Ban On The Islamic Face Veil

[4588686]

[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]


Probably because the more time goes by the more times you hear [i]every single[/i] college freshman who has ever read any book (that is, the wikipedia summary of the origional work) in any 'radical' political philosophy smugly quote that stupid line rather than actually think out a coherent argument.

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1303076073' post='2229562']


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."
[/quote]

The ACLU defended the rights of neo-nazis to march through a Jewish neighborhood. Are you now contending that neo-Nazism is the latest pc pet cause of bleeding heart liberals?

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1303075681' post='2229560']
While no doubt most on here will find my position shocking[/quote]

Yes. I had to pick my jaw off of the ground and restart my own heart. Quite an ordeal. Please say less shocking things in the future.

[quote]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.[/quote]

I'm sure a lot of people would like to see religion disappear all together. It's too bad for them, and it's too bad for you. It wouldn't bother me if atheism was banned, but it's just not even possible to ban belief.

You can ban certain practices of the religion of course, and many of our Christian brethren are aware of this reality. And of course I find it abhorrent that Christians often come under the threat of death just for practicing the faith. And you oppose something similar except in reverse? OK maybe you don't wanna kill Muslims who practice their faith under this ban. How in your ideal would you impose this ban?

[quote]
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.[/quote]
[quote]
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.[/quote]

Agreed, although we differ greatly on how we should go about this resurgence


Now if you haven't read my other posts. I do have problems with Islam as an ideology and I don't think Islam gets protection from criticism under any "political correctness" clause, lest you try to throw the pc thing my way (which is becoming somewhat of a tired term, at least invent a new one).

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1303102529' post='2229700']
The ACLU defended the rights of neo-nazis to march through a Jewish neighborhood. Are you now contending that neo-Nazism is the latest pc pet cause of bleeding heart liberals?
[/quote]
No, actually I'm contending that all liberals are actually closet Nazis who look forward to the resurrection of Adolf Hitler through a combination of the Dark Arts and devious genetic engineering, and want to throw all their enemies in concentration camps.

Happy now?

But seriously, it's mostly liberals who push for "hate-speech" laws, especially regarding homosexuality. I'm not sure how well the ACLU (which has also defended the disgusting though un-pc actions of Fred Phelps & co.) represents the view of most liberals. Gotta give the ACLU credit for at least being consistent in their nonsense, but then they also oppose the display of the Ten Commandments and other religious symbols on public property because of atheists and other sensitive souls taking offense, so I'd say they too are hypocrites, but then again, since when did leftism make coherent sense?

Of course, I disagree with the ALCU on both those cases. Until the 1960s, the First Amendment right to freedom of speech was never interpreted as protecting obscenity, pornography, nor words/actions with no purpose but to provoke and stir up violence in public. Nor were public displays of items such as crosses and the Ten Commandments seen as constituting an Establishment of Religion (which originally meant a national church).

I definitely don't think there is any absolute right to wear or not wear whatever one wants wherever one wants to. People in public should be required to adhere to some minimal standards of public decency and respect for others.

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1303060241' post='2229515']
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.
[/quote]

Do not get me wrong Havok, I am not advocating any government interference in the practise of any religion, no matter how foreign it seems to me. I firmly believe the government should have a minimal role in peoples lives, that is why I am a conservative instead of a liberal. In America here, after the David Koresh incident the government actually snuck into legislation a potentially dangerous law, it basically states that freedom of religion does not exist , IF, the religious practises in question may be deemed harmful to individuals or the state. This was under the Clinton administration, and so far has not been enforced/abused, YET.

ed

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1303102628' post='2229701']
Yes. I had to pick my jaw off of the ground and restart my own heart. Quite an ordeal. Please say less shocking things in the future.[/quote]
Sorry. I'll do my best. Or at least put warning labels on the posts before people read them.


