'Burkas not welcome in France'

A. Muscat

Jun 30th 2009, 16:36

@ Emma Xerri

‘Yes, your brain exists, and you can see it if you get an MRI. ‘You can also see the brain at an autopsy.’
A brain and an Image of a brain isn’t the same thing. Obviously you can see an image of your brain, but could you get your brain out and see it, or feel it?
Is looking at picture of a Pizza and eating a Pizza the same?
Do you know of anyone seen OWN brain during at autopsy? Sounds weird isn't it?

To know God (only if one interested to belong to God) all what one has to do is using the brain.

Good day. Bye

Emma Xerri

Jun 29th 2009, 23:55

@ A. Muscat

Yes, your brain exists, and you can see it if you get an MRI. You can also see the brain at an autopsy. Can you see god with an MRI? Or do you believe that the human brain is god? What do all your non-sequiturs mean? Are we supposed to mistake illogic for profundity?

It is obvious that your brain however, has a limited capacity to understand anything other than what you believe in.

A. Muscat

Jun 28th 2009, 05:05

@ Emma Xerri

If interested, please find here what make a distinction between human being brains and animal’s brain:
Albert asks Brian: Can you touch God? Can you hear God? Can you see God?
Brian answers; No I can’t
Albert asks: So how can you say that God exists if you can’t touch Him, hear Him, or seem Him?
Brian paused a while then asked Albert:
Can you touch your brain? Can you hear your brain? Can you see your brain?
Albert answered: No I can’t
Brian asked Albert: Are you insane, do you have a brain?
Albert answered, No I am not insane and my brain exists.
Brian answered: So God is.

Emma Xerri

Jun 27th 2009, 23:13

@A. Muscat

All the elements that make up our air, water, rocks, life and everything else you see on this planet are also found in great abundance right into the far reaches of the universe. Even in galaxies billions of light years away!

So this does not mean that these things were created especially for us human beings here on earth. It is the stuff of the universe, star-dust if you will.

Raymond Cachia

Jun 27th 2009, 23:04

@A. Muscat

No your understanding of 'random' in respect of physics is incorrect.

I am talking about different aspects of reality as found in the universe. Such as the fact that a sub-atomic particle can be both a particle and a wave and the same time, how it can be in different places at the same time, and how an observer can affect its behaviour. By random, scientists mean that this behaviour cannot be predicted and any outcome is possible.

May I suggest your read some science and especially about sub-atomic particles (Quantum Physics), the General Theory of Relativity and the Special Theory of Relativity, to start with. There are some good books out there that are written for the layman that explain these things.

On a different level, when the ovum and the sperm unite to create you, this too is random, since there are millions of possible sperm, each with a differnt complement of genes. The genes found in the ovum at your conception too are random.

In a nutshell, and to paraphrase Shakespeare, all I have to say is, 'there are more things in heaven and earth, Mr. Muscat, than you ever dreamed of in your philosophy'.

A. Muscat

Jun 27th 2009, 20:59

@ Raymond Cachia.

What I actually meant by the breakfast table, every thing surround human being since birth, for instance air, water, food…. Etc
Are air and water randomly there? If so, why they are there?

My understanding: a thing at random means we could do without. Can we do without water, air or food? If the answer is no this automatically lead to think of the perfect creator who created these things.
If water and air are there compulsory this simply means randomly-existence does not hold water.

There must be a creator for everything in this universe. Even if we deny this fact the creator is there.

--------------------------------------------------
Please, am I getting you right to understand that you are being created randomly?

Charles Grixti

Jun 27th 2009, 18:20

@A. Muscat

What is this god of yours and what church do you belong to - the "Church of the Five Star Breakfast" LOL!!

Trevor Lorenzo Mizzi

Jun 27th 2009, 18:10

@ A. Muscat,

" Imagine you are on your own in a desert. You sleep a good night then in the morning you wake up to find a five-star breakfast table nearby you. What should be the first question cross-up in your mind?"

I would not jump to the wild conclusion that god is a short order cook and a butler, the most likely answer would be that some friends placed the food there while I slept so they can pull my leg.
Always go to the most obvious conclusion before your wild imagination takes over, but may be you like to fantasize about improbable things and chalk them up to god.

