Teenage Iranian chess master banned from team for refusing to wear "hijab".

I don't want to fund endless wars for oil, have the armed forces be the worlds police force. Yet I'm force to do it.
Stop all gov't funding that people don't want to pay for.

 

You have no moral right to tell another person how to treat their body.
God does not run this country. You can't even prove your god is the god for all people or any people. It is just a belief. We don't need christian sharia law forcing people do live against their beliefs.

Live how you want, but don't force your belief onto the world. That's what islamic fundies are trying to do. Yes, in a more violent way, but for the very same reasons as you.

 

2 points in response to your drivel:

1- You have no clue what war with Iran would involve. And the picture you post, from the so-called 'highway of death', shows you have no clue about what led to the easy US victory over Saddam either. A dictator who was armed to the teeth, in the process ending up with $500 billion debt owed to its Arab league, Warsaw Pact and NATO supporters, was then cut from those supporters and had to fight the US in dynamics which - unlike the Iran-Iraq war - didn't give the dictator the means he needed to have anyone fight for him (namely, international support and superiority in military hardware) but forced him to rely on soldiers who had no reason to sacrifice for the dictator and were ready to surrender to journalists. Even then, Desert Storm actually wasn't even a war because right before the start of "offensive operations", Saddam decided to pull his troops out of Kuwait, where they were butchered while try to leave in the so-called highway of death. In other words, if the idiot had decided to fight the US, not in 'open desert tank warfare' (which might have worked against an Iran isolated from weapons supplies, but certainly not against the US and its coalition), but instead used them for urban warfare in places like Kuwait city, then you could at least say you were fighting a war!

2- In any case, what you think isn't all that germane! Those in position to decide these things in the US military have enough of an understanding of what war with Iran could entail that every time an idiot has decided he likes to pick a fight with Iran, they have basically stopped him. That was the case with Bush and will likely be the case with Trump as well. Heck, even an avowed Iran basher -- someone who is known to hold a grudge against Iran - namely, your new secretary of defense Mattis, knows better that if it comes to war with Iran, we are talking about a real war which will be fought in many places and on different arenas.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/james-mattis-iran-secretary-of-defense-214500

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/james-mattis-iran-secretary-of-defense-214500

 

l don't know about "Muslim armies", since the ones you are referring to are the ones being propped up against Iran. As for Iran, however, I know the following: 1- the so-called 'dress rehearsal' for war against Iran, namely the Israel-Hezbollah war in 2006, didn't go well for the Israelis! 2- The US and Iran have been engaged in numerous proxy wars over different arenas and, whether in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, or now Yemen, the American proxies haven't fared all that well.

I hope there won't be any war with Iran and, in fact, I wish those who have a grudge or following Israel and Wahhabi Arabia's lead when it comes to Iran, would change their tune. Such a war would be disastrous for Iran. That much is almost certain. But I am pretty sure such a war would be a disaster for a lot of other states as well, the US included.

 

I am not religious and don't care to engage in a debate about religion. However, the closest thing that comes to the "Islam" you describe is what is practiced by America's allies in Wahhabi Arabia and the forces they have often sponsored in the past, including the likes of Al Queda and ISIS. Groups whose main venom and focus of hatred happens to be Shia Muslims.

Requiring women to cover their hair by wearing a head scarf, whether wise or stupid in your eyes, is no different in concept than requiring women to cover their breasts. It is just that you have different cultural sensibilities at work. If you aren't used to a head scarf, its a hassle and if you don't like someone telling you what to wear, it is annoying. I understand that perspective. But I also understand that the picture you like to present about Iran is fundamentally a false picture and ultimately a lie. Despite having some archaic rules on the surface, Iran is actually a very different society than what you paint and has a host of other rules, conventions, and practices that mitigate against the thrust of the archaic rules which Iran (in practice) is actually updating and making more in tune with the demands of a modern society.

 

I think that you have backed yourself into a corner. What you've just said is centered round a religion. A religion which is part of the state. Which is the state. Here you are a self-appointed representative of some other state that commits itself to each and every one of your examples;

1). cruel, dogmatic, oppressive

2). preach committing acts of hatred, violence, murder

3). insane intolerance against "infidels" and others who don't believe as they do.

