Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

France Bans The Burqa

Page 5 of 14 [ 214 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 14  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

12 Apr 2011, 10:34 am

skafather84 wrote:
cdfox7 wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
cdfox7 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
cdfox7 wrote:
FYI I done a bit research into the Burqa, it consists of three items of Clothing.
The jilbāb is the body covering, the ḥijāb which is the head covering & the niqāb the face-veil.


All the better to hide one's identity.

ruveyn


In a way yes, the Islamic justification is express by the concept of Purdah.
Purdah the practice of concealing women from men.


And yet they're still able to fetishize women through all of that.

I have to wonder how much of this problem is too much libido.


lol yes don't quote me on this tho I hear that in some Islamic countries you a get a temporary marriage that can last about a day or two for the peruse of gettting some sexual action.



Sounds like a people who could use a few weeks on SSRI's.


Iol oh theres nikah 'urfi & zawag al-'urfi both used in Islamic prostitution. Its a bit crazy marrying a hooker.



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

12 Apr 2011, 10:51 am

cdfox7 wrote:

Iol oh theres nikah 'urfi & zawag al-'urfi both used in Islamic prostitution. Its a bit crazy marrying a hooker.


If by "hooker", you mean "underaged sex slave for rent for a day".


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


JeremyNJ1984
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 9 Oct 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 496
Location: Central New Jersey

12 Apr 2011, 10:52 am

Bethie wrote:
JeremyNJ1984 wrote:
Just because its " religious garb" doesn't mean its not open to critique when it comes to what concerns the public as a whole. Part of the reason the Burqa ban law is being put into effect is because muslim woman who wear it can not " lower the burka for a moment"..its against their religion to show their face to another man not their husband.

Imagine how their religion would see a woman who never wears it at all, then. 8O
JeremyNJ1984 wrote:
Do Muslim woman get special status now under the law that all of us don't get?

No. They should have the same rights as everyone else to practice their religious beliefs without interference from the state.
JeremyNJ1984 wrote:
Should France bend over backwards to protect Muslim fundmentalists ( because that is what burqa wearing muslims are) who don't show the same respect toward other faiths?

State infringement on religious freedom is not somehow made just if said religion is perceived as intolerant.
JeremyNJ1984 wrote:
They should deal with it..they chose to move to France...I would never move somewhere and not respect the customs and laws.

If the laws changed so that they violated a part of you central to your identity, and stripped you of your ability to follow teachings you held dear, I bet your ass you would.
JeremyNJ1984 wrote:
Mind you, these same people who wear the Burqas derive their religious and political beliefs in countries where you are not allowed to have another faith itself. They can't cry religious discrimination when they openly practice it themselves.

Them being perceived as hypocrites does not affect any right or non-right to ban the Burqa.



Why should Muslim woman who moves to France or chooses to practice that fundmentalist belief think for a second that in a secular modern nation-state we should at all care about what they think of our country? You can't come to my house and dictate to me how I should live..its the other way around, when it concerns the entire house...If this law " violated your central identity" what does that say about your identity? btw...the law doesnt say you cant wear the burqa in a mosque, private home, or car...it only concerns out in public. When you cover your eyes its a law enforcement issue when it comes to crimes committed, whether traffic violations or major offenses. That is where it goes from private to public issue. No one is discriminating against Islam here..no one is shutting down mosques, forcing a ghetto, or creating unequal civil laws. You know we have bigamy laws in this country, right? why not get rid of them as it discriminates against some of the tenets of the Mormon faith..aren't we discriminating there? there comes a time when the practices of faith conflict with modern secularism, and we have to take the public concern over the religious dogma. The fact they are hypocrites was more to show how fundmentalist and backwards they are in relation to the modern nation-state. If they want us to respect their laws and customs they need to adhere to it when they come to our countries.



ediself
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Oct 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,202
Location: behind you!!!

