Phileas #27 – What could possibly go wrong?…
August 9, 2010 by Florent
Filed under - The Phileas Club, .Episodes, Featured
On this episode, your hosts:
- Patrick Beja from France (notpatrick on Twitter)
- Turki from Saudi Arabia (saudi on Twitter)
- Kerwin from the UK (kerwindatu on Twitter)
- Shawn from the US (shawncoons on Twitter)
- Lertad from Thailand (lertad on Twitter)
Talk about:
- BP
- Russian Fires
- Illegal Immigration
- Burkas
- Religion
- Secularism
And more…
Listen to the show:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
And to find out more about our wonderful hosts, go here:
Turki : A Saudi Life
Kerwin : The Global Urbanist
Shawn : Shawn Coons
Lertad : Lertad (lûh’-täd)
Join us for next episode: August 28th.
I really enjoyed the show even though it was a bit more ‘heated’ than usual. I guess that is to be expected given the nature of the subject matter. But I tended to agree with Patrick’s points more than the others. From a certain cultural perspective anything (Slavery, cannibalism, headhunting) can be viewed as a ‘right’ or viewed as an oppression of that same right, depending on how legislation takes a position on it. But at a certain point society has to take a position on defining right or wrong and in the west the accepted view is that the majority has the power to make that decision. If society X says you cannot do A, but society Y says you can, then you go to society Y (unless society X prevents you, but that’s a different discussion). But then of course this leads back to the immigration problems you started the show with.
You didn’t really get in to it (at least that I know of,) but I think the best way to address the issues that the burqa leads to, which I will admit there could be some, would be to make the forcing of wearing the burqa the illegal act, and not the act of wearing the burqa. The example of slavery was brought up often, does it make sense to make being a slave illegal? Of course not, you need to make owning a slave illegal to prevent slavery. I feel that the same applies to other human rights violations, not to punish the victim of these violations, but the reason the rights are being infringed on.
It could be said that this is discriminatory to religious leaders, but as was said there are beliefs that should be unlawful to protect people in that religion from harm. Also, I don’t know of any other way to address the issue that would be less selective to specific religions.
Also, “Panda costumes are a prison.”
You’re right, Dramble, I don’t think we said it as clearly as you have here, and I agree wholeheartedly with most of what you say. The analogy with slavery, and the principle that we punish the violators of human rights, not the victims, are spot on.
However I don’t think it’s any simpler to punish those who force others to wear the burqa than it is to punish the wearing of it. I think the panda costume analogy still holds – can you punish managers of charities who require their staff to wear panda suits to collect money?
I know the analogy sounds absurd, but it helps separate the physical act of wearing the burqa from the social connotations of it. I don’t think you can address the physical act, whether wearing it or forcing someone to wear it. You can only address the social dysfunction behind it, but that’s a political problem, not a criminal one.
@Kerwin
I think there is a difference though. You can punish the managers of charities who require their staff to wear panda suits to collect money, if those managers do so in ways that are deemed inhumane to the staff. I had an opportunity to freelance as a character for Disney once and they had very strict rules they had to operate under with regard to how long an actor can be in a costume, how many handers each actor needed to have, etc. If Disney went against these rules (which would be a threat to the safety of the actor) they would be subject to litigation.
So in the same manner if wearing a burqa is not the ‘choice’ of the woman in question, but something that is forced upon her through threat of violence (physical, social, or emotional), then it becomes a problem that the state should address. Thus for me this becomes all about choice for the woman and the state making sure (through regulation) that she knows she has a choice and that there is legal recourse if she feels under threat for exercising her right of choice. I do agree that simply legislating against all burqa usage is far too simple, and takes it to the opposite extreme in that it also limits a woman’s choice in wearing it.
I really enjoyed this podcast. I discovered it recently and I’m glad I did. I agreed and disagreed with just about everyone at some point. While I don’t think oppressive religious beliefs should gain any special favor, banning burqas isn’t the answer, in my opinion. Instead, simply ban the requirement that women wear them (which is already in effect), as well as additionally protecting women who are otherwise forced by their religious community to participate in such things. Banning a symbol is like banning an idea, which should never be done in a free society.
I definitely took issue with just about all of Shawn’s comments regarding the link of religion and morality. Religious people for some reason seem to think they have a monopoly on morality despite the fact that far superior (in terms of being non-contradictory and non-arbitrary) moral systems have been formed from purely secular roots. The statement that we’d have less charitable donations without religion is baseless; this assumes that these otherwise religious people would suddenly cease to donate. And further, the largest charitable organization in the world was founded by an atheist, after all. People are perfectly capable of living with a feeling of purpose and cooperating without any superstitious justification.
You misunderstood what he was saying. He was just pointing out the large contributions, not stating that they are the only contributors. And because you think religious people think they have a monopoly on morality, you just interrupted what he said to mean that.