Rather than "Infidel" > read American anti-Democratic principles.

4). What better example of this insanity can there be than the fact that various sects of Islam can't even tolerate each other?!

Rather than "sects of Islam" > read racial/class/wealth intolerance.

Or if you absolutely must focus on religion you might have high-lighted intolerance within the sects of Christianity: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestantism, etc. etc. etc.

What you probably ought to have said was:

* If mankind is ever going to ascend into some sort of "next-higher" level of development, it would be better for us all if things like violent, intolerant, hateful governing completely disappear from human experience... I do not see that religion is particularly important in a secular nation that is guilty of everything you've just condemned as being counter-productive to 'ascending into some sort of next-higher level of development'. "Religious"? "Secular"? What's the difference if the outcome is the same?

I know that you've expressed a sensible intro on equal disdain against cruel, dogmatic, oppression - no matter how it is packaged, but ..... the unfortunate bottom line is that your contribution is little better than phobic, despite your gallant efforts to avoid it.

 

Word, money.

 

I see. But you apparently have a “moral right” to tell the child in the womb what you plan to do with his or her body. God or no God, what you are demanding is still immoral and a crime against nature.

So says you.

Nor do we need people like you telling others how they can vote or what reasons they can use to vote one way, and what reasons they cannot use to vote a particular way. Cannot see how unjust and unlawful that is can you?

Force?... how so? By voting for the candidate of my choice, same as you?

 

I'm casually aware of the conflict between the Shi'a and Sunni sects of Islam. Like you, I don't care to engage in a debate about religion, per se. I could point out, as I have many, many times, that Islam itself (the whole thing) is based on the Quran, And the Quran itself is a template for extolling the "virtues" of man's prescribed inhumanity to man -- or, certainly those that are infidels": http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

With all our flaws and imperfections, we in "the West" have based our social interactions and beliefs on the bedrock of the Constitution (and similar compacts) which guarantee FREEDOM for the individual citizen to do and be whoever and whatever he/she/it pleases, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of other citizens. And, yes, unlike Iran, we make it very, very clear in our Constitution that there shall be no "official" government religion -- let alone the insanity of an avowed theocracy....

Muslims (whether Shi'a or Sunni) evidently don't care if a dictatorial theocracy comprised of priests issues edicts, based on their "holy book" about who can do what in their society. But as a person whose personal philosophy was inculcated with a devout belief in FREEDOM of the individual, I reject, despise, and condemn all such priests, "holy books", and religions that suppress human freedom -- especially after the world's major religions have ceased violent, dogmatic, hateful practices hundreds of years ago... all except ONE -- Islam....

If a theocracy is what pleases Iranians, then so be it. I would suggest that Dorsa Derakhshani leave Iran until/unless these Islamo-priests are thrown out of power. Now, the choice is hers... unless they decide to imprison her for being some kind of "infidel". BTW, if women want to expose their breasts, that's all right with me....

I wasn't trying to be "gallant" at all. And I reject your attempt to try to ameliorate the despicable, dictatorial practices of the Iranian theocracy in this issue. Moreover, it really doesn't have anything to do with "racial/class/wealth intolerance". What international socialist propaganda mill did you get that from?! A brutal, oppressive, dictatorial government made up of priests is wholly abhorrent to me -- no matter WHAT religion it's based on!

Lastly, as I've already explained, I don't care what religious beliefs other people have. They can dress up in costumes and worship "The Great Tree Lizard" for all I care! But the essence of the thing is that they do not (NOT) inflict their beliefs on other people! Have I finally made it plain enough now? There is an enormous difference between "secular" governments and theocracies, and that's part of why our Constitution expressly forbade the adoption of any "official" religion in the United States. But you assert that "the outcome is the same"? Then how do you account for the enormous difference between what we are seeing in "the West" and what we are seeing in countries completely dominated by Islam?!

."Hey, I never force my chess masters to wear their head in a bag! Don't blame me!"

