France moves closer to ban on burqas
In 2004, the French parliament passed legislation banning Muslim girls from wearing headscarves in state schools, prompting widespread Muslim protests. The law also banned other conspicuous religious symbols including Sikh turbans, large Christian crucifixes and Jewish skull caps.
Not cool, in my opinion.
France moves closer to ban on burqas
In 2004, the French parliament passed legislation banning Muslim girls from wearing headscarves in state schools, prompting widespread Muslim protests. The law also banned other conspicuous religious symbols including Sikh turbans, large Christian crucifixes and Jewish skull caps.
Not cool, in my opinion.
I'm 100% wildly in favor of banning such things in the schools, as long as all religious clothing is equally banned. (It's entirely legitimate for schools to have reasonable dress codes and it's certainly a good thing in a secular state that they aren't co-opted for proselytism. In fact, it's awesome.)
Out on the street? Not so much. And that's while agreeing completely with this:
"The problem of the burqa is not a religious problem. This is an issue of a woman's freedom and dignity. This is not a religious symbol. It is a sign of subservience; it is a sign of lowering. I want to say solemnly, the burqa is not welcome in France," Sarkozy said.
I can see an argument for a rule that you are not allowed to conceal your face in a school. Beyond that, I disagree. I think you should be allowed to wear a headscarf, Yakama, crucifix, what-have-you.
There may be some coalition between the burqa and 'lowering' of women. However, I think the burqa is more a symptom than the actual disease. Banning it does not fix the underlying problem.
I can see an argument for a rule that you are not allowed to conceal your face in a school. Beyond that, I disagree. I think you should be allowed to wear a headscarf, Yakama, crucifix, what-have-you.
Most schools aren't going to let you walk around with a swastika on your baseball cap either, and good for them. I don't see any reason why religious symbols should get some kind of deference that non-religious symbols do not. It's legitimate to exclude tobacco advertisements and send kids home for wearing them to school (this is the case in probably the vast majority of American schools) so why not other such things? I can't think of a good argument that permits religious symbols and messages and forbids pro-tobacco messages. We haven't even left the First Amendment to consider both under American laws.
There may be some coalition between the burqa and 'lowering' of women. However, I think the burqa is more a symptom than the actual disease. Banning it does not fix the underlying problem.
Well yeah. I agree with you that people walking the streets should be able to wear whatever they want. (Or not wear whatever they want, as the case may be.) But women do get pressured into wearing them. The article points out how deeply unpopular they are among French Muslim women. A quick Google will surely turn up many articles about how Afghan women were forced into the damned things too. Banning foot folding or female genital mutilation might not fix the underlying problem either, but it's a positive step in its own right. I don't agree with the law in question, but I don't think we can deny the extremely obvious connection between the burqa and Muslim mistreatment of women. It's a case in point. When's the last time you heard about the Taliban making a man wear one?
Surely, religion is all about failt - something you believe in. Science is based on what can be proven- ie fact! Do the two have to be incompatible. Science, as far as I am aware cannot proove that God exists or not! In the meanwhile I will keep believing!
Science is based on what can be proven- ie fact!
Uh oh! Kirth is coming!
I can see an argument for a rule that you are not allowed to conceal your face in a school. Beyond that, I disagree. I think you should be allowed to wear a headscarf, Yakama, crucifix, what-have-you.
Sorry Mr. Goldstein, no hats in the classroom means no hats in the classroom.
Uh oh! Kirth is coming!
I'm here. I need a permanent link to past pages where I spent hours debunking oxymorons like "just a theory" or "scientific proof."
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I can see an argument for a rule that you are not allowed to conceal your face in a school. Beyond that, I disagree. I think you should be allowed to wear a headscarf, Yakama, crucifix, what-have-you.
What about all my bling? I want to be able to wear that to school so everyone knows I'm a playa.
|
What about all my bling? I want to be able to wear that to school so everyone knows I'm a playa.I can see an argument for a rule that you are not allowed to conceal your face in a school. Beyond that, I disagree. I think you should be allowed to wear a headscarf, Yakama, crucifix, what-have-you.
