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?
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?
Hope is the denial of reality
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.
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".If a hat is banned so should the turban then, fair's fair.
Because of your enthusiastic defense of the systematic victimisation of black Americans, of course.Why is it telling?
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.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?
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.
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.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.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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.
Hope is the denial of reality
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?
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
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Hope is the denial of reality
As I stated before I'm not for the wholesale banning of it. However for high potential terror targets I can see the need to require someone to show their face. (IE going through security at the airport).
And yes it is true.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...lim-countries/
The burka is #1 on the left with a median of 2%. The next one over (what a lot of folks would still probably consider a burka) is 8%. The hijab is the most popular one, and these are predominately Muslim countries. So I'll repeat the vast majority of Muslims don't even believe woman are required to wear a burka for Islam. Some type of covering is a requirement but the burka is the farthest extreme.
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.
Congratulations America
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.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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.
Hope is the denial of reality
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
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.
Except there is no valid restraint.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...t-over-it.html
Hope is the denial of reality
Except there is no blanket ban on balaclavas.
Hope is the denial of reality
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 toget 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.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
And yet you were here and never expressed an interest in his ties with the Saudis and mocked the "no blood for oil" folks. Suddenly it's become an important issue. Just like no one called for dozens of hearings into the bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and yet decided a far less bloody attack in Benghazi deserves the head of the secretary of state.
Hope is the denial of reality
Weird, if you were so against it back then surely you must have posted about it back then.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."