Should the veil be banned?

[mitchymo]

QUOTE=VinylBoy;2898874

Bullshit. The veil has been used in many other religions such as Judaism and also Christianity in several forms. Perhaps you didn't remember the link I posted a few pages ago that illustrates this, however, this is one time you should have done your research. So here it is again - Veil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The veil doesn't offend anyone except for paranoid people who seem to think everyone either has something to hide from you or is out to get you. I can live less than 20 minutes away from Ground Zero, occasionally see women wear veils in Manhattan and not hyperventilate. You don't even live near NYC but want to suggest that I'm missing something. Please.

I read the link actually after you first posted it. It demonstrates the use of a veil in predominantly ceremonially capacity, and under a law banning its wearing in public, such ceremonially uses would be made exception of in all likelihood.

There is no particular "practice" of the veil. It has been a symbol of honor in religions for centuries. You're just worried that some Radical Islamist is going to use it to conceal their identity to plan a terrorist attack, and nothing needs to be banned due to your paranoia.

It is warn most widely in strict islamic regimes, pretty much by enforcement. The fact that it is not warn by many muslim women in the west indicates its disassociation with moderate islam and thus a deeper connection to hardline practices of Islam is assumed. I could be wrong, but the logic and evidence is quite sound.

Do you make it a point to contradict yourself in the same sentence often?

Being scared and being uncomfortable are different feelings.

Again, what part of "freedom of religion" do you not understand here?
If you can't grasp this concept, then you should not be engaging in this discussion.

Does america witness amputations for theft? Does it witness imprisonment for dressing provocatively? No, this is because religious practices (law) are confined to exist within the law of the land. So freedom of religion does not exist in entirety even in your country.

This is the second time you're trying to spin your arguments into some kind of "liberation movement" for women and it's intellectually dishonest. I think we should let the women who follow that religion make their own choices as to whether or not they wear a veil.

I'm not spinning at all. It is another valid point in a counter argument. Its not the one that i based my reasoning on, but that does'nt mean it can't be used to add weight.

Given how you willingly admit that you're prejudiced on this, I find it very laughable that you would be passing judgement on anyone. You do realize that in some ways you're just as nasty as the ones you try to demonize?

Yes VB, cos i condone hanging homosexuals etc etc.....

And the value I'm protecting is written in the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's great, but plausibly needs to be ammended on the basis that if muslim citizens choose to live by sharia law and seek to impose seperate punishments on defendants, assuming that those punishments are in conflict with american law, then how are you going to be able to deny such practice WITHOUT breaking this ammendment?

That's true... at the same time, using one's paranoia as a means to increase security is a bad thing. Or did you think Bush & Cheney were in the right when they created "enhanced interrogation techniques"?

It's not about paranoia for me. Its about respect, equality, trust etc etc, which i've stated at least twice before, security and liberation of women are bonuses. And i would never condone the use of methods for the purpose of "we have ways of making you talk".

It's hard not to get obnoxious when the person you're debating is taking this holier than thou stance and is desperately trying to use every distorted view on freedom and liberation they can muster to excuse their morally bigoted opinions. I tend not to be so nice when that very person turns around and looks at me as being the uninformed one. As if your reference to a Klansman earlier wasn't an attempt to rustle my feathers.

I am not an arrogant person VB, my attitude is no holier than yours.
I'm not taking a 'distorted' view. Its a different view, i'm not coming up with ludicrous statements about a muslim threat or how we should be forced to live like children of the damned.
I am anti-religious, i'm happy to say so, but that does not mean i throw logic and decency out the window when i think about my stance on things concerning other human beings. Bigotry is an ugly word suitable for people with bad attitudes, not those who look at things simply differently to you, that would of course suggest arrogance on your part, to think that you are so right that others must be forming opinions guided by a lesser attitude.

And no VB, i used the KKK thing as an example purely. I'm not in the habit of using examples for any reason other than to make my point. Trying to ruffle your feathers i need not try, you're clearly getting them ruffled simply by my arguing something which you disagree with.

So if this is where we've come to, feel free to disengage. It's usually the one with the weaker argument that walks away first anyhow. But at the end of the day, I'm still not the one looking over my should in fear of Mohammed with a bomb shoved up his ass. And if I see someone in a veil I let them be.

No VB, the one that starts getting personal has the weaker argument. Unable to make me see the flaws in an ideology, you resort to causing offence to superiorise your stance. Calling me a bigot, calling me sad, telling me to grow a pair, all unnecessary comments presumably to make me feel bad about the views i'm taking. You resort to those, it strengthens my resolve.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

It is worn most widely in strict islamic regimes, pretty much by enforcement. The fact that it is not warn by many muslim women in the west indicates its disassociation with moderate islam and thus a deeper connection to hardline practices of Islam is assumed. I could be wrong, but the logic and evidence is quite sound.

Completely agree. There's probably a lot of Muslim women gratified by the ban.

I suppose you could conceal a weapon in a sihk's turban, but it doesn't obscure his facial features. Although it looks dumb in the west and is probably a pain in the ass to wear. But so is a suit and tie.

Mostly the people who would obscure their facial features in the West are people who have been disfigured. Really no one I've ever known has worn more than an eye patch, except the Phantom of the Opera.

 

[TomCat84]

QUOTE=VinylBoy;2898874


Does america witness amputations for theft? Does it witness imprisonment for dressing provocatively? No, this is because religious practices (law) are confined to exist within the law of the land. So freedom of religion does not exist in entirety even in your country.

This is an incorrect and misguided analysis. These kinds of punishments do not exist because they are constitutionally prohibited as "cruel and unusual" punishments. Like I have said a few times in this thread- your religious rights extend only so far as my own rights extend. Freedom of religion (and other freedoms) was never meant to be absolute. There are always limits- but when you are going to try and prohibit an article of clothing, there is a VERY high bar to set- and veil-wearing comes NOWHERE FUCKING NEAR hand amputation- to even compare the two is ludicrous. One results in the loss of a limb- the other results in you getting the eebie jeebies- and getting the eebie jeebies is not, IMHO, reason enough to criminalize the wearing of a veil.

 

[TomCat84]

No VB, the one that starts getting personal has the weaker argument. Unable to make me see the flaws in an ideology, you resort to causing offence to superiorise your stance. Calling me a bigot, calling me sad, telling me to grow a pair, all unnecessary comments presumably to make me feel bad about the views i'm taking. You resort to those, it strengthens my resolve.

You are unable to see the flaws, because of the differences between the upbringings of Americans and British. Our country has a very ingrained, deep, distrust of government, and we generally seek a very high bar before we criminalize something. We hold our freedoms very dear- and we (generally) don't think that giving someone offense or something being rude is reason enough to ban something.

 

[mitchymo]

Completely agree. There's probably a lot of Muslim women gratified by the ban.

Afghanistan is a case in point. Women not only happily removed the veil to show their faces, they began to put on make-up.

Not all certainly, but to liberate a minority is a great reward.

You know, i can't remember if it was in Afghanistan (i think so) or elsewhere, but one of the worst images that sticks in my memory is the one of the veiled women being put to death on a football pitch.

The video footage made my heart sink. Even tho you could'nt see her face, you could tell she must have been very scared, the way she kept looking around at the executioner, it was horrible. And the fact that her face was hidden, taking away her identity and any hope of real compassion for the individual behind that veil, made it no less horrible.

 

[TomCat84]

Afghanistan is a case in point. Women not only happily removed the veil to show their faces, they began to put on make-up.

Not all certainly, but to liberate a minority is a great reward.

You know, i can't remember if it was in Afghanistan (i think so) or elsewhere, but one of the worst images that sticks in my memory is the one of the veiled women being put to death on a football pitch.

The video footage made my heart sink. Even tho you could'nt see her face, you could tell she must have been very scared, the way she kept looking around at the executioner, it was horrible. And the fact that her face was hidden, taking away her identity and any hope of real compassion for the individual behind that veil, made it no less horrible.

Afghanistan is hardly a mecca for civil liberties- and I dont think we should attempt to emulate them

 

[mitchymo]

This is an incorrect and misguided analysis. These kinds of punishments do not exist because they are constitutionally prohibited as "cruel and unusual" punishments. Like I have said a few times in this thread- your religious rights extend only so far as my own rights extend. Freedom of religion (and other freedoms) was never meant to be absolute. There are always limits- but when you are going to try and prohibit an article of clothing, there is a VERY high bar to set- and veil-wearing comes NOWHERE FUCKING NEAR hand amputation- to even compare the two is ludicrous. One results in the loss of a limb- the other results in you getting the eebie jeebies- and getting the eebie jeebies is not, IMHO, reason enough to criminalize the wearing of a veil.

How would you propose dealing with religious extremism? Perhaps freedom of religion means we can't really do anything?
If religious freedom was never meant to be absolute, why is VB citing the first amendment to argue against a ban on the grounds that it is against F o R knowing that it is perfectly plyable. The US constitution is not a universal one after all. We may not have over here, or in France, or elsewhere any legislation that prevents religious extremism such as the analogy i gave and so have other ways of dealing with it.
Is that part about religious rights extending only as far as your rights an amendment or is that already in the first?

 

[mitchymo]

You are unable to see the flaws, because of the differences between the upbringings of Americans and British. Our country has a very ingrained, deep, distrust of government, and we generally seek a very high bar before we criminalize something. We hold our freedoms very dear- and we (generally) don't think that giving someone offense or something being rude is reason enough to ban something.

I understand that there are cultural differences. This however does not mean that you guys have it right??? The French, the Swiss, the Norwegians, the Belgians, the Dutch, the Italians and the Danes and a hefty number from here are all wrong, of course, we must be because we don't value individual freedom as much as you guys. What about social wellbeing?

You can be free to disagree, and i have no problem with hearing that its a bad idea for x, y and z reasons. But all i'm hearing is criticism put down to bigotry for goodness sake.
The most convincing case has been put forward by yourself, earlier on in the debate, but this is very convincing when applying american ways to the issue. I found myself thinking, yes, he has a good point, but then i'm always pulled around by the fact that i don't believe in individual freedoms that have a negative social impact, so i'm not inclined to defend to the hilt any individual right of anyone unless there are no ill consequences for society as a whole.

 

[mitchymo]

Afghanistan is hardly a mecca for civil liberties- and I dont think we should attempt to emulate them

I don't get this comment. You're making my point.

Afghanistan is more liberated than it was, if only marginally.

 

[cofrader]

for me should be banned as various things that their only propose is to keep a group segregated.
I you go to one of their country and you drink alcohol they will beat your brains out only because of their believes.
Perhaps we should treat them like at home, if you have a slave instead of a wife get used to pain.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I read the link actually after you first posted it. It demonstrates the use of a veil in predominantly ceremonially capacity, and under a law banning its wearing in public, such ceremonially uses would be made exception of in all likelihood.

You assume this, of course, with no actual knowledge or proof that it would be the case.

Being scared and being uncomfortable are different feelings.

Fear is the basic fuel for someone to feel uncomfortable.
With the exception of physical pain, it's really hard to feel one without the other.

Does america witness amputations for theft? Does it witness imprisonment for dressing provocatively? No, this is because religious practices (law) are confined to exist within the law of the land. So freedom of religion does not exist in entirety even in your country.

Wow... what a stretch. LOL!!!

I'm not spinning at all. It is another valid point in a counter argument. Its not the one that i based my reasoning on, but that does'nt mean it can't be used to add weight.

Saying that banning the veil will ultimately liberate women is a spin. Period. You're not a woman so you can't honestly speak for one, nor are you under the Islamic faith so you can't speak on the behalf of the women who follow it and are more than willing to wear an article of clothing that you are trying to twist into a symbol of oppression. Regardless of the validity of your slants, they're still bigoted and discriminatory.

