| Mr Mercury 30.04.2010 10:53 |
Belgium is set to become the first ever country in Europe to ban the burqa from being worn in public places. The vote in Parliament for a nationwide ban on Islamic clothes or veils that do not allow the wearer to be fully identified was almost unanimous. Full story here link Loved the quote from Isabelle Praile, who said that this could be the start of a slippery slope. "Today it's the full-face veil, tomorrow the veil, the day after it will be Sikh turbans and then perhaps it will be mini-skirts." As a fully red-blooded heterosexual male, I would welcome the removal of mini-skirts!!!!! :) |
| GratefulFan 30.04.2010 11:36 |
Quebec has already been there done that. My instinct is to think it's a mistake, but I'd be happy to be argued with. |
| thomasquinn 32989 30.04.2010 11:51 |
I don't like the idea of dress regulations. Hence, I don't like this. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 30.04.2010 12:49 |
where's Joanna Lumley when you need her,the Burqa's fought for this country and they should be allowed to live here! right,nurse,give me more pills :-p |
| FriedChicken 03.05.2010 12:10 |
This is crazy |
| greataddict 04.05.2010 16:03 |
Hi there! being french, living in Brussels for the last 6 years, I thought I'd give you my opinion on that matter: I hear a lot about setting legislation on that matter, but I honestly believe that Muslim women who wear that kind of veil are a so small amount of that population. I hear a lot of opinion about how the niqab is supposed to be linked to polygamy, to beaten-women But I can't believe this should be the n1 matter of the moment... anyway, I don't really care about that law, and admit that if I find unpleasant to come across somebody who doesn't show anything of her/his face (feel a little naked somehow...), I don't find it that offensive... |
| Mr.Jingles 08.05.2010 08:39 |
|
| Mr.Jingles 08.05.2010 08:40 |
|
| Mr.Jingles 08.05.2010 08:42 |
I don't like the idea of government regulating the way people dress, unless the person is driving and the burqa is limiting the ability to concentrate on the road. Then again, Muslim women who wear burqas are probably prohibited from driving. What doesn't make much sense to me is how the Muslim community seems outraged when western society imposes a ban on the way they dress, but they have far more restrictions on women's rights. |
| tcc 08.05.2010 09:00 |
I think the burqa is very unsociable - you don't know who are dealing with. If the community involved cannot update the norms by themselves to fit into the modern society, then I think legislation is justified. |
| Amazon 08.05.2010 13:32 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:"Then again, Muslim women who wear burqas are probably prohibited from driving." Not always. "What doesn't make much sense to me is how the Muslim community seems outraged when western society imposes a ban on the way they dress, but they have far more restrictions on women's rights." So because the Muslim community alledgedly has 'far more restrictions on women's rights' (which is incredibly debatable), it's okay for the country to restrict women's rights by telling them what they should and shouldn't wear? tcc wrote:"I think the burqa is very unsociable - you don't know who are dealing with. If the community involved cannot update the norms by themselves to fit into the modern society, then I think legislation is justified." The burqa may be unsociable, but is that a reason to ban it? I mean, we are talking about the government enacting legislation. My problem with this is that whatever one thinks of the burqa, I hate the idea of the government telling women (or men) what we should and should not wear. In countries like Saudi Arabia, women are banned from wearing anything but the burqa, yet you want women in Western society to be banned from wearing a burqa? I don't understand that. We also have the absurd and hypocritical situation of France, which itself bans the veil in public schools and is contemplating a burqa ban, condemning Sudan for arresting a woman for wearing jeans. I think it's irrelevent as well how sociable or not the burqa is. Plenty of things are unsociable, sunglasses indoors for example, but we don't force people to cease wearing sunglasses indoors. You also mentioned social norms, but is society really so intolerant of difference that it deals with people violating social norms through legislation? |
| tcc 08.05.2010 16:30 |
In the case of sun glasses, you can see the person except his eyes. In the case of the burqa, you cannot see anything except the eyes. :-) I am saying it in the context of a multi-racial society. In their own country where the burqa is the norm, there is nothing we can say. |
| Amazon 08.05.2010 17:16 |
tcc wrote:"In the case of sun glasses, you can see the person except his eyes. In the case of the burqa, you cannot see anything except the eyes. :-) I am saying it in the context of a multi-racial society. In their own country where the burqa is the norm, there is nothing we can say." Is that such a bad thing that you can't see anything but the eyes? Anyway the question still remains. Would you be happy to live in a nation in which the government isn telling people what they can and can not wear? I wouldn't. In a liberal democracy, people are going to wear/do/say things that one might not like at all That doesn't mean we should ban them. Especially when the woman in question may not want to show you anything but her eyes. Surely it's her right. |
