[Hong Wu]

I've noticed that if someone wants to be a Buddhist, a Jain, eat a taco, that's cultural appropriation but if they want to convert to Islam, which is thoroughly anti-Liberalism and anti-atheist, that's OK. Why is that? I honestly suspect it's because these people believe that Muslims will hurt other people in the future, so it's OK if someone wants to convert to Islam, but if they want to convert to anything else or do anything else it's cultural appropriation because they don't view those other things as hostile.

To provide an example, western people are encouraged to wear hijabs and go to Muslim prayer but some of the same people will attack the same person for eating sushi.

[Godstud]

I do not think you have a clue what "cultural appropriation" actually is...

Cultural Appropriation:
the act of taking or using things from a culture that is not your own, especially without showing that you understand or respect this culture

Joining a religion is not cultural appropriation.

[Hong Wu]

:eh: I do not think you have a clue what "cultural appropriation" actually is...

Cultural Appropriation:
the act of taking or using things from a culture that is not your own, especially without showing that you understand or respect this culture

Joining a religion is not cultural appropriation.

Is wearing a hijab and going to a Muslim prayer when you aren't a Muslim "taking or using things from a culture that is not your own"?

[ness31]

cultural appropriation by the individual, by and large, is bullshit. but if a culture is being used to make money unscrupulously, that’s unethical.

Converting to Islam or any other religion that actively proselytizes, is not, cultural appropriation. So, someone should really have a word to Madonna..

[skinster]

Is wearing a hijab and going to a Muslim prayer when you aren't a Muslim "taking or using things from a culture that is not your own"?

Who does this?

I think if the people you made up wear hijabs and go to Muslim prayers in mosques, chances are they're a Muslim.

[SSDR]

I've noticed that if someone wants to be a Buddhist, a Jain, eat a taco, that's cultural appropriation but if they want to convert to Islam, which is thoroughly anti-Liberalism and anti-atheist, that's OK. Why is that? I honestly suspect it's because these people believe that Muslims will hurt other people in the future, so it's OK if someone wants to convert to Islam, but if they want to convert to anything else or do anything else it's cultural appropriation because they don't view those other things as hostile.

To provide an example, western people are encouraged to wear hijabs and go to Muslim prayer but some of the same people will attack the same person for eating sushi.

Because the people who support it are NOT progressives. They are liberals. And liberals are not progressive. They support the family institution, just like how Islam does.

Moslems are also using liberal agendas as a form of political correctness to defend their reactionary views. This is another piece of evidence that liberals in this case are not progressive.

[Godstud]

Supporting the family institution is bi-partisan. Conservatives support the family institution. Liberals do. Most people do, regardless of their ideology.

Most liberals ARE progressive, @SSDR. Claiming otherwise flies in the face of reality.

Progressivism as a philosophy, it is based on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition. This does not conflict with liberalism.

Moslems are also using liberal agendas as a form of political correctness to defend their reactionary views.

Really? So they are supporting homosexual, transgender, and women's right? Please provide some evidence for your claims.

[Hong Wu]

Who does this?

I think if the people you made up wear hijabs and go to Muslim prayers in mosques, chances are they're a Muslim.

Politicians are doing this quite often, as well as random liberal people who are curious about the religion, or the flyers you can find in Europe encouraging European women to wear the hijab in solidarity etc.

[SSDR]

Supporting the family institution is bi-partisan. Conservatives support the family institution. Liberals do. Most people do, regardless of their ideology.

Most liberals ARE progressive, @SSDR. Claiming otherwise flies in the face of reality.

Progressivism as a philosophy, it is based on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition. This does not conflict with liberalism.

Really? So they are supporting homosexual, transgender, and women's right? Please provide some evidence for your claims.

The family institution is slavery. You backing it up won't do anything for your argument. You're defending liberalism because you're a liberal.

[Godstud]

The family institution is slavery.

Are you sure you are melodramatic enough?

You're defending liberalism because you're a liberal.

You don't have a fucking clue what liberalism is, if you think it's supporting the family institution. Conservatives want to keep the family institution, too. Are you saying that Liberalism and Conservitavism is the same, because if so then...

FFS, pretending that Liberalism is supporting the family institution is pure poppycock. Do you have ANY source to support such an absurd notion, or am I to take your word for it? So far your assertion makes no fucking sense.

