It would have been more meaningful if she had supported the European country which provided her with a home and the European rights, including the freedom to dress how she wishes and to train in public places, instead.
What has the hijab and the rules surrounding it achieved for Hassan? Why doesn't she represent a predominately hijab wearing country if she feels so strongly about it?
Anyone else notice that when she was a member of NOP she never wore a hijib and then once she left it started to show up. So why the change? Did she all of a sudden discover her religion or did Nike/NOP stop her from wearing one
Quote. A report by the University of California Berkeley and the Council on American–Islamic Relations estimated that $206 million was funded to 33 groups whose primary purpose was "to promote prejudice against, or hatred of, Islam and Muslims" in the United States between 2008 and 2013, with a total of 74 groups contributing to Islamophobia in the United States during that period.[7] This has been referred to as the "Islamophobia industry" by scholars Nathan Lean and John Esposito.
End Quote
- Israel backup
- War of Afghanistan
- War of Iraq
- LGBT promotion
You are truly the head of the snake.
Your arrogance in thinking you know the nature and desire of God is breathtaking.
For your lack of humility you will be shown the error of your ways. For your hatred, even in the name of God, you will be shown the same mercy (or lack thereof) by God.
Hmmmm. Just another garden variety hi-jacking of one event to showcase someone's view or preference. There are now 1 billion and 1 ways to save the planet.
Why is this written as if it’s targeting the USA? The USA allows hijabs and supports religious freedom. I’m not Muslim and I think it’s great that she showed support for her religion.
It’s France and their fascist, leftist anti-religious laws that are in the wrong. Somehow, France managed to piss off Catholics and Muslims in a two-week span. That’s kind of their style, though…
Perhaps you should learn what the definition of "fascism" is.
In terms of the traditional left–right spectrum, fascism is placed on the far right. It is an authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement that is characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, and forcible suppression of opposition. Mussolini & Hilter are examples of fascist leaders.
There's nothing wrong with hijabs. It's certainly a higher rank than running around in f me cowboy boots.
But I can't trust someone who I can't see. If your covered from head to toe and I can't see your face it IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR ME to trust you. Who is in there?
Why is this written as if it’s targeting the USA? The USA allows hijabs and supports religious freedom. I’m not Muslim and I think it’s great that she showed support for her religion.
It’s France and their fascist, leftist anti-religious laws that are in the wrong. Somehow, France managed to piss off Catholics and Muslims in a two-week span. That’s kind of their style, though…
Perhaps you should learn what the definition of "fascism" is.
In terms of the traditional left–right spectrum, fascism is placed on the far right. It is an authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement that is characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, and forcible suppression of opposition. Mussolini & Hilter are examples of fascist leaders.
It reminds me very much of the reactionary right wingnut Christian and his belief that an evil cabal of "left wing billionaires" who hate God have taken over the USA.
These sorts of people worship Mammon not God. They love money and would be happily high fiving these billionaires every day if they were allowed in the club.
This whole backlash has been instigated by the upper classes, they want the backlash. Their not in any danger whatsoever, and certainly not from right wingers and their guns. They only ever use their guns when their told too anyway. Usually to kill people thousands of miles away.
There will be no civil war, no wall built, there will not be a mass exodus of "foreigners". Right wingers LOVE low wages and it's those sorts of people who will work low wages. If you got rid of them all they'd be replaced in no time. Right wingers despise minimum wages, despise any talk of "fairness". And therefore will always need an influx of poor people to fill the low wage society they love.
Perhaps you should learn what the definition of "fascism" is.
In terms of the traditional left–right spectrum, fascism is placed on the far right. It is an authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement that is characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, and forcible suppression of opposition. Mussolini & Hilter are examples of fascist leaders.
It reminds me very much of the reactionary right wingnut Christian and his belief that an evil cabal of "left wing billionaires" who hate God have taken over the USA.
These sorts of people worship Mammon not God. They love money and would be happily high fiving these billionaires every day if they were allowed in the club.
This whole backlash has been instigated by the upper classes, they want the backlash. Their not in any danger whatsoever, and certainly not from right wingers and their guns. They only ever use their guns when their told too anyway. Usually to kill people thousands of miles away.
There will be no civil war, no wall built, there will not be a mass exodus of "foreigners". Right wingers LOVE low wages and it's those sorts of people who will work low wages. If you got rid of them all they'd be replaced in no time. Right wingers despise minimum wages, despise any talk of "fairness". And therefore will always need an influx of poor people to fill the low wage society they love.
Perhaps you should learn what the definition of "fascism" is.
In terms of the traditional left–right spectrum, fascism is placed on the far right. It is an authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement that is characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, and forcible suppression of opposition. Mussolini & Hilter are examples of fascist leaders.
What exactly are you arguing here? Are you arguing that France is a far right country/government? I don't think you would argue that. Clearly it is not.
