Islam and the west

[Lewkowski]

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.

1998? Yes let's compare the world pre-911 to today. I didn't even start actively posting about politics until the 21st century.

Also while I'm not a Benghazi conspiracy theorist there was a lot to question. In particular the epic levels of bull shit that Clinton/Obama/Spokespose did by suggesting it was caused by a YouTube video. That's the part that personally upsets me because it is the type of cowardly crap that attempts to blame America (or Charlie Hebdo) for Islamic Terrorism. "If only we we respected their beliefs" we could all get along. Its pathetic and feeds into Political Correctness bullshit.

[Loki]

Someone misattributed the attack. How horrifying. Clearly, that emboldened terrorists or something.

Benghazi = 3 dead
Kenya/Tanziania = 224 dead

Clearly Benghazi is worse.

[Lewkowski]

Someone misattributed the attack. How horrifying. Clearly, that emboldened terrorists or something.

Benghazi = 3 dead
Kenya/Tanziania = 224 dead

Clearly Benghazi is worse.

1998.

And 4 dead.

And beyond the body count it is the lying and the attempted narrative that brings it up as an issue with Hillary. She probably didn't personally make the security decisions there, that was done lower on the totem poll.

[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.

[Loki]

It's not the government's job to determine which religious practices are consistent with a given religion and which are not.

Let me know when there's a mass wave of people in burqas killing people.

[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?

[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.

[RandBlade]

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

Schools and airport security for starters. Because covering ones face is detrimental to education/security.

I never said turbans, just as I never said hijabs.

[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.

[RandBlade]

It's not the government's job to determine which religious practices are consistent with a given religion and which are not.

Let me know when there's a mass wave of people in burqas killing people.

Agreed. So lets give no quarter to it. If covering your face is unacceptable then take the thing off. Why should the government justify it or say it is consistent with a religion?

[RandBlade]

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.

Are you entirely illiterate? Not only have you repeatedly in this thread pretended that I said that we should ban an oppressive garment that I never said should be banned, but I have repeatedly asked you to show me where I said that only for you to ignore that. Now you're pretending that I said we should force people to change religion. Again I will ask you to show where I said we should force people to change religion. Again no doubt you will ignore it as you know full well I never said that and honesty is not your forte at the moment.

[Hazir]

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.



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?

I have zero problems with a law that requires you to be able to identify yourself to a police officer if that police officer has a reasonable ground to ask you for one. Just being somewhere is not a reasonable ground (in general) so there's no need to fear that such a law would lead to racial profiling.

The second part of your post entirely ignores the fact that for the last century or so we have seen something come into being with the umbrella term - political Islam. If people decide to mix up their religion and politics to the extent that it's near impossible to differentiate between the two in my opinion the burden should not fall upon society at large to accomodate whichever claim such a group makes. Since the group itself is unwilling to make differences between socio-politially driven behaviour and religiously driven behaviour we - society at large - have to make that distinction, based on the needs of society rather than on some out of hands idea of religion as the ultimate shield for unacceptable behaviour.

[Aimless]

I have zero problems with a law that requires you to be able to identify yourself to a police officer if that police officer has a reasonable ground to ask you for one. Just being somewhere is not a reasonable ground (in general) so there's no need to fear that such a law would lead to racial profiling.

So why can't the officer simply ask you to show your face when there is reason to do so? Why is "Just being somewhere" enough to require you to show your face?

The second part of your post entirely ignores the fact that for the last century or so we have seen something come into being with the umbrella term - political Islam. If people decide to mix up their religion and politics to the extent that it's near impossible to differentiate between the two in my opinion the burden should not fall upon society at large to accomodate whichever claim such a group makes. Since the group itself is unwilling to make differences between socio-politially driven behaviour and religiously driven behaviour we - society at large - have to make that distinction, based on the needs of society rather than on some out of hands idea of religion as the ultimate shield for unacceptable behaviour.