| tcc 08.05.2010 18:14 |
You assume that it is a woman wearing a burqa. It could be a man inside - we don't know. As I am a word lazy person, I don't engage in arguments or debates. So I will stop here. |
| The Real Wizard 09.05.2010 00:52 |
I'm just waiting for the day when someone robs a bank in a burqa, gets arrested, is forced to take the burqa off in jail, throws the freedom of religion card, and gets away with the crime. This is one of a thousand reasons why revealing one's identity is a cornerstone of western culture. Ban the burqa in public now. |
| Amazon 09.05.2010 05:03 |
Sir GH wrote:"I'm just waiting for the day when someone robs a bank in a burqa, gets arrested, is forced to take the burqa off in jail, throws the freedom of religion card, and gets away with the crime." But would that ever happen? I don't know about Canada, but in Australia, if someone robs a bank, is convicted of it and is sent to prison, they won't be able to get out if it under any circumstance. I think your fears are misplaced. Plus, even if someone were to rob a bank using a burqa, is that any reason to ban it? Afterall, people have been known to rob banks wearing halloween masks, wigs and sunglasses and numerous other things. "This is one of a thousand reasons why revealing one's identity is a cornerstone of western culture. Ban the burqa in public now." What about freedom of religion and choice? I should admitt that this issue is rather personal for me, however I really do think that part of being in a liberal democracy is not legally forcing women to wear/not to wear particular clothing. |
| Amazon 09.05.2010 05:09 |
tcc wrote: "You assume that it is a woman wearing a burqa. It could be a man inside - we don't know." I won't attempt to reengage you in a debate, but I just want to say that if your concern is that men might wear it, you might as well ban all women's clothes. :D |
| The Real Wizard 12.05.2010 11:57 |
Amazon wrote: "I don't know about Canada, but in Australia, if someone robs a bank, is convicted of it and is sent to prison, they won't be able to get out if it under any circumstance. I think your fears are misplaced." I certainly hope you're right. But in this country, the religion card gets thrown at anything. This is exactly why "freedom of religion" needs to go, so that we don't favour one faith over another... we thereby favour none. Otherwise we haven't separated church and state. Freedom of religion is a nonsensical idea in the 21st century. If you want to believe in things and they bring you strength, then great. But if you are going to impose your values on established western culture, then go back home. We never wore burqas here, and we do not oppress women... and we never will. |
| andreas_mercury 12.05.2010 13:52 |
the burga, the nun habit, the jewish head cap - all are outdated and i think to myself they should be all outlawed. I do not believe i just to single out the muslems because it is totally wrong - all religious wear should be outlaw. sure to this generation its "infringment of rights" but within 50 years no one will even care beacuse they forget what the stupid dress looks like in the first place ...... they are all outdated and won't be missed if you do this and also take away the ability of any church to take in money - from the catholic church to scientology - religion will be finally a free and personal thing instead of a malign institution. they (God-believing people) exist to help us find answers, not to feed us 1000 year old doctrines and bullshit. and no one should ever have to pay for the truth because it is free. and should always be so this is how i feel on the things anyway because i really think that aspect of religios culture is out the window as soon as possible. i dont have against people who believe in God because that is nothing to do with organized religions. fuck the church. |
| thomasquinn 32989 14.05.2010 07:54 |
Sir GH wrote: I'm just waiting for the day when someone robs a bank in a burqa, gets arrested, is forced to take the burqa off in jail, throws the freedom of religion card, and gets away with the crime. This is one of a thousand reasons why revealing one's identity is a cornerstone of western culture. Ban the burqa in public now. That kite don't fly. When someone has been arrested, it is an additional crime (yes, I actually think it's a crime and not a misdemeanor in most countries) to hinder the process of identification. So, the "freedom of religion card" wouldn't apply. |
| The Real Wizard 14.05.2010 08:58 |
andreas_mercury wrote: "the burga, the nun habit, the jewish head cap - all are outdated and i think to myself they should be all outlawed. I do not believe i just to single out the muslems because it is totally wrong - all religious wear should be outlaw." The latter two will never be banned. The issue here is the fact that we can't see a woman's face when concealed under the burqa, not someone's hair. If we're going to ban the Jewish head cap, then we might as well ban baseball caps too, and wearing coats with hoods in the winter. ThomasQuinn wrote: "When someone has been arrested, it is an additional crime (yes, I actually think it's a crime and not a misdemeanor in most countries) to hinder the process of identification." You're right, that's the law. But if freedom of religion is in the constitution of a country, what's bigger - that or the law? |
