Traveler Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 2 hours ago, MormonGator said: Not really. A government banning anything means personal freedoms are being restricted in some way. Like: 1. Murder 2. Speeding 3. Child abuse 4. stealing 5. Drunk driving 6. Assault But the point I was trying to make about a burqa is - that if the men of a society are forcing women to do something other than what they want - that interferes with the personal freedoms of the ladies. If there is a argument that women should be able to wear burqas - is different than giving men the power over the women of Islam and allowing the men to force the ladies to wear burqas. My point was that burqas are not really a religious freedom but rather something outside of religion. And yes there are laws that punish some personal preferences for what someone is wearing or not wearing. We do something similar with speech. Some things we are not free to say - some may think that interferes with free speech - but not really. The Traveler Blackmarch 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted July 23, 2018 Report Share Posted July 23, 2018 (edited) 14 hours ago, Traveler said: But the point I was trying to make about a burqa is - that if the men of a society are forcing women to do something other than what they want - that interferes with the personal freedoms of the ladies. If there is a argument that women should be able to wear burqas - is different than giving men the power over the women of Islam and allowing the men to force the ladies to wear burqas. My point was that burqas are not really a religious freedom but rather something outside of religion. And yes there are laws that punish some personal preferences for what someone is wearing or not wearing. I'm not sure if you mentioned this in relation to Denmark's law. Just wanted to say this has nothing to do with Denmark's law. In my opinion, there's no difference between a religion forcing women to wear a burqa under threat of physical punishment from a government forcing women NOT to wear a burqa under threat of physical punishment - unless there's a practical reason behind it. Edited July 23, 2018 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted July 23, 2018 Report Share Posted July 23, 2018 On 7/22/2018 at 3:31 AM, pwrfrk said: But my view of three particular people in MormonHub just went right down the toilet. Really? Did you read my responses to you? That's what you got out of it? It's just too easy to troll you and say my view of you went right down the toilet too. But I'm not feeling particularly mischievous today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted July 23, 2018 Report Share Posted July 23, 2018 1 hour ago, anatess2 said: I'm not sure if you mentioned this in relation to Denmark's law. Just wanted to say this has nothing to do with Denmark's law. In my opinion, there's no difference between a religion forcing women to wear a burqa under threat of physical punishment from a government forcing women NOT to wear a burqa under threat of physical punishment - unless there's a practical reason behind it. I think we may be somewhat of the same mind - however I do believe there is a difference between a government enacting laws and individuals taking the law unto themselves. Also I am somewhat concerned when citizens of one country make an effort to enact or effect what laws should be in effect in other countries. I may not agree with the laws in other countries but I believe that legal citizens have the right to determine laws in their own country as they deem necessary for their safety, security and welfare of their own society. The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted July 23, 2018 Report Share Posted July 23, 2018 19 hours ago, MormonGator said: Not really. A government banning anything means personal freedoms are being restricted in some way. Most laws ban something - either directly or indirectly. Do you believe governments impede freedoms or are governments and just laws necessary to secure freedoms? The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted July 23, 2018 Report Share Posted July 23, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Traveler said: Most laws ban something - either directly or indirectly. Do you believe governments impede freedoms or are governments and just laws necessary to secure freedoms? The Traveler I believe that rights are inherent "gifts" from the Almighty and that government, strictly speaking, can only infringe on them. They can never bestow rights. Edited July 23, 2018 by MormonGator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted July 23, 2018 Report Share Posted July 23, 2018 34 minutes ago, MormonGator said: I believe that rights are inherent "gifts" from the Almighty and that government, strictly speaking, can only infringe on them. They can never bestow rights. I think I can agree that rights are inherent gifts from G-d. But to be specific - Do you believe hiding one's identity (facial identity) in public an inherent gift from G-d? The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted July 23, 2018 Report Share Posted July 23, 2018 Just now, Traveler said: I think I can agree that rights are inherent gifts from G-d. But to be specific - Do you believe hiding one's identity (facial identity) in public an inherent gift from G-d? Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted July 23, 2018 Report Share Posted July 23, 2018 39 minutes ago, Traveler said: I think I can agree that rights are inherent gifts from G-d. But to be specific - Do you believe hiding one's identity (facial identity) in public an inherent gift from G-d? The Traveler You can insist as much as you like that you have Freedom to... say, Speak as an inherent gift from God. But if the person you're speaking to smacks you upside the head everytime you speak, it won't matter much who gave you that freedom, you still don't have it. A government, therefore, simply takes your freedom or protects your freedom, depending on the power the people give its government. So you can insist all day long you have freedom to wear a burqa but if the burqa is used by people to "smack others upside the head everytime they speak", the people is going to empower the government to take your burqa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted July 23, 2018 Report Share Posted July 23, 2018 2 hours ago, MormonGator said: Yes. Do you believe it is a G-d given right to carry a concealed lethal weapon in public? Or to own a weapon of mass destruction? If not - how about if it is directly connected to a unique religious belief? The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted July 24, 2018 Report Share Posted July 24, 2018 18 hours ago, Traveler said: Do you believe it is a G-d given right to carry a concealed lethal weapon in public? Yes. 18 hours ago, Traveler said: \ Or to own a weapon of mass destruction? No. 18 hours ago, Traveler said: If not - how about if it is directly connected to a unique religious belief? Carrying a nuclear bomb in your suitcase is totally different than wearing a burka. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted July 24, 2018 Report Share Posted July 24, 2018 2 hours ago, MormonGator said: Yes. No. Carrying a nuclear bomb in your suitcase is totally different than wearing a burka. What is the line that is crossed to differentiate between a lethal weapon (meaning designed to kill - not to protect) and a weapon of mass destruction? I am also concerned about the difference between personal privacy and hiding our identity. From a religious standpoint - there is a doctrine about trying to disconnect one's identity from the things we do. Prophetically it is predicted in scripture that our identity and our deeds will be openly revealed to all. Is G-d depriving humanity of their rights and liberties? My final point of concern - Who has the right to determine the laws in Demark? or where is the burden to prove such a law against the liberty? As insane as it may seem - I think Denmark should determine their laws. The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted July 24, 2018 Report Share Posted July 24, 2018 10 minutes ago, Traveler said: What is the line that is crossed to differentiate between a lethal weapon (meaning designed to kill - not to protect) and a weapon of mass destruction? Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. 10 minutes ago, Traveler said: My final point of concern - Who has the right to determine the laws in Demark? or where is the burden to prove such a law against the liberty? As insane as it may seem - I think Denmark should determine their laws. Yes, I do too. However I also have every right to voice my concern about their laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted July 24, 2018 Report Share Posted July 24, 2018 2 hours ago, MormonGator said: Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Except that you oppose one and support the other - I am trying to understand why and what you think is the difference. Quote Yes, I do too. However I also have every right to voice my concern about their laws. Well said. The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted July 24, 2018 Report Share Posted July 24, 2018 32 minutes ago, Traveler said: Well said. Thanks. Americans are in a catch-22. If I don't have an opinion about international affairs -"Ha ha ha let's all laugh at the stupid ignorant American." If I have an opinion, than it's "Shut up American it doesn't concern you." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted July 25, 2018 Report Share Posted July 25, 2018 19 hours ago, MormonGator said: Thanks. Americans are in a catch-22. If I don't have an opinion about international affairs -"Ha ha ha let's all laugh at the stupid ignorant American." If I have an opinion, than it's "Shut up American it doesn't concern you." In my personal travels (hardly scientific) outside the USA; I find the general populations that I interface with directly – very interested in current opinions of US citizens – especially concerning president Trump and ideas being put forward. Mostly the idea of solving one’s own internal problems before engaging others to solve their internal problems. Then displaying consistency in dealing with the rest of the world outside our internal circles. One of the main concern is about immigration – mostly in countries that currently allow immigration. The question is why would someone flee conditions from their previous country then insist on bringing with them and introducing the problem elements to their new culture? Indeed there is always a problem of introducing change. Both for those who appreciate the culture they have established and become accustom and those that come to immigrate to the culture that still appreciates the culture they are leaving. The question being asked is – if immigrates do not want to accept the existing culture and be a part of it – why are they coming? The answer that is becoming the most logical – is that it is not an immigration but rather an invasion. The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted July 25, 2018 Report Share Posted July 25, 2018 6 hours ago, Traveler said: The question being asked is – if immigrates do not want to accept the existing culture and be a part of it – why are they coming? The answer that is becoming the most logical – is that it is not an immigration but rather an invasion. That's too cynical of a view and I posit that that is only true to a very small minority. The majority of immigrants - legal or illegal, and my family is one of the legal ones - move to the US for the economic advantage. It has no cultural component. So they come to the US, make as much money as they can, send as much money as they can to the family left behind, and continue to live as they did in their home country as much as possible in the new environment. So, you'll find my mother still turning ketchup and shampoo bottles upside down to suck the very last drop of it, washing plastic cups and ziploc bags and tin foil, and hand-washing her laundry in the bathroom sink, look at you with disgust if you walk into her house with your shoes on, etc. etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted July 25, 2018 Report Share Posted July 25, 2018 38 minutes ago, anatess2 said: That's too cynical of a view and I posit that that is only true to a very small minority. The majority of immigrants - legal or illegal, and my family is one of the legal ones - move to the US for the economic advantage. It has no cultural component. So they come to the US, make as much money as they can, send as much money as they can to the family left behind, and continue to live as they did in their home country as much as possible in the new environment. So, you'll find my mother still turning ketchup and shampoo bottles upside down to suck the very last drop of it, washing plastic cups and ziploc bags and tin foil, and hand-washing her laundry in the bathroom sink, look at you with disgust if you walk into her house with your shoes on, etc. etc. What you may not have understood from my post is that I was attempting to indicate attitudes and thoughts I have encountered in my travels. As I said, this is not a scientific study – just some responses from folks I talked to (which are very limited). Interestingly, I was in Denmark just this year looking for homes of my ancestors and perhaps some distant relatives. Also understanding that Denmark is an old culture and country – especially compared to the USA. I hoped that we could understand a little better how people do not like changes to an established culture. I was very taken back by other attitudes in Denmark with their love of their monarchy. Try as I would, I could not convince them that their monarch sucked up far more from greater needs for taxes paid. But the twits are willing to pay extra taxes to have a rich monarch showing off and having parties that few citizens are invited to. I do not necessarily agree with attitudes I encounter but I attempted to show that (especially in Europe) few of the working citizens are happy with the current immigration and refugee situation. Leaders of nations may have other ideas but I personally believe they would be smart to be aware of their citizen’s concerns. Maybe this whole, do not cover face or hide you identity, is an effort to comprises with rising concerns of citizens. My concern is for the immigrants that do not understand the problems and concerns they are causing in the culture they are trying to make their own – unless they want to change it – and that is what more and more are starting to think. As for you – I like having you around and if I could I would trade off several thousands of some old “born here” citizens for even a few more like you. The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.