Dutch To Ban Wearing Of Muslim Burqa In Public

[Winchester]

So how do you prove the intent behind an article of clothing?

It all lies in the intent.

I'm all in favor of crippling the government with vast expenditures of money dealing with the lengthy court cases and stupid arguments to revolve around fashion.

[homeschoolmom]

Well, when they make a law that says you can't wear a crucifix in public, then what?

[Winchester]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1123171' date='Nov 18 2006, 12:13 PM']
Well, when they make a law that says you can't wear a crucifix in public, then what?
[/quote]
Then he'll have a bloody revolt.

But he did specify only public practice of Catholicism, so in his ideal world, Catholicism would not be suppressed.

[Veritas]

[quote name='puellapaschalis' post='1123154' date='Nov 18 2006, 11:57 AM']
This is, as far as I can see, not an American website, and so you cannot expect everyone to be fluent in American English. I've lived in both Europe and North America and have become familiar with different models of government on both sides of the Atlantic. I keep in touch with friends on that continent, read news sources from there, and yet I still don't make the claims that you just did, even if they did happen to be true.

Your generalisation - which is what I am talking about here, not about the points of being liberal, socialist, or two-faced in tolerance - would have been avoided with some small, simple words: "so many", "some", "the Dutch government", and so on. If you do not do this, you run the risk of people "interpreting" your words as applying for every x, where x lies within {Dutch people}. It's a small amount of effort to avoid a slander. This is not semantics, it's logic.

Further, unless you have lived in this country (the rest of the continent does not count) for any decent length of time - I'm talking more than a term, or even a year - and have met a considerable amount of people here, you cannot make a generalistion and claim that it would be true. How many Dutch people do you know well enough to have conversations with about this issue? How much of your knowledge of life in the Netherlands comes from your own experience of [i]living[/i] here (outside the tourist trap of Amsterdam)? How much of it comes from the media?

I am not prepared to quibble with you about how our interpretations of the word "liberal" differ. I do, however, take strong issue with your tarring every Dutch person with the "two-faced intolerance" brush. The fact of the matter is that in my experience which I dare to say is wider than yours in this, the majority of Dutch people are tolerant, some to a fault, but are not "two-faced" in anything more than a few select possibilities.

If you were referring to the political structure, then as someone who has studied that structure (I assume), you should have stated that explicitly. Your paragraph makes the same mistake that some people made in [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=55923&st=20"]this thread[/url].

VA is better qualified than I to talk about the issue itself; she follows the news more closely than I do and has a perspective on Dutch culture that neither you nor I can hope to attain.

Love and prayers,

PP
[/quote]

+

I said it once, and I'll say it again, OBVIOUSLY, this does NOT apply to EVERY person living in the Netherlands. No one actually thinks that every, single person, in an entire country thinks and agrees with the exact same thing! As a minority (a Catholic), in the states, I am WELL aware of not agreeing with a multitude of our political policies. So, your point, although passionate is mute. And yes, when the context of the conversation is specifically and clearly talking about the political policies of your country, I can refer to them as "the Dutch". Again, semantics. Look at the context of the comments and I hope you will see that you are taking offense where none was intended and none need be taken. I am sorry that you have misinterpreted what was written. But, I will not argue the point any further -I think it is obvious.

Edited November 18, 2006 by Veritas

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1123174' date='Nov 18 2006, 12:16 PM']
Then he'll have a bloody revolt.

But he did specify only public practice of Catholicism, so in his ideal world, Catholicism would not be suppressed.
[/quote]
Ah, but you see, we don't live in his ideal world...

[son_of_angels]

I really despise this sort of legislation, not so much because I'm a freedom of religion advocate as because I'm an anti-secularist advocate. This kind of law positively rejects public displays of religious sentiment, and might as well outlaw religious habits. Those women who wear burqas in deference and obedience do so as a "sign of contradiction" to a world that puts no stock in public religion. We should not give them an inch; we should not allow these sort to govern religious behaviour who themselves are not religious.

On the other hand, the Burqa is more than a symbol of one single religion, it is a cultural symbol of modesty, and something that wouldn't necessarily have to be considered intrinsically harmful to any religion. This is why I'm opposed to the movement among some Christian women in the Middle East, and from the Middle East, to remove the requirement for the headdress or Burqa. If they, out of their lack of respect for modesty, should not appear to be the MOST modest in that culture, and the most respectful, how can we ever hope to convert that people. God forbid that our women should be a stumbling block to Islamic men! After all, what is good in Islam is not even derived from Islam itself, but from our common Abrahamic and Mosaic ethical roots, both of which emphasize modesty and deference by women.