Ban On The Islamic Face Veil

[MissScripture]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1303063146' post='2229521']
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?
[/quote]
A face isn't ONE characteristic. EYES are ONE characteristic.

[Ice_nine]

[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]

LOL running around? Sorry just got a funny visual.

Anyhow, let's just call the suicide bomber thing a moot point. I see no way in which face veils make suicide bombing any easier. All those other things, if someone wants to go to a private bank and take out a loan or go into another private place that demands a visual ID then they have the choice to either show their face or choose not to enter, but I don't see why they need to walk around with their face uncovered for identification purposes. What if I want to go for a walk around the city on a cold day? Can I wear a ski mask? People won't be able to identify me and that shouldn't be a problem for anyone, unless I'm planning on robbing a bank, in which case I don't think I'm worried about some arbitrary law telling me I can't "run around" with a ski mask. Please give me a realistic situation in which this law makes us safer.

Plus all of those hidden cameras you mention sounds like some Orwellian dystopia sh*t. I'm not feeling that.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1303004775' post='2229395']
Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.
[/quote]

Agreed for the most part, but I'm willing to give up a few liberties if it'll stop people from flipping out and being paranoid. Although there is a line I won't cross.

[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]

While this may be true, that does not mean you can extend that to "therefore everyone who covers their face is up to no good." That's a logical fallacy of some sort and I'm not gonna look up what it's called. But there are a number of reasons why someone would want to cover their face. Some nefarious, some not.

[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]

I think you're barking up the wrong tree. They seem to be operating on this idea: covering the facial features makes identification near impossible, therefore imposes a security threat, and therefore [b]a law against face veils would prevent this[/b]. The problem here is I don't see how a law would help. I could say: guns are dangerous and fatal weapons, this imposes a public security threat, therefore a law against owning guns would prevent firearm fatalities. The only [b]glaring[/b] problem with both examples is that criminals are not gonna be concerned with these laws. So if someone is trying to hide their identity for criminal reasons, ummmm, they're gonna do it! And if someone doesn't have a nefarious reason well then, there's no reason to worry about them.

*ps the gun example was strictly for analogy. I don't mean to start a gun-control topic, so please for all the love of everything beautiful let's not go down that railroad.

[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.

[/quote]

Like I said, I have problems with gender inequality in Islam. No, I'm not an expert and it probably wouldn't kill me to do some research on it but I think Islam and the practices therein are fair game for debate sure. That's not the point.

I want to know why a law like this would be effective, and I want to know the main motive. Is it to protect women from Islamic sexism or is it for general security? Or is protection of women simply used to buttress a law that claims to be primarily for public security. It's kinda like when big countries invade other little countries for "peacemaking" reasons. I'm sorry I don't buy it. Esp. when efforts to "protect" others are often counterproductive or downright ineffective.

But I'll humor you. First off, I guess you can only understand a religion so much if you are not an active participant in it, and there are so many variances and complexities within each religion it's near impossible to get the whole picture. I mean take Catholicism for example, there is just so much information and schools of thought and spiritualities it makes my head spin. And I consider myself a practicing catholic who strives to find out as much about the faith as I can, yet I still don't know close to everything, but I inwardly roll my eyes anytime some neophyte launches trite comments about Catholicism that reveal how little time they spent into learning about it.

With that said Ed and with the little I know about Islam, I more or less agree with you. I think women, probably more than any group, have generally gotten the poo end of the stick for the most part of human history. On the same hand Christianity in practice doesn't have a squeaky-clean track record either (and I'm not talking boo-hoo they won't ordain women shtuff). But there are legitimate arguments of a similar nature that can be tossed our way as well. So frankly I'm more concerned, as a Catholic, to research and respond to those allegations and making sense out of them simply for my own faith.

But that's not the point either. How does this law effectively help women who are being oppressed? If women are being consciously or subconsciously being oppressed a law isn't going to do a beaver dam thing to help them in reality (refer to my post). And if some women wear it of their own free-will, us not being able to read the interior heart of any individual, a law is simply unjust in their case.

[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]

Even though I think havoc is spending too much energy arguing the "nuns and habits" thing (which I think is actually a fair point) you are not really following his logic at all. He says "there are other ways to identify people other than facial features, YET there's not a law requiring that all these identifiers be visible, so why are y'all so fixated on the face as the only identifier?" Or at least I think that's what he's saying. Although I agree that the face is probably the most effective identifier. Doesn't matter though because no one's been able to illustrate how such a law could be effective. And worse than that no one has shown how it does not impinge on religious freedom.

[Socrates]

I only wish France (and the formerly-Christian West in general) were standing up and fighting for Christian civilization, rather than principles of secularism or "equality."

While no doubt most on here will find my position shocking, it would not trouble me in the least if Islam was banned altogether in France. That would at least be more direct and to-the-point than silly and likely ineffective bans on certain articles of clothing.