Just be careful you don't OG.
Just be careful you don't OG.
"Cookie-Head Jenkins! He was the best break dancer in the world!"
|
What about all my bling? I want to be able to wear that to school so everyone knows I'm a playa.I can see an argument for a rule that you are not allowed to conceal your face in a school. Beyond that, I disagree. I think you should be allowed to wear a headscarf, Yakama, crucifix, what-have-you.
No one is going to make you part with your silver tie clip and bedazzled pocket protector, Sebastian.
|
I can see an argument for a rule that you are not allowed to conceal your face in a school. Beyond that, I disagree. I think you should be allowed to wear a headscarf, Yakama, crucifix, what-have-you.
There may be some coalition between the burqa and 'lowering' of women. However, I think the burqa is more a symptom than the actual disease. Banning it does not fix the underlying problem.
I agree completely.
|
|
No one is going to make you part with your silver tie clip and bedazzled pocket protector, Sebastian.What about all my bling? I want to be able to wear that to school so everyone knows I'm a playa.I can see an argument for a rule that you are not allowed to conceal your face in a school. Beyond that, I disagree. I think you should be allowed to wear a headscarf, Yakama, crucifix, what-have-you.
Damn strait!! :)
I agree completely.
Uh oh, I better change my stance, quick. ;)
Most schools aren't going to let you walk around with a swastika on your baseball cap either, and good for them. I don't see any reason why religious symbols should get some kind of deference that non-religious symbols do not. It's legitimate to exclude tobacco advertisements and send kids home for wearing them to school (this is the case in probably the vast majority of American schools) so why not other such things? I can't think of a good argument that permits religious symbols and messages and forbids pro-tobacco messages. We haven't even left the First Amendment to consider both under American laws.
O.k. You got me with the Swastika, 'cause I certainly do not want to see kids walking around with those. Tobacco is easier to justify since it is harmful and illegal for children. You are going to have a somewhat more difficult time proving religion is harmful for children despite what you and I might believe.
I am assuming you have no objection to little Timmy wearing a Batman shirt. Why does he get to support Batman but little Johnny can not show his support for Vishnu?
Banning foot folding or female genital mutilation might not fix the underlying problem either, but it's a positive step in its own right. I don't agree with the law in question, but I don't think we can deny the extremely obvious connection between the burqa and Muslim mistreatment of women.
Foot folding and female genital mutilation are no where near the same thing as wearing a Burqa. I respect you, Samnell, and I have to say I am a little disappointed you would use this strategy.
I am not for forcing anyone to wear a Burqa. I do think, however, if I woman chooses, of her own free will to wear one, she should be allowed. I realize that is not likely what is actually happening. I also realize how incredibly difficult it would be to try and prove the reason.
Still, the real issue is extremist. I think more effort should be put into the actual problem then creating reams and reams of laws trying to get at extremist.
I am not for forcing anyone to wear a Burqa. I do think, however, if I woman chooses, of her own free will to wear one, she should be allowed. I realize that is not likely what is actually happening. I also realize how incredibly difficult it would be to try and prove the reason.
Although I have been staying away from contentious threads lately, I wanted to pop in on this one real quick. Many Middle Eastern women are perfectly happy to wear the burqa, and would be most uncomfortable in public without one. That is where the problem stems.
They are not being 'forced' to wear them, unless you frame that in a cultural reference. Their culture mandates that this is proper attire for women in public. Going out in public without one for many Muslim women would be as uncomfortable as if someone mandated that Western women had to go topless everywhere.
Hiding breasts doesn't serve any purpose, so why does our culture mandate it? The same reason the Muslim culture mandates the burqa, sexual politics. Their framework is different from ours.