Emma Xerri

Jun 27th 2009, 17:38

@ A. Muscat

"so what the difference between me and any other animal?"

None.

Raymond Cachia

Jun 27th 2009, 17:25

@ A. Muscat

A breakfast table appearing on a desert island does not prove that God exists. From a scientific point, the only way this could be explained is through a rip in the time-space continuum, whereby an object from a parallel universe is manifested in ours.

In Quantum Mechanics, that is at the sub-atomic level, things seem to be happening randomly, as opposed to Einstein' Theory of Relativity. Einstein's famous quote that 'God does not play dice with the Universe' does not hold true here. Towards the end of his life Einstein was trying to bridge these two seemingly opposing theories but did not succeed. Today scientists are still trying to reconcile these theories into one “Unified Theory” of matter.

Maybe the human mind has a limit of what it can understand - much like trying to explain the world to an ant. As an example, since an ant’s perspective of the world is completely different to ours, if someone happens to step on an ant and kill it, to the other ants this seems like a supernatural event, but all it is is just that the ants lack understanding of world around them.

The same applies to humans.

A. Muscat

Jun 27th 2009, 12:06

@ Raymond Cachia.

Please, am I getting you right to understand that you are being created randomly?

---------------------------------------
If I am sleeping all by myself in a desert and I wake up in the morning to find a perfectly prepared five-star breakfast table ready for me.
A human being with a stable brain spontaneously would ask, where this breakfast table came from? Who brought this breakfast for met? Who cooked this breakfast? Who prepared this perfect breakfast table?
If I don’t self-ask these question, so what the difference between me and any other animal?

Raymond Cachia

Jun 26th 2009, 22:45

@A. Muscat

The first questions on my mind would be that,

That I am seeing a Mirage, or
That I am hallucinating, or
That I suffer from Schizophrenia

As for who created who or what, the closest that people have come to it is through sciences, Theoretical Physics such as Quantum Mechanics, the Theory of Relativity, Strings Theory, and the mysterious Dark Matter that makes up close to 94% of the Universe, that scientists are currently studying and trying to understand.

The Universe is a random place, where things are happening all at once and there is quite a bit of evidence that there could also be multiple universes sharing the same space but existing on different dimensions.

Truly, scientists who study these matters come closest to transcending our earthly bounds and for want of a better word, experience spirituality. On the other hand, most organised religions want us to believe that here is a heavenly father up in the sky watching over humans.

But if you are happier believing in fairy tales, then be my guest.

A. Muscat

Jun 25th 2009, 16:16

Raymond Cachia.

‘Nobody has ever proven that God even exists!’
Have you created yourself?

Please answerer me this question:
Imagine you are on your own in a desert. You sleep a good night then in the morning you wake up to find a five-star breakfast table nearby you. What should be the first question cross-up in your mind?

Raymond Cachia

Jun 25th 2009, 04:08

@ A. Muscat

Who said that God had a son (or a daughter for that matter). Nobody has ever proven that God even exists!

And the reason that they ‘chose’ that God had a son rather than a daughter is because these religions, including Islam are the creation of man, i.e. males rather than women. Man has created God in his own image and committed the ultimate blasphemy.

However, when you see what is going on in places like Iran right now, it should be plain as day to everyone that the Mullahs who are in power are only interested in material wealth and wielding unrestrained power over their hapless populace. Wealth and Power, the twin towers of despotism, the ultimate aphrodisiacs, but disguised as religion. Psycologically, it is very easy to see why such religions were created in the first place.

Your comment about brothels for women is also a ‘no-brainer’. Why would women pay for something that they can get for free?

Emma Xerri

Jun 25th 2009, 00:33

@A. Muscat

2)

To answer your second question, isn’t it obvious? Sex is not such a big priority for most women; as it is for men. Women would rather pay for an ice cream or a nice pair of shoes or buy things for the house and their children.

In any case, women are propositioned all the time and have not need to pay for sex if they are so inclined, as there are plenty of men willing to oblige ‘free of charge’.

Emma Xerri

Jun 25th 2009, 00:28

@ A. Muscat

1)

To answer your first question, the reason God has a son and not a daughter is because you are talking about male-centric religions and patriarchy.

