Hi Roland, Whatever the excuse, this all just boils down to antipathy towards People Unlike Us. Today, it is the difference over dress. At other times, it will be some other issue. The game keeps getting played.
The others who argued these cases were as convinced. The issues were used to fuel ire against a section of the population who we saw as 'different': Jehovah’s Witnesses may challenge SC anthem order https://indianexpress.com/article/india/jehovahs-witnesses-may-challenge-sc-anthem-order-4465581/ After 9/11, turbans made Sikhs targets - CNN - CNN.com https://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/15/us/sikh-hate-crime-victims/index.html And the clothes of the Jewish women didn't stop them from being forced into gas chambers. Your second para is a nothing but an appeal to fear: Appeal to fear. An appeal to fear (also called argumentum ad metum or argumentum in terrorem) is a fallacy in which a person attempts to create support for an idea by attempting to increase fear towards an alternative. The appeal to fear is common in marketing and politics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear In the last year, I taught three young Muslim women, one of whom wore the Hijab while the other wore ripped jeans. Sorry to disappoint, but they were perfectly fine young people, and their choice of clothes did not bias me eitherway. We do have Muslim migrants in Saligao too, and when treated without bias, they are as good or as bad as anyone else -- with human aspirations, wanting to get ahead in life, educate their children, etc, like you and me. You would surely know from history that Goa was itself ruled by the Muslims, till a section of the local Hindus (though the term was probably much used for self-definition then), probably your ancestors and mine too, thought it was a good idea in 1510 to invite the Portuguese to get rid of the Idalcao. If anything, Goa makes for a good case study about the high price of religious intolerance. Never mind that we're fast-forwarding into the past, with all the current crop of religion-based intolerance. To me, the argument starts on a misleading and loaded track when you say: "Nothing more ridiculous that (sic) saying the burqa is a means to get closer to God." Probably this is the weakest argument against what basically is intolerance towards diversity. And I hope you will also support my 'right' to compare Boris Johnson with the back of a bus. Which is, like his rhetoric, neither here nor there, of course. FN On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 00:24, Roland Francis <[email protected]> wrote: > > 1. Jehovah’s Witnesses, Sikh and Jewish women do not dress like shady tents > in hot climates. > > 2. A few burqa wearers in Saligao may change your perception. More than a few > will “get you worked up about it” (your words, not mine). > > 3. Don’t make this a religious thing. You may not have seen European, many > Middle Eastern or Central Asian (ex Soviet) women of a particular religion > dress as finely as everybody else. You are narrowly referring only to women > of a certain persuasion from the lesser educated parts of South Asia or > Africa. > > Roland. > > > > On Aug 13, 2018, at 11:50 AM, Frederick Noronha > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > That's a rather condescending approach to Muslims and their culture. > > Who next? Sikhs and their turbans? Jehovah's Witnesses (who refused to > > sign the national anthem in India, and won). Jews? > > > > If someone wants to dress in a particular style, why should I get so > > worked up about it? > > > > FN > >> -- _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ _/ _/ FN* फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या * فريدريك نورونيا +91-9822122436 _/ RADIO GOANA: https://archive.org/details/@fredericknoronha _/ _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