 

Exactly. What many hate about radical islam can be found right in our own political fights. Minus the killing. But we won't reach a higher level of development as humans if we keep wanting to go back to the good ole days.

- - - Updated - - -

Words. We all pay for things we don't necessarily agree with. But we are a nation of over 300M, there will always be some not wanting to pay for certain things. Always.

 

OT, I have no moral right either. The woman in question has her moral right.

So says our constitution. If you don't like our constitution I suggest you change it or leave the country.

I am not telling anyone how they can vote, but those in office do have to follow the constitution. A person's individual rights will trump your religious belief.

By having who you vote for follow the constitution. And not your personal belief. You can have your belief, you just can't use your vote to instill your belief if it's against the constitution. Maybe you'd be better off in Iran. They have a belief very similar to yours.

 

I don't want to pay for most things across the board. At least not to the extent we are paying now. It's our money. We best decide how to spend it; not some bureaucrat thousands of miles away.

 

I don't think anyone, left or right, would deny that the Iranian government sucks a big one.

 

The tax rate we pay on average hasn't changed in decades. Back 30+ yrs ago we all heard about this tax freedom day. Typically around early to mid April. Is the day we would be free from all taxes bestowed upon us for the rest of the year.

The date moves very little, perhaps a few days to a week. But it hasn't moved from that little bit of movement in at least 35 yrs, maybe longer.
Mostly taxes will just shuffle from 1 area to another. There is a base that needs to be covered so there will always be a minimum paid.

And very very little of anyone's taxes went to abortion. Magnitudes less than what goes into military police actions around the world.

 

>>So says our constitution. If you don't like our constitution I suggest you change it or leave the country.

The point was this. You said >> “God does not run this country. You can't even prove your god is the god for all people or any people. It is just a belief." << We do not dismiss the reality of God and His revelations from how we order our lives as easy as you do. Don’t be surprised we agree on almost nothing.

>>A person's individual rights will trump your religious belief.

Then why do we have ten thousand laws? Because "individual rights" cannot run rampant. You are being very selective in the ones you don't like.

>>By having who you vote for follow the constitution. And not your personal belief. You can have your belief, you just can't use your vote to instill your belief if it's against the constitution. Maybe you'd be better off in Iran. They have a belief very similar to yours.

Yeah, sure. Except your heroes are adept at bastardizing and fancifully interpretating the constitution to their fancy. As though they can take 5 words and create a whole ideologly out of that. We can do as well which is why so many decisions are split down the middle.

Recall during Clinton’s reign the congress voted greatly in favor of disallowing a number of practices with late term partial birth abortions. Clinton gladly signed the law. About three weeks later some circuit court judge ruled the matter and struck down the rule. Is that because it clearly said in the Constitution you need to let doctors rip apart 8 month old unborn children? Hold on to your beliefs as though you have truth on your side. We are not impressed.

 

I agree but I am not certain that I understand what you mean by "Minus the killing". What about war-making?

 

If you should decide to read my response to you again, try reading what I actually said.

 

If you don't want to engage in debate about religion, particularly one you don't understand, you shouldn't. As an aside, the sources of law under Shia Islamic jurisprudence include, besides scripture, reason and consensus of shia religious scholars. Unlike Sunnis, the shia have a clerical establishment of sorts. Trained religious scholars who attain the rank of Ayatollah then become sources of emulation and the faithful choose between them, with the ones whose teachings garner the most following becoming the leading religious scholars or grand Ayatollahs. This whole process affords a vehicle to make sure that provisions of scripture which to layman may mean one thing are interpreted within a whole philosophical and social network and base which can often lead to totally different perspective on the issue. The fact that in Iran such religious scholars have to actually deal with the day to day impact of their rulings, and its socio-political implications, means you have a process which (on top of the influence of Persian culture and civilization) produces more flexibility in religious interpretation than you care to imagine.