| andreas_mercury 14.05.2010 09:37 |
"If we're going to ban the Jewish head cap, then we might as well ban baseball caps too, and wearing coats with hoods in the winter." ===== i support a ban to baseball caps, to my memory everyone I've ever met who wore them is an idiot... |
| Amazon 14.05.2010 11:58 |
Sir GH wrote: "This is exactly why "freedom of religion" needs to go, so that we don't favour one faith over another... we thereby favour none. Otherwise we haven't separated church and state. Freedom of religion is a nonsensical idea in the 21st century. If you want to believe in things and they bring you strength, then great." Why does freedom of religion need to go? Are you saying that if I was living in your ideal society, I wouldn't be able to choose which religion I belonged to, or I couldn't belong to any? This is going beyond separation of church and state. Instead of treating religious and non-religious people as equal, you want to treat non-religious people as superior. "But if you are going to impose your values on established western culture, then go back home." The problem is that it is quite debatable as to what western culture (and values) actually is. With all due respect, your values are not mine, and my values may very well not be yours. Also, nobody is imposing their values onyone, except those who want to ban the burqa. As an example, you say that the difference between Jewish skullcaps, the nun's habbit and the burqa is that the burqa conceals women's faces, well I don't consider showing one's face to be an intrinsic part of Western culture, and certainly not one that should be legally enforced. This comment that 'if you don't agree with out (or my) values then go home' goes against my values and what I regard to be Western values, if I had to identify such Western values. "We never wore burqas here, and we do not oppress women... and we never will." To say that we 'we do not oppress women... and we never will' in Western culture is IMO both absurd and irrelevent. It's absurd, and arrogantly so, because it attaches a white/black hat to western/non-Western culture. Even putting aside the fact that women are not treated perfectly in Western culture, the cultures which do 'oppress' women are extremist cultures. People single out Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia; well, they are extremist and do not properly represent Islamic culture at all; just as the Congo does not represent African culture, and Burma does not represent Asian or Eastern culture. Western society is, generally, amazing when it comes to gender equality, but it shouldn't be forgotten that Switzerland only gave women the vote in the 70's (1975 I believe)-while Muslim nations such as Pakistan, Indonesia and Bangladesh have all had female leaders; until the late 80's, rape in marriage was legal in Australia; Ireland still bans abortion, and in the US there are moves in states to restrict or ban abortion. I'm not suggesting that Western society can be compared to Afghanistan, but we shouldn't pat ourselves on the back and talk about how well we treat women, and how we don't want that oppressive burqa in our society. Other cultures, Asian/Islamic etc..., don't oppress women (I'm not speaking of the nations I mentioned previously), because quite honestly, treating women well is not unique to Western culture. I could go on, but I will simply end this comment with by noting that we aren't and haven't always been angels, but part of the reason we are alot better than we once were, and will hopefully be even better in the future, is that generally speaking we aren't ideological and we are relatively wealthy. It's also irrelevent because it comes down to definitons, and definitions vary. Quite frankly, if the burqa is banned, that to me would be oppressive as it would take of freedom of choice. You may disagree, but the point is that your interpretation of what is oppressive towards women differs from mine, and if you were to get your way, I would absolutely find that oppressive. Also, to say that 'We never wore burqas here' as if to say that therefore it shouldn't be allowed is also highly questionable as alot of things mightn't have previously been done; that doesn't mean they can't be done in the future. Finally, to say that the burqa is automatically or objectively oppressive is, quite simply, wrong. While many, or perhaps most women who wear it are oppressed, some are not. I know that from speaking to a number of Muslim women who wear or have worn the burqa. Most expressed distaste about it, however a few expressed fondness of it. To call these women oppressed would be ridiculous. The problem that I have with those who wish to ban the burqa is that they speak on behalf of people they often don't even bother talking to. Most of the Muslim women I speak to are sick and tired of their clothes becoming a feminist and 'western values' football, and Sir GH, I would be curious as to 1)whether you have seen someone wearing a burqa, and 2)whether you've spoken to anyone who has. Somehow I doubt it. |
