Ban On The Islamic Face Veil

[4588686]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1302986858' post='2229303']
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.
[/quote]

So a female suacide bomber is going to hide her bomb behind her face veil?

[havok579257]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1302986858' post='2229303']
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.
[/quote]


the same exact thing can be said of a nun's head covering. she is refusing to show her whole head. she is altering her apperence. if the authroities are looking for a red headed woman, then the nun's head cover covers her hair and could be a disguise. so the only solution is to ARREST an nun out in public who does not have her entire head uncovered. see how the logic works not just for one religion but all.

[havok579257]

[quote name='MissScripture' timestamp='1302980132' post='2229285']
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.
[/quote]


an the reason nun's wear their head coverings is so most of their head can not be seen. if they don't want want most of their head being seen they should stay at home. nun's should NOT be allowed out in public with their head coverings on. nun's with their head coverings on become a lot less identafiable than a women who has no head covering on. some head coverings cover most of the head and all of the hair. if the government is looking for a red headed women and a nun is wearing a full head covering, the government can not see if she is the one they are looking for. do you see how this is applied to not just one religion but all religions.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='MissScripture' timestamp='1302980132' post='2229285']
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.
[/quote]

Fair enough. I thought I'd add a little variety because several people have mentioned that banning Christian dress could be possible under the same logic and that wasn't grabbing the attention of sthe opposition. I think a secular society gets tired of looking at religious symbols everywhere. It interferes with their godless utopia and makes em all sad face. Wasn't there just an attempt to ban crucifixes from class rooms? It didn't pass, as it shouldn't have, but if we want to have religious freedom then we need to be consistent don't we? Of course if someone's expression of religion is to run around blowing people up, then we obv shouldn't be "tolerant" to that garbage.

Which brings us to . . .

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1302986858' post='2229303']
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.
[/quote]

Even if face veils had the potential to be dangerous, I'm not sure that the law would be justifiable on those grounds. There'd have to be pretty compelling evidence of their dangers and there just isn't, just mere speculation. Sometimes you must choose between freedom and security. Me, I'm willing to give up a few of my freedoms for legitimate safety concerns of my fellow neighbors, but there needs to be a line. There's a point when safety becomes paranoia, when freedoms are being curtailed in the name of counterterrorism when in actuality it's just some frenzied attempt to protect that actually damages human dignity more than it helps it.

Now I'm sure someone else could say, argue against cloistered religious communities because they are secret cabals in which religious zealots are plotting world domination. A ridiculous claim I know. And I'm not gonna sit here and put together a compelling argument for a hypothetical argument only meant to illustrate that, if people are skilled, clever, inflammatory, and paranoid enough I'm sure they [i]could[/i] slap together an argument that the general secular audience would yum yum eat up complete with scare tactics and all.

So I'm not sure that even on security grounds such a law is just, but let me entertain the idea for a minute. Say I'm willing to ban face veils in the name of security. Now someone please tell me how face veils pose a legitimate security risk. You mention suicide bombers. So what are you saying female suicide bombers are gonna get away with their crimes because no one will be able to identify them???? It would seem a moot point then. So please elaborate. I am genuinely interested in how they pose a real security risk. Maybe I just can't see if because I'm trying to look at it from all angles and I don't know it.

[quote name='Lilllabettt' timestamp='1302992134' post='2229324']
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.
[/quote]

France fails so hard. I think that's something we can all agree on.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1303002558' post='2229382']
Even if face veils had the potential to be dangerous, I'm not sure that the law would be justifiable on those grounds. There'd have to be pretty
So I'm not sure that even on security grounds such a law is just, but let me entertain the idea for a minute. Say I'm willing to ban face veils in the name of security. Now someone please tell me how face veils pose a legitimate security risk. You mention suicide bombers. So what are you saying female suicide bombers are gonna get away with their crimes because no one will be able to identify them???? It would seem a moot point then. So please elaborate. I am genuinely interested in how they pose a real security risk. Maybe I just can't see if because I'm trying to look at it from all angles and I don't know it.
[/quote]

I think anyone running around with their face covered could in some way be a possible security risk, but then I think of life in general in terms of risk/ security safety/freedom. Suicide bombers were the first thing that came to mind, but there are several others. We live in a society where people need IDs in order to go to school, drive a car, take money out of a bank, vote, take tests in school, get into a dance, or in some cases go shopping. Can't do much of that without a picture of your face and people being able to identify you. Having your face covered can thus limit your participation in the life of the community.
We have cameras at street lights, toll booths, public garages, shopping malls and most major events for the purposes of identification, coverings one's face defeats all that as well. If you want to cover yourself from the top of your head to the bottom of your feet fine - but not your face.

[Nihil Obstat]

Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

[add]

[size=2]Cowards [i]hide[/i] their [i]faces[/i] in shame because they are up to no good[/size]

[havok579257]

[quote name='apparently' timestamp='1303008051' post='2229400']
[size=2]Cowards [i]hide[/i] their [i]faces[/i] in shame because they are up to no good[/size]
[/quote]


really?

