Religion IS crazy!

[SirRumpole]

Wait a second! Says who?? News is supposed to be factually based but half of it nowadays is editorializing and opinion-making. They tell us what to like and dislike, what to be outraged about and whom to adore. It's total crap.

Indeed so and even the most junior reporters on the ABC have their Twitter addresses flashed at us as if we are interested in their opinions.

ABC Breakfast is becoming a pop show with half the time taken up by music interviews and the other half by sport.

Waste of time.

 

[sptrawler]

On a related note...

Media (social and mainstream) are very powerful in shaping our beliefs and expectations.

Something I've noticed when I watch the evening news is that they will present opinion as fact. Most viewers don't even notice because of the way it's done.

eg. Us Melbournians love ....
In Australia, we are well known for ...
Australians have always been...

Wait a second! Says who?? News is supposed to be factually based but half of it nowadays is editorializing and opinion-making. They tell us what to like and dislike, what to be outraged about and whom to adore. It's total crap.

Absolutely correct, the media is a platform, for commentators opinions and beliefs.

It has actually become a National crisis.IMO

 

[luutzu]

Absolutely correct, the media is a platform, for commentators opinions and beliefs.

It has actually become a National crisis.IMO

It's news Fox style.

Opinions are cheap to get and could sell the same amount of air time... cut the chances of being sued too. So why would anyone want to investigate, question, upset the rich and powerful, and probably bored the heck out of the audiences. So either opinions, entertainment news... and for serious journalism stuff you quote what's given out to you at official briefings.

Kinda like investment analysts and business reporters basically copy and pasting what's handed out in presentations from the company.

 

[luutzu]

Mutual agreements are fine, I'm not telling employers how they should run their business, I'm just saying that if they don't want to accommodate religious practises in business time or with business resources then they have a right not to.

That's up to what the law and the lawyers said though.

I think business in general would accommodate their employees religion and culture, not simply because the law said so but it might make good business sense. People generally like to work with and for people who respect their religion and might even put in the extra effort to show appreciation.

So there's that two way street and if business doesn't find it suitable, there's a few creative ways they can get any employee to leave without breaking the law. Look at WalMart... you think of joining a union? How about I shift you to the late hours, then back to other hours, then randomly assign you this role then that, at this store or that... make your life plans around that... Most will quit after a while and won't get any retrenchment benefits either since it's them that quit.

See, you think religious people are devious? We're talking about capitalists here.

 

[sptrawler]

It's news Fox style.

Opinions are cheap to get and could sell the same amount of air time... cut the chances of being sued too. So why would anyone want to investigate, question, upset the rich and powerful, and probably bored the heck out of the audiences. So either opinions, entertainment news... and for serious journalism stuff you quote what's given out to you at official briefings.

Kinda like investment analysts and business reporters basically copy and pasting what's handed out in presentations from the company.

It is right, kids today want instant hit, what they want to hear news.

The last thing they want to hear, is reality.

 

[SirRumpole]

See, you think religious people are devious? We're talking about capitalists here.

I'm sure that's all true as I'm sure there are people who use religion as an excuse for backsliding and then claim minority persecution when they are called out.

 

[SirRumpole]

It is right, kids today want instant hit, what they want to hear news.

The last thing they want to hear, is reality.

A lot of the audience want thrills and spills in politics(literally) and don't like boring policy discussions and that rubs off onto journalists who forever accentuate possible divisions in political parties (of which there will always be some), and when it comes to detailed policy analysis a lot of the young journos couldn't be bothered.

People like Laurie Oakes are dinosaurs unfortunately and I hate to think of the garbage we will be served with once he and his ilk depart the scene.

 

[luutzu]

It is right, kids today want instant hit, what they want to hear news.

The last thing they want to hear, is reality.

But to be fair, reality can be depressing though

Saw this clip where CNN or one of those was interviewing some big politician or secretary in the US... and as they were answering policy issues the anchor interrupt the big man for breaking news from Florida... Turns out the breaking news was Justin Bieber broke a nail or something.

Got to give it to Murdoch... he knows how the news and media industry works alright.

