Ban on women 'straddling motorbikes'

Originally posted by RJHinds
People of that mindset believe they will be rewarded with 70 virgins if the blow themselves up for the cause of Allah. 😀

I don't personally know any Indonesian Muslims who believe they will be rewarded if they blow themselves up but I do know a few that have a mindset that is not particularly troubled with what has been going on in Lhokseumawe. Many people - including older women - who might support rules that require younger women to show what they might see - and describe - as some 'old fashioned modesty' in public, are just ordinary conservative folks. They are no more likely to be a potential murderer than I am or you are. Hundreds and hundreds of millions of Muslims are just ordinary God fearing folk and do not have the "mind set" of mass murderers. I think your constant reference to terrorism every time Muslims or Islam is mentioned is a pretty boring contribution to the debates that go on here.

Originally posted by FMF
So your answer in Lhokseumawe is that people should "move away" if they can't tolerate the impositions upon their freedom? And yet on the Debates Forum you post endlessly and strenuously about "those with the most power [deciding] what is "right" and "wrong" for everyone else" in ways that you cannot tolerate, and yet you have never advocated that you - or peopl that they should just "move away". Not even once. What's different in this case?

I left out the option of revolution. 😛

Seriously, who the hell cares about conservatives like me FMF? We can either suck it up and continue to live here or move. In the interim, we can either continue to surrrender our wealth and freedoms to the government, overthrow them, or move. Then again, conservatives could try to get corporate backing and take control of government. LOL. The simple truth is, no one gives a damn FMF.

Isn't democracy great! 😵

Actually, do you remember my Greenland thread? I suggested that those who wished to live under a limited government move there, because there is no where else on earth to go now. :'(

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Doesn't the US have laws guaranteeing religious freedom? How do these laws inherently diminish an individual's freedom.

Does not a law against murder actually increase the total amount of freedom by allowing us to walk more safely along the streets than we might otherwise be able to?

Laws that limit governmnent restrict those in government. Those laws that restrict the private citizen restrict the freedoms of that private citizen. And yes, not allowing people to "choose" to kill another is restricting freedom. It is arguably as to how much "safety" this gives us. I would think that society would find a way to deal with such murderers if the state were not there to take them off the streets.

The laws that restrict government are slim and few and passed centuries ago. However, last year alone the federal government passed over 40.000 new regulations and laws against the private citizen.

Originally posted by FMF
I don't personally know any Indonesian Muslims who believe they will be rewarded if they blow themselves up but I do know a few that have a mindset that is not particularly troubled with what has been going on in Lhokseumawe. Many people - including older women - who might support rules that require younger women to show what they might see - and describe - as s slims or Islam is mentioned is a pretty boring contribution to the debates that go on here.

This battle against Sharia law is world wide FMF. Arguing does nothing to resolve it. These people need to be defeated, pure and simple whether it be politically or on the battle feild. There is no compromise, only victory or defeat.

Originally posted by whodey
Seriously, who the hell cares about conservatives like me FMF? We can either suck it up and continue to live here or move. In the interim, we can either continue to surrrender our wealth and freedoms to the government, overthrow them, or move. Then again, conservatives could try to get corporate backing and take control of government. LOL. The simple truth is, no one gives a damn FMF.(

There are people in Lhokseumawe who give a damn. Do you really have only comments about yourself and about U.S. politics and taxation to make? Nothing about the OP or the OP question?

Originally posted by whodey
This battle against Sharia law is world wide FMF. Arguing does nothing to resolve it. These people need to be defeated, pure and simple whether it be politically or on the battle feild. There is no compromise, only victory or defeat.

There is virtually no Sharia law in Indonesia. How would you go about "defeating" the Mayor of Lhokseumawe?

Do you think the central government in Jakarta should intervene in Lhokseumawe?

Originally posted by FMF
There is virtually no Sharia law in Indonesia. How would you go about "defeating" the Mayor of Lhokseumawe?

Do you think the central government in Jakarta should intervene Lhokseumawe?

I would say it depends on how strongly/widely this measure is supported/opposed in the area where it will come into force. Is there the kind of electoral opposition that might sway a future election.

It seems an extremely conservative imposition to me, but do we know how the rest of the Indonesian electorate feel. could action, or the lack of it, effect voting patterns at the next federal election?

Originally posted by kevcvs57
It seems an extremely conservative imposition to me, but do we know how the rest of the Indonesian electorate feel. could action, or the lack of it, effect voting patterns at the next federal election?

