[AGB]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

My question was, "Do you object to these groups: the Catholic and Anglican churches, and their habits?"

Yes, I know what you asked, and I answered.

My question was, "Do you think there is any significant difference, between a nun who chooses to wear a habit, and a Muslim woman who chooses to wear a hijab, apart from their different religions?"

Yes, and I answered quite fulfilling.

You seem to believe that all Muslim women who cover their heads with cloth are forced to do so.

No, I believe that it is a "choice" dictated by a culture that is in essense a theocratic patriarchy.

BBC: Young British convert: 'I'm proud to be Muslim'

Oh, great. Converts. Next you'll bring up Born-Again Christians that are just fine with some restrictive moralizing practices.

It's a simple question, concerning something that you wrote. So, why would you assume that I am defending nguirado's rights to dictate something that you wrote. Surely, that would be illogical.

Yes, if it were like that, it would be illogical. But as usual strawman arguments just doesn't cut it.

You're arguing against letting people do what they want, and for nguirado's and like minded's rights to try and dictate what can or cannot be worn, behaviour etc.
It's only a matter of reading your recent responses.

You appear to be making assumptions about someone else's religious beliefs, based on the actions of some fundamentalist groups of the Muslim religion, and then applying them to the religion as a whole.

No, I'm making the point that religiously funded morals, such as Nguirado (who, btw, argues that there is "objective morality") are restrictive and dictatorial at the very core. No matter how many "converts" or "Born Again's" you can find that have no problems with it.

That seems illogical to me. It's like attributing American Christian fundamentalist values to all Christians, or Zionist settlers fundamentalist values to all those who practice Judaism.

No, it's attributing fundamentalist morals dictated by scripture or interpretation of scripture to other fundamentalist morals dictated by scripture or interpretations of scripture.

When you say, "... the likes of ...", it sounds like you are making a derogatory comment. It implies that you think nguirado's rights differ from anyone else's.

No, hopefully it implies that I think that nguirado's fundamentalist religious claims of objective morals (i.e. God-given), his claims of religion having a right to dictate what others can or cannot do, is independant of specific religious leaning. That fundamentalist beliefs at the very core have the same (lack of) substance as that of other fundamentalist beliefs.

My view is, Phillip Greaves is innocent unless he has been convicted of a crime.

Of course he is. That's more a statement of fact, whereas most of this discussion has been a meta discussion (in a good way) about morals, ethics, censorship and whatnot.