Sorry Bob, it’s far too easy to generalize when we’re talking about religious people. There are over 30,000 sects of Christianity alone, so pretty much any dart I throw will hit *someone* — and likely numbering in the *millions*. As you should well know, there are many religious people/groups who feel that morality does indeed stem from their own superstitious belief system; as does any sort of “purpose” in life, etc.
Shawn did indeed imply (if not explicitly say) that without religion, charitable donations would decrease. I was merely pointing out the error in his logic; the assumption that secular charities wouldn’t fill the void.
The religious component of charitable giving is very important. In the US individuals contrbuting far outstrips other wealthy countries individual givings that total and per capita. Most of those wealthy european countries are pretty secular with low church attendance whereas higher church attendance in the US helps with higher chaitable giving. Not saying church goers have higher morals but it just that there are more opportunities here for charitable giving.
Together religious and secular charities do great work, my church does good works and AFAN another charity I participate in does great work.
I didn’t bring it up on the day, Patrick, but what’s all this about France being in the centre of Europe? It’s clearly far to the West, all points claiming to be the centre being in German or Slavic-speaking countries.
Perhaps he meant the center of Western Europe? As an outsider (read: USAn) I tend to mentally split Western Europe (France, UK, Iberian Peninsula, and Italy) and Central/Eastern Europe (Balkans, Poland, western Russia etc)
Just so you know. The Double Shot is a place about a hour or two west of Houston, Texas. I saw it on the way back from a family reunion a year or two and my dad and I had to take a picture…
I heard about your podcast on TWiT… going to give it a (double) shot…
I really like the podcast, and the last episode was great. I think that there is one point that went overlooked. While the French law is called a “Burqa Ban” it is actually a ban on any facial covering. This was briefly mentioned by Kerwin, but it’s important because it covers more Islamic dress than just the burqa. This means that it would be illegal for a woman to wear a pair of slacks, a long sleeve shirt and the niqab, a veil that goes from ear to ear and covers the nose. The burqa is a very extreme garment that goes from head to toe, and the law as it was passes would affect more Muslim women wearing a niqab than a burqa.
As for the women who would be affected, it’s my personal opinion that the act of “liberating” them by outlawing the clothing that they wear may very well be setting some women who are forced to wear it free, however the vast majority of the women who do cover their face do so to remain comfortable in public. I’m not a religious person, but I respect the right of others to practice their religion as they choose, so long as it is not infringing upon others. I’ve met many Muslim women who wear traditional headscarves, and they do so not because it is imposed upon them by Patriarch, but as a sign of cultural identity. I imagine it’s the same for many women who choose to cover their face.
One interesting thing that Patrick didn’t mention about the guillotine was that it not only was a more humane method of death then the previous executions, it’s more humane than what we use now. A recent lethal injection took so long it was described as torture, after 90 minutes of pumping chemicals into him he still wasn’t dead ( http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/botched-execution-described-as-torture/ )
Other botched executions can be found at:
http://www.ccadp.org/botchedx.htm
If we were to use the guillotine instead of these more modern and less humane methods, it would be a swifter method that doesn’t damage the internal organs which, if healthy, could be used to save lives and hopefully balance out the lives lost from the crimes that would have led to the death penalty. All around less wasteful, less electrical and chemical cost, less waste of organs that can save people, less torturous executions…
I honestly and sincerely don’t like Shawn Coons that much. He’s too..argumentative. There’s a point of disagreeing, and that’s all well and good but he just keeps egging it on. Honestly, Turki and Kerwin as well as Lertad all made excellent points; but it seemed Mr. Coons was just attacking Patrick, and France, for the sake of attacking. Which turned me off completely to the show. Of course, this is one person’s interpretation (and as Patrick pointed out–I maybe wrong, this is my opinion.)
I want to make it clear, I am not saying that disagreeing is bad. But Mr. Coons takes it a bit too far, and does it a bit too aggressively.
That said, this show was good. It was nice to hear various point of views on the world topics that you don’t get to hear all the time.
I can get pretty argumentative – annoyingly so. It’s one of my many faults.
I certainly didn’t mean to come across attacking Patrick. Patrick and I have had quite a few on air and off air conversations/debates, so it’s quite possible that heated yet friendly banter between friends doesn’t play well to the public.
The only excuse I can offer is that as a person of faith this is an important matter to me – even if it’s not my faith. I am very uncomfortable with any government imposed restrictions on practicing religion.
I throughly enjoyed the show, especially the last half-hour. I sincerely wish that the USA had lived up the the promise of the first amendment’s Establishment clause. Instead, every time someone invokes separation of church an state, often for a perfectly rational reason, it becomes “an attack on Christianity.” Nevermind the thousands and thousands of other religions affected.
I live in a very conservative area of the country, and it annoys me to no end that I will probably have to send my child to a private Catholic school to escape the even worse religious indoctrination of the local public schools which are full of evangelical teachers. I can clearly see the sense in the idea of banning religious symbols from public schools altogether, even as worn by student.
