Friday, March 7, 2008
From Germany's Veiled Statues
Throughout the night on 6th of March we have successfully continued our statue veiling campaign. With this reappearing action, we want to inspire the public to discussion concerning Islamisation and associated taboo subjects. By veiling statues in Berlin, Braunschweig, Dortmund, Düsseldorf, Helsinki, Moscow, Tampere, and Turku, we have expanded our activities to Germany, Finland and Russia within six months.
The aim of the campaign is to refer to the creeping Islamisation endangering the European idea of UNITY IN DIVERSITY and other similar cultural achievements of the liberal thinking world. Particularly, the phenomenom that Muslim women wear increasingly Burqa or headscarfs, is a visible expression of the challenge and threat to our liberal societies with their values such as women´s rights, democracy, liberal and secular thinking...
...We need to consider the Human Rights Charta to be accomplished in its totality everywhere in the world. Neither the Quran nor the Sharia can be seriously put on the same level with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the UN.
It's a good idea, but it might be more effective if, instead of criticizing the Koran, they compared the effects and actions based on our civil laws to the effects and actions based on sharia-inspired civil laws.
For example, if we compare the UN Human rights charter to the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, we can see the faults more easily.
Of the CDHRI, Adama Dieng, a member of the International Commission of Jurists, said:
...the declaration gravely threatens the inter-cultural consensus, on which the international human rights instruments are based; that it introduces intolerable discrimination against non-Muslims and women. He further argued that the CDHRI reveals a deliberately restrictive character in regard to certain fundamental rights and freedoms, to the point that certain essential provisions are below the legal standards in effect in a number of Muslim countries; it uses the cover of the "Islamic Shari'a (Law)" to justify the legitimacy of practices, such as corporal punishment, which attack the integrity and dignity of the human being.
[For more on Sharia in action, see Hillel Stavis' article below]
Directly criticizing a holy book leads to comparisons of nasty passages from opposing holy books and the my dogma's bigger than your dogma kind of argument that always goes nowhere.
Otherwise, it's a great idea. We should do it here (of course, we don't have as many naked statues :-)
No need for naked, right? Anything showing female flush -- toss a sack over it.
It would also be interesting to throw burkas over statues or pictures of accomplished women, like Marie Curie. Where would we be if we'd been living under sharia all this time? Probably where the sharia-led countries are, living like it's 1209...
those countries that started this shameful culture of stripping in public are those that have been barbaric throughout history, with no sense of respect or sanity. Those always ran around naked, and can't help it now either...They need to adapt to the new world of Islam.
p.s I am speaking in the same mentality of The hero(wafa sultan).
All nations have been barbaric throughout history, but nations that have been shackled by Sharia tend to resist innovation and creativity. They're static and unchanging, like the laws.
A law, as per definition, is man-made. It is this recognition that allowed Western civilization to evolve from the brutal, barbaric and aristocratic laws of exclusion and oppression to a democractic ethos of diversity and inclusion. Every law is challengeable, which is why every democracy has a legislatic body, comprised of elected representatives. New laws are being redacted all
the time, old laws are abolished or corrected. There is no problem changing the law because human law is subject to human error, and therefore to human rectification.
The problem with Sharia is that it is attributed to God. And no human can touch or change or abolish a law made by God.
In Jewish myth, a person, a humble Jew, can dispute with God and complain about God's injustice. Abraham took a lot of time trying to get God to avert his punishment of Sodom. It is a great debate, an attempt at persuasion which was very nearly won. The human arguing with the divine to change a law that seems too harsh is the beginning of the idea of separation between state and religion. This idea would be fully articulated by Spinoza, another Abraham of sorts... :-)
I feel kind of sorry for Arabian, that he has no good arguments to lobe except what he knows which simply does not make sense in a universal system of morality.