Ban On The Islamic Face Veil

[Amppax]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1302845660' post='2228865']
burqa = face veil?

I thought burqas were the whole body thangs. So what are you asking about? Or maybe I'm just dumb nevermind

even IF certain Islamic clothing is oppressive to women (which is a big if as, it varies from case to case) it seems rather odd for the government to swoop in and say "we're gonna tell you what YOU can't wear so that YOU won't be oppressed. No thanks needed. Just doin our job."

I guess I don't see it practical that a bunch of Islamic women are sitting around like "Finally! Now I can no longer be oppressed because the government is gonna protect me from my culturally-backwards husband! YAY!"

I see it is this. There are A) Islamic women choose to wear burqas of their own free will with their full consent for either religious or cultural reasons B) Islamic women who wear burqas because they have been conditioned to believe their adherence to traditional dress it contingent upon their devotion to God and thus their salvation C) Islamic women who are married to controlling, abusive a-holes who force them to wear burqas or face an honor killing

you can't tell group A they [i]can't[/i] wear something. My God, it's not a government's job to tell people what intelligent human beings can wear. It's so ludicrous that it's almost laughable.

OK so what about group B? The group who still holds these "superstitions" and live in unnecessary fear of offending God and their husbands, those poor women, all afraid and all. If only they would embrace our enlightened philosophy they could be liberated! Well, if religion is woven into the fabric of a family, or a culture, or a person then reconciling faith with the secular culture they inhabit is always gonna have tension and perhaps come with a little bit of anxiety. Secular folks sometimes think "as soon as they see the light they will change to our ways and they'll be happier and we'll be happier and we can all hold hands and dance in the bubblegum fields and ride our pet unicorns! And beaver dam it if they refuse to even look at the light, we're just gonna have to make them. They'll be mad at first but they'll thank us later.

And as for group C, you think that a lil puny law is gonna liberate those women? Come on now. If there are fundamentalist Muslim men who view women as their property and he sees his wife walking around Paris showing all her stuff (by this I mean the eyes, the chin, perhaps the nose?) he's gonna be all cool with that? And the wife can just say "oh honey it's the law" and it's all peachy from there? Please . . .

So not only is a law banning this type of dress absolutely impractical in almost all cases, the government can't and shouldn't try to tell grown adults how to dress. It's insane. And it's a form of cultural imperialism, ironic of a liberal, open-minded, and tolerant country eh? Nevermind y'all already know the hypocrisy of the tolerance-movement.

peace
[/quote]

Well said, I think that about covers it[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/like.gif[/img]

Edited April 15, 2011 by Amppax

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1302845660' post='2228865']


you can't tell group A they [i]can't[/i] wear something. My God, it's not a government's job to tell people what intelligent human beings can wear. It's so ludicrous that it's almost laughable.


[/quote]
I'll keep that in mind next time I walk about public in my birthday suit.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='ardillacid' timestamp='1302876925' post='2228900']
I'll keep that in mind next time I walk about public in my birthday suit.
[/quote]

I knew someone might mention that

I'm not sure if anyone wants to see your naked arse, but if you want to run around naked in your birthday suit and you get arrested they might throw you in jail in which you will then thank your lucky stars that they don't throw you in a cell with a bunch of unknown men without a pair of pantaloons.

BUT if that logic doesn't work for you ok. Still it's not the government telling you that you [i]can't[/i] wear something, it's telling you that you at least gotta wear something. Cultural reasons aside I would say this law is more of a safety and public health issue.

I don't know if you're only being facetious, but since I didn't think anyone would have a serious contention with what I said based on laws regarding public nudity, I left this out.

cheers

[Nihil Obstat]

If he wants to walk around naked, I'm not about to stop him... and I'm not going to tell other people to lock him up for me and beat him up too. That would be rather wrong.

[emilier98]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1302926380' post='2229182']
If he wants to walk around naked, I'm not about to stop him... and I'm not going to tell other people to lock him up for me and beat him up too. That would be rather wrong.
[/quote]

There is a actually a man that rides his bike through the University of Oregon campus early every morning completely naked. No one bothers him, he doesn't get arrested and no he is not a student, nor is he attractive, but hey he doesn't bother anyone.

[add]

France has just banded [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxIuIxqo2So&feature=player_[/media]

[add]

[b]Catholic School Bans muslim girls From Wearing Face Veil During Official Visit![/b]


[url="http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/catholic-school-bans-muslim-girls-from-wearing-face-veil-during-official-visit/"]My link[/url]

[cmotherofpirl]

I have no problem banning a veil that covers someones face in public. If you want your face entirely covered stay home.

[havok579257]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1302960978' post='2229222']
I have no problem banning a veil that covers someones face in public. If you want your face entirely covered stay home.
[/quote]


an whats to stop the secular government from moving on to any head coverings for women? what happens when they make a law forcing nuns to show their entire head or be arrested?

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1302926380' post='2229182']
If he wants to walk around naked, I'm not about to stop him... and I'm not going to tell other people to lock him up for me and beat him up too. That would be rather wrong.
[/quote]

It would be wrong . . . if he wasn't such a smart arse. He needs a little learnin' courtesy of the US justice system IMO.

[quote name='emilier98' timestamp='1302940771' post='2229203']
There is a actually a man that rides his bike through the University of Oregon campus early every morning completely naked. No one bothers him, he doesn't get arrested and no he is not a student, nor is he attractive, but hey he doesn't bother anyone.
[/quote]

lawl. That's actually pretty funny. I personally wouldn't have a problem with people walking around naked either, barring certain health concerns. Wouldn't wanna be in a crowded subway with a bunch of the nakeds.