Reminds me of a story Chomsky told of this publication back in the 60s. It's basically a deep investigative insightful news magazine written and published by a husband and wife team. They barely make any money and usually lose on each issue... no business want to advertise with them and just to make it look like they're legit they print ads from Pan-Am or those big corporations, all for free. Then got sued by Pan-Am for it too.

Ah kids, who needs entertainment when you could hear real stories like that.

 

[luutzu]

I'm sure that's all true as I'm sure there are people who use religion as an excuse for backsliding and then claim minority persecution when they are called out.

I don't know, hard for me to imagine a religious person would fake going to prayer to get out of work. there are other easier and less noticeable ways to take it easy, and not offend Allah too.

But yea, you get what you pay for. You can fire lots of people, cut human resources to the bone, pay them unlivable wages where they either have to work a second job or have no time or money to relax or spend time with the family... it might look good on paper for a while but eventually quality will slip, motivation won't be seen and eventually an accident or defect or corruption will turn up and costs you much more to clean up.

For what it's worth, I think a lot of businesses don't do well because they see their employee as an expense, as some outsider. I mean, look at the attack on unions and wages.

 

[Value Collector]

Mostly I agree , but if businesses choose not to cater for a few employees who want special rights to pursue their religion, then that is the businesses right.

I agree, unless the business already makes allowances for other similar things, in which case the singling out and banning of one practice may be a form of descrimination, eg if you allow your staff a 30min break to eat lunch, read the paper etc, you can't really stop them praying, or if you routinely allow smokers a 10min break to smoke, a pray break may be considered the same.

People could use them as a cover to commit crimes.

is this a problem that we are seeing, how many crimes are being committed using a burka as a disguise?

 

[luutzu]

..
is this a problem that we are seeing, how many crimes are being committed using a burka as a disguise?

I'd imagine it'd be pretty hard to pull a gun out from a burka; hard to make a run afterwards too; hard to see too I reckon.

And why would you wear anything Islamic in Australia to commit a crime? The moment you walk into any place there'll be a few heads thinking of some bad scenarios and what to do about it.

 

[SirRumpole]

I agree, unless the business already makes allowances for other similar things, in which case the singling out and banning of one practice may be a form of descrimination, eg if you allow your staff a 30min break to eat lunch, read the paper etc, you can't really stop them praying, or if you routinely allow smokers a 10min break to smoke, a pray break may be considered the same.

Sure people can pray during their lunch hour or coffee breaks, but if they want extra prayer times as well employers would be within their rights to say tough luck.

is this a problem that we are seeing, how many crimes are being committed using a burka as a disguise?

Not many at the moment but if burkas became more common then it could become a problem.

I know what you are going to say of course, the slippery slope argument, but slippery slope arguments are not necessarily fallacies. Other countries are banning the burka/hajib for security reasons.

It's not part of our culture to converse with people who we cannot recognise. Muslims can't expect to conceal themselves and then complain about not being accepted into our society.

Good article from an Islamic point of view about face covering. Islam does not require people to wear them so if we decide to ban them there should be no particular problem.

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2010/08/05/2974143.htm

 

[sydboy007]

the morality of the bible

 

[Value Collector]

Sure people can pray during their lunch hour or coffee breaks, but if they want extra prayer times as well employers would be within their rights to say tough luck.

Yes, I would say tough luck too, unless the employee gives other groups wiggle room to do other things eg smoking.

but most workplaces give staff a 10min break every 2hours, I can't see a problem with it.

Not many at the moment but if burkas became more common then it could become a problem.

Well that's when we can look at banning it, until its a problem we are just taking a freedom away when we can't demonstrate a gain.

I know what you are going to say of course, the slippery slope argument, but slippery slope arguments are not necessarily fallacies. Other countries are banning the burka/hajib for security reasons.

All sorts of rights have been stripped in the name of security, I don't want to lose more rights especially if there is no real problem yet.

Other countries are banning the burka/hajib for security reasons

Another logical fallacy, "Bandwagon" the argument from popularity, You appealed to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation.The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity.

It's not part of our culture to converse with people who we cannot recognise. Muslims can't expect to conceal themselves and then complain about not being accepted into our society.

We have many cultures, its not just you and I's culture that matters.

 

[Value Collector]

It's not part of our culture to converse with people who we cannot recognise. Muslims can't expect to conceal themselves and then complain about not being accepted into our society.