Yes VB, cos i condone hanging homosexuals etc etc.....

You said it, not me.

It's not about paranoia for me. Its about respect, equality, trust etc etc, which i've stated at least twice before, security and liberation of women are bonuses.

See what I mean? Spin, spin, sugar...
It's about YOUR respect, your perception of equality and your feeling of trust knowing that someone isn't plotting some evil wrongdoing in your presence. And it's about YOUR security. You could careless about the liberation of women, because you don't enact liberties on people by placing restrictions on the very people you are trying to free. That's like saying a woman can do whatever they want with their bodies, yet tell them they can't have an abortion. Having the choice is where true liberty is found.

I am anti-religious, i'm happy to say so, but that does not mean i throw logic and decency out the window when i think about my stance on things concerning other human beings.

And believe it or not, I don't have a lot of kind things to say about religion either. However, I do know that the problem doesn't usually lie with those who follow it for self enlightenment and spirituality but with those who abuse its message to spread a ideology of hate and ignorance. I may not be someone who goes to church everyday (or every year for that matter), but I have no problem letting people follow whatever spiritual belief they wish.

Bigotry is an ugly word suitable for people with bad attitudes

No, it's a word that applies to those who display it.
So sorry if I can't find a prettier word to describe it to make you feel better.

that would of course suggest arrogance on your part, to think that you are so right that others must be forming opinions guided by a lesser attitude.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
I'm not the one trying to reduce a veil to a radical Islamic symbol of oppression and fundamental extremism just for the sake of having people side with you and your beliefs as to whether or not it can be worn in everyday society. I'm not the one trying to judge the followers of Islam (or any religion) as a bunch of violent, unsavory and uncivilized people based on the actions of a very small minority.

And no VB, i used the KKK thing as an example purely.

A very bad one at that.

I'm not in the habit of using examples for any reason other than to make my point. Trying to ruffle your feathers i need not try, you're clearly getting them ruffled simply by my arguing something which you disagree with.

No, I'm just a sarcastic bitch when someone tries to present an opinion that is blatantly discriminatory as some kind of glaring fact.

No VB, the one that starts getting personal has the weaker argument.

You can keep telling yourself that too.
I get personal because deep down, all of these arguments are fueled by a person's own beliefs.

Unable to make me see the flaws in an ideology, you resort to causing offence to superiorise your stance. Calling me a bigot, calling me sad, telling me to grow a pair, all unnecessary comments presumably to make me feel bad about the views i'm taking. You resort to those, it strengthens my resolve.

I'm not here to change your mind. But I know bigotry when I see it and I will point it out especially when someone tries to make an argument that suggests that they're being respectful and tolerant to others when they clearly aren't. Also I didn't label YOU a bigot. Given my past actions on this board, you should know that I would have no problem labeling you as such if I felt like it. And by all means... don't feel bad at all that your fears of the unknown are allowing you to sympathize with bigoted ideologies surrounding Islam and its practices. Just remember the next time you try to take the moral high ground on an issue, the rest of us can look right through you.

Live and let live, mitchymo.
Freedom of religion, mitchymo.
Every religion has a Fundamentalist & Extreme side to it, mitchymo, and the mass majority of a religion's followers don't adhere to these stipulations. Regardless of what you want to believe, if they're not causing harm to innocent people or breaking standard law then why the hell should you care, mitchymo? What part of this don't you understand, mitchymo?

I can be just as belligerent with an ideology. But in the end, who has the better message? Contextually speaking, of course, since I know you think people with potty mouths can't have anything worth saying.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

I would think that an unwanted veil would be a suffocation of sorts.

A lot of weird things fly here in the states though. We are currently in a grass roots campaign to get the "rights" of parents to irrevocably modify their male children's genitals for religious reasons, or for any reasons, cancelled or removed. Because there's no such "right." But we have to overcome several generations of precedent and campaigning by our medical associations. And this was not a Western cultural practice at all until the twentieth century. It is quite obvious that a child's rights to security in his person trump anyone's so called rights to cut off healthy body parts for social or cultural reasons, but you've all heard the howl this truth generates in some quarters. Although a lot of people hold it to be self-evident.