| GratefulFan 14.05.2010 12:19 |
Toronto has the highest concentration of Muslim residents of any city in North America - 1 in 20. I'm pretty sure Sir GH has seen a burqa or two. That said, Western cultures should be very, very careful about enacting policies against a minority largely to make the majority less likely to feel uncomfortable. It's little more than rationalized racism. |
| GratefulFan 14.05.2010 19:11 |
@Amazon ... Just read your post again more carefully (only had time for a quick skim previously) and just wanted to add that it was a great post with lots of interesting information and some great points. |
| YourValentine 15.05.2010 03:30 |
Another great post by Amazon, I could not agree more. I think it's ridiculous to tell people what they have to wear in the streets. I do not believe that the burqua is much of a problem in Belgium or in France as much as Minaretts are not a problem in Switzerland. We have politicians (and the public in Switzerland) acting out against a problem they do not know how to handle: the lack of integration of Muslim people into the Western culture. In Europe we have a rapidly growing minority of Muslims from Turkey or Arabia, many of whom do not respect the constitution of the country they moved into and are not willing to learn the language. We do not have an immigration history like the USA, Canada or Australia and we never set up sufficient rules for immigrants in our countries, that is true for many European countries. As a result there is a general helplessness in face of a minority who has a very different culture and simply refuses to fit into the Western ways. After decades of doing nothing laws like the ban of the Burqua do nothing to solve the problem but they only help to divide the country. We must find a way to reconcile the legitimate wishes of the majority , i.e. people should learn the language, get an education and work for their living rather than forming a parallel socitey and live off social security on a grand scale, with the legitimate rights of the minority to live in a way they see fit. It's a very tricky subject because racism is very close to our skins - if we want to admit it or not. It is very hard for the majority to take it that a fundamentalist minority among the immigrants denounces the Western culture in an uncompromising and radical way. While we have learnt to mask our fears and pretend that we are oh so tolerant, a minority of the Muslim immigrants are very loud in demanding that all their religious and cultural habits are respected by the country they moved into. Western artists who violate "Islam law" have to fear for their lives and have to be protected by the police when they appear in public. Imams do not speak the language of the country they are teaching in but are imported from Turkey. Women who wear normal Western clothing are shouted at in the streets by Muslim machos who think they can tell women what to do. While the majority of the Muslim population is not responsible for this they also do nothing to reassure the non-Muslims that they are law abiding citizens who respect the constitution more than the Islamic law. At the same time the non-Mulsims are torn between political correctness, i.e. not naming the problems for fear of being racists, and unreflected activism such as the Burqua ban which does notthing to improve the situation for Muslims or non-Muslims. |
| andreas_mercury 15.05.2010 05:00 |
Amazon wrote: Instead of treating religious and non-religious people as equal, you want to treat non-religious people as superior. ============= they are. people stop believing in easter bunny and santa when they are to only be 5 years old - mankind must be no different and should stop wasting time on organized 'religion' spritualism and an acceptance of what is beyond our current humand understandings is good and a private thing that hurts no one but the institutions that hide behind religious should be outlawed forever. fuck the Pope and fuck anyone on the earth in his position in different churches; they should all be against walls with bullets |
| The Real Wizard 15.05.2010 23:05 |
Amazon wrote: "Why does freedom of religion need to go? Are you saying that if I was living in your ideal society, I wouldn't be able to choose which religion I belonged to, or I couldn't belong to any?" I don't necessarily frown upon organized religion, but it's not an essential ingredient in today's world if our goal as a people is to progress forward. While I recognize that many good things have come in the name of religion (mind you, one good thing for every ten bad things), the religion itself isn't a necessary asset in creating that goodness. All good in this world can be accomplished secularly without having the walls of religion to divide us from one another. My ideal society would consist of people adhering to the customs of the land they are in. They can believe in whatever they want to believe in as long as they don't break the law and/or basic codes of ethics that are seen as culturally acceptable by the majority - any part of which can be up for amendment, since things do evolve. "Sir GH, I would be curious as to 1)whether you have seen someone wearing a burqa, and 2)whether you've spoken