

    How?
    “Bolsheviks” in Russian language means “majority”.
    In fact, bolsheviks vere a SMALL fraction of a SMALL Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party.
    They were not only minority, they were, at the beginning of revolution NEGLIGIBLE force in Russian political field. They were NOTHING.

    HOW do you think this small group of adventurers took power by force from well trained and well armed establishment (police, army) without support of masses?
    And in time when many countries, including the USA, sent their troups to Russia to fight bolheviks?
    No way.

    http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/76881.html
    „How and why were the Bolsheviks able to seize power in Russia in 1917? When the February Revolution of 1917 erupted, the Bolshevik’s were a MINOR CONCERN (my bold) and had no direct involvement in this initial bourgeoisie revolution.”

  30. on 21 Aug 2010 at 1:32 pm 30.Severin said …

    29 Xenon, continued
    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/bolsheviks_in_power.htm
    „When the Bolsheviks seized power in Petrograd in November 1917, they faced many problems. Not least was the fact that the Bolsheviks only controlled a very small part of Russia – basically the land between Petrograd and Moscow, a rectangular band of territory 30 miles by 400 miles.

    http://www.helium.com/…/933808-reflections-how-the-working-class-supported-bolshevik-power-in-the-soviet-union
    „The Bolsheviks were faced with an enormous task of assuming power in Russia they were a MINORITY PARTY (my bold) trying to impose their will on Russia and ..“

    http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080715150810AA7FBTg
    „The Bolsheviks promised Peace, Land and Bread which appealed to the mass of the peasants conscripted into the Tsarist Army.“
    „…for the Russian people at that time it seemed that there was a whole new and much better world to be gained.“

    http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/easteurope/octrev.html
    „The Bolshevik party went on the offensive and tried to educate the workers and soldiers, convincing them to seize power and land for themselves.“

    Many circumstances helped communists to get power, but the absolutely most important one was SUPPORT in masses.
    As you can se, they even won elections in some cases!

    Unlike churches, bolsheviks were CLEVER: they knew how to profit from the current situation, and they knew how to seduce masses. They (unlike churches) promissed PEACE, BREAD and LAND, and they promissed it NOW.
    Rotten, but clever!

    YOU asked for “links”, I gave you many, so why don’t you just read them?
    It was not I who wrote them!

  31. on 21 Aug 2010 at 2:22 pm 31.Observer said …

    #27 Xe- “Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not fool anyone. They seized power by force.”

    Actually, the soviets created the infrastructure for a revolt starting in the 1900s. The 1917 Revolution was a widespread uprising of the proletariat via the already existing soviets. The only opposition came from the Czar’s police/para-military. The Cossacks brought in, who were a part of the Army, did nothing aside from a few skirmishes. The initial revolution was comparatively bloodless to what would come later.

    Post 1917, forces loyal to the Nic.II formed what became known as the White Army. Trotsky came to lead the Red Army. That was a bloody, and brutal war. The point is, the vast majority was in favor of getting rid of Nic.II and that system.

    As for communism supplanting religion, that is simple minded at best, but nevertheless appealing to the many simple minds out there. The Russian Church was the moral authority for the implicitly unjust Royal system in Russia, and more generally, state sanctioned churches in other countries were legitimizing institutions for indigenous royals. The Church was a natural opponent to the Russian Revolution. The new system’s institutions replaced the old system’s institutions.

    We know that Stalin was a monster independent of any political philosophy. That set Russia off on an awful trajectory. Stalin used the techniques of religion to manipulate the masses. This is nothing new. This was the same ploy Rome used as it was falling apart and what was left of the Roman aristocracy became bishops etc. in the Church. Be it a monster like Stalin, or the Church, it is all about controlling people for the interests of a select few. This is what the American Founding Fathers sought to eliminate. They thought religion was BS. Look at T.Jefferson’s New Testament as an example.

  32. on 21 Aug 2010 at 2:46 pm 32.Severin said …

    Xenon,
    http://www.jstor.org/pss/25026239
    “One of the major paradoxes concerning the history of religion in the modern world is how Russia, THE MOST RELIGIOUS COUNTRY (my bold!) in early 20th century Europe, became an officially atheistic state after 1917.”
    Why don’t you read some answers here, or elsewhere, by yourself, instead of trying to make me “deceptive”.

    Rusian communist revolution WAS massively supported by ordinary people, and you can not do anything against it. You can not just deny it – or, you can, of course, in which case YOU will be deceptive.

    Was that people who supported communists religious or not, you can also find in many documents. ALL of them I read claim Russia was HIGHLY RELIGIOUS country.

    So, again: The question was not whether highly religious russian population supported bolsheviks or not, but WHY?!

    Because bolsheviks were more clever than sclerotic existing regime and sclerotic church: they knew how to attract attention of masses which had nothing to lose and much to get.

    Almost unbelievable, but bolsheviks EXCEEDED the church in LYING to people.

  33. on 21 Aug 2010 at 8:54 pm 33.Xenon said …

    “As for communism supplanting religion, that is simple minded at best, but nevertheless appealing to the many simple minds out there.”

    Thank you Observer. Severin you see how ridiculous your simple-minded claim is in reality? You even have Observer calling it simple minded. Do you really believe Lenin came to power with a platform of “We promise to wipe out religion”.