Watch this video, You will see why a conservative Muslim woman who's culture makes here uncomfortable conversing with unfamiliar males, or being hit on by strangers might feel more comfortable wearing traditional dress sometimes.

 

[SirRumpole]

We have many cultures, its not just you and I's culture that matters.

The question is who should adapt to whom ?

We don't have to be intolerant but neither do we have to be welcolming to behaviour that makes us uncomfortable, and most people in this country are uncomfortable about not being able to see people's faces.

Another logical fallacy, "Bandwagon" the argument from popularity, You appealed to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation.The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity.

It's also a fallacy to argue that if something is popular then it must be invalid.

Actions can be both popular and valid, and may indeed be popular BECAUSE they are valid.

 

[Value Collector]

The question is who should adapt to whom ?

We don't have to be intolerant but neither do we have to be welcolming to behaviour that makes us uncomfortable, and most people in this country are uncomfortable about not being able to see people's faces.

no one is saying you have to be best friends with a person in a burka, just don't ban them wearing it.

It's also a fallacy to argue that if something is popular then it must be invalid.

Actions can be both popular and valid, and may indeed be popular BECAUSE they are valid

I didn't say that the popularity of an argument makes it invalid, just that is doesn't increase it validity.

A lot of people point out that a certain idea is popular in an attempt to add weight to their argument, this is where the fallacy is at play.

eg, saying other countries in Europe have done it, is an attempt to say "Other countries have done it, therefore it must be be ok, or therefore My opinion has more weight.

By doing this you are avoiding adding an actual demonstration that your idea is valid, and instead adding an appeal to popularity, which is a logical fallacy, doing that will get you to the wrong logical out come.

 

[SirRumpole]

no one is saying you have to be best friends with a person in a burka, just don't ban them wearing it.

Sure, if you want to maintain a culturally based apartheid then encourage them to keep their silly superstitions, if you want to really welcome them into the fold then maybe it might help to try and make them realise how silly those superstitions are.

 

[bellenuit]

.... a burka, just don't ban them wearing it.

VC, although I agree with you on many things, this is one area that I don't.

The burka and the slightly less abhorrent niqab are not simply a choice of clothing but are a symbol of Islamic oppression of women. An assumption you are making is that the woman are wearing them voluntarily, whereas there is evidence that many are forced to do so by their husbands, other family members or peers. I have read numerous articles written by Muslim women who want a ban on those garments simple because it would allow them the excuse not to wear them. We are just assisting their oppression by allowing such oppressive customs to continue.

That they are clearly oppressive garments is obvious with those wearing them extremely limited in their choice of occupation or career. I think (from memory) some schools have already won the right to prevent teachers from wearing those garments as they impede a very important function of the teacher/pupil relationship, namely the conveying of information and emotion through facial expression. They also rule out the ability of the wearer to obtain employment in positions that are customer facing as again the ability of the wearer to communicate with the customer is severely limited if facial expressions are concealed. One only needs a rudimentary schooling in salesmanship to realise the importance of non-verbal communication in sales situations.

I agree with your arguments on the evolution of morality, with what we today regard as moral being the result of reason and education and not the gift of some imaginary deity. It should equally be as obvious from our understanding of the origins of those types of clothing that they came about not as a fashion statement that the women themselves wanted, but though the unwanted imposition of extreme Islamic interpretations by misogynistic Islamic leaders. Due to indoctrination over several generations (as their widespread use is quite recent), many Muslim women now even feel uncomfortable not wearing those garments.

It is our moral duty to provide a society where Muslim women can express themselves as freely as any other women and banning clothing that symbolises and continues their oppression is important. Yes, there may be some who really want to continue wearing those garments and may feel we are prohibiting their freedom, but it is for the greater good (much like banning the use if the Confederate Flag in public buildings in the US southern states). We are in a sense providing an environment that allow them to be unindoctrinated (if that's a word).

Kabul 1970s and today.

 

[Macquack]

Watch this video, You will see why a conservative Muslim woman who's culture makes here uncomfortable conversing with unfamiliar males, or being hit on by strangers might feel more comfortable wearing traditional dress sometimes.

What is the point of that video? It is a beat up.

Dressing up or down does not justify any religion.