So…you are saying we should burn bras? :)
France moves closer to ban on burqas
In 2004, the French parliament passed legislation banning Muslim girls from wearing headscarves in state schools, prompting widespread Muslim protests. The law also banned other conspicuous religious symbols including Sikh turbans, large Christian crucifixes and Jewish skull caps.
Not cool, in my opinion.
I'm 100% in favour of this. They are thinking of banning face coverings in all public/government buildings and transportation (such as hospitals, government offices, post offices and on public transport).
Makes sense from security reasons and for being a secular society.As for the religious symbols in school. I agree with the French ban there as well. The country banned Muslim headscarves and other conspicuous religious symbols at state schools in 2004 (skull caps, large crosses, turbans, etc).
After all one must remember that children are given a religion. They do not have religion as they have not had the chance to make an informed choice about which religion matches their beliefs.
I am not for forcing anyone to wear a Burqa. I do think, however, if I woman chooses, of her own free will to wear one, she should be allowed. I realize that is not likely what is actually happening. I also realize how incredibly difficult it would be to try and prove the reason.Although I have been staying away from contentious threads lately, I wanted to pop in on this one real quick. Many Middle Eastern women are perfectly happy to wear the burqa, and would be most uncomfortable in public without one. That is where the problem stems.
They are not being 'forced' to wear them, unless you frame that in a cultural reference. Their culture mandates that this is proper attire for women in public. Going out in public without one for many Muslim women would be as uncomfortable as if someone mandated that Western women had to go topless everywhere.
Hiding breasts doesn't serve any purpose, so why does our culture mandate it? The same reason the Muslim culture mandates the burqa, sexual politics. Their framework is different from ours.
Which brings up a good point. Restricting face coverings doesn't violate their freedom of religion as it is a cultural tradition and not a religious teaching.
The biggest reason to support this restriction/ban is security reasons.
Edit: I'm all for bras. Breasts need support too.
I am assuming you have no objection to little Timmy wearing a Batman shirt. Why does he get to support Batman but little Johnny can not show his support for Vishnu?
Symbols are symbols. I am intensely opposed to granting religious symbols (including the swastika incidentally) any special protection which does not exist for every other class of symbol. Doing so creates a special right for the religious, putting them above the law. This is a profound offense against the notion of equality before the law.
Foot folding and female genital mutilation are no where near the same thing as wearing a Burqa. I respect you, Samnell, and I have to say I am a little disappointed you would use this strategy.
I'm not arguing that they are morally identical. I'm giving them all as examples of cultural practices designed to debilitate and subordinate women. (Though that does make them morally similar, if not sharing the same degree of loathsomeness.)
I am not for forcing anyone to wear a Burqa. I do think, however, if I woman chooses, of her own free will to wear one, she should be allowed. I realize that is not likely what is actually happening. I also realize how incredibly difficult it would be to try and prove the reason.
Quite right it's not what's happening. French Muslim women made their choice loud and clear: they don't want to wear the damned things. So did Afghan women, before the Taliban.
Still, the real issue is extremist. I think more effort should be put into the actual problem then creating reams and reams of laws trying to get at extremist
Like I said I don't agree with banning a burqa on the street. I think that's too much. But it's worth looking into the climate that creates extremism. One that normalizes total control over all aspects of one's life by a religious authority is certainly one of the seeds of the same, whether it's the guys who put Sarin in the Tokyo subway, the ones who assassinate doctors, or the fellows who strap on dynamite vests and get on a bus. Bin Laden's brand of Islam ultimately dates back to what amount to cult camps for young men in the Arabian desert in the 1700s.
That crazy, violent fanatics come out of these closed communities isn't some kind of accident of the system. It's the main objective of having them. I don't think it's out of line to be worried whenever any group starts trying to create one (or maintain one from abroad) within the larger society. That's not just a religious thing. The Red Army Faction was pretty bent too. It's bad when everyone does it and we have good reason to be alarmed when it's tried. I don't agree with the strategy France chose here, but I can't fault their motivation in the slightest.