    Communism is always appealing to the masses at first. Why not it sounds great in theory. But when the fat cats get fatter and the proletariat continues to be backed into the rear fence until all four sides strip away all freedom, then they realize they are captured sheep. By then it is too late.

    America is on the same path with a man who claims to be a Christian. If she doesn’t awake we will find all four sides of the fence in place.

  34. on 21 Aug 2010 at 8:59 pm 34.Xenon said …

    “They thought religion was BS”

    LOL now that is funny. Much of religion maybe but not God. O is must be difficult to find history books that eliminate all references to Christianity, God, prayer and the Bible during our founding.

    Interesting reference to Jefferson. A terrible father, a back-stabber, slepping with his slaves, a poor manager of money and no mistake he was in France during the institution of the Constitution. The most overrated of the founders.

  35. on 21 Aug 2010 at 9:07 pm 35.Observer said …

    #31 Xenon it is far from clear how my argument is at odds with Severin’s, although, you do seem to be in agreement that the church is a blight on society, and provides the infrastructure for tyranny be it Christian clergy or the Stalin’s of history.

  36. on 21 Aug 2010 at 9:32 pm 36.Severin said …

    34 Xenon
    “Severin you see how ridiculous your simple-minded claim is in reality? You even have Observer calling it simple minded.”

    You may call it ridiculous, but you avoid to give your explanation.

    Very simple: HOW did communists get to power in Russian revolution.
    Not by power (without support of masses, because there were too few of them to fight army, police …), not by fooloing people, then HOW.

    Mybe your explanation will not be ridiculous.

  37. on 21 Aug 2010 at 10:02 pm 37.Severin said …

    Xenon

    What with Germany?
    Who brought Hitler to power?

    Fooled christians!

  38. on 22 Aug 2010 at 12:29 am 38.Xenon said …

    “31 Xenon it is far from clear how my argument is at odds with Severin’s, although,”

    You mean other than his out right admission in #25?

    Of course religion is abused and used for personal gain. Name something that is not. Politics, corporations, charities, Academics, Wall Street, Main Street but you more than likely participate in all of these to some degree. To not be hypocritical you would need to completely withdraw from society

    To somehow use the abuse of religion as some reason to completely ignore all the good done by the genuine articles is nothing but simple mindedness at it’s best.

  39. on 22 Aug 2010 at 3:50 pm 39.Observer said …

    #36 Xenon In Severin’s #25 he makes reference to the Russian Communist Party replacing the Russian Orthodox Church. This is what I said as well stating the creation of Christianity in the first two centuries of the common era as a means for Rome to maintain control of Western Europe.

    You do not make the distinction between social organizations like a church, hierarchical or otherwise, and political/governing organizations. While you might be correct in saying that “Soviet Communism is to the Party as Christianity is the Russian Orthodox Church” to a first order approximation, as in an SAT question, you would not answer, unless disingenuous or stupid, the question “Which item does not fit into the category consisting of Galugpa Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, Presbyterianism, Wicca, Vajrayana Buddhism, Methodism? 1.) Baptist Christianity, 2.) Lutheranism, 3.) Soviet Communism, 4.) Reform Judaism, 5.) Shia Islam.” other than a 3.

    Of course, the preconditioning premise for the question adequately covers all possibilities other than the correct answer “3″.

  40. on 22 Aug 2010 at 4:01 pm 40.Observer said …

    #36 You also assert in the last two paragraphs that good arises from secular organizations independent of religion or other supernatural causes. I agree. It also shows a level of sophistication in thought above your previous posts.

    It also admits that the noble aims of communism, were completely corrupted by Stalin. That is sad but true. On the other hand, the European Social Democratic System seems to have worked very well.

  41. on 23 Aug 2010 at 6:47 am 41.Severin said …

    Xenon

    Let’s see how our debate is going on ALL THE TIME here:

    I “catch” to something you, or somebody, say, or I give an example trying to show (by my opinion) you or somebody is not right.
    I usually give really a lot of arguments, and I am trying to build a logical skeleton and skeleton of arguments, to support my claims.

    In this case, “catching” to Horatio’s #10:
    “Hitler was not a christian”
    I showed that whether he was or was not a christian was unimportant, but the fact he was ELLECTED from CHRISTIAN nation WAS the fact that matters.
    He fooled chirstian naton in a way that eventually they ELECTED him on free, open, and fair elections.

    I also gave you example of Russia, supported with many histroical articles written by emeinent professsionals, which all confirmed several facts:
    - Russia WAS highly religious country
    - Communist party WAS a negligible force in the timeme of revolution, unable to take power by force without being supported by SOMEBODY
    - Communists TOOK power there, so they WERE supported by somebody.

    ALL you had to say, and you said, was: communists did not fool (religious) people.
    A claim without ANY argument, support…., just a claim.

    You, unfortunately, use LIES to “fight” me, like this:
    „Do you really believe Lenin came to power with a platform of “We promise to wipe out religion”.

    He certainly did not act that way, and I NEVER said anything like this! YOU put words in my mouth, then use them to “fight” me!
    VERY unfair! ROTTEN!

    Communists “invented” PROMISSES church and regime never offered to people, to attract them to die for communism:
    PEACE, LAND, BREAD.

    So, my poit is: religion is a good platform for future dictator regimes.

    And YOU have NOTHING to support your opinion and to fight mine, except your empty claims and, and LIES, from time to time.

    Fair people do not debate that way, but, hey, who expects a believer to be fair?

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply