Muslim veils banned?

[dong20]

If you lived in the Uk Heather you'd know how sick we were of seeing Muslims whine about being in the safety and luxury of our country and biting the hand that feeds them. And I don't think wanting the same laws applied even handedly is extremist.

Speak for yourself, that particular behaviour is far from the defining characteristic you seem to portray it as. In my experience I've found such behavour more common among UK natives and economic migrants from the former eastern block. It may be 'on topic' but it reads like your singling out Muslims.

I believe that's part of the problem, there should be no such thing as a 'non-muslim' country.

However, I do think veils should be banned, as I find it rude and disrespectful to completely or even partially cover ones face, regardless of religious beliefs, it's a human thing.

It's not a human thing at all, it's just you consider it rude based on your cultural upbringing and values. Clearly it's not rude to Muslims, and, to the best of my knowledge they are human too.

The term Non-Muslim country could be reasonably applied to the UK in the context that it is, by nature a Christian nation (whatever that really means), the Head of State being the head of the Church for example. I think those that jumped on SP were looking for some juicy NON-PC scraps. It's no different than saying Saudi Arabia is a Non-Christian country, not because Christians are not welcome or allowed but because of it's political and social structures and institutions.

Taking an extremist stance against extremists isn't really the way to go, imo.

What would you suggest, harsh language?

I quite agree, let's not have non-muslim countries, let's all carry on the way we are tolerating Muslim intolerance and ignoring it till the (at the moment) minority of Muslims who call for Sharia law get their own way. The problem is that it's the voice of the radical and extremist that makes itself heard over the voice of the moderate Muslim.

We have laws against the spreading of racist/religious hate which we're forced to uphold yet regularly we see in our papers photos of Muslims parading around with placards inciting the death of anyone who 'blasphemes,' tolerance should come from both sides and the problem we have in this country is tolerating intolerance.

I agree that extreme responses help no one. I agree that tolerance of intolerance is intolerable. I agree that one should make every effort to integrate into one's adopted culture and legislation should be applied, equally to all. But, it has to work both ways I can't see many Europeans (or Americans for that matter) adopting Muslim Customs should they choose to live in, say Saudi Arabia. Quite the reverse, but that's more symptomatic of a long held [misplaced] sense of cultural superiority (as evidenced, perhaps unconciously by No_Strings above) and rather off topic.

Recently a channel 4 documentary 'Undercover Mosques' (anyone can see this on YouTube) was shown where statements were made in a Muslim mosque that advertised itself as moderate that gay men should be thrown from the top of a mountain, children should be beaten if they didn't pray, and Muslims were told to 'live like a state within a state until they were strong enough to take over.' ....

Did it occur to you that that the editors of the programme, like most 'shock exposure' TV may have been pushing their own agenda? If it had portrayed most Muslims as the normal, honest law abiding people as sick of extremism in all it's forms as you and I that they are do you think it would have made the air, somehow I doubt it.

Most Muslims I have known and know would roll their eyes at such a portrayal in the same way. Sure, some I know and have met and talked to both in the UK and overseas do feel that our culture is bereft of both honour and value, and to be honest they have a point and I enjoy the debate. When I loose patience though is when they are unable to accept my views on restriction of personal expression and gender bias imposed on and in some case by them, often on spurious grounds.

The sometimes increasingly PC based nature of the modern western world is in danger of creating a backlash among many who see it undermining their own value beliefs, against their will and to their perceived detriment for the benefit of a growing population of migrants who many of which seem (top them) to reject most attempts at social integration, foment unrest and as say use their 'religion' as a get out of jail free card.

It seems to me that the growth of extreme right wing political parties in Europe is evidence of that trend. Hiding behind religious or cultural freedom of expression as a way of cicumventing social norms and laws that one perceives as 'inconvenient' will only get you so far for so long, try using that defence when caught drunk in a hardline Islamic state.

 

[B_spiker067]

They should make it illegal for anyone to force women to have to wear a veil, it should be their choice.

They should ban veils on driver's licenses and other forms of id.

If a constituent goes to see her government she should take off her veil or risk not being able to receive the service or representation she deserves.

 

[No_Strings]

It's not a human thing at all, it's just you consider it rude based on your cultural upbringing and values. Clearly it's not rude to Muslims, and, to the best of my knowledge they are human too.

The term Non-Muslim country could be reasonably applied to the UK in the context that it is, by nature a Christian nation (whateve that really means), the Head of State being the head of the Church for example. I think those that jumped on SP were looking for some juicy NON-PC scraps. It's no different than saying Saudi Arabia is a Non-Christian country, not because Christians are not welcome or allowed but because of it's political and social structures and institutions.

It is a human thing, body language is the most prevelant form of communication between man, a large part of this portrayed in the face. My observation on this was not one akin to a middle finger, or showing the soles of your feet, but rather what is instinctively unnatural and suspcious behaviour, regardless of cultural background. (On a side note, every muslim I know, male and female dislikes veils)

Eye contact and words alone are not enough to communicate flawlessly with someone, facial expressions can play a key role in defining context, much like things like sarcasm can get lost over the internet, because there is no face to face contact. Consequently, to some extent, emotion and personification is lost.

A veil is no different to a balaclava, which would be deemed wholly unacceptable by most corners of society, if worn regularly outside my own home. (Unfortunately it could also be said both have the presumption of felonious intent, a point I'd rather not touch here and now).

Covering any parts of ones face, be it with a hand, veil or any other garment, is suggestive of hiding feelings, emotions and motive. That is human, as is my reaction to it.

 

[RideRocket]

And in related news right here in the USA about Mennonites protesting over being required to have a picture ID:
Mennonites To Leave Missouri Over Photo ID - News

 

[dong20]

It is a human thing, body language is the most prevelant form of communication between man, a large part of this portrayed in the face. My observation on this was not one akin to a middle finger, or showing the soles of your feet, but rather what is instinctively unnatural and suspcious behaviour, regardless of cultural background. (On a side note, every muslim I know, male and female dislikes veils)

In your perspective yes. But that's the only one you can speak authoritatively about. I can't speak to the view of Muslims you know only those I know and it's not so clear cut.

Eye contact and words alone are not enough to communicate flawlessly with someone, facial expressions can play a key role in defining context, much like things like sarcasm can get lost over the internet, because there is no face to face contact. Consequently, to some extent, emotion and personification is lost.

I use the phone and other means of communication just fine, as do millions of others and that's not face to face. You deal with such missing cues, we all do. The kind of communication you're referring to is on a different level, inherently much more personal in which case it's likely the 'veil' wouldn't be used. But again not everyone will share your sensibilities, that's all I'm saying, it doesn't invalidate them just as it doesn't invalidate those for whom it's not a problem.

A veil is no different to a balaclava, which would be deemed wholly unacceptable by most corners of society, if worn regularly outside my own home. (Unfortunately it could also be said both have the presumption of felonious intent, a point I'd rather not touch here and now).

Well it's hardly a sensible comparison now is it?

Covering any parts of ones face, be it with a hand, veil or any other garment, is suggestive of hiding feelings, emotions and motive. That is human, as is my reaction to it.

Suggestive to you it seems. Personally, I also prefer open face to face communication the same as you, but I'm aware that that's only my preference. People don't always want their emotions on show, they may have any number of reasons for that. Open your mind a little and realise that people who grow up in different environments have different perspectives. Such a judgment based on that one aspect says more about you than it does them.

 

[dolf250]

LOL!!! WHAT??? You mean it isn't Moosehead, Alberta? :tongue:

No, it is not. Though having spent time in Fort McMurray I can attest to the fact that it is, indeed, Newfoundlands largest city.:wink:

Rob, as we BOTH know... Grade 4 boys in Ontario have to join the Pegasus division of the army, in order to prepare for OPERATION: BEAVER BASH.
I was busy learning to fly my Two headed beaver

Both you and Rob may well know of this “operation”, but here in the West it is still just a rumour going around that we need to arm ourselves against invasion. Our government has instituted many repressive measures in preparation and are currently arresting everyone with known ties to “hog town.” Are you now confirming that “beaver bash” is indeed a real threat?

 

[madame_zora]

After the Claiphate is restored, there won't be any non-Muslim countries. Sharia for all, and peace will reign ... except of course for those other Muslim sects which will have to be exterminated. This business of spreading a "religion of peace" through fire, sword, and treachery is hard work. But not as hard as getting the infidels to think that it's a religion of peace, rather than one of submission, in the first place. Fortunately, now that that misperception has spread to the highest levels of society and government, it's only a matter of time.

Of course, other than the words specific to the Muslim religion, all these same points could be made about Chrisitianity. ALL of them.

While I haven't taken a survey, I suspect that the extremists are as few there as they are here. It is also true that they are in position to do damage. I don't see that as a reason to harass ordinary citizens.

Haha@ everyone, no one's ever disguised themselves as a nun to get out of a place unnoticed...

 

[dong20]

While I haven't taken a survey, I suspect that the extremists are as few there as they are here. It is also true that they are in position to do damage. I don't see that as a reason to harass ordinary citizens.

Exactly but since when has rational thinking got in the way of the makers of TV 'Exposé' documentaries and banner headlines in the red tops. As is usually the case the vocal, extremist minority gets a disproportionate level of media attention.

 

[B_big dirigible]

Of course, other than the words specific to the Muslim religion, all these same points could be made about Chrisitianity. ALL of them.

The link between Islam and the current worldwide spate of atrocities large and small is hardly deniable. Just how causal the link actually is is not entirely clear yet. When crazed Christians start chopping heads off, machine-gunning school kids, planting bombs and stockpiling poisons, and exalting the homicidal proclivities of their sects, then I'll agree that Christian practices should be scrutinized very carefully. But if all they're doing is making noise, I'm not going to get too excited.

 

[B_big dirigible]

As is usually the case the vocal, extremist minority gets a disproportionate level of media attention.

So, by the same rationale, just because the vast majority of airline travelers are not trying to smuggle bombs on board aircraft, efforts to keep bombs off are unjustified. Similarly, the inconvenience of screening immigrants (the legal ones, anyway) for diseases is an unnecessary annoyance, as the vast majority are healthy, and only a few could possibly be bringing in plague or tuburculosis or Spanish influenza or some such petty annoyance.

Unfortunately the tiny minority is always the problem. The fact that the problem minority is small doesn't make the problem small.

 

[Heather LouAnna]

Let's all argue about something that can't be resolved with such a diverse group of people living across different continents.

 

[madame_zora]

The link between Islam and the current worldwide spate of atrocities large and small is hardly deniable. Just how causal the link actually is is not entirely clear yet. When crazed Christians start chopping heads off, machine-gunning school kids, planting bombs and stockpiling poisons, and exalting the homicidal proclivities of their sects, then I'll agree that Christian practices should be scrutinized very carefully. But if all they're doing is making noise, I'm not going to get too excited.

Oh, right, but there certainly HAVE been times, throughout history and even in this country where Christians HAVE put others to death (Salem witch trials), started holy wars (we are in one now, in effect), raped and humiliated prisoners contrary to the Geneva convention we signed (Abu Gharib). I'm not saying that presently the other side isn't "worse", but our side is hardly blameless.

Crazed Christians ARE bombing abortion clinics, but I guess that's okay because it's their religious beliefs, right? I'm just saying we should apply these principals to ourselves first, before we start worrying about everyone else. We are in a war we created because we chose to create it. There were dipolatic options of dealing with 9/11, but vengence feels better. The problem with vengence is that is does damage to the doer more than the recipient. They killed 3000 of our people, so we piled another 3k on top of it. We sure showed them, didn't we? War is stupid, it always has been. It should only be a LAST resort option, not a first resort, as it was here.

Veiling the face is not the problem. I wear make-up sometimes, and I look very different from when I do not. I don't see this as an attempt to hide who I am, it's a part of who I am, just like my other articles of dress. I just don't want the government involved in this degree of crowd control.
Seriously, MOST men could shave well and get away with wearing a habit, which I seem to remember has been done. We would never consider outlawing nun's habits because somebody might use them to escape the law.

 

[dreamer20]

Seriously, MOST men could shave well and get away with wearing a habit, which I seem to remember has been done. We would never consider outlawing nun's habits because somebody might use them to escape the law.

You must have been thinking of Nuns on the Run.:wink:


Tom Delmar Photos

 

[kalipygian]

The link between Islam and the current worldwide spate of atrocities large and small is hardly deniable. Just how causal the link actually is is not entirely clear yet. When crazed Christians start chopping heads off, machine-gunning school kids, planting bombs and stockpiling poisons, and exalting the homicidal proclivities of their sects, then I'll agree that Christian practices should be scrutinized very carefully. But if all they're doing is making noise, I'm not going to get too excited.

Jonestown, Atlanta Olympics, Oklahoma City, Waco. Plenty of home grown apocalyptics.

Seeing it as a christians versus moslems conflict makes extremism and escalation more likely. It is in this matter it is unfortunate that such a large proportion of the US military are evangelical christians, with a crusader outlook, it is a handicap.

In medeival europe it was usual for european women to wear veils and formless clothing in public, more concealing and volumunous than are nun's habits, which are a continuation of that fashion.

It is a violation of rights to either force or forbid women from wearing anything.


If you are interested in another perspective on christian terrorism against jews and moslems, I suggest reading 'The Crusades Through Arab Eyes', by Amin Maalouf.

 

[Shelby]

All the hot durka durkas should not be allowed to wear veils. Clothes either for that matter.

I live for impure thoughts.

 

[dalamu626]

First let me say I can't belivie I seen the words non-muslim country...what is that supposed to be? I hope that isn't coming from someone who lives in america....

First let me say, how is keeping from someone from wearing a veil going to do any less damage..I think it would just anger more people....taking a veil is going to stop someone from doing a attack....how?

Also it sad when people automactially connect the word terriost with muslim...muslim is like the worlds second and third largest religion...if muslim with terorist..their would be a BIG problem...

These peopel are extremeists.their some in all religions...like the christans who picket god hates fags at funerals...are belived millions of jews should die horrible deaths.

Judging will only make things worse...tolerance..are better acceptance..is the key.

PS:My video is almost in most discussed, PLEASE COMMENT ON IT! thanks

 

[Ed69]

Veils banned,no way!A bj under a veil in public is so hot.I guess my sex life is over.Gonna find a corner to cry in now.

 

[dolf250]

I would actually tend to agree with BigD on many points. I am not saying that Islam can't be a religion of peace; just that at this point in its history it is not. During the crusades it was them who acted “civilized” while we were the barbarians. Now things seem to have reversed. Perhaps in the future Islam will outgrow the infighting and hatred, but for now I remain very leery.

I was going to post a thread on this subject but find that I have not had the time. Instead I will post a link to an excellent resource for anybody interested in what the leaders of the militant factions are thinking and strategies they want to use.
Combating Terrorism Center
As I said, it is long, but informative.

 

[dong20]

How the hell did you conclude:

So, by the same rationale, just because the vast majority of airline travelers are not trying to smuggle bombs on board aircraft, efforts to keep bombs off are unjustified. Similarly, the inconvenience of screening immigrants (the legal ones, anyway) for diseases is an unnecessary annoyance, as the vast majority are healthy, and only a few could possibly be bringing in plague or tuburculosis or Spanish influenza or some such petty annoyance.

Unfortunately the tiny minority is always the problem. The fact that the problem minority is small doesn't make the problem small.

From

As is usually the case the vocal, extremist minority gets a disproportionate level of media attention.

On the red I agree but there was nothing Freudian in there. As for the other your logic, well it isn't logical, no I meant exactly what I said, those that make the noise get the media attention, that they may be small in number (% wise) but 'vocal' in nature may or may not relate to their actual threat.

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

All the hot durka durkas should not be allowed to wear veils. Clothes either for that matter.

I live for impure thoughts.

QFT Shelby!

Anyways, because I love to state I'm from Britland, the issue with the guy getting through customs (was it?) is laughable.

Religous gear singles out and identifies as much as it makes people "fit in". First step towards singling out and discimination etc.

As for veils, they're NOT religous, they're cultural, but I don't feel that "ninjas" are worth the effort IMHO. I'm introverted, dangerously introverted, to the point where light seems to bend inwards, but NO WAY would I consider being dressed up like a member of the Foot Clan a smart idea!

I went to uni with a female ninja and I only ever heard her speak once and I never knew her name, age or any personality traits. We went to the same classes!

Is it normal, healthy, safe or sane to isolate women socially into homologous blobs of invisibility? What about kids who'll never understand how to truely read emotions? Facial communication is a universal of human society.

I swear I have NO sympathy for women who willingly put themselves through that shit and then complain about being taunted.

Y'know what? If these women want to be seen as terrorists forever, tough shit they can go fuck themselves (oh wait, female masturbation is illegal in the Koram ZOMFG!)