Completely irrelevant to the question of burqas. The same reasoning can be justified to ban literally everything Muslims do, ranging from circumcision (which can be banned for medico-ethical reasons) to praying at a mosque, or ritual ablution, or avoiding pork etc. This kind of reasoning can also be used to justify banning anti-abortion initiatives, compel churches and priests to wed homosexuals, etc--which may be the point where Lewk chooses to get off this particular train.

[RandBlade]

There are some shopping centres that have since over a decade ago banned hoodies as well as baseball caps etc which can obscure the face and prevent identification on CCTV which is prevalent throughout the centre. If the shopping centre applied that rule equally to religious garments as they do to baseball caps and hoodies is that racism or entirely appropriate in your eyes?

A few years ago I worked for two weeks while between jobs in a petrol forecourt. There the requirement is that for legal and security reasons the fuel will not be dispensed until the person inside the building presses a button to authorise the sale. The sale can't be authorised until you have seen the face of the purchaser, this is to ensure they are over 16 (a legal requirement) and that they are covered by CCTV etc which is another requirement. If a motorbike rider rides up and tries to fill up while wearing his bike helmet (reasonable behaviour) then an announcement needs to be made requesting the helmet is taken off first before you start dispensing so that you [and the CCTV] can see the face. However if someone arrives wearing a religious garment that covers the face the advice given was "just don't go there". We are intimidated away from confronting unacceptable behaviour if it has a religious background.

[Aimless]

There are some shopping centres that have since over a decade ago banned hoodies as well as baseball caps etc which can obscure the face and prevent identification on CCTV which is prevalent throughout the centre. If the shopping centre applied that rule equally to religious garments as they do to baseball caps and hoodies is that racism or entirely appropriate in your eyes?

It's pretty clear in the British context that the hoodie-ban was an attempt to not simply make people identifiable but to keep out a certain loosely defined group or class of people (chavs or whatever you wish to call them) who'd been causing trouble. There are CCTVs all over the UK, but not all places in the UK ban hoodies. In context, I believe a similar ban encompassing burqas would be inappropriate. Even when applied "equally" to everyone, the impact on burqa-wearers would be disproportionate and not comparable to the impact on people who wear hoodies but can readily wear anything else without any particular discomfort.

A few years ago I worked for two weeks while between jobs in a petrol forecourt. There the requirement is that for legal and security reasons the fuel will not be dispensed until the person inside the building presses a button to authorise the sale. The sale can't be authorised until you have seen the face of the purchaser, this is to ensure they are over 16 (a legal requirement) and that they are covered by CCTV which is a requirement. If a motorbike rider rides up and tries to fill up while wearing his bike helmet (reasonable behaviour) then an announcement needs to be made requesting the helmet is taken off first before you start dispensing so that you [and the CCTV] can see the face. However if someone arrives wearing a religious garment that covers the face the advice given was "just don't go there". We are intimidated away from confronting unacceptable religious behaviour.

I honestly have no opinion on the matter of dangerous burqa-bikers robbing petrol-stations. I know that many motorcyclists hate that policy and, depending on their mood, may decide to take their business elsewhere.

[Aimless]

Schools and airport security for starters. Because covering ones face is detrimental to education/security.

I never said turbans, just as I never said hijabs.

You should have said turbans because hats are generally not allowed when going through airport security, whereas sikh turbans generally are even though you can definitely hide things in them. If you wear something that covers your face, you may have to show your face. If you're covering your face for religious reasons or the like, special consideration may be given such that you may eg. show your face in a secluded place to a female officer, if that's what you wish. If you show up at the security checkpoint wearing a balaclava or a KKK mask, however, you will not only be required to reveal your face but the special consideration you'll probably receive is the special consideration appropriate to give to a pathetic troll, which is what you would be in that situation.

As for education, I can think of a number of things far more detrimental to a child's education, such as learning creationism or being subjected to disinformation about science. You should talk to Lewk about banning those things too, maybe you guys can come to an agreement about where to draw the line.

