Rachel Ray's Scarf

Its a donut advert....

I'm aware. But symbols matter to some people, or more importantly the ideas so symbolized. It's the same reason people boycott teamakers and football teams for using images of Indians, why rightists get upset at flag-burners or leftists at those who show images of aborted fetuses during abortion clinic protests, etc.

Sure, not everyone who wears a keffiyeh is demonstrating their "solidarity" with Palestinian terrorists; I certainly don't think Rachel Ray was (I doubt she was even allowed to dress herself for that commercial). The point is, enough are that some will find efforts to mainstream it outrageous.

FYI, Malkin qualified her criticism of Dunkin's by pointing out how good they are about other conservative issues, like immigration enforcement, so it's hardly about the business or the product they're selling.
 
Werbung:
I really didn't know this was such a huge deal. I mean you could potentially piss off just about anyone by wearing just about anything....at what point does reality check in and people just look and see clothes...nothing symbolic just ...clothes!!

Let me qualify the above a tad, if it was a t-shirt that said "I wanna blow up the USA" okay fair cop but hey...its a scarf?
 
Try to imagine if she had worn a T-shirt with a Crusader's cross on it. The reaction would be comparable.

I dont think the reaction would be comparable at all. As the uproar came from the American right wing.
 
I really didn't know this was such a huge deal. I mean you could potentially piss off just about anyone by wearing just about anything....at what point does reality check in and people just look and see clothes...nothing symbolic just ...clothes!!

Let me qualify the above a tad, if it was a t-shirt that said "I wanna blow up the USA" okay fair cop but hey...its a scarf?

I tend not to care so much. If they find it objectionable I'd rather they go after the fashion designers than the hapless tools who wear the clothes. But I can see their point.

I dont think the reaction would be comparable at all. As the uproar came from the American right wing.

Which would make it not OK?
 
It sounds to me like he (and you) are trying to BS your way out of a stupid outrageous idea he concocted.

No, he (and I) are explaining how the idea works. The headline sensationalizes the whole thing. He is not and was never suggesting that Sharia law trump the current British legal system completely.
 
The whole thing is ridiculous. The kaffiyeh is no more a symbol of Palestinian terrorism than whatever brand of shoes Himmler favored were a symbol of Nazism.
 
No, he (and I) are explaining how the idea works. The headline sensationalizes the whole thing. He is not and was never suggesting that Sharia law trump the current British legal system completely.

That a country adopt a dual legal system at all, and particularly to warp the UK to the preferences of immigrants, and most especially to a legal system that sounds like europe in the sixth century BC, merits nothing but a laugh.
 
That a country adopt a dual legal system at all, and particularly to warp the UK to the preferences of immigrants, and most especially to a legal system that sounds like europe in the sixth century BC, merits nothing but a laugh.

This is a rhetorical argument I assume as its unlikely to happen. The thrust of the lecture (widely mis-reported) was an intellectual debate wherein the introduction of elements of family law already assumed in UK civil law were allowed recognition within Sharia law and visa-versa.

Masher may I offer some friendly advice? you really ought to read the whole lecture the archbishop gave as you seem to be slightly awry in the thrust of your argument and in your conclusions :) Many people reacted like you in that they failed to understand the basis of the lecture and the context within which he was making the lecture. The problem is that the archbishop is a highly intelligent man and the audience he was addressing were similarly inteligent people that understood the meaning and context. Unfortunately and to the detriment of their profession the reporters seemed unable to grasp the substance of what he was saying and accordingly mis-reported the whole thing.

Instead, in the interview, rather than proposing a parallel system of law, he observed that "as a matter of fact certain provisions of sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law" . When the question was put to him that: "the application of sharia in certain circumstances - if we want to achieve this cohesion and take seriously peoples' religion - seems unavoidable?", he indicated his assent.

The lecture is here for you to read.....

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575
 
Werbung:
I read all his blather.

Rowan Williams is nothing but a standard liberal cleric. Anti-american, pro-homosexual, feminist, islamo-apologist, socialist, etc etc etc.

He's one of these leftwing parsasites who depends on everything he has, including his safety, to the same democratic/capitalist states he criticizes.

He's also contributed to the breaking up of the Episcopal Church (the anglican communion in america).
 
Back
Top