Edited April 17, 2011 by havok579257

[havok579257]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1303004529' post='2229393']
I think anyone running around with their face covered could in some way be a possible security risk, but then I think of life in general in terms of risk/ security safety/freedom. Suicide bombers were the first thing that came to mind, but there are several others. We live in a society where people need IDs in order to go to school, drive a car, take money out of a bank, vote, take tests in school, get into a dance, or in some cases go shopping. Can't do much of that without a picture of your face and people being able to identify you. Having your face covered can thus limit your participation in the life of the community.
We have cameras at street lights, toll booths, public garages, shopping malls and most major events for the purposes of identification, coverings one's face defeats all that as well. If you want to cover yourself from the top of your head to the bottom of your feet fine - but not your face.
[/quote]


apply this law and this thinking and its a very LOGICAL jump to restricting what head coverings nun's can wear. for your so called saftey would you be ok with a law preventing nun's from wearing any sort of headcovering in public?

[Ed Normile]

I am so happy to see the majority of you here have such Conservative political viewpoints, such as less governmental intrusion into the lives of the citizenry. The difference I see that is not being addressed here is that these face coverings the muslim women wear were mandated to keep the women from causing men to sin, it comes from their founder/prophet mohammed who raped his 14 year old niece after he seen her face in the moonlight and her beauty caused him to sin in such a fashion, at least he married her afterwards. He then decided no man should be placed in that situation and made it mandatory their women wear these face coverings to preserve the men from this temptation. He also put in controls so that it would be enforced, if their women refuse the face covering they can then stone them to death. A tad different from a mantilla or a habit that is willingly worn as a devotion.

ed

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1303008600' post='2229406']
apply this law and this thinking and its a very LOGICAL jump to restricting what head coverings nun's can wear. for your so called saftey would you be ok with a law preventing nun's from wearing any sort of headcovering in public?
[/quote]
There is no logic in your jump at all. Covering the back and sides of your head with a veil doesn't stop people from identifying your face which is the point of security. A little common sense please

[havok579257]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1303046578' post='2229487']
There is no logic in your jump at all. Covering the back and sides of your head with a veil doesn't stop people from identifying your face which is the point of security. A little common sense please
[/quote]


the government agencies looking for criminals do not just look at face to identify someone. they look at all aspects of the person's apperence. if they have visible tatoo's, if they have a certain hair color or hair length or any hair at all, if they have some deformity like a missing limb, if they have facial scars.

its really lack of common sense to say that the ONLY way someone is identified by government officals is through facial features. the government uses way more than ONE single aspect in apperence to single out criminals. do you honestly think the government officals use ONE and only ONE means of identifying criminals?

Edited April 17, 2011 by havok579257

[havok579257]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1303021340' post='2229442']
I am so happy to see the majority of you here have such Conservative political viewpoints, such as less governmental intrusion into the lives of the citizenry. The difference I see that is not being addressed here is that these face coverings the muslim women wear were mandated to keep the women from causing men to sin, it comes from their founder/prophet mohammed who raped his 14 year old niece after he seen her face in the moonlight and her beauty caused him to sin in such a fashion, at least he married her afterwards. He then decided no man should be placed in that situation and made it mandatory their women wear these face coverings to preserve the men from this temptation. He also put in controls so that it would be enforced, if their women refuse the face covering they can then stone them to death. A tad different from a mantilla or a habit that is willingly worn as a devotion.

ed
[/quote]


feminists could make the claim that the catholic church is sexist because they used to make women cover their heads when men did not have to, women are never allowed to be priests and only men can be in a place of authority, that women are looked at as less than men because the women gave the man the apple and not the other way around and so on and so on.

when your not part of a religion and looking in from the outside with very little knowledge of said religion, your opinions can be wrong. refusing to allow one religion freedom to practice their religion will quickly lead to refusing all relgions to practice their faith unless secular society agrees with the practices.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1303059706' post='2229512']
the government agencies looking for criminals do not just look at face to identify someone. they look at all aspects of the person's apperence. if they have visible tatoo's, if they have a certain hair color or hair length or any hair at all, if they have some deformity like a missing limb, if they have facial scars.

its really lack of common sense to say that the ONLY way someone is identified by government officals is through facial features. the government uses way more than ONE single aspect in apperence to single out criminals. do you honestly think the government officals use ONE and only ONE means of identifying criminals?
[/quote]
Well, then following that "logic" pretty soon the gov't will just make us all run around naked.

[havok579257]

[quote name='MissScripture' timestamp='1303061503' post='2229519']
Well, then following that "logic" pretty soon the gov't will just make us all run around naked.
[/quote]


so your under the assumption law enforcement use ONE and only ONE charecteristic to identify criminals?


the logic is, if you continue to give up freedoms for so called security, soon enough the government will dictate what you can wear and be seen in public in. if your willing to aloow the government to ban certain types of clothing to make you feel safer, it won't be long till they ban more clothes and instruct you that you can only wear clothes they aprrove of. i think is illogical think the government, who is all about running our lifes will just restrict some freedoms and not others if we let them. the government will restrict all your freedoms if you allow them to. they will do it in the name of saftey. heck, the tsa does it now. are you really safer now that the tsa is doing full pat downs on 8 year old children? cause there are so many 8 year old children who are terrorists, right? so tell me, are you will to sacrifice all your freedoms for your supposed saftey?