I don't agree with the strategy France chose here, but I can't fault their motivation in the slightest.
I believe I would agree with you there. I understand why they are doing it and empathize. I guess my beef is while you are putting the screws to those you do not like, you should be careful you do not marginalize someone else without good cause.
Airport screening for 'Flying while Muslim'
Sorry to keep picking on you, Samnell, but something else occurred to me today. Three words: 90's, HIV, homosexual. Is it really that different?
Nothing in the Quran that I know of actually mandates the hijab; it's more of a cultural thing, not a strictly religious one... and as such, it has become a powerful symbol of non-conformance with Western norms. Choosing to wear it through airport security would be like if, during the Vietnam war, I had worn a T-shirt with a hammer and sickle on it, and maybe a slogan on the back saying, "Long Live the VC!" In a time of heightened tension, a declaration that your outside ties supercede any loyalties to the country in which you've made your home will be met with some suspicion.
"God is dead." John Lennon
"Lennon is dead." God.
Why did god kill Lennon?
"God is dead." John Lennon
"Lennon is dead." God.
I believe you're thinking of Nietzsche. John Lennon said the Beatles were more popular than Jesus.
Nothing in the Quran that I know of actually mandates the hijab; it's more of a cultural thing, not a strictly religious one...
Irrelevant. It doesn't have to be explicitly mandated in the Quran for it to be a religious duty or symbol to the people who wear it. No holy book is the totality of it's religion.
and as such, it has become a powerful symbol of non-conformance with Western norms.
I guess if showing your hair is a cultural norm then yeah, but that's a rather inconsequential thing to get bent over. I'd hardly call that powerful.
Choosing to wear it through airport security would be like if, during the Vietnam war, I had worn a T-shirt with a hammer and sickle on it, and maybe a slogan on the back saying, "Long Live the VC!"
An explicit statement of support for a group with a reasonable chance it's endorsed by the wearer versus a "symbol of non-conformance" which you can't cleanly generalize into an endorsement.
That's nothing alike.
In a time of heightened tension, a declaration that your outside ties supercede any loyalties to the country in which you've made your home will be met with some suspicion.
Good thing there isn't any such deceleration being made by wearing a hijab, whew!
"Lennon is dead." God.
[citation needed]
I guess if showing your hair is a cultural norm then yeah, but that's a rather inconsequential thing to get bent over. I'd hardly call that powerful.
All symbols start off inconsequential. When it comes right down to it, the U.S. flag is nothing but some strips of colored cloth, after all. Symbols get their power from what they come to represent.
Personally, I don't worry too much about whether I'm scruffy or clean-shaven, because that is inconsequential here. But if I were to emigrate to Afghanistan, for example, where a beard is mandatory, I'd go ahead and grow one... or if not, I'd accept the fact that people would hassle me for not having one.
I believe you're thinking of Nietzsche. John Lennon said the Beatles were more popular than Jesus."God is dead." John Lennon
"Lennon is dead." God.
It was a joke in National Lampoon back when Lennon was shot. And Lennon was fond of quoting whomever, and did quote Nietzsche often.
Ah, see that would explain why I didn't get the reference. National Lampoon stopped being a popular magazine before I was born.
|
Ah, see that would explain why I didn't get the reference. National Lampoon stopped being a popular magazine before I was born.I believe you're thinking of Nietzsche. John Lennon said the Beatles were more popular than Jesus."God is dead." John Lennon
"Lennon is dead." God.
It was a joke in National Lampoon back when Lennon was shot. And Lennon was fond of quoting whomever, and did quote Nietzsche often.
My dad would let me read that mag as long as I promised to "skip the nudie parts". Sure, dad, gotcha.
;)
Why did god kill Lennon?"God is dead." John Lennon
"Lennon is dead." God.
Because Lennon said he didn't believe in Beatles.
Nietzsche killed Lennon? Far out, man.
The same reason he kills puppies.Why did god kill Lennon?"God is dead." John Lennon
"Lennon is dead." God.