The original deity for humanity was the Mother Goddess, the secret of birth and life and all the good things that the earth provides. In fact, the Mother Goddess is so deeply ingrained in the human psyche that the RCC could not eradicate it, ergo, the Virgin Mary. Most Black Madonna sanctuaries across Europe were originally centres of Goddess worship dating to Neolithic times.

The Egyptians had Isis with baby Horus, and the Greeks and Romans worshiped a plethora of female deities.

When it comes to gender discrimination, the first is Islam followed by the RCC. By the way, I am against all patriarchal religions – throughout history, they have brought nothing but bloodshed and wars and suffering.

A. Muscat

Jun 24th 2009, 19:53

I think we shouldn’t associate any religion with equality or gender discrimination before we self-ask why the RCC is never headed by a female and why God (According Christens beliefs scarify his son and not a daughter.

@ Emma Xerri

Can any you please explain why across Europe and USA we find many licensed brothels where man can go and have sex with a prostitute while we hardly find licensed brothels for women to visit and have sex with men?

Frans Sammut

Jun 24th 2009, 09:37

I fully agree with Mr Lawrence. Nowhere does the Quran say that women should wear burkas. It is simply an exaggeration promoted by religious fanatics who would "improve" on their own holy book. This is very similar to the fanatical reading of a verse that is interpreted as promising good Muslims "72 virgins" in the afterlife. This is so absurd a thought it makes you wonder whether those who accept this interpretation are rational or not. Which prophet would first of all base his belief in God on the promise of carnal knowledge in the spiritual world, secondly what would be the use of modestly covering up females when the male is worshipping God in the hope that he will benefit of a sexual spree in the other world? This is the best example of an oxymoron one can think of. I am sure normal Muslims do not take these "fringe phenomena" seriously. Otherwise one must think of Muslims of crypto-sex maniacs. Which I cannot believe they are.

Joe Cordina

Jun 24th 2009, 09:15

I strongly think that burkas or any other clothing that hide the identity of a person should be banned from places that are security sensitive such as banks, government buildings etc. However the argument brought up by the French PM does not hold water. What he is saying is that no one can wear religous symbols, this interferes with one's rights and should not be upheld. then what? would we have priests of any religion, nuns or other religious orders banned from wearing their normal religous apparel? Would then the Pope, Imam, bishops, and similar others be banned from entering France?

Emma Xerri

Jun 24th 2009, 00:21

Muslim males must be the most sexually insecure men on earth.

Why else would they hide their women by making them wear body bags in public such as the niqab and the burka?

Charles Grixti

Jun 24th 2009, 00:10

@A. Muscat

How would you like to be dressed up in such an ugly and inconvenient way just because you happen to be a woman? The human species comes in two genders; and the chances are 50-50, so you would have just as easily been forced into this get-up if you were born into the Islamic faith and were of the female gender. How would you have like to be at the receiving end of the stick of this culturally engrained misogyny?

Can you imagine what would happen if a present day religion would deny many rights or equal treatment before the Law to Black persons for instance? But somehow this is all right because it is only women after all.

Using religion as an excuse to deny half of your population basic rights, such as the right to be seen (and heard), just to name a few, are contrary to democratic principles. If this is what some faiths do, then the time is long overdue to re-haul and re-examine our definition of religion.

Raymond Cachia

Jun 24th 2009, 00:05

@A. Muscat

Please do not change the subject. France’s fiscal troubles have nothing to do with this human rights issue. When you have women living in apartheid, whether in Islamic countries or in the West, the message is clear – women are not considered to be human beings but objects to be used and discarded. Their basic humanity is being denied them. Human communicate not just with a voice but with their whole beings, the human face being one of the most expressive in the animal kingdom.


When you shut a person behind a mask or a veil, you are effectively denying them their humanity.

It saddens me that there is such retrograde thinking found even amongst so-called civilized countries like Malta. Kudos to President Sarkozy, - someone finally has had the moral fortitude to speak up.

Instead of criticizing Sarkozy, we should support women and girls worldwide. Around the world, 66 million girls are denied their basic right to an education. Approximately 576 million women worldwide are illiterate.