[SSDR]

:roll: Are you sure you are melodramatic enough?

You don't have a fucking clue what liberalism is, if you think it's supporting the family institution. Conservatives want to keep the family institution, too. Are you saying that Liberalism and Conservitavism is the same, because if so then...

FFS, pretending that Liberalism is supporting the family institution is pure poppycock. Do you have ANY source to support such an absurd notion, or am I to take your word for it? So far your assertion makes no fucking sense.

Well, you're defending the family institution, AND you're defending Islam. Both are conservative.

You just made a claim that the family institution is "bi partisan." Meaning many political ideologies, including liberalism, support the family institution. And most liberals I have encountered support the family institution.

[ness31]

A lot of people have an unhealthy obsession with head scarves. Why not take issue with the Christian Brethren and their women’s head gear? What? You don’t think their little hanky’s are acts of submission towards the male? I would argue it is even more oppressive than the hijab!

[SolarCross]

IMHO - the hijab / chador dress codes are the least offensive thing about Islam and it is counter-productive to focus on it if you are an anti-islamic activist. The whole killing of infidels thing is where the focus should be. That and the apostasy thing.

[Godstud]

Well, you're defending the family institution, AND you're defending Islam. Both are conservative.

I am defending the family institution and the freedom of a person to practice their religion. The family institution is NOT Conservative, and the freedom of religion is NOT Conservative, either. Are you sure you know what Liberalism even means? It sure seems like you don't.

You just made a claim that the family institution is "bi partisan."

Most people, regardless of their politics are very happy with the family institution, so yes, it is bi-partisan. That does not support your claim that the family institution is slavery and that only Liberals support it.

[SSDR]

I am defending the family institution and the freedom of a person to practice their religion. The family institution is NOT Conservative, and the freedom of religion is NOT Conservative, either. Are you sure you know what Liberalism even means? It sure seems like you don't.

Most people, regardless of their politics are very happy with the family institution, so yes, it is bi-partisan. That does not support your claim that the family institution is slavery and that only Liberals support it.

You don't need to get defensive. You seem to not understand that the family institution IS indeed slavery. You're defending what was used to control people under a conservative society. So now not only that you support a religion that supports slavery, but you also support slavery yourself?

Some people 'love' their families because they have to. They are held down with it via family oriented economics. Love was used to cope with all of the troubles and stresses that families put onto each other. It wasn't reported because it wasn't allowed to be reported. If people complain about their relative of whom they are financially relying on, then their relatives would stop providing for them. Your *Catholic* shunning tactics were used to keep people like you from gaining real consciousness. Hence, you were probably raised and conditioned in a *Catholic* family.

I never said that ONLY liberals support the family institution. You're jumping all over the place. You first said that the family institution is not conservative. Now, you're saying that the family institution is not only for liberals? You are putting two completely different statements into my words, thus showing that you don't understand.

[Godstud]

You seem to not understand that the family institution IS indeed slavery.

Please provide a source for this idiotic claim.

So now not only that you support a religion that supports slavery, but you also support slavery yourself?

I am not Christian, nor am I Islamic, so your petty taunt is very weak-sauce. It's also shows a complete ignorance of religion.

Most people consider the family unit to be a Conservative. That's not wrong. I don't think it is, as we all benefit greatly from it, and there is no slavery involved(Melodramatic bullshit). Myself and other people of varying ideologies see the value in it, even if you have some fucked up idea that it's slavery.

[SSDR]

Please provide a source for this idiotic claim.

I am not Christian, nor am I Islamic, so your petty taunt is very weak-sauce. It's also shows a complete ignorance of religion.

Most people consider the family unit to be a Conservative. That's not wrong. I don't think it is, as we all benefit greatly from it, and there is no slavery involved(Melodramatic bullshit). Myself and other people of varying ideologies see the value in it, even if you have some fucked up idea that it's slavery.

No one needs to show you any 'sources.' You seem to be upset. That's why you're demanding for sources. I have had conversations with conservatives, Nazis, Moslem extremists, and others of whom strongly support the family institution. Their responses that they have gave me, supporting the family institution, did not seem to be as defensive as yours.

No one called you a Moslem. And there is nothing incorrect of showing the general ignorance of religions, especially the ignorance of Islam.