[quote]I'm sure a lot of people would like to see religion disappear all together. It's too bad for them, and it's too bad for you. It wouldn't bother me if atheism was banned, but it's just not even possible to ban belief.

You can ban certain practices of the religion of course, and many of our Christian brethren are aware of this reality. And of course I find it abhorrent that Christians often come under the threat of death just for practicing the faith. And you oppose something similar except in reverse? OK maybe you don't wanna kill Muslims who practice their faith under this ban. How in your ideal would you impose this ban?[/quote]
Heck, I'll let the French worry about that.

For the record, I'm not a fan of either Islam or the secularist French government, so I really don't care much about this particular law one way or the other, which I agreed was a bit silly and likely to be counter-productive. The atheists and Islamists can kill each other off for all I care.

I just disagree that this is some sudden huge threat to our freedom as Catholics and signals a coming persecution. If the French government wants to persecute Christians, they'll do it with or without bans on Muslim clothing items.

I wouldn't mind a restoration of the Catholic Faith as the official religion of France (once known as the Eldest Daughter of the Church), but I don't see that happening, at least not in my lifetime.

I don't know how much can be done now without provoking serious civil unrest, as France already has a significant and rapidly growing Muslim population.

If native Frenchmen and other Europeans would start breeding again, and limit immigration from Muslim countries, they wouldn't be in this mess.
The law in question I see as just a feeble and largely symbolic attempt by a dying Europe to strike out at what the French know to be a threat to their identity and culture.

Personally, I'd pray for a resurgence of the spirit of Charles Martel (who stopped the Muslims who were invading Europe in the 8th century), and Charlemagne, but I know it's probably an ideal quixotic dream.

The French Revolution really screwed things up royally.



[quote]Agreed, although we differ greatly on how we should go about this resurgence


Now if you haven't read my other posts. I do have problems with Islam as an ideology and I don't think Islam gets protection from criticism under any "political correctness" clause, lest you try to throw the pc thing my way (which is becoming somewhat of a tired term, at least invent a new one).[/quote]
How's "liberal fascism" grab you? Oh well, I guess I'm not particularly inventive.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Socrates

[Ed Normile]

Back a page some were talking about the possible negative points of allowing face veils and it was brought up that suicide bombing would not be easier wearing one, and that the government does not just use one feature to identify criminals. I know most of you are aware of facial recognition, all these cameras that are practically everywhere are used for this at certain times, that is too say that usually they are just to keep an eye on the crowds, but when they have events that attract masses they are accessed and processed through facial recognition programs. This happened the first time at the Tampa Bay Buccaneers SuperBowl game, they broadcast on the news they captured over 300 wanted criminals who were in the area for the game. That was over ten years ago, at least.

I also know that when American troops were closing in on Osama Bin Laden that he donned a Burkha and face veil and walked away from the house they had him cornered in, our troops were ordered to allow the women to leave so as to keep them safe. They noticed later reviewing film of the incident this one Burkha clad individual standing a head above the other women, at 6'4" inches tall he stood out upon review, but at the time with his face covered they assumed he was one of the women.

ed

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1303076073' post='2229562']
What if he insists on performing lewd acts in public where he can be seen by all?[/quote]
If the society truly disapproves, they're free to have zero social interaction/economic commerce with him. In the old days, they used to call it "shunning." It's moral. It worked.

[quote]
Or if someone insisted on marching about in Nazi regalia in a Jewish neighborhood?[/quote]
Do people have a right not to be offended?

[quote]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."
[/quote]

All rights, insofar as they are rights, are, in fact, absolute: one either has a right, or one does not have a right. There is no such thing as a "restriction on a right." It's an ontological impossibility. To get to the bottom line: the fact that a person may not have a moral right to perform an action does not necessarily mean that other people have a moral right to use physical violence to stop it.

~Sternhauser

Edited April 18, 2011 by Sternhauser

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1303149861' post='2229835']

For the record, I'm not a fan of either Islam or the secularist French government, so I really don't care much about this particular law one way or the other, which I agreed was a bit silly and likely to be counter-productive. The atheists and Islamists can kill each other off for all I care.

