You think I'm diffident and obsequious?
I have ZERO doubt on that score, not when you're addressing Muslims. Probably bow your head too.
Anyway, yeah - they don't like to be criticized. Neither do you;
But you weren't criticizing THEM. You were criticizing religion, a topic. Most often when we discuss Islam I am criticizing Islam and you, in turn (as here) are criticizing ME.
I know you don't understand the difference. It outrages you that anyone disagrees with you and you can't restrain yourself from attacking them.
Yeah, I am aware of the incidence of FGM in Egypt, and also that it applies equally to Christians in Egypt. That is the part that you consistently ignore: FGM and many other practices within the Middle East are cultural and not specifically Islamic.
And Egypt is what percentage Muslim? Where does the culture and values of Egypt come from? Not from Christians, who are a despised and endangered minority. Give Egypt another fifty or sixty years and there will be no Christians there anyway.
That is what I object to when you go on about how barbaric Muslims are.
Name one Muslim country anyone sane would choose to live. In every list, be it human rights abuses, educational achievements, violent religious extremism, it is clear that the Muslim world is the slow kid in the class. There are fifty of them and not one is a real democracy.
If the only time these people wore a burka was to oppress woman, your analogy might stand. But sadly for you, a woman in a burka may actually not follow the agenda you've set out for her.
Your continued insistence that a devoted, conservative Muslim who wraps herself in stiffing bedsheets everywhere she goes might not follow the agenda GOD set out for her is as brainless as the thought that someone in a KKK hood has a deep and abiding respect for Jews and Blacks.
You proved that wrong when you argued passionately that the women JT chose for his cabinet could not have been as qualified as any male available.
Again, reality eludes you. I'm the one who believes in equality. Which means, I presume that men and women in Trudeau's caucus are equally talented (which is probably an error in that the ways are greased for women and minorities, but never mind). So if roughly a quarter of his caucus is female but he names half his cabinet as female that is a pretty strong indication - born out by experience now - that he's named women as minister simply because they ARE women.
Nope. You assume that if JT appointed a woman, then it was for political reasons,
Everything Trudeau does is for political reasons. This is the style over substance government, after all.
You reject the notion that perhaps in previous administrations, fully-qualified women were passed over in favor of men - because in your world, men are the natural recipients of status and power.
First, I've never rejected any such notion, as it's never been discussed. Second, what is this but an inference that if there was prejudice against women in the past we should give them jobs now regardless of whether they deserve them?
Home
Contact
Login
Register