You're supporting the family institution in a more offended way than a Nazi. You're defending the most conservative religion (Islam), you appear to have Catholic shunning tactics, and you're getting offended beyond the political standpoint, by calling my "idea" to be "Melodramatic bullshit." You're name calling via social constructs. You're demanding for sources to back up progressive statements acknowledging that the family institution is slavery, which makes you claim that one's past determines the future, so you're about the past. And you call yourself "progressive" in this case?

That makes no sense. Progressives are not about the past. Progressives are about the Future. Progressives don't need to conserve the old family institution. Progressives need to liberate people from it via economics.

You're shifting the subject of this forum's topic. This forum is about claiming that Islam should not be defended by "progressives" such as you. It's not about supporting or realization against the family institution. You keep defending it, yet that's not what is forum is about.

[Godstud]

I am not upset, but annoyed at your constant evading and not providing any sources for your outlandishly silly claims. Anecdotal evidence is weak, at the best of times.

No one called you a Moslem.

I am neither a Muslim nor a Christian, and I would not be offended were someone to call me either, because I'm not some fanatic. I know people of both religions, and their religion isn't the only thing that defines them.

You're supporting the family institution in a more offended way than a Nazi.

And you're trying to make something more than it is. Melodrama. Look it up.

You're defending the most conservative religion (Islam), you appear to have Catholic shunning tactics, and you're getting offended beyond the political standpoint, by calling my "idea" to be "Melodramatic bullshit." You're name calling via social constructs. And you call yourself "progressive" in this case?

I am calling it bullshit, because it is. Christianity and Islam are BOTH conservative religions.

Your "idea" is ridiculous, so I address it as such.

I am neither progressive, conservative, nor liberal. I don't fit any one classification, so you can take your label and put it on yourself, if you so choose.

That makes no sense.

Only because you choose not to comprehend it.

[Ter]

You don't need to get defensive. You seem to not understand that the family institution IS indeed slavery. You're defending what was used to control people under a conservative society. So now not only that you support a religion that supports slavery, but you also support slavery yourself?

I noticed that SSDR has been wailing about the family institution since he joined.
I have refrained from commenting on it but here I do it anyway:

There is no objective reason for SSDR to hate family the way he does, except if his personal situation with his family provoked that hatred.
There are solid biological reasons for families to live together, help each other and so on. The underlying principle is called kin selection. It has to do with family members sharing a number of genes so in effect helping each other (altruism) is in fact a positive protective trait for the individual's own genome.

I suspect SSDR does not have happy family experiences and I am sorry about that. But family is not "slavery" and he should stop uttering such nonsense.

[SSDR]

:O I am not upset, but annoyed at your constant evading and not providing any sources for your outlandishly silly claims.

I am neither a Muslim nor a Christian, and I would not be offended were someone to call me either, because I'm not some fanatic. I know people of both religions, and their religion isn't the only thing that defines them.

Try to spell things correctly. It makes you look stupid when you make a feeble attempt to slander a religion by mis-spelling it.

And you're trying to make something more than it is. Melodrama. Look it up.

I am calling it bullshit, because it is. Christianity and Islam are BOTH conservative religions.

Your "idea" is ridiculous, so I address it as such.

I am neither progressive, conservative, nor liberal. I don't fit any one classification, so you can take your label and put it on yourself, if you so choose.

Only because you choose not to comprehend it.

You're somewhat "annoyed" because your subconscious values that you were conditioned by via how you were raised as a Roman Catholic, go against my realizations. The way you were raised goes against my statements because Catholicism strongly supports the family institution. "Silly" in this case is a social construct. The way that you're responding is trying to make me feel that it is "wrong" to go against the family institution. This was a common tactic that the Catholic Church did to people like you. That is why you are 'trying' to do this.

No one here claimed that religion is the only thing that defines an individual. However, it does make a strong statement. People of different religions tend to be different in general. Catholics, Jews, and Moslems are all different, and have different values and life styles. But all lack real consciousness.

My "idea" is not ridiculous. You're not claiming that rebelling against slavery is "ridiculous" and you call yourself "progressive?"

You do have a political classification. Everyone does. Not everyone knows their classification. You probably do though however. You just don't want to say it because you don't want to be labeled.

This is starting to get off topic though.