Ah where did this debate take place with ehich people? AFAIK all 4 sunni schools are unanimous in their intepretation, that people have to cover their bodies.
It is also very much telling men what and what not to wear. The specific body parts that have to be covered differ from school to school, for women and for men, but every muslim scholar says that every human has to cover certain parts of their body from the gaze of other people.
Lightdm
joined 1 year ago
What means dangerous in this case? And what makes the major religions dangerous?
I am interested, what exactly constitutes a "religious symbol" for you?
I mean yes there is the command to cover yourself in the quran, [24:31] for example ("... And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their chastity, and not to reveal their adornments except what normally appears. Let them draw their veils over their chests, and not reveal their ˹hidden˺ adornment...").
Still, the idea of women generally being forced to wear it by their family/social circle is wrong.
I think your estimations are reasonable, but some further information: it is not just a normal screen (with normal picel density) at a bigger size, but the pixels are rather far apart. So I would assume that this reduces the cost.
Ah wow, I didn't know that, thanks!
How would you derive that someone "dislikes jews because they are jews"? Do you listen to them talk and make a decision following your gut? Do you make an MRI image of their brain and measure their brain waves to read their mind?
You would have to work with their past actions. And then it becomes non trivial to define "anti-semite".
So it is not really about "what does the word mean" but "how do you decide who fits the definition and who doesn't". People are concerned about this because it is very hard to make a law that 100% only fits to the people you want to target (leaving asside wether the principle is correct or not).
They are asking which way the minister wants to define the term.
Wenn es (noch) keine Belege dafür gibt, dass Babys enthauptet wurden, dann gibt es doch keinen Grund das zu behaupten, oder sehe ich hier was falsch?
How is it something that needs "adressing"? When people want to work, but can't, and there is a significant difference between men and women, then that probably needs to be looked at.
Simply seeing "in turkey, a country known for following more traditional ways of life, more men are working than women" is not very relevant.
Most governments indoctrinate their people with lies. Christianity and islam and strongly against xenophobia (I don't have much knowledge about judaism, so can't speak for or against it). Same goes for rape. Slavery is legal to this day in the USA for example.
I hope you can see my point, that standing on the moral basis of the modern western societies can make it seem like people, who live their lifes following different rules, may be "backwards" or "morally inferior" but you are lacking the logical foundation to claim something like that.