Wait... God killed Lennon because he's really more of a cat person?
To make you ask silly questions. It worked.
Remember, there are no stupid questions, only stupid people.
...Armageddon is surely near. ;)
Glad to do my part.
Airport screening for 'Flying while Muslim'
Sorry to keep picking on you, Samnell, but something else occurred to me today. Three words: 90's, HIV, homosexual. Is it really that different?
Haven't I curled up into the fetal position and begged with mascara streaming down my face to be left alone enough for you? When will the hurting end?! Oh, the humanity! :)
And in the case of flying while Muslim, I don't think we disagree on anything. These people are being picked out based on racial and religious stereotypes and nothing more. It's no more justified than being pulled over for driving while black. If the screenings are meant to be random, then they should roll a die or have a computer pick a random number after every screening, where N=the number of passengers before the next one gets an extra bit of scrutiny. Failing that, all passengers should be screened exactly the same.
It's different, of course, if a passenger of any race, creed, color, fashion sense, and the like is behaving in a legitimately (not just praying a lot or something like that) suspicious manner.
Which is not to say that TSA security theater is much more than, well, what it says on the tin. I haven't flown since 1998 but I've been there to see people off a few times since. It reeks of the kind of empty ritual done to give people an illusion of safety. Every time someone gets caught with something, another round of superstitious prohibitions is considered. (Passengers can't use the john in the last half hour of a flight. Why? Because the guy who tried something in Detroit did! Even though anybody assembling an explosive or a bomb or whatever could go in at 31 minutes before landing, or for that matter at any time at all between takeoff and landing.)
And in the case of flying while Muslim, I don't think we disagree on anything.
I apologize. I thought we saw differently on this.
So…um…this fetal position thing…is that before or after I hump your leg?
|
|
"God is dead." John Lennon
"Lennon is dead." God.
You say you found Jesus. Christ!
He's the only oneYou say you've found Buddha
Sittin' in the sun
You say you found Mohammed
Facin' to the East
You say you found Krishna
Dancin' in the street
Well there's somethin' missing in this God Almighty stew
And it's your mother (your mother, don't forget your mother, la')
You got to serve yourself
nobody gonna do for you
You gotta serve yourself
nobody gonna do for you
Well you may believe in devils and you may believe in laws
But if you don't go out and serve yourself, la', ain't no room service here
It's still the same old story
A bloody Holy War
I fight for love and glory
Ain't gonna study war no more
I fight for God and country
We're gonna set you free
or put you back in the Stone Age
If you won't be like me - y'get it?
You got to serve yourself
Ain't nobody gonna do for you
You got to serve yourself
Ain't nobody gonna do for you
Yeah you may believe in devils and you may believe in laws
'But Christ, you're gonna have to serve yourself and that's all there is to it.
So get right back here it's in the bloody fridge. God, when I was a kid.
Didn't have stuff like this, TV-f!$~in' dinners and all that crap.
You f$~+in' kids (are) all the f+$!in' same! Want a f@*#in' car now...
Lucky to have a pair of shoes!'
You tell me you found Jesus. Christ!
Well that's great and he's the only one
You say you just found Buddha?
and he's sittin' on his arse in the sun?
You say you found Mohammed?
Kneeling on a bloody carpet facin' the East?
You say you found Krishna
With a bald head dancin' in the street? ('Well Christ, la', you're goin out your bleedin' girth')
You got to serve yourself
Ain't nobody gonna do for you ('that's right, la', you better get that straight
in your f~*!in' head')
You gotta serve yourself ('you know that, who else is gonna do it for you, it ain't me, kid, I tell you that')
Well, you may believe in Jesus, and you may believe in Marx
And you may believe in Marks and Spencer's and you maybe believe in bloody
Woolworths
But there's something missing in this whole bloody stew
And it's your mother, your poor bloody mother ('she what bore you in the
back bedroom, full of piss and shit and f#$@in' midwives. God, you can't
forget that all too quick, you know. You should have been in the bloody
war, la', and you'da known all about it.