12 Apr 2011, 11:02 am

http://www.mamamia.com.au/weblog/2011/0 ... sting.html

This is why it is unsafe to let muslim values leak onto a laic population.
A young girl was burnt alive here a few years ago, because she refused to date a guy. Not sure if he was muslim, but in some areas muslim ideals are the mainstream view. It's the second religion of france.
I personally find it hard to walk in the street without being harassed and called a "french whore" when I wear a skirt.



jamieboy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,619

12 Apr 2011, 11:05 am

Guess how many women this will affect in a country of 64 million? Answer: 500 women.



cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

12 Apr 2011, 11:06 am

Bethie wrote:
cdfox7 wrote:

Iol oh theres nikah 'urfi & zawag al-'urfi both used in Islamic prostitution. Its a bit crazy marrying a hooker.


If by "hooker", you mean "underaged sex slave for rent for a day".


no I was talking about a rugby front row forward.



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

12 Apr 2011, 11:08 am

JeremyNJ1984 wrote:
Why should Muslim woman who moves to France or chooses to practice that fundmentalist belief think for a second that in a secular modern nation-state we should at all care about what they think of our country? You can't come to my house and dictate to me how I should live..its the other way around, when it concerns the entire house...If this law " violated your central identity" what does that say about your identity? btw...the law doesnt say you cant wear the burqa in a mosque, private home, or car...it only concerns out in public. When you cover your eyes its a law enforcement issue when it comes to crimes committed, whether traffic violations or major offenses. That is where it goes from private to public issue. No one is discriminating against Islam here..no one is shutting down mosques, forcing a ghetto, or creating unequal civil laws. You know we have bigamy laws in this country, right? why not get rid of them as it discriminates against some of the tenets of the Mormon faith..aren't we discriminating there? there comes a time when the practices of faith conflict with modern secularism, and we have to take the public concern over the religious dogma. The fact they are hypocrites was more to show how fundmentalist and backwards they are in relation to the modern nation-state. If they want us to respect their laws and customs they need to adhere to it when they come to our countries.


There has been no substantive concern presented-
merely the telltale signs of labelling all adherents to a religion "radicals" who might be dangerous in order to justify disenfranchising them.

Bigamy laws are truly in protection of the greater good. Trumped-up justifications under the guise of protecting the country from criminals and radicals, but instead target a politically unpopular religious group are not.

No matter how many times you insist "they" do X Y or Z ("they", meaning DIFFERENT PEOPLE IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES who happen to share the same religion) that does not constitute a right on the part of FRANCE to ban FRENCH MUSLIMS' religious garb.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


jamieboy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,619

12 Apr 2011, 11:12 am

Kenza Drider, a respectable mother-of-four, will leave her home in Avignon's Place de la Résistance on Monday with the intention of committing a crime. If the police are waiting for her – and they have had more than enough warning – she will be cautioned, perhaps be asked to accompany officers to the local station, possibly face a fine and, perhaps, will leave with a criminal record.

It is unlikely she will end up in jail, but who knows? It is a risk she is willing to take. Drider is not only determined to become a miscreant; she sees it as her absolute duty to do so.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ap ... nza-drider

According to this woman its her personal choice to wear it. I think that people being forced to wear them should be outlawed but people should have a choice if they want to wear them. Alot of it is motivated by the spite of the right and far right. People whom you otherwise wouldn't find advocating for womens rights.



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

12 Apr 2011, 11:18 am

jamieboy wrote:

According to this woman its her personal choice to wear it. I think that people being forced to wear them should be outlawed but people should have a choice if they want to wear them. Alot of it is motivated by the spite of the right and far right. People whom you otherwise wouldn't find advocating for womens rights.


