Islam and the west

[Aimless]

I'm not saying we should ban burqas, I'm saying if covering your face is banned already then your belief in a sky fairy should not excuse you in removing that ban.

In some places, burqas are banned in accordance with that logic. In some other places (I think) they may not be completely banned because legislators recognize the importance of religious and cultural values for some individuals. How the balance between societal interests and respect for a person's integrity, autonomy and beliefs should be struck is obv. a matter for discussion. I have seen ltitle evidence to suggest that most of us live in societies where the state treats religion as being completely irrelevant and most documents delineating the rights of citizens/humans make a point of acknowledging the importance of religion to those who believe.

If a hat is banned so should the turban then, fair's fair.

And yet that is not the case, suggesting that views on fairness may differ. For example, forcing a Sikh to remove his turban may be less fair than forcing some random dummy to remove a random hat because it is more of a hassle, because it takes more time, because it means much more to the point of feeling like being forced to undress, etc. There are many ways to determine whether or not something is "fair".

Why is it telling?

Because of your enthusiastic defense of the systematic victimisation of black Americans, of course.

Unless its acceptable to eg wear a balaclava or KKK mask in a public place then tolerating a burqa that is as contemptible as a KKK mask and as covered up as a mask or a balaclava is causing harm. Otherwise why are the others banned?

This is nonsensical. Balaclavas and other such masks are not generally banned everywhere. In places with anti-mask laws, for the most part such laws specifically prohibit covering faces in such a way as to make identification difficult during demonstrations, riots or events that may directly threaten the public order. Even then the law may simply require you to remove the mask when requested.

Moreover, our societies regularly distinguish between different forms of clothing and different symbols--and even different words--based on their context and cultural significance. For example, in some places swastikas may be banned. In France, where people apparently pander to Muslims, wearing a hijab at school is banned because it is viewed as an ostentatious display of religious belief. If you beat up a gay man while calling him a "f*ggot" or beat up a black man while calling him a "n*gger" you may get an enhanced punishment for committing a hate-crime.

And it does. We have heard repeatedly in this thread "but its the culture" or "its the religion" as justification to allow the otherwise unacceptable.

This is where you're wrong. You assume these practices are unacceptable. I believe it's been made abundantly clear, over many centuries, that many reprehensible things are "acceptable" in our societies. That's how free societies are.

[Aimless]

Interesting. You seem to believe that a religion is the same as a profession. How retarded.

[RandBlade]

Interesting. You seem to believe that a religion is the same as a profession. How retarded.

No its considerably less than a profession. A profession has merit.

[Aimless]

No its considerably less than a profession. A profession has merit.

Which is completely irrelevant. The point is that a profession is, for most people, not as integral a part of one's identity as a religious person's faith is to that person's identity. It's not my business to determine who is or is not meritorious. Obviously my profession is more meritorious than yours, whatever it is you do for a living, but that's beside the point. Other things that may be integral to a person's identity are family/clan, ethnicity or culture, nationality. In my experience, these other things are often less important than faith, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who isn't a braindead heartless little tyrant.*



* who is, ironically, obsessed with something far dumber than both professions and faiths, namely nationality. Oh you Little Englanders, you'll never cease to baffle and amuse

[RandBlade]

Which is completely irrelevant. The point is that a profession is, for most people, not as integral a part of one's identity as a religious person's faith is to that person's identity. It's not my business to determine who is or is not meritorious. Obviously my profession is more meritorious than yours, whatever it is you do for a living, but that's beside the point. Other things that may be integral to a person's identity are family/clan, ethnicity or culture, nationality. In my experience, these other things are often less important than faith, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who isn't a braindead heartless little tyrant.*



* who is, ironically, obsessed with something far dumber than both professions and faiths, namely nationality. Oh you Little Englanders, you'll never cease to baffle and amuse

People's faith is their own business. I couldn't care less what they do in private. We are talking about in public.

I also couldn't give a fig about nationality. What makes you think I'm obsessed by it?