Well, I'll tell you something.')
It's still the same old story
A Holy bloody War, you know, with the Pope and all that stuff
I fight for love and glory
Ain't gonna study no war, more war
I fight for God and country, the Queen and all that
We're gonna set you free. yeah? all them "nig-nogs"? sure...
Bomb you back into the f%@+in' Stone Age
If you won't be like me, you know, get down on your knees and pray
Well there's somethin' missing in this God Almighty stew
And it's your goddamn mother you dirty little git, now
get in there and wash yer ears!
And in the case of flying while Muslim, I don't think we disagree on anything.I apologize. I thought we saw differently on this.
No problem. I don't have any objections to the ban on big religious symbols in French schools (or to a ban on hats that includes religious hats in the same place) but profiling is another thing entirely.
So…um…this fetal position thing…is that before or after I hump your leg?
As long as you're not humping where I keep my genitals, let's say neither. But if you want to rub your face against my legs and meow I can be persuaded to assume a number of positions. :)
Nothing in the Quran that I know of actually mandates the hijab; it's more of a cultural thing, not a strictly religious one...
Ditto yarmulkas and crucifixes (and their respective religious documents).
In a time of heightened tension, a declaration that your outside ties supercede any loyalties to the country in which you've made your home will be met with some suspicion.
Modesty is un-American?
Quite right it's not what's happening. French Muslim women made their choice loud and clear: they don't want to wear the damned things. So did Afghan women, before the Taliban.
We don't really know this. The poll says the French population as a whole support the idea but not what Arabic women themselves want.
My feeling is its an unjustified interference by the state in peoples lives. Fundamentally people should be allowed to wear what they want under most circumstances unless there is a good reason to support some other stance (for example if the state wants to make it mandatory to wear helmets while riding motorcycles that is arguably justified). I can reasonably see an argument for no full on burqua's in schools and some workplaces as well as during elections or getting on a plane but saying that Arabs can't wear head scarfs or jews can't wear skullcaps to a school without a dress code is simply unwarranted interference in peoples everyday lives.
Worse, from my perspective, is that I don't believe it is a good way to reduce violence in the home or increase the likelihood of these groups integrating into society. Continued attacks on a specific group of people and how they live is likely to just make them draw closer together into their own enclaves. A state with an immigrant population probably has the most success at integration not by attacking how the immigrants choose to live their lives but simply by allowing them to live their lives as they choose. The children or grand children will generally be the ones that integrate within the larger society - unless there is a persecution complex among the community members. If there is a persecution complex then integration gets harder, not easier.
These sorts of policies create distrust of the state within the immigrant enclave. The result is likely to mean that fewer Arabic woman have access to the justice system when they really need it because their entire community has closed ranks and is deeply distrustful of the state. The result is if a husband is beating his wife the rest of the community does not rat him out because they fear the state.
Law enforcement among immigrant communities always faces something of an uphill battle and its important to convince said community that law enforcement is not the enemy (and is not corrupt - as is too often the case in their homelands).
France is likely doing more harm then good here and is following these actions because polls seem to be coming back indicating that attacking Arabic immigrants way of life is good politics, even if its not good policy.
|
|
Nothing in the Quran that I know of actually mandates the hijab; it's more of a cultural thing, not a strictly religious one...Ditto yarmulkas and crucifixes (and their respective religious documents).
Indeed, the Bible pretty strongly forbids worshipping graven idols, or any other iconographic representation as a focus of worship.
Back in Ye Olde Days, the crucifix (or the fish) was worn as a symbol by which Christians could discretely identify one another, literally 'wearing their faith on their sleeve,' in places where their faith wasn't always entirely safe to shout from the rooftops. (Pre-Constantine Rome, frex.) These days, millions of people pray to a crucifix on a daily basis. Somewhere, a golden calf sulks, and grumbles, "I coulda been a contenda!"