Pretty much, as evidenced by the "national security" ruse thrown in for good measure-
the originators couldn't care less about protecting women's choices, or else they wouldn't ban the burqa outright.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


JeremyNJ1984
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 9 Oct 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 496
Location: Central New Jersey

12 Apr 2011, 11:18 am

Bethie wrote:
JeremyNJ1984 wrote:
Why should Muslim woman who moves to France or chooses to practice that fundmentalist belief think for a second that in a secular modern nation-state we should at all care about what they think of our country? You can't come to my house and dictate to me how I should live..its the other way around, when it concerns the entire house...If this law " violated your central identity" what does that say about your identity? btw...the law doesnt say you cant wear the burqa in a mosque, private home, or car...it only concerns out in public. When you cover your eyes its a law enforcement issue when it comes to crimes committed, whether traffic violations or major offenses. That is where it goes from private to public issue. No one is discriminating against Islam here..no one is shutting down mosques, forcing a ghetto, or creating unequal civil laws. You know we have bigamy laws in this country, right? why not get rid of them as it discriminates against some of the tenets of the Mormon faith..aren't we discriminating there? there comes a time when the practices of faith conflict with modern secularism, and we have to take the public concern over the religious dogma. The fact they are hypocrites was more to show how fundmentalist and backwards they are in relation to the modern nation-state. If they want us to respect their laws and customs they need to adhere to it when they come to our countries.


There has been no substantive concern presented-
merely the telltale signs of labelling all adherents to a religion "radicals" who might be dangerous in order to justify disenfranchising them.

Bigamy laws are truly in protection of the greater good. Trumped-up justifications under the guise of protecting the country from criminals and radicals, but instead target a politically unpopular religious group are not.

No matter how many times you insist "they" do X Y or Z ("they", meaning DIFFERENT PEOPLE IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES who happen to share the same religion) that does not constitute a right on the part of FRANCE to ban FRENCH MUSLIMS' religious garb.



No Substantive concern presented? what about the scenario I mentioned above when it comes to Law enforcement and what Police do to match the ID of a suspect, someone involved in a traffic issue, or other crime, when Police dont have a right to make a woman take off her burqa to show her face and eyes? this is a major issue....if i decided that my religious beliefs tell me to chain a woman up in a coller and leash and drag her around in public, does it make it legally right for society to have that happen because it " respects" my religion? Sure, they aren't popular...and for good reason...when you practice Islamic fundmentalism, don't expect others who you constantly call infidels and pigs to somehow respect you. Once again, they aren't " banning" it...they are still allowed to wear it in private, in house, in their car...just not in public where it becomes a public matter.



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

12 Apr 2011, 11:25 am

JeremyNJ1984 wrote:
No Substantive concern presented? what about the scenario I mentioned above when it comes to Law enforcement and what Police do to match the ID of a suspect, someone involved in a traffic issue, or other crime, when Police dont have a right to make a woman take off her burqa to show her face and eyes?

Bethie wrote:
Bigamy laws are truly in protection of the greater good. Trumped-up justifications under the guise of protecting the country from criminals and radicals, but instead target a politically unpopular religious group are not.


JeremyNJ1984 wrote:
this is a major issue....if i decided that my religious beliefs tell me to chain a woman up in a coller and leash and drag her around in public, does it make it legally right for society to have that happen because it " respects" my religion?

Yes. Because that's totally analogous with a woman leaving her house with cloth covering her face. :roll:

JeremyNJ1984 wrote:
Sure, they aren't popular...and for good reason...when you practice Islamic fundmentalism, don't expect others who you constantly call infidels and pigs to somehow respect you. Once again, they aren't " banning" it...they are still allowed to wear it in private, in house, in their car...just not in public where it becomes a public matter.

How nice of them, to allow them to at least feel decent in their own homes, where they will not frighten the easily-excitable bigots who consider Islam synonymous with a person being dangerous. :roll:


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


JeremyNJ1984
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 9 Oct 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 496
Location: Central New Jersey

12 Apr 2011, 11:33 am

Bethie wrote:
JeremyNJ1984 wrote:
No Substantive concern presented? what about the scenario I mentioned above when it comes to Law enforcement and what Police do to match the ID of a suspect, someone involved in a traffic issue, or other crime, when Police dont have a right to make a woman take off her burqa to show her face and eyes?