Educate a girl and change the world!



http://givegirlsachance.org/

Albert J Mifsud

Jun 23rd 2009, 21:42

Congratulations to Mr Sarkosy. The saying 'when in Rome, do as the Romans do' is most apt. After all, Muslims, in many of their lands, do not welcome women with uncovered heads, and less so, the usual modern dress, prevalent throughout most of Europe and the US. If only the whole of Europe were to take this stance.

Nigel Lawrence

Jun 23rd 2009, 20:37

In my, rather large, copy of the Quran, The prophet is stated as saying "that women should dress modestly"" Nowhere in the book declares that women HAVE to be covered from head to foot, nowhere does it mention that scarves HAVE to be worn. What it DOES mention is that a muslim will NOT see the face of God, if he takes his own life. So how do the suicide bombers get round that one. My impression is that many muslims have not read the Quran for themselves, but simply take the word of a religious fanatic, who generally distorts the teachings therein. PS. I am not a Muslim, more of an agnostic actually, but I DO read holy books of all religions just out of curiosity.

A. Muscat

Jun 23rd 2009, 20:20

Monsieur Sarkozy. Be credible and get down to business. Don’t play the Secularism Guarduian while doing the opposite. You have more serious problems at home. France's budget deficit will exceed 7 percent of its GDP in both 2009 and 2010. The announcement highlights the heavy toll being extracted on public finances by the government's stimulus plan and falling tax receipts, with the latest figure a considerable increase on a previous March forecast for a 5.6 percent deficit this year. Are you using a Burkas to cover your failure and deflect public attention? The French people aren’t stupid anyway. Mosieur Sarkozy, . I classify you as a good sales man (for nuclear technology) but not as a president.. You lost your credibeilty last year during your visit to China. May I ask why did keep mum about China’s human rights abuse? Why should a woman wearing a Burka disturb you? Is the Burka classified as a Mass Destruction weapon? If so, rest assure you have your place booked next to Ex- Failure (Bush) at the back burner of history.

Bill Khan

Jun 23rd 2009, 18:05

Seems rather strange that secularism as a system be so afraid of woman wearing Burqas or the Christian cross. A married man having a mistress in france is common. How is Mr. Sarkozy going to decide which of the thousands of mistresses are subjugated and which are not? Or Which of the thousands of women abort their unborn babies under subjugation? Perhaps Mr. sarkozy has an answer. Subjugation of women is whole big debate and it is not restricted to only women in Burqas, who might just be wearing it to despise their men folks or the secular system itself.

Charles Flores

Jun 23rd 2009, 16:02

Thank goodness Maltese women don't wear the "ghonnella" anymore. They would have had a problem in France as well as 21st Century Malta. Sarkozy is right about religious symbols, though. Secular societies need to stress that religion is a personal and intimate matter and so should not be branded about as some sort of public mark of distinction on behalf of majority or minority-holders. Malta has a lot to learn from French secularism.

m azzopardi

Jun 23rd 2009, 15:49

While I understand that it is in Muslim culture and tradition that the women must be covered as much as possible,i don't agree with burkas.... What if a criminal disguises himself/herself in a burka?? A suspected terrorist had been caught in the UK while trying to escape wearing a burka !!
I am very soory but it shouldn't be allowed nowhere in the EU.

Danika Vella

Jun 23rd 2009, 15:21

I find Mr Sarkozy's statements quite insulting to those who hold freedom of choice at heart. This must therefore mean that Christians cannot wear the Cross either, because it is a religious sign.

But isn't this the same as dictating? In other words, Mr Sarkozy wants France to go back to the Middle Ages, the time of the Crusades, when the Christians wanted to impose their religion on the Islamic countries. However, in this case, it is not the 'Crusades', but the 'Secularades'... Mr Sarkozy wants to impose on everyone, be they Christians, Muslims, Protestants etc, secularism. No one is allowed to practice their religion in public anymore, unless it is secularism. It is the people who make a country secular, not a law passed by the state. Because if the state passes a law which most of the people disagree with, then that law is not there to help the people live a better life, but to oppress them.

I hope the French people will speak out against Mr Sarkozy's proposal.

Peter Sammut

Jun 23rd 2009, 12:51

Good for Sarkozy. Why should these women appear in public masked from head to foot, I class it as an insult when confronted by these masked beings, how dare they claim that unless masked, they run the danger of being raped by non muslims.... Deport these people to their islamic paradise.