 

We don't have to agree. But we have to let our constitution rule the laws of our land. And it says you don't get to use your personal religion to make laws that the rest of us have to follow. Or if we do, then we have to let every religions laws rule our land. Including Sharia. If you want 1 religion to dictate laws, our constitution says all religions get to dictate our laws. Or none, preferred, get to dictate our laws. So you can't use a god to say this is how everyone must live. For many don't even think your god exists. And you don't even know if your god exists. You can only believe it. You will never, and neither will any other person, ever prove your god exists. We can't make laws based on fantasy.

I am not being selective. I am being consistent. I don't what christian god, jewish god, islam god, buddah god, hindu god, none of them making our laws in our country. For they can't. All those gods can do, since they don't really exist, is have people interpret what some man wrote to thinking he heard some voice that said to do this or don't do that. Again, we don't need laws based on someones crazy voices heard in their head.
If you don't like something because of your belief, fine, don't do it. But don't make me or my family live like you think we should live. I want nothing to do with your lifestyle.
If one does something that doesn't affect you or your family, but the hell out. You don't need to make a law just because you don't like something someone does that has ZERO effect on you.

How has the constitution been bastardized? Be specific.

No one impressed with your desire to install christian sharia law.
Learn how to cut the quote brackets and paste. Then your posts/replies won't be so hard to respond to.

- - - Updated - - -

I meant by non gov't entities. Yes our gov't is as bad as radical islam trying to make others conform to our ideology.

 

I was just going over what you know already, that Iran would be crushed in a conventional war with US/NATO.

Iran's only way forward to fight like every other Islamic terror faction---by fighting a dirty guerilla war. Having troops hide among civilians, laying mines (that kill 4 civilians to every enemy soldier), having civilian women and children move arms.

And speaking of children, don't forget your government used child soldiers conscripted off the streets to fight Saddam.

Mattis must fight by rules---I'd fight you almost the same as we did the Jap and Germans in WW 2.

 

Yes. That is the link between the two. Whether it is the ISLAMIC government of Iran or the SECULAR government of the US they both fit the bill when it comes to killing. In fact Iran cannot hold a candle to the US when it comes to killing, and that holds true in both the private sector and state sponsored.

 

As I said earlier, I'm not interested in Islam's internecine disputes between Shi'a and Sunni sects that seem to orbit around silly "family disputes" that began way back in ancient times. I'm interested in WHAT ISLAM DOES TO PEOPLE TODAY!

Again, in an attempt to focus on the issue at hand, there is no justification imaginable for the legitimate government of any civilized society in the 21st Century to forbid a female chess master the ability to compete, merely because he refuses to put her head in a sack, wrap it with towel, or stuff it in a bag!

Anyone who defends a tyrannical theocracy, in Iran or anywhere else, in doing this kind of thing is just another kind of person like there were so many of in Nazi Germany. They might not have been members of the Nazi Party, but they were quite willing to "go along with" whatever Hitler and his monsters were inflicting on anyone they could get their hands on. Realistically, what is the difference between any theocracy and a country ruled by rabid "Nazis"?

The real irony of this whole, disgusting thing is that PERSIA was one of the very first places in the world that chess was played after it originated in China.... But, that was LONG before the beginnings of Islam....

."We made no rule about having to wrap your head in a bag in order to play chess."

 

I admit I haven't followed this thread at all because it seems absolutely obvious on the face of things that punishing the young female chess player for not
covering herself in compliance with asinine religious dictates is wrong and incompatible with a 21st century world where females are not treated as
chattle by any state or religion, save for Islam.

But is anyone defending Iran's decision or capitulation here? It seems astonishing to me.

 

Take a little while and read through the posts in this thread. You'll be amazed as some of the rationalizations... some of which are artfully constructed, but nearly all of which ignore the basic fact of the matter which you identified with such clarity.

Frankly, I'm amazed that now, in the 21st Century, anybody could still be tyrannical and obsessive enough to even CARE about whether a woman is wearing a bag on her head or not, unless it's being done as some kind of joke.... But when it's not a joke but a COMMAND issued in the name of somebody's "religion" then there is only one lens that any civilized person can see it through -- autocratic, tyrannical despotism!

."The next time I see you you'd better have bags over your heads!"

 

What, no one else is praising you?