I just disagree that this is some sudden huge threat to our freedom as Catholics and signals a coming persecution. If the French government wants to persecute Christians, they'll do it with or without bans on Muslim clothing items.[/quote]

I can't speak for anyone else, however I did [b]not [/b]parallel Islamic persecution with hypothetical examples of Christian persecution as a forewarning of what might happen to us. I only meant to say, if we're gonna be intellectually consistent, then we can't support such a law because [b]the same logic could hypothetically be applied to Christians and we would be up in arms if such things were to happen[/b] so we can't support such a law simply because our religion is right and theirs is wrong (to put it in overly simplistic terms). I'm just trying to illustrate the inconsistency within the logic. Not trying to say "we better oppose this before they come after us!" My goodness does egoism have to be the underlying cause to every debate?

[quote] The atheists and Islamists can kill each other off for all I care.[/quote]

Really?

[Selah]

[quote]The atheists and Islamists can kill each other off for all I care.[/quote]

Calm down. I can't stand Islam much either, and I do think the world would be better off without it...but I certainly don't want them to kill each other. But, they are already doing that, so...sigh.

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1303149011' post='2229828']
No, actually I'm contending that all liberals are actually closet Nazis who look forward to the resurrection of Adolf Hitler through a combination of the Dark Arts and devious genetic engineering, and want to throw all their enemies in concentration camps.

Happy now? [/QUOTE]

Yes. You make me so very, very happy baby.

[QUOTE]But seriously, it's mostly liberals who push for "hate-speech" laws, especially regarding homosexuality. I'm not sure how well the ACLU (which has also defended the disgusting though un-pc actions of Fred Phelps & co.) represents the view of most liberals. Gotta give the ACLU credit for at least being consistent in their nonsense,[/QUOTE]

True

[QUOTE]but then they also oppose the display of the Ten Commandments and other religious symbols on public property because of atheists and other sensitive souls taking offense, so I'd say they too are hypocrites, but then again, since when did leftism make coherent sense?[/QUOTE]

Or it might be the establishment clause. It's perfectly consistent with their understanding of the first ammendment. I'm not saying it's right Just that it fits with their constitutional outlook.

[QUOTE]Of course, I disagree with the ALCU on both those cases. Until the 1960s, the First Amendment right to freedom of speech was never interpreted as protecting obscenity, pornography, nor words/actions with no purpose but to provoke and stir up violence in public. Nor were public displays of items such as crosses and the Ten Commandments seen as constituting an Establishment of Religion (which originally meant a national church).

I definitely don't think there is any absolute right to wear or not wear whatever one wants wherever one wants to. People in public should be required to adhere to some minimal standards of public decency and respect for others.
[/quote]

I agree.

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' timestamp='1303078929' post='2229574']
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.
[/quote]

Dearest Lillabertt, thank you for the correction you so kindly slapped on my post, although, if you take the time to read the passage you quoted from my post you can see that I was not addressing the burkha, nor did I write anything about it, I was clearly addressing the face veils and only the face veils.

ed

[Mercy me]

Really, I have no problem with it. It is just the french being French. They are a secular country. They were not always but they are now. Religious in France are not permitted to wear habits. Although I believe that is not being enforced so much, it is still the law in France. Why should Muslims be permitted to wear their "habits"?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Mercy me' timestamp='1303701711' post='2232071']
Really, I have no problem with it. It is just the french being French. They are a secular country. They were not always but they are now. Religious in France are not permitted to wear habits. Although I believe that is not being enforced so much, it is still the law in France. Why should Muslims be permitted to wear their "habits"?
[/quote]
Or maybe the law is corrupt and unjust.

[HisChildForever]

Does the ban specifically target Islamic dress or facial coverings period (in which Islamic dress falls under)?