determining the extent to which a woman can participate in the freedom of being an adult without being charged with taking part in her own rape is, to some people, fraught with gray areas. if she drinks, if she dances suggestively, if she shows to much skin, if she tells dirty jokes, well, some could say that she made herself a more appealing target to a potential rapist and thus took a risk, the consequences of which she must pay for.

it is interesting to note, however, that few, if any other "risks" is society are accompanied by such castigation of the victim. if the residents of a house leave their curtains open and all of their pretty things are visible to passers by, we wouldnt say they "asked" to be robbed. if someone forgets to lock a sliding glass door and is burgled, we would also probably be sympathetic rather than quick to cast blame. if a man wears a rolex while getting gas in a questionable neighborhood, we also would probably not say he "asked" to be liberated, or should share in the blame of its theft. for some reason, however, rape is treated as Something Completely Different. Somehow, women are able to make themselves available for rape, just by going out, having a drink, going to a party...in short, acting like adults...

if i remember correctly, the judge informed the applicant that she was not sufficiently assimilated because she was in total and complete submission to her male relatives. additionally, Amara said she hoped the ruling would "dissuade certain fanatics from imposing the burqa on their wives."

let's say for a moment that it's true that women in the niqab are not choosing to wear it, and that they are, indeed, being forced to by their husbands and fathers. if this is the case, why punish the women? why isn't the applicant's HUSBAND who is being denied citizenship for insufficient assimilation since he is apparently the one forcing his wife to wear the damn thing? why aren't men who "require" their wives to wear niqab or burqa the ones being punished?

even if we decide to accept the French point of view that women are being forced to dress in this manner (and this is, of course, not necessarily the case) it STILL makes no sense to punish women for being forced into what Amara herself called "a prison... a straitjacket...[and] the insignia of a totalitarian political project that advocates inequality between the sexes."

good work france! way to punish the victims of inequality!

" But James Carse doesn't see them as religious conflicts at all. To him, they are battles over rival belief systems, which may or may not have religious overtones. "

again, i must disagree with james carse. so much to disagree with him on. and, lest i be lumped in with those "unqualified" to comment on religion, i will disclose that i am in the islamic studies doctoral program at a UC school.

the conflicts listed, to a one, are political conflicts that are cast in terms of religious rhetoric. to say that israel/palestine is a conflict over religion, or even belief systems, is to ignore the fact that both parties are essentially disputing rights to valuable real estate. protestants and catholics in ireland, the shia and sunni in iraq, and the events of 9/11, though often couched in religious rhetoric, are political events wherein power, money, land, water, oil, or other economic pursuits are contested by two different groups. religion, being that it is divinely sourced, somehow above criticism, and sent by god, is the most powerful of rhetorical devices and justifications for action, and it is thus religious imagery that is often used to motivate believers to rally to a given cause.

it is profoundly surprising that dr carse, a tenured professor at an esteemed university, would fail to recognize the political, resource-driven, and economic dimension to these conflicts.

so much to say. so little time.

carse's statement that believing in "to be an atheist is not to be stunned by the mystery of things or to walk around in wonder about the universe", made after referencing Dawkins, tells me that he probably has not actually read the works of richard dawkins, or if he has, that he hasn't understood it. dawkins speaks at length about his fascination with the natural and physical world, and his intent motivation to learn about it. in fact, Einstein, who quite evidently wondered about the universe and seemed to even be stunned about the mysteries of things, was an atheist, and somehow he managed.

it is also completely, totally, and in all ways baffling to me why an atheist has to be clear about which faith he or she is turning her back to. from what i can tell, carse never says why he feels this way or provides a reason why this is the case. atheists, as carse admits, can be involved with, and passionate about, belief systems that are traditionally described as religions, such as judaism, jainism, confucianism, daoism, and buddhism, and therefor, i assume he means that atheists must declare exactly which god he or she is choosing not to follow. he provides no reason for this, and none are immediately clear.

and lastly, is the age-old claim that people such as dawkins or harris are not "experts" in religion and ergo are not qualified to comment on the ludicrousness of some of their teachings. reading the bible, being raised in a christian household, and living in what is, in practice, a christian country somehow "qualifies" a person to speak at length about the benefits and beauty of christianity, but not, for some reason, its problems and its more dangerous aspects, is also (of course) not discussed.

does the model look to be barely sixteen?