The rise of Islam (due to heavy immigration and much higher-rates than native Europeans) will pose a serious threat to Europe's identity (which, secularized at it has become, is ultimately dependent on the Christian Faith. As the great Hillaire Belloc - no multiculturalist nor friend of Islam - has said, "The Faith is Europe, and Europe is the Faith.")
Islam, at least in its serious (often mislabeled "Extremist" or "Fundamentalist") forms, is utterly incompatible with Western Civilization and its values.
The un-pc truth is the burqa and face-veil wearing crowd don't want liberal "tolerance" - they want ultimately a Europe under Sharia Law and the benevolent rule of Islam.

What Islam has failed to accomplish despite many attempts through history by military force, it will accomplish by immigration, demographics, and European civilization's failure to grow a pair and stand up for the principles which once made it great.

Radical secularism and multi-culti pluralism are doomed to ultimate failure. Atheistic secularism, Christianity, and Islam are all incompatible in their true essences, and cannot long mutually survive. Pluralistic multiculturalism and "tolerance" is based in falsehood, and cannot last long.

If Europe and the West believe in nothing higher than secularism and their own pleasure and comfort, they are doomed to be crushed by those that do.

We don't need just bans on burqas, we need a full-fledged resurgence of a Christian Faith not afraid to "impose its values" nor to oppose those who seek to destroy them.

[Socrates]

[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]
What if he insists on performing lewd acts in public where he can be seen by all?

Or if someone insisted on marching about in Nazi regalia in a Jewish neighborhood?

While I know it's damnable heresy to the Anarchist Faith, as well as much of liberalism (though liberals are usually complete hypocrites on the issue when it comes to things un-pc), there is no absolute right to public personal "self-expression."

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1303076073' post='2229562']
[blah blah blah]
While I know it's damnable heresy to the Anarchist Faith,
[blah blah]
[/quote]
That is uncalled for. You know I am Catholic before anything else.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1303076683' post='2229564']
That is [blah, blah, blah]. You know I am [blah, blah, blah] before [blah, blah].
[/quote]
Blah blah blah.

Edited April 17, 2011 by Socrates

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1303021340' post='2229442']
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.

ed
[/quote]


Dear Ed,

Mohammad's wives did not wear burqas. They wore abaya - this is like a long dress. Only later did they add a veil, and when they did it was in imitation of the Christians.

although you CAN find references to burqa-like clothing in the writings of the Church fathers. Tertullian mentions women in pre-Islamic lands wearing them.

[Selah]

I think it's wrong. They should have the right to wear it because it is part of their religion. I believe in religious freedom, no matter how repulsive I may find the religion itself (notice I said religion, not the people who practice it...thought I'd elaborate).

Edited April 17, 2011 by Selah

[Vincent Vega]

[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]


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


[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]

Slippery slope.


[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1303004775' post='2229395']
Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.
[/quote]
The more time goes by, the more banal I find this quote, or at least its common applications.

[Vincent Vega]

And for the record, the niqab is not a requisite piece of clothing for Islamic women. And in fact, unless my understanding and recall are flawed, it is more cultural than religious, being an Arabian code of dress versus an Islamic one.

[Selah]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1303080565' post='2229578']
And for the record, the niqab is not a requisite piece of clothing for Islamic women. And in fact, unless my understanding and recall are flawed, it is more cultural than religious, being an Arabian code of dress versus an Islamic one.
[/quote]

You'd be right

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1303080378' post='2229577']


The more time goes by, the more banal I find this quote, or at least its common applications.
[/quote]
That is unfortunate.

[Sternhauser]

I'm not in favor of using violence against women who are wearing a particular piece of fabric.

~Sternhauser

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1303080378' post='2229577']
Slippery slope.
[/quote]

Not quite. Slippery slope is saying "if you do x, y will happen, and then z, and then we're all really screwed." I'm not saying that once a burqa is banned the government is gonna start coming after nuns for wearing head coverings, nor did I mean to imply that. I only intended to say that you can use the same reasoning, if one wanted to, and come up with anti-Christian regulations. I'm not saying that will be a consequence of banning the burqa.

While you may be right about the niqab being more cultural than religious, I still don't see how this law could be just. Can the government regulate and dictate the culture? I think it can sure as hell try, I'm just not so sure it will be effective. But you bring up a good point. I'm not quite sure how to address that angle yet.

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1303075681' post='2229560']


Radical secularism and multi-culti pluralism are doomed to ultimate failure. Atheistic secularism, Christianity, and Islam are all incompatible in their true essences, and cannot long mutually survive. Pluralistic multiculturalism and "tolerance" is based in falsehood, and cannot last long.


[/quote]

Right. And France as a nation state has chosen to make an aggressive secularism a cornerstone of their republicanism.

Since secularism, Catholicism, and Islam are essentially incompatable I'm sure you'll understand it when France decides to outlaw any variant of Catholicism above a loose cultural connection to an archaic faith tradition.