Bethie wrote:
Bigamy laws are truly in protection of the greater good. Trumped-up justifications under the guise of protecting the country from criminals and radicals, but instead target a politically unpopular religious group are not.


JeremyNJ1984 wrote:
this is a major issue....if i decided that my religious beliefs tell me to chain a woman up in a coller and leash and drag her around in public, does it make it legally right for society to have that happen because it " respects" my religion?

Yes. Because that's totally analogous with a woman leaving her house with cloth covering her face. :roll:

JeremyNJ1984 wrote:
Sure, they aren't popular...and for good reason...when you practice Islamic fundmentalism, don't expect others who you constantly call infidels and pigs to somehow respect you. Once again, they aren't " banning" it...they are still allowed to wear it in private, in house, in their car...just not in public where it becomes a public matter.

How nice of them, to allow them to at least feel decent in their own homes, where they will not frighten the easily-excitable bigots who consider Islam synonymous with a person being dangerous. :roll:
\

The only bigotry is stemming from the Islamists..their really is no difference whatsoever in their idealogy with White Supremacists. So lets say a Burqa wearing woman is driving a car and gets into an accident and hurts or god forbids, kills, a family member of yours...and the only reason the accident occured was because of the burqa and lack of vision? what than? how do you prosecute that? come on...these are religious beliefs that are incompatible in western modern society. Your watering down and ignoring of these critical issues speaks volumes.



MotherKnowsBest
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,196

12 Apr 2011, 11:42 am

Don't forget that the case tried in the ECHR against a country for banning islamic dress was Turkey, an islamic country.



cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

12 Apr 2011, 11:49 am

MotherKnowsBest wrote:
Don't forget that the case tried in the ECHR against a country for banning islamic dress was Turkey, an islamic country.


Well technically speaking Turkey is part in Europe geographically, but what gets me is why on earth are Israel in the Eurovison song contest & have UEFA membership..



JeremyNJ1984
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 9 Oct 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 496
Location: Central New Jersey

12 Apr 2011, 11:50 am

cdfox7 wrote:
MotherKnowsBest wrote:
Don't forget that the case tried in the ECHR against a country for banning islamic dress was Turkey, an islamic country.


Well technically speaking Turkey is part in Europe geographically, but what gets me is why on earth are Israel in the Eurovison song contest & have UEFA membership..


Does that keep you up at night?


Edit: Israel is a member of the European Broadcasting Team, and therefore has a right to be in the Eurovision contest. They dont go by geography, but by those under its auspices.



Last edited by JeremyNJ1984 on 12 Apr 2011, 11:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

12 Apr 2011, 11:50 am

JeremyNJ1984 wrote:
The only bigotry is stemming from the Islamists..their really is no difference whatsoever in their idealogy with White Supremacists.
Making bald assertions about the entirety of a group based on the actions of a few? Is bigotry. Congratulations. YOU'RE the White Supremacist in this analogy.
JeremyNJ1984 wrote:
So lets say a Burqa wearing woman is driving a car and gets into an accident and hurts or god forbids, kills, a family member of yours...and the only reason the accident occured was because of the burqa and lack of vision? what than? how do you prosecute that?

The same way I'd be prosecuted if I did the same thing because my beanie slid into my eyes-I'd be taken to task as an individual who was careless.
JeremyNJ1984 wrote:
come on...these are religious beliefs that are incompatible in western modern society. Your watering down and ignoring of these critical issues speaks volumes.

They're incompatible only insofar as they violate the rights of someone else in "western modern society." Other than making gullible and hysterical people nervous, you've yet to demonstrate the harm of the face veil.

If you've nothing more to say on the issue than to incessantly
repeat your offensive stereotyping of millions of people,
assert that women wearing face veils is some massive security threat,
and declare that their freedoms are negated by the existence of bad people in their religious group,
I'll call an end to my attempt at discourse and let you ramble on.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.