[RandBlade]

It's pretty clear in the British context that the hoodie-ban was an attempt to not simply make people identifiable but to keep out a certain loosely defined group or class of people (chavs or whatever you wish to call them) who'd been causing trouble. There are CCTVs all over the UK, but not all places in the UK ban hoodies. In context, I believe a similar ban encompassing burqas would be inappropriate. Even when applied "equally" to everyone, the impact on burqa-wearers would be disproportionate and not comparable to the impact on people who wear hoodies but can readily wear anything else without any particular discomfort.

So targeting chavs is OK but applying rules equally to apply to everyone is not. Great priorities that!

Why would the impact be disproportionate? The burka-wearers are free to put on other clothes and show their face just as baseball cap wearers are free to do so. Unless you want us to pander to a religion there is literally no difference.

[Aimless]

So targeting chavs is OK but applying rules equally to apply to everyone is not. Great priorities that!

Why would the impact be disproportionate? The burka-wearers are free to put on other clothes and show their face just as baseball cap wearers are free to do so. Unless you want us to pander to a religion there is literally no difference.

Many sikhs feel naked without their turbans. Many of those who wear burqas similarly feel naked in public when they are not dressed as they are used to. Having to be out in public without a burqa would, for them, be far more distressing than having to wear a different jacket would be for a regular British teenager. British teenagers do not feel naked if they aren't allowed to have their hoods turned up.

Your reasoning is about as retarded as saying that a ban on gay public kissing affects gay people and straight people equally or that forcing everyone to go topless affects everyone equally. It is flawed reasoning applied to a flawed understanding of people. We each have our own personal boundaries for what we are comfortable with doing. Some people don't like to wear clothes that bare their midriff. Some people don't want to walk around topless. Would you like to force them to dress in a way that makes them uncomfortable? The discomfort for a person wearing a burqa may be so great that they will choose to stay at home rather than going out, and who will you have helped then? I have no doubt many would adapt, but I am more concerned about those who would not.

To answer your first question, I do not think targetting chavs is okay, I was just pointing out the true motivation for the ban. Based on that, a ban on burqas would be inappropriate. From my perspective, both burqa- and hoodie-bans are inappropriate. If we have to rank bans according to how inappropriate they are, I would say that a burqa-ban would be worse than a hoodie-ban, from my perspective, in that context.

[RandBlade]

No it is like saying a ban on anyone kissing at all should not apply to gays as gays "feel naked" if they are not allowed to kiss.

So it seems you want to pander to religion over security or equality. Bully for you, that's what we do.

[Hazir]

So why can't the officer simply ask you to show your face when there is reason to do so? Why is "Just being somewhere" enough to require you to show your face?



Completely irrelevant to the question of burqas. The same reasoning can be justified to ban literally everything Muslims do, ranging from circumcision (which can be banned for medico-ethical reasons) to praying at a mosque, or ritual ablution, or avoiding pork etc. This kind of reasoning can also be used to justify banning anti-abortion initiatives, compel churches and priests to wed homosexuals, etc--which may be the point where Lewk chooses to get off this particular train.

It is not irrelevant to face covering garb, because it is exactly that which besides posing a serious safety risk, also imposes, both on the wearer and those around her a model of male-female interaction that is intrinsically sexist. It reduces the woman to an object of male sexuality and the male to a leech by nature. The West has taken long enough to fight the worst of its own sexism to now forcefully reject any attempt to re-introduce it by the backdoor of what is a minor religion in its lands.

[Aimless]

No it is like saying a ban on anyone kissing at all should not apply to gays as gays "feel naked" if they are not allowed to kiss.

No, everyone else would still be allowed to wear clothes and dress more or less as they wish, so my analogy is the more accurate one.

So it seems you want to pander to religion over security or equality. Bully for you, that's what we do.

*shrug* I don't want to force people to do things they're not comfortable with doing unless there is a significant and clear benefit that outweighs the imposition on the individual and the infringement of his rights. It really is that simple. If there was a good enough reason I might consider forcing people to go around literally naked, perhaps. Chaloobi might, under the right circumstances, consider compelling people to have abortions whereas someone else here may want to make abortions illegal. I'm sure there's someone here who might consider compelling adults to get vaccinated for everything, even if they don't want to. Everyone has their own personal moral/ethical limits. You might think of respecting other people's boundaries and wishes as "pandering", or perhaps you do not consider them to be people at all, but I obviously don't share that view even when it comes to things they do that I believe is dumb. Enjoy your righteous outrage and your nanny-state wet dreams.