But this thread is not about naturalism. We'll save that for another day

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1302960978' post='2229222']
I have no problem banning a veil that covers someones face in public. If you want your face entirely covered stay home.
[/quote]

I have no problem with banning ghastly depictions of a battered Jew from public view. If you want to wear a crucifix stay at home.

See how that can work against you? Not only does it deem what we consider to be sacred a mere triviality, it's a cultural imperialism. Keep your faith out of plain view because we don't want to see it. It's not OK.

Now you can certainly argue whether or not the veil is a legitimate form of Islamic worship or whether it's a tool for oppression, or even something in between. No one is saying you can't take such arguments to a public forum, but government can't be the arbiter of what is acceptable or not to wear, especially when it is an expression of religion that, while may have a negative effect on the wearers, is relatively benign to the general public. I mean I've heard people say that the number of women involved in inciting terrorist acts are likely to rise, and therefore burqas pose an additional security risk. But I don't buy that argument. Terrorists want to blend in, not stick out.

I personally feel that there are gender inequality issues in Islam, so it's not like I'm pro-burqa or whatever the hell you might call it. And the idea of them admittedly makes me uncomfortable. There are just really no legitimate grounds on which a government can impose such regulations. You know if the government was coming after our religious freedoms as Christians, which some may argue it already has, then you'd be up in arms wouldn't you? It's slightly hypocritical to support the ban unless you'd be willing to accept the same gov't interference thrown in your direction.

I don't mean to offend anyone. Just don't see how such laws can possibly be justified, let alone how they could possibly be effective in achieving their intended end.


[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1302966517' post='2229233']
an whats to stop the secular government from moving on to any head coverings for women? what happens when they make a law forcing nuns to show their entire head or be arrested?
[/quote]

yep. Until someone can bring an argument that's not so heavily biased I maintain my position

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1302979703' post='2229279']

[b]I have no problem with banning ghastly depictions of a battered Jew from public view. If you want to wear a crucifix stay at home.[/b]

See how that can work against you? Not only does it deem what we consider to be sacred a mere triviality, it's a cultural imperialism. Keep your faith out of plain view because we don't want to see it. It's not OK.

[/quote]

Except the reason to cover your face is so that it can't be seen, if you don't want to be seen anyway, why not stay home? I can see the legitimacy in banning people from covering their entire faces, because then people become unidentifiable. I do not see any sort of legitimate reason to ban other head coverings that allow the face to be seen.

[MargaretTeresa]

i am just going to say i am against this for the most part. I can see where it could be done to make everyone feel more secure with all this national security stuff going on, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's right. After all, it is a violation of religious expression. Both sides have very valid points. That is all I have to say on the subject.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1302979703' post='2229279']
It would be wrong . . . if he wasn't such a smart arse. He needs a little learnin' courtesy of the US justice system IMO.
[/quote]
I wouldn't even say that. Why should the DOJ have a monopoly on the law?
So, in that sense, I would have no problem with giving him a beatdown, although not for being naked. For that matter, if he is naked I don't wanna touch him.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1302979703' post='2229279']
It would be wrong . . . if he wasn't such a smart arse. He needs a little learnin' courtesy of the US justice system IMO.



lawl. That's actually pretty funny. I personally wouldn't have a problem with people walking around naked either, barring certain health concerns. Wouldn't wanna be in a crowded subway with a bunch of the nakeds.

But this thread is not about naturalism. We'll save that for another day



I have no problem with banning ghastly depictions of a battered Jew from public view. If you want to wear a crucifix stay at home.

See how that can work against you? Not only does it deem what we consider to be sacred a mere triviality, it's a cultural imperialism. Keep your faith out of plain view because we don't want to see it. It's not OK.

Now you can certainly argue whether or not the veil is a legitimate form of Islamic worship or whether it's a tool for oppression, or even something in between. No one is saying you can't take such arguments to a public forum, but government can't be the arbiter of what is acceptable or not to wear, especially when it is an expression of religion that, while may have a negative effect on the wearers, is relatively benign to the general public. I mean I've heard people say that the number of women involved in inciting terrorist acts are likely to rise, and therefore burqas pose an additional security risk. But I don't buy that argument. Terrorists want to blend in, not stick out.

I personally feel that there are gender inequality issues in Islam, so it's not like I'm pro-burqa or whatever the hell you might call it. And the idea of them admittedly makes me uncomfortable. There are just really no legitimate grounds on which a government can impose such regulations. You know if the government was coming after our religious freedoms as Christians, which some may argue it already has, then you'd be up in arms wouldn't you? It's slightly hypocritical to support the ban unless you'd be willing to accept the same gov't interference thrown in your direction.

I don't mean to offend anyone. Just don't see how such laws can possibly be justified, let alone how they could possibly be effective in achieving their intended end.




yep. Until someone can bring an argument that's not so heavily biased I maintain my position
[/quote]
I think the government has a legitimate right to ban any people who hide their faces in public because of security concerns, espiecially since terrorisits are ramping up efforts to recruit female suicide bombers. Comparing it to wearing a cross is apples and oranges, my life isn't threatening by a cross around someone's neck.

[Lilllabettt]

This is just the latest in a long-standing French compulsion towards stripping religious expression from public life = the purely evil practice of [i]laicite.[/i]

Technically, French law still forbids priests from wearing a roman collar in public.
Religious Brothers and Sisters are likewise legally forbidden from wearing their habits, in public.
These laws are not often enforced - but you will never see a veiled Sister at a public university in France.