This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Bobwundaye's Profile

Bobwundaye's Avatar Joined over 2 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Bobwundaye

Inspirational atheism - last commented 26 June 2012 07:01 AM

Atheism and Political Philosophy - Secularization - last commented 02 May 2012 07:56 PM

This used to be me - last commented 21 March 2012 06:54 PM

Religion as byproduct of evolution - last commented 18 August 2011 04:58 AM

More Discussions by Bobwundaye

Latest Comments by Bobwundaye

Go to: How to overcome indoctrination

Bobwundaye's Avatar Jump to comment 17 by Bobwundaye

OP by YISROLCOHEN

Every time I find myself having a crisis of unfaith, I don't beat down on myself or try to fight it. I just carefully go through the evidence (or lack of evidence for God) and then slowly gain perspective again. Best part is, these crisis are becoming less frequent.

Although, my wonderful experiences as a religious person does give me a fair amount of sympathy of religious views, and I find myself defending religious people even though I really don't agree with them at all.

Mon, 09 Jul 2012 13:44:50 UTC | #948804

Go to: Moral compass: a guide to religious freedom

Bobwundaye's Avatar Jump to comment 209 by Bobwundaye

Comment 206 by Ignorant Amos

I've been thinking a lot about it and what you say makes sense. In fact its perfectly logical. If you can't perform all the tasks of a particular job, don't do it and choose another profession. Yet, there is something that just doesn't sit well with me, and I'll try to articulate it in due course - and the reason for my inability to articulate my views is that they could have no justification. But for now, it's a Friday night and I'm off to go have a beer. ;)

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:19:53 UTC | #948323

Go to: Moral compass: a guide to religious freedom

Bobwundaye's Avatar Jump to comment 205 by Bobwundaye

How is this naked boobie theory my reasoning?

Replace burka with boobie-covering in your next paragraph and you have the same reason.

The point is that women shouldn't be free to wear a boobie covering, because that means that, under cover of their choice, other women can be forced to: ie not be free not to wear it. If they are being forced, they are hardly likely to say s and risk another beating. Of course they're going to lie.

Everyone from the granny to the mother-in-law, the husband, brother, etc. may see the woman who won't wear it as bringing shame on the family and deserving of punishment. What is it about this that people aren't getting? When the choice of one takes away the choice of others, it is not a freedom worth having.

See. Same reasoning, just covering a different part of the body.

Force women to show their bare breasts? (Are you having a wee fantasy there, Bob?) Wouldn't that be distracting? Just like a fxxxing burka? The only women I'm concerned about are those with crushed spirits, resigned to their public confinement. Even if men wore them too, this obscene garbage has no place in a free society. Auntie Toms (the very few, who shout loudest) can go fxxck themselves. If they don't like it: 'Oot.'

So now you're defending boobie-coverings by claiming that if uncovered it may distract me(n). Hmmmm. Where have I heard this reasoning before. Could it have been the Imam?

Don't get me wrong. When your arguments are about security, you make a very valid case - only in so far as that there are certain public places which require a greater amount of security. However, when your talk of banning the burka moves to into the territory of freeing women from oppression, it is a feeble case. I think it is plain Islamophobia hiding behind a poorly constructed liberal mask.

(Are you having a wee fantasy there, Bob?)

It did make for some pleasant day dreaming ;)

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:51:28 UTC | #948319

Go to: Moral compass: a guide to religious freedom

Bobwundaye's Avatar Jump to comment 201 by Bobwundaye

Comment 181 by xmaseveeve

Comment 173, Bob,

Let's say a religion states that women should wear clothes to cover their breasts because it is immoral to show them. Your reaction would be: Ban all clothing that cover breasts.

Don't be so daft. First of all, define breast. If you mean the whole breast, you mean nipples. They're already proscribed in public. You need an adults-only licence for a show which includes them. Young girls can face the sex offenders' register for flashing them.

Before you call me daft, notice that I'm using your reasoning.

The state due the influence of Christian religion has deemed it immoral for a woman to show her breasts/nipples etc. Any breast/nipple covering is clearly a symbol of a patriarchal society obsessed with the immorality that may result from seeing a woman's breast/nipple. We need to break free from this and not by giving women the choice to be bear-breasted - because there is no real choice there. Woman still feel to judged by society around them. So the only natural thing for the state to do is to force them to walk around uncovered.

What makes the breasts-case that I propose worse than the burka case is that the burka is not mandated by the state - a women is currently free to wear it. The covering of breasts is a state-sanctioned oppression of women.

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 05:18:27 UTC | #948313

Go to: Moral compass: a guide to religious freedom

Bobwundaye's Avatar Jump to comment 176 by Bobwundaye

Comment 174 by inquisador

A ban would be a symbolic act.

I don't think that a symbolic act that limits freedom is in any way sending a message of what liberal society stands for. We may as well make it illegal for people to be muslim as a symbolic act, yet that very act would be inconsistent with our belief in individual freedom.

What is really extreme is not to ban, but the burqa itself and the host of societal restrictions that come with it.

No, that is not nearly as extreme. What should be banned is the idea that a woman can be forced to wear the burka or submit unwillingly to societal restrictions.

Banning the burka is like banning the right of a wife to ever agree with her husband because Christianity tells a woman to submit to her husband - that is clearly against our idea of freedom so from no on, no woman shall ever be allowed to agree with her husband on anything.

Or are we happy to live with the wonderful world of Islam? With its hatred of art and music? Women as the property of men? Religious apartheid? No to wine, women and song, Yes to slavery?

I'm happy to live side by side with them. If they feel offended by my music, art, scantily clad friends, drunken festivities etc. that is their right to be offended. It is also my right to not give a hoot.

Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:59:17 UTC | #948281

More Comments by Bobwundaye