[Loki]

Are you auditioning to be Trump's successor? Clothing worn by Muslim women for religious reasons is as bad as a KKK hood whose purpose is to intimidate blacks? Are you insane?

[RandBlade]

Are you auditioning to be Trump's successor? Clothing worn by Muslim women for religious reasons is as bad as a KKK hood whose purpose is to intimidate blacks? Are you insane?

Clothing used to subjugate and dehumanise women is potentially WORSE than that used to intimidate blacks.

You think that dehumanising and subjugation women as an inhuman second class is at all acceptable? Are you insane?

[Loki]

Clothing used to subjugate and dehumanise women is potentially WORSE than that used to intimidate blacks.

You think that dehumanising and subjugation women as an inhuman second class is at all acceptable? Are you insane?

You've officially become the least liberal (in the sense of someone who actually values liberty) person here. Congrats. And if a woman wearing a burqa so offends your sensibilities that you want to see that attire banned, I would seriously suggest seeing a shrink.

[RandBlade]

You've officially become the least liberal (in the sense of someone who actually values liberty) person here. Congrats. And if a woman wearing a burqa so offends your sensibilities that you want to see that attire banned, I would seriously suggest seeing a shrink.

Find where I said it should be banned.

And yes saying women are not worthy to be seen in public does offend my sensibilities. If it doesn't yours I suggest you reevaluate your priorities.

[Loki]

So that's two libertarians we have here who don't think people have the right to wear what they think is appropriate. Rights are for white men apparently.

[RandBlade]

So that's two libertarians we have here who don't think people have the right to wear what they think is appropriate. Rights are for white men apparently.

Show me where I said that. I said if it is not ok to wear a balaclava then it's not ok to cover your face for religious reasons either. If you want to cover your face where it's perfectly acceptable to do so show me where I said that should be Banned? It represents a vile hateful belief we should find contemptible and ostracised in the same way as it's contemporaries like the KKK but that doesn't mean we should ban it.

Or do laws only apply to the Secular? How is that libertarian?

[Hazir]

So that's two libertarians we have here who don't think people have the right to wear what they think is appropriate. Rights are for white men apparently.

Actually, your extemist position in favour of religion as an excuse is just as suprising. I do not believe that the freedom of religion ever was intended as a cart blanche to do whatever you want whenever you want and having to bother about the rules that otherwise apply. There are ample examples on both sides of the ocean of 'churches' being denied Church status because it was obvious the claim to exercising the right to religious freedom was actually a cover for an activity of a non-religious nature.

Now, with political Islam there is nothing that should keep us from scrutinizing the claim of that movement with regards to the free exercise of religion. And that includes the dress-code they impose on their women, even if those women claim to do so out of their free will. It also doesn't hurt to remember that no agreement, including the most venerated ones, can be used to force a society to destroy itself.

[Loki]

Actually, your extemist position in favour of religion as an excuse is just as suprising. I do not believe that the freedom of religion ever was intended as a cart blanche to do whatever you want whenever you want and having to bother about the rules that otherwise apply. There are ample examples on both sides of the ocean of 'churches' being denied Church status because it was obvious the claim to exercising the right to religious freedom was actually a cover for an activity of a non-religious nature.

Now, with political Islam there is nothing that should keep us from scrutinizing the claim of that movement with regards to the free exercise of religion. And that includes the dress-code they impose on their women, even if those women claim to do so out of their free will. It also doesn't hurt to remember that no agreement, including the most venerated ones, can be used to force a society to destroy itself.

Yeah, only extremists believe people should be free to wear their religious attire while walking in a park. The "true" believer in religious freedom carefully analyzes every religion and decides which aspects of those religions are consistent with his moral sensibilities and bans the rest. And creates special laws that only apply to members of minority religions. Wouldn't want to have equal protection under the law. That's for extremists.