[RandBlade]

It is not irrelevant to face covering garb, because it is exactly that which besides posing a serious safety risk, also imposes, both on the wearer and those around her a model of male-female interaction that is intrinsically sexist. It reduces the woman to an object of male sexuality and the male to a leech by nature. The West has taken long enough to fight the worst of its own sexism to now forcefully reject any attempt to re-introduce it by the backdoor of what is a minor religion in its lands.

Indeed I'm appalled by Loki and Aimless's kowtowing to such explicit sexism. Anyone who cares remotely about equality should find it contemptible but instead the notion that people should be treated equally is viewed as contemptible instead.

Remarkable doublethink going on here.

[RandBlade]

No, everyone else would still be allowed to wear clothes and dress more or less as they wish, so my analogy is the more accurate one.

No they're not as if they wish to wear a hoody or baseball cap that's banned. They are told they're not allowed to wear that which they want to. You are talking absolute bollocks sir.

That despite the fact that dehumanising women and treating them as meat that needs covering up is despicable sexism while a chav wearing a baseball cap is nowhere near so evil.

[Aimless]

Indeed I'm appalled by Loki and Aimless's kowtowing to such explicit sexism. Anyone who cares remotely about equality should find it contemptible but instead the notion that people should be treated equally is viewed as contemptible instead.

Remarkable doublethink going on here.

I don't know where you live but where I live we have to balance different rights and obligations and legal problems against one another.

[Hazir]

I don't know where you live but where I live we have to balance different rights and obligations and legal problems against one another.

Indeed, we have to balance rights and obligations. But that doesn't mean that we have to forget entirely that last time we had to do that we were not willing to submit to religious tradition and that there actually isn't a good reason this time to see that differently.

We would be abhorred by the claim that a woman got raped because she wasn't dressed in a decent way. We should not apply any other norms just because a minority thinks their religion puts a special burden on women not to arouse men. Given that there are ample reasons already to condemn the hijab, there should be no doubt that once 'muslim' garb clashes with security, a prohibition is totally acceptable.

[RandBlade]

I don't know where you live but where I live we have to balance different rights and obligations and legal problems against one another.

Absolutely, and we should do everything we can to encourage the right of women not to be treated as subhumans denied an identity. We should do nothing to prioritise the right of people to put their religion ahead of other's security and safety.

[RandBlade]

Indeed, we have to balance rights and obligations. But that doesn't mean that we have to forget entirely that last time we had to do that we were not willing to submit to religious tradition and that there actually isn't a good reason this time to see that differently.

We would be abhorred by the claim that a woman got raped because she wasn't dressed in a decent way. We should not apply any other norms just because a minority thinks their religion puts a special burden on women not to arouse men. Given that there are ample reasons already to condemn the hijab, there should be no doubt that once 'muslim' garb clashes with security, a prohibition is totally acceptable.

Absolutely. If people don't like that they are free to choose a form of dress that isn't so unacceptable. Aimless hasn't come up with a single secular reason yet to break security rules to permit this dress.

Or even come out as either condemning or supporting the notion of what the dress represents.

[Loki]

Except there are no security rules banning masks.

Just how illiberal have you become? You think it's the state's duty to condemn or support different pieces of religious attire?

[RandBlade]

There are security rules at many places banning masks.

Just how illiberal have you become? You think it's the state's duty to condemn or support different pieces of relationship behaviour*?

* AKA verbal and non-physical abuse.

[LittleFuzzy]

Agreed. So lets give no quarter to it. If covering your face is unacceptable then take the thing off.

Except covering your face is acceptable.

Incidentally, Rand, if you want something to only apply in specific, limited, circumstances, you need to say that. Every time. You don't get to try and use general and universal language almost exclusively and expect us to derive your intent by telepathy, particularly when the basis and justifications you offer for your position are themselves universal applicable.