So once you get these things it is very difficult to remove them. Better to not get them in the first place.

 

[B_Nick4444]

for me should be banned as various things that their only propose is to keep a group segregated.
I you go to one of their country and you drink alcohol they will beat your brains out only because of their believes.
Perhaps we should treat them like at home, if you have a slave instead of a wife get used to pain.

¿QUÉ? ¿En español, por favor?

 

[B_Nick4444]

So much for freedom of religion.

so, what is religion?

is Islam a religion?

is there to be no governmental circumscription of any aspect of religion?

 

[mitchymo]

QUOTE=VinylBoy;2899080

You assume this, of course, with no actual knowledge or proof that it would be the case.

Europeans are not unreasonable people. Bans do not ever have to be blanket, and they can always be overturned.

Fear is the basic fuel for someone to feel uncomfortable.
With the exception of physical pain, it's really hard to feel one without the other.

Now, you see, that makes good sense if fear is the basic fuel, i don't see it as such tho, i see ignorance as the basic fuel.

Wow... what a stretch. LOL!!!

Yea well, you pull one string, then pull it a little more, and before you know it....

Saying that banning the veil will ultimately liberate women is a spin. Period. You're not a woman so you can't honestly speak for one, nor are you under the Islamic faith so you can't speak on the behalf of the women who follow it and are more than willing to wear an article of clothing that you are trying to twist into a symbol of oppression. Regardless of the validity of your slants, they're still bigoted and discriminatory.

Its widespread use, predominantly in the strictest islamic nations is all the evidence i need to link it with a less tolerant islamic society.

You said it, not me.

whacked response

See what I mean? Spin, spin, sugar...
It's about YOUR respect, your perception of equality and your feeling of trust knowing that someone isn't plotting some evil wrongdoing in your presence. And it's about YOUR security. You could careless about the liberation of women, because you don't enact liberties on people by placing restrictions on the very people you are trying to free. That's like saying a woman can do whatever they want with their bodies, yet tell them they can't have an abortion. Having the choice is where true liberty is found.

Like your constitution protecting individual rights isn't just a teeny bit selfish too.

As for the bolded part: you're right, of course, but then we would'nt want to see the majority of our populations holding handguns around the home where individually we might have protection but socially allows some nutjob to run around shooting their classmates.

No, it's a word that applies to those who display it.
So sorry if I can't find a prettier word to describe it to make you feel better.

I would'nt have a leg to stand on if my argument was about banning the religion. I'm not targetting a faith, i'm targeting extremist ideology that exists within a faith.



Yeah, keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
I'm not the one trying to reduce a veil to a radical Islamic symbol of oppression and fundamental extremism just for the sake of having people side with you and your beliefs as to whether or not it can be worn in everyday society. I'm not the one trying to judge the followers of Islam (or any religion) as a bunch of violent, unsavory and uncivilized people based on the actions of a very small minority.

Neither am i VB. Understand the distinction. I don't tarnish christians with the same brush as the Phelps for example.

No, I'm just a sarcastic bitchwhen someone tries to present an opinion that is blatantly discriminatory as some kind of glaring fact.

As you are applying my opinions incorrectly to a whole religion rather than the slice that is actually the butt of the issue, your sarcasm is pointless to me.

I'm not here to change your mind. But I know bigotry when I see it and I will point it out especially when someone tries to make an argument that suggests that they're being respectful and tolerant to others when they clearly aren't. Also I didn't label YOU a bigot. Given my past actions on this board, you should know that I would have no problem labeling you as such if I felt like it. And by all means... don't feel bad at all that your fears of the unknown are allowing you to sympathize with bigoted ideologies surrounding Islam and its practices. Just remember the next time you try to take the moral high ground on an issue