Are you arguing that suppressing religion is not a tool of fascist leaders? Of course it is. They have all done it. They move toward a clerical religion of the State. Mussolini and Hitler both did this. Eliminating religious freedoms is a strong tool in the fascist playbook.
Perhaps you should learn what the definition of "fascism" is.
In terms of the traditional left–right spectrum, fascism is placed on the far right. It is an authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement that is characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, and forcible suppression of opposition. Mussolini & Hilter are examples of fascist leaders.
What exactly are you arguing here? Are you arguing that France is a far right country/government? I don't think you would argue that. Clearly it is not.
Are you arguing that suppressing religion is not a tool of fascist leaders? Of course it is. They have all done it. They move toward a clerical religion of the State. Mussolini and Hitler both did this. Eliminating religious freedoms is a strong tool in the fascist playbook.
No, that's not what I am arguing. I am pointing out the OP's misuse of "fascism." The OP equated fascism to ideology of the left.
Here is the quote that I was responding to:
"It’s France and they're fascist, leftist anti-religious laws that are in the wrong. Somehow, France managed to piss off Catholics and Muslims in a two-week span. That’s kind of their style, though…"
I think you're too caught up in left vs. right. I presume you've heard of horseshoe theory, and also realize that the politics of the early 1900s have changed quite drastically? France is not currently at risk of being labeled a far-right autocracy, but they do show tendencies of fascism in their anti-religious policies. I think Americans like to link fascism to the Republican Party for political reasons, but fascism is a dangerous animal that can pop up anywhere. Currently, it is the left that is moving towards strong anti-religious positions.
I think you're too caught up in left vs. right. I presume you've heard of horseshoe theory, and also realize that the politics of the early 1900s have changed quite drastically? France is not currently at risk of being labeled a far-right autocracy, but they do show tendencies of fascism in their anti-religious policies. I think Americans like to link fascism to the Republican Party for political reasons, but fascism is a dangerous animal that can pop up anywhere. Currently, it is the left that is moving towards strong anti-religious positions.
I can somewhat understand that but some of the positions being proffered by those on the right seem to violate the principle of separation of church & state.
The words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the U.S. Constitution, but that concept is enshrined in the very first freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Known as the establishment clause, the opening lines of the First Amendment prohibit the government from creating an official religion or favoring one religion (or nonreligion) over another.
What is currently happening in some states, and being advanced by republicans, is the display of the Ten Commandments and prayer in public schools. In Louisiana the governor has stated that all public schools and universities must display the Ten Commandments by January. His answer to parents that are uncomfortable with this? "Tell your child not to look."
I'm Jewish and if I has a child that had a child attending public school in Louisiana, or a public school in a state that mandates prayer, I would not be happy. Muslims would be right to feel the same way.
If you feel that positions that the left holds about situations similar to what is going on in some schools is "anti-religious," I would argue that your opinion is misguided. If parents want their children to attend schools where religion is part of the education, they should have their children attend schools offering that, not a public school.
I can somewhat understand that but some of the positions being proffered by those on the right seem to violate the principle of separation of church & state.
The words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the U.S. Constitution, but that concept is enshrined in the very first freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Known as the establishment clause, the opening lines of the First Amendment prohibit the government from creating an official religion or favoring one religion (or nonreligion) over another.
What is currently happening in some states, and being advanced by republicans, is the display of the Ten Commandments and prayer in public schools. In Louisiana the governor has stated that all public schools and universities must display the Ten Commandments by January. His answer to parents that are uncomfortable with this? "Tell your child not to look."
I'm Jewish and if I has a child that had a child attending public school in Louisiana, or a public school in a state that mandates prayer, I would not be happy. Muslims would be right to feel the same way.
If you feel that positions that the left holds about situations similar to what is going on in some schools is "anti-religious," I would argue that your opinion is misguided. If parents want their children to attend schools where religion is part of the education, they should have their children attend schools offering that, not a public school.
Okay, I think we agree? You took this is a very strange direction and I don't disagree with anything you've written. We were talking about France, fascism, the prohibition of religion and religious symbols. I don't know how to respond to your post other than to say that I agree the 10 Commandments shouldn't be required in public school classrooms.
When Sifan Hassan stepped onto the Olympic podium to accept her gold medal for the record-setting marathon she ran on Sunday, she used her platform to show support to Muslim women around the world by wearing a hijab. In many parts of the world, the choice wouldn’t have been noteworthy, but in Paris, where French athletes were banned from wearing hijabs during this year’s Olympics, it sent a powerful message. Hassan — an Ethiopian-born Dutch athlete — doesn’t appear to usually wear a hijab, making her decision to wear one on Sunday night all the more stirring. On X, people praised her decision to support athletes and other hijabis in France, who are frequently discriminated against for wearing religious coverings.
I like Sifan but the hijab is a horrible symbol of the Islamic oppression of women
there is a reason why she moved to a European country and not to a Muslim country!
she enjoys the freedom and opportunity that the Netherlands provides her but she wants to do this virtue signaling for this women oppressing religion ?