[Hazir]

Yeah, only extremists believe people should be free to wear their religious attire while walking in a park. The "true" believer in religious freedom carefully analyzes every religion and decides which aspects of those religions are consistent with his moral sensibilities and bans the rest. And creates special laws that only apply to members of minority religions. Wouldn't want to have equal protection under the law. That's for extremists.

The question as far as I am concerned about is whether or not it is a necessary and reasonable demand on a person to be readily identifiable. In our present day situation I think that is the case, and having said that I think there is no reason to exempt people from a rule to that extent because they claim their religion tells them so.

Let's not forget their religious claim is on the basis on one and indivisible islam, so even within that frame there is ample reason to discard the facecovering veil, or any veil for that matter, as socio-political. If we wouldn't take that into consideration we might as well stop using quotes when refering to the Islamic State and we would have every reason not to interfere with their interpretation of Islam. Of course that would also end the apologetic 'this is not Islam' when another sex-deprived teenager hacks a couple of his fellow citizens to kingdom come.

[Aimless]

The question as far as I am concerned about is whether or not it is a necessary and reasonable demand on a person to be readily identifiable. In our present day situation I think that is the case, and having said that I think there is no reason to exempt people from a rule to that extent because they claim their religion tells them so.

I can see the merits of this argument, but I must wonder, if we have to be readily identifiable at all times, should we also be required to have photo ID on us at all times and be required to show our ID at all times with or without cause? Presently, in most western countries with anti-mask laws, the prohibition on face-covering clothing or masks is restricted to those specific situations where there is an immediate or imminent threat to the public order. Even then, the prohibition may simply entail being required to show your face if asked to by an official, eg. a police officer.

Let's not forget their religious claim is on the basis on one and indivisible islam, so even within that frame there is ample reason to discard the facecovering veil, or any veil for that matter, as socio-political. If we wouldn't take that into consideration we might as well stop using quotes when refering to the Islamic State and we would have every reason not to interfere with their interpretation of Islam. Of course that would also end the apologetic 'this is not Islam' when another sex-deprived teenager hacks a couple of his fellow citizens to kingdom come.

This is bogus.

Firstly, legislation in a secular society should not be an exercise in theology. Whether or not your religion really prohibits gay marriage or abortion or teaching science etc. is not relevant to the question of whether or not those things should be legal in a secular society, although granted debates on such legislation may need to be informed to some extent by the religious views of citizens to the extent that those views form part of that society's ethical/moral code.

Secondly, even when we "grant" people the right to have fucked up religious or political views without govt. interference, their rights extent only to the point where their actions do not cause direct and significant harm to others. That is the balance we usually strike between freedom of religion/opinion/expression on the one hand and the right to be safe from harm on the other. In some places we restrict some forms of hate-speech and speech that can be construed as dangerously subversive or as instigation to do harm. Do you really believe we should go even further than that?

[LittleFuzzy]

Actually, your extemist position in favour of religion as an excuse is just as suprising.

I don't think refraining from using the state's police power to select people's outerwear for them constitutes an extreme position. You don't even need to cite any religious grounds to support letting people make that decision rather than the government.

[RandBlade]

I don't think refraining from using the state's police power to select people's outerwear for them constitutes an extreme position. You don't even need to cite any religious grounds to support letting people make that decision rather than the government.

So long as there is no restraint elsewhere for restricting garments then absolutely. If however there is a perfectly valid restraint then should that be superceded by religion?

[Aimless]

If however there is a perfectly valid restraint

Which "perfectly valid restraint" are you referring to, specifically?

[RandBlade]

Shows once again why we should not be friends with Saudi Arabia.

[Lewkowski]

Shows once again why we should not be friends with Saudi Arabia.

Yup. Of course Clinton is happy to take their money.... (Though I'm sure she isn't the only politician to do so)

[Loki]

Yup. Of course Clinton is happy to take their money.... (Though I'm sure she isn't the only politician to do so)

The US sells Saudi Arabia billions of dollars worth of weapons. They also do a lot of dirty work for us. And you didn't seem to mind Cheney's much closer ties with Saudi Arabia.