As far as I know, conservative 'morality police' stuff like this has limited support in the general population and, perhaps more importantly, little or no support in the military. "Islamic" political parties fare badly in provincial and national elections, but there are a fair few "Mayors of Lhokseumawe" knocking about. I dare say there are some figures of the retail politics kind in some of the rather impotent "Islamic" political parties [there are many parties here] who would like to see clumsy action by Jakarta that could be depicted as acting contrary to [the "new" spirit of democracy and decentralization, and] the "freedom" of righteous upstanding people at the local level to defend their chaste and wholesome, stability-oriented, traditional values and culture, yes. They would look at getting some traction with that, perhaps. Don't think it would work. Indonesia is going in the other direction, broadly speaking. Especially its urban centres.

Originally posted by FMF
There are people in Lhokseumawe who give a damn. Do you really have only comments about yourself and about U.S. politics and taxation to make? Nothing about the OP or the OP question?

It is not just about taxation FMF. It is about forcing people to surrender freedoms. The reduction of a free market is but one example. For most on the left, their focus is maintaining freedoms EXCEPT when it comes to owning property, which includes income and wealth. For Islamic extremists, they seem to wish to curb other behaviors intead.

In the end, you must ask who we are hurting? Is the "rich" guy hurting anyone by not paying more in taxes? In America, they will pay a set amount of money to the poor whether the rich guy pays more or not, and they will continue to run trillion dollar deficits no matter what the rich guy pays in taxes, so from my perspective no one is getting hurt by allowing the rich guy to keep his money. However, the left would argue that any society within it that is "rich" is an unfair society and currupt, so the real goal is to take that wealth in order to help "purify" such a society.

Conversely, in your situation the premise is that society is being corrupted by behavior that promotes sexual deviancy. For them, seeing a woman straddle a motorcycle is promoting such deviancy. I could make arguments like I just did for the taxing the rich fellow scenerio, but at the end of the day I have my belief system and they have theirs and it all boils down to securing political power in order to win the argument.

In the case of taxing the wealthy, it behooves the statist to take money from the wealthy, because this ultimately limits the power of those outside of government and increases the power of government and government cronies. Then that same government can turn around and benefit their cronies, like corporate America with this power so that money flowing out of corporate America can then be sent to government. After all, those in government do not create revenue, they merely take others revenue, so such a relationship is necessary.

In the case of Sharia law, I'm not sure what the process is securing such power politically. I would imagine a good part of it is money flowing from oil rich Muslim countries who are promoting such law. It is not just about spreading Islam, it is about spreading an ever increasing world wide political coilition of like minded people.

Originally posted by whodey
It is not just about taxation FMF. It is about forcing people to surrender freedoms. The reduction of a free market is but one example. For most on the left, their focus is maintaining freedome EXCEPT when it comes to owning property, which includes income and wealth.

Do you see the Mayor of Lhokseumawe as being "on the left"?

Originally posted by FMF
As far as I know, conservative 'morality police' stuff like this has limited support in the general population and, perhaps more importantly, little or no support in the military. "Islamic" political parties fare badly in provincial and national elections, but there are a fair few "Mayors of Lhokseumawe" knocking about. I dare say there are some figures of the r ...[text shortened]... ia is going in the other direction, broadly speaking. Especially its urban centres.

Probably the best approach is to fight it politically at the local level, or concerned groups, i.e Women's rights. or cycling groups could hold mass 'straddles' and defy the Mayor, who, going by your description of the political environment, would probably flinch at mass punishment.

Certainly not worth the risk of a heavy handed approach by the central govt which could play into the hands of the zealots.

Originally posted by FMF
Do you see the Mayor of Lhokseumawe as being "on the left"?

The left and right label is absurd. I would imagine he would be referred to as being on the "right" simply because they are religious. (Shrug)

For me the label should be statist. That is, those who seek to empower government for the never ending problems within society. This leads to a never ending power grab by governemnt.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Probably the best approach is to fight it politically at the local level, or concerned groups, i.e Women's rights. or cycling groups could hold mass 'straddles' and defy the Mayor, who, going by your description of the political environment, would probably flinch at mass punishment. Certainly not worth the risk of a heavy handed approach by the central govt which could play into the hands of the zealots.

I am inclined to agree.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Probably the best approach is to fight it politically at the local level, or concerned groups, i.e Women's rights. or cycling groups could hold mass 'straddles' and defy the Mayor, who, going by your description of the political environment, would probably flinch at mass punishment.

Certainly not worth the risk of a heavy handed approach by the central govt which could play into the hands of the zealots.

Whichever side produces the most coercion will win. The problem is, you have no idea what the other side is using to coerce them.

Originally posted by whodey
The left and right label is absurd.

I used it because you used the expression "on the left" in your previous post. In fact I was quoting you. You didn't use it in a way that suggested you were being "absurd". And you use "left" and "right" labels on the Debate Forum incessantly.