Hello Patrick and crew,
Love your show!
I’m just listening to episode number 27 now and I would just like to comment on Shawn’s standpoint on religion and government. Shawn said he would like to see more religion combined with government and I couldn’t disagree with this more. Separation of Church and State. Religion should have absolutely no impact on government simply because religion can not apply to everyone all the time. Government can’t do this either, however, it’s the only currently acceptable system designed to do this.
Keep religion out of government and keep government out of religion.
I don’t remember precisely how I phrased it, but let me be clear that I don’t want religion and government combined in the sense that the government endorses or practices a religion. I don’t believe the U.S. should be a Christian nation or promote Christianity.
But I believe that people of faith who serve in the government should be guided by what their faith teaches them. My faith teaches me to love everyone, care of those in need, and give sacrificially. If I were to serve in the government I would be guided by these teachings in carrying out my job.
@ Shawn Coons. I’m not sure this is entirely relevant, but France/Europe has had a very, very turbulent history vis a vis religion, something that America never, despite all the things we’ve gone through with religion, have experienced. This might explain the fiercely secular attitude that you seem to be baffled by. After the Reformation (and even before) religious conflict tore a bleeding wound in Europe that took a *very * long time to heal. Countries (particularly the German states) were trampled into a pulp in the 30 year’s war. France was plunged into a de facto civil war between the Huguenots (Calvinists) and the Catholics, which in one memorable incident many thousands of people were murdered across the entire country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew's_Day_massacre). After this massive period of instability, religion became (I believe) a Bad Thing to be influenced by the state, or at least the intellectuals thought so.
errr *A Bad Thing to influence the state apologies for the double post.
One of your best shows. The show is often about discussions, this time a few where strongly motivated in the debate wih the other counting points or giving some good arguments.
Thanks tom for the summary of your situation.
The two following subjects wih Patrick and then turki were really interesting.
As french i’m concern with them.
About the expulsions, because as Patrick tried to clarify the political battles, the main issu was eluded. The expulsion in the suburb was really an isolated event, but the actions done to expulse gipsies isolate the whole roms population by saying the are all criminals. Would have love to hear a debate on this.
About the burka, the debate began as expected with Patrick and Turki with their own belief system, culture and history. And then the others come onboard and that was one of the best debate of the show, because you manage to stay objectives and made the debate evoluate with arguments.
Forgot the most important thing : thAnks for he show, keep up the good work
PS: patrick and turki don’t forget you’ve got really strong personnality and you are hard to convice especially when the tone rise (like you often do). This make the debate interesting (i was wondering if turki was going to kill Patrick for attacking his culture and believes system at the start). So never forget to invite people like kerwin, shawn and tom that manage to stay calm, find great argument (objectives or oriented by being a minister^^) and most of all that manage to canalize you two to make the debate advance
Parick was right and the rest were wrong about the burqua issue.
First from a security point of view it makes sense not to have the face covered up.
Secondly it is used as a tool to subjugate women. The facile argument about the gossamer thin wedding veil worn for a short time and halloween masks don’t do justice to the real issue. The full face veil is a control mechanism.
Also this really isn’t a religious issue. Islam does not mandate full face veils. This is a personal honor issue. The male head of household is the one who would have an affront to his honor if her face is seen. If a muslim woman integrates into western society it is seen by some muslims as a loss of face to her head of household. Not all muslims are like that, that’s why it is really not a religious issue.
I completely agree with Patrick on the burqa issue.
I believe that secularity is the only way forward for the world; Group A can have their various religions, while we godless liberals in Group B can enjoy gay marriage, stem cell research, unobscured women and much, much more.
What a great episode; for me podcasts are often background noise but this was so engaging and thought provoking throughout.
And although you all seemed to think Patrick was a lone voice I felt you were all bringing something different to the discussion. It really is a great format for a podcast.
Hi, as french student in Law, I feel like I need to explain some things about the project of “Burqua Law”.
First, the law forbide the wear of any clothing use as a way to hide his face in public space; it’s not any about burqua and It’s only in public space(constitued in streets, public open space or a place where a public service take place)
Second point, In the Law there is a special title named “De la Dissimulation forcée du visage”(litteraly mean:”About the forced hiding of the face”,not really sure of the translation) and as you read this part of the law you can easily understand that it’s the real aim of the law, in fact the sentence are much more hard when you are in the situation of forced wearing than by freewill.
I’m not that stupid I know that this law is, in fact, about burqua but I mean is that the law is not as “bad” as some people say.
If you want to check the Law: http://www.senat.fr/leg/pjl09-675.html (It’s in French) but if you got any question on it I will be happy to anwser.
I want to say one last thing, France always been a contry where “laïcité” take a huge place in our social comportment that can maybe explain a bit this law.
P.S.:I’m sorry if i made any english mistake, and I hope that my comment can maybe make you understand this law better.