to anyone who has. Somehow I doubt it." I live in Toronto, a city of great cultural plurality. I've seen dozens of them, but admittedly I've never talked to one in person. How can I just talk to one of them on the subway? If I can't see their face, I have no idea if their face is an inviting one that would be open to spontaneous conversation. This is why revealing one's face is such an important thing, and I maintain, a cornerstone of our culture. Most of these people can't get jobs because most employers won't hire someone who hides their face (that, and many of them have husbands who won't let them get jobs to begin with). I therefore never see them working in grocery stores, banks, or wherever I do my business in the course of my day. So the opportunity to talk to one of them likely won't arise. Would you want someone in a burqa to be your doctor? Just picture yourself going through a difficult time due to bad health. Would you not feel a sense of warmth from a good doctor whose face you can see smiling in encouragement? Would you feel that same warmth from someone who refused to show you their face? But it wouldn't happen anyway because most people would rather see a doctor whose face is visible. No such doctor would be able to sustain a business in the western world, unless of course their clientele consisted primarily (or purely) of people of their cultural background. So much for integrating into the culture of your new country, if that's the case. You're right, making it illegal to wear the burqa would take away the freedom of choice from those who'd like to choose to do it, regardless of their reason or if they are oppressed in some way or not. But there are plenty of places in the world where they can wear their burqa. If they like the ways of their culture so much, why don't they stay in their country and practice what they do in a community where the majority embrace their ways? I would never dream of going to another country and imposing my ways on those fine folks. They have their culture, history, and customs. If I don't like what I see there, then I'm welcome to go somewhere else that will be more welcoming of my ways. One of the things that makes the world a beautiful place is that there is such a vast array of cultures and histories. If every country would adopt every other country's ways, all countries would eventually become the same. Travel would become a pointless exercise, and we would have little to learn from those who are different from us. This is why I believe it's important for a country to properly balance maintaining its identity while being open to new things. When my grandparents came to Canada in the 1950s, they didn't complain about the way things were here. They learned to speak English, got jobs, and created lives for themselves - there was no alternative for these hundreds of thousands of people. On their behalf it upsets me whenever we cave to the ways of those who come here. When an immigrant student of a Canadian university receives free tuition from the government and gets expelled for refusing to take off their burqa and has the nerve to complain about it (it happened a couple months ago), they should board the next plane home. It serves them right for biting the hand that feeds them. You make many great points (both practically and philosophically), and this is turning into a great discussion. But on the issue of the burqa it seems we just agree to disagree. |
| andreas_mercury 16.05.2010 02:16 |
ugggh fuck the burga already, it is total pointless and childish reminder of outdated beliefs. |
| Amazon 16.05.2010 02:48 |
Thanks GratefulFan and YourValentine! :D :D :D |
| Amazon 16.05.2010 02:57 |
andreas_mercury wrote: "Amazon wrote: Instead of treating religious and non-religious people as equal, you want to treat non-religious people as superior." "they are. people stop believing in easter bunny and santa when they are to only be 5 years old - mankind must be no different and should stop wasting time on organized 'religion'" So, you're not going to even bother showing respect for religious people? If I showed this utter contempt for your views, or implied that as an athiest you were morally inferior, you would be insulted. Rightfully so. Well, this is no different. "spritualism and an acceptance of what is beyond our current humand understandings is good and a private thing that hurts no one but the institutions that hide behind religious should be outlawed forever." Nice. So as a religious person, in your ideal world, would I only be allowed to pray indooors or can I actually pray outside? Would I be permitted to have a religious wedding? Thankfully, you will never get your way. You know, the hyppocricy of this is astounding. You want to ban organised religion, yet how would you feel if athiesm was banned? You undoubtfully wouldn't like it. Here's a suggestion; why can't people believe whate they like in whatever way they like? Ultimately, my being a practitioner of organised religion no more affects you than your being an athiest; except, unlike you, I don't show contempt for the other person's views. "fuck the Pope and fuck anyone on the earth in his position in different churches; they should all be against walls with bullets" Advocating violence. My first thought is to wonder what