[Lewkowski]

The US sells Saudi Arabia billions of dollars worth of weapons. They also do a lot of dirty work for us. And you didn't seem to mind Cheney's much closer ties with Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is a shit hole and I've never supported politicians dealing with them. Cheney has also been out of office for almost 8 years now. Sorry if I don't go back into my time machine and make a post about it.

[Aimless]

Awesome, I have a long list of things we can ban based on the argument that people who do those things aren't really doing it out of their own free will.

[RandBlade]

Awesome, I have a long list of things we can ban based on the argument that people who do those things aren't really doing it out of their own free will.

For umpteenth time nobody here is as far as I can see claiming the burka, despicable as it may be, should be banned.

As for the claim that women chose to dehumanise themselves "of their own free will", do you always consider Stockholm Syndrome a justification for what leads to it? There is nothing free about it.

[Aimless]

For umpteenth time nobody here is as far as I can see claiming the burka, despicable as it may be, should be banned.

As for the claim that women chose to dehumanise themselves "of their own free will", do you always consider Stockholm Syndrome a justification for what leads to it? There is nothing free about it.

Man, I'm a left-leaning doctor and all-round busybody living in the prototypical "nanny state" but the stuff you guys are saying, that's too much paternalism than even I can stomach. I live in a society where we can't even compel women in abusive relationships to leave said relationships, or compel most people with borderline substance abuse problems to get help. How the hell do you think I'm going to be able to justify, within the ethical and legal framework generally accepted by most members of my society, the presumption that people don't really know what they really believe or what they really want--even though they might say they do--and that we should use the law to get them "help them" to do what we know they secretly want to do? It's just not gonna fly. No woman ever really wants to be a stay-at-home mum or work part-time in order to manage all the unpaid housework, no child ever really wants to be religious and so on but I'm fairly sure I'm usually going to have to pretend they do if they say they do.

[RandBlade]

Man, I'm a left-leaning doctor and all-round busybody living in the prototypical "nanny state" but the stuff you guys are saying, that's too much paternalism than even I can stomach. I live in a society where we can't even compel women in abusive relationships to leave said relationships, or compel most people with borderline substance abuse problems to get help. How the hell do you think I'm going to be able to justify, within the ethical and legal framework generally accepted by most members of my society, the presumption that people don't really know what they really believe or what they really want--even though they might say they do--and that we should use the law to get them "help them" to do what we know they secretly want to do? It's just not gonna fly. No woman ever really wants to be a stay-at-home mum or work part-time in order to manage all the unpaid housework, no child ever really wants to be religious and so on but I'm fairly sure I'm usually going to have to pretend they do if they say they do.

You're spot on, the burka is 100% comparable to an abusive relationship.

Of course we can't force women to leave abusive relationships.
Of course we can't force women to leave abusive religions.

We can try and help though and encourage them to do so and offer support for those that do. And frown upon and ostracise those who encourage such abuse.

[Loki]

You're spot on, the burka is 100% comparable to an abusive relationship.

Of course we can't force women to leave abusive relationships.
Of course we can't force women to leave abusive religions.

We can try and help though and encourage them to do so and offer support for those that do. And frown upon and ostracise those who encourage such abuse.

Pray tell how forcing women who wear burqas to stay inside the house 24/7 leads to an end to their abusive relationships.

And using the government to force people to change religion? Are you serious? Westerners haven't advocated such rank stupidity in 400 years.

[Loki]

Except there is no valid restraint.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...t-over-it.html

[RandBlade]

If it's not legal or acceptable to eg wear a balaclava or other head covering for non religious reasons then it should be no more legal or acceptable to hide or deny an identity for religious ones either.

[Aimless]

If it's not legal or acceptable to eg wear a balaclava or other head covering for non religious reasons then it should be no more legal or acceptable to hide or deny an identity for religious ones either.

Where are balaclavas, KKK-masks and turbans illegal or otherwise unacceptable, and for what reasons?