it is about the Catholic Church that inspires such anger, my second is to note that if that statements had been about blacks or Jews, it would be met with horrified outrage. Whether you believe in God is your right, but that doesn't give you the right to advocate violence. "ugggh fuck the burga already, it is total pointless and childish reminder of outdated beliefs." Whether it is 'pointless and childish reminder of outdated beliefs' is debatable. What is less debatable is that you attacked myself and others for being poor debaters, yet this shows that you are in fact a terrible debater. You do realise, that you nobody forces you to engage in this discussion? If you don't like it, then don't. BTW, there is actually no difference between you and a religious extremist. In fact, you will find that you and religious extremists have more in common than you would probably like. |
| andreas_mercury 16.05.2010 06:45 |
blah blahblah you make presumptions!! would i be insulted by anything you say? no because i am above anything that comes from your mouth. |
| andreas_mercury 16.05.2010 06:47 |
retard should read posts closely, in nowhere did i ever claim to be an atheist (unlike my idiotic ex band mates) i am even to full support of the pursuit of truth and an understanding of high concepts that are outside of common human knowledge, but religion has no thing to do to that because it is all doctrine and bullshit. you could have healthy belief that there is something beyond (that we used to call God) and find comfort in the truth of the universe, without ever being religious ...... only an idiot needs to make up stories to it all. |
| The Real Wizard 16.05.2010 10:04 |
Amazon wrote: "You want to ban organised religion, yet how would you feel if athiesm was banned?" It would be a travesty because atheism by default is correct, since there is no proof that anything metaphysical exists or has ever existed. To create a world where it is illegal not to believe in unproven beings would be far more dangerous than simply accepting they don't exist until proven otherwise. Atheism isn't a religious belief. It is an absence of religion on the basis of the logic of accepting what the physical world is and isn't. All else is philosophical discussion and desires. |
| thomasquinn 32989 16.05.2010 10:05 |
Sir GH wrote: andreas_mercury wrote: ThomasQuinn wrote: "When someone has been arrested, it is an additional crime (yes, I actually think it's a crime and not a misdemeanor in most countries) to hinder the process of identification." You're right, that's the law. But if freedom of religion is in the constitution of a country, what's bigger - that or the law? I am not aware of any constitution that does not stipulate that all citizens are at all times answerable to the law. That evidently overrides the freedom of religion. |
| Amazon 16.05.2010 11:20 |
andreas_mercury wrote: "blah blahblah you make presumptions!! would i be insulted by anything you say? no because i am above anything that comes from your mouth." Good for you. Quite honestly, who gives a damn what you think? "retard should read posts closely, in nowhere did i ever claim to be an atheist (unlike my idiotic ex band mates)" You know, banding around the word retard simply shows proves that when someone isn't smart enought to back up their ridiculous position, they resort to insults. You really are absurd. It also appears that you have taken etiquette lessons from Skip. So I falsely called you an athiest? Big deal. At least, unlike you, I didn't advocate violence, call the other person names, show complete contempt for their valid views and reveal myself to be completely unsuitable for adult discussion. "but religion has no thing to do to that because it is all doctrine and bullshit. you could have healthy belief that there is something beyond (that we used to call God) and find comfort in the truth of the universe, without ever being religious ...... " According to you. Has it ever occured to you that other people might disagree and are perfectly entitled to? "only an idiot needs to make up stories to it all." Well, we can't be all be as incredibly intelligent as you. rolls eyes |
| Amazon 16.05.2010 11:51 |
Sir GH wrote: "All good in this world can be accomplished secularly without having the walls of religion to divide us from one another. Except religion doesn't automatically divide. I would say that it is intolerance that divides. Andreas Mercury is a perfect example and we know his thoughts on organised religion. Personally, I've always found religion to be an enlightening and incredibly positive thing. "My ideal society would consist of people adhering to the customs of the land they are in. They can believe in whatever they want to believe in as long as they don't break the law and/or basic codes of ethics that are seen as culturally acceptable by the majority - any part of which can be up for amendment, since things do evolve." The problem is though we are talking about legally enforcing 'customs' which arguably have nothing to do with the law. It is the custom of Western society not to cover our faces, but to legislate against the burqa? That to me simply takes away freedom and choice. "Most of these people can't get jobs because most employers won't hire someone who hides their face (that, and many of them have husbands who won't let them get jobs to begin with)." You've just put your finger on another problem with banning the burqa. Of the women who are forced to wear it, many- if not most- would then be placed in a situation where their contact with the outside world is eliminated. If you believe that the burqa is oppressive, banning it won't free these women, it will further oppress them as a large number of the women who wear the burqa won't be able to go out in public. For these women, the burka is a symptom of their oppression, rather than the cause. In fact, I've never met a woman who was at one time forced to wear the burqa, who cited it as the most oppressive thing that they experienced (although they never really used that particular word.) "Would you want someone in a burqa to be your doctor? Just picture yourself going through a difficult time due to bad health. Would you not feel a sense of warmth from a good doctor whose face you can see smiling in encouragement? Would you feel that same warmth from someone who refused to show you their face?" It's kind of irrelevent, because if I don't want to, I can simply go to a doctor who doesn't wear the burqa. But really, the fact that I might feel feel more comfortable with a burqaless doctor is not a reason to ban it. We can't simply ban things because they make us feel uncomfortable. "But it wouldn't happen anyway because most people would rather see a doctor whose face is visible. No such doctor would be able to sustain a business in the western world, unless of course their clientele consisted of people of their cultural background. So much for integrating into the culture of your new country, if that's the case." Two comments. Firstly, Muslims are not the only people who mostly deal with people of their own cultural background. I have a family doctor who, like me, is Jewish, and I went to a Jewish school. But, secondly, what's wrong with that? Ultimately people choose to be with people they are familiar with, whether it be on a professional basis or a personal basis. 'Integrating into the culture of your new country' doesn't mean not primarily living with/dealing with/befriending/dating people of the same background; if it did, nobody would have integrated into the culture. "If they like the ways of their culture so much, why don't they stay in their country and practice what they do in a community where the majority embrace their ways?" It's not that simple. People immigrate for numerous reasons, not the least of which for freedom. "You make many great points (both practically and philosophically), and this is turning into a great discussion. But on the issue of the burqa it seems we just agree to disagree." Thanks. :D Yes, it does seem that we have a fundamental difference, however I just wanted to respond to the points above. . |
| Amazon 16.05.2010 12:16 |
Sir GH wrote: "It would be a travesty because atheism by default is correct, since there is no proof that anything metaphysical exists or has ever existed." Athiesm isn't correct, nor is it incorrect. There may not be proof that anything metaphysical exists or has ever existed, but nor is there any proof that it hasn't existed. But, really it's being 'correct' isn't really all that relevent. We can't ban things because they may be incorrect. Is that the world you want to live in? Religon is banned because it is 'incorrect? That to me would be horrifying, and I honestly don't understand it at all. "To create a world where it is illegal not to believe in unproven beings would be far more dangerous than simply accepting they don't exist until proven otherwise." Yes, but making it illegal to believe in unproven beings is also dangerous. You can accept that they don't exist until proven otherwise, but to force others to have the same attitude is totalitarianism. By saying that I can't believe in God or that I can't practice my Judaism in public goes against every value that I would have thought that society values. "Atheism isn't a religious belief. It is an absence of religion on the basis of the logic of accepting what the physical world is and isn't. All else is philosophical discussion and desires." I never said it was a religious belief. That does not mean that it is beyond reproach, and really, to say it is on 'the basis of the logic of accepting what the physical world is and isn't. All else is philosophical discussion and desires,' is incredibly debatable. As I said before, one may not be able to prove that God exists, but nor can one disprove that God exists, and a logical approach would not autmatically lead to a lack of belief in God; altough religion is ultimately about faith. However, this is besides the point. My point is simply that I have no desire to live in a society in which either organised religion or athiesm are banned. While I would find it troubling to live in a country in which the burqa was banned, there is simply no way that I could live in any country in which either organised religion or athiesm were banned. In fact, as much as as I hate andreas mercury's 'views', and as much as I hate him, I would be reluctant to deny him the freedom that he is so eager to deny me. Surely that isn't too controversial? |
| andreas_mercury 17.05.2010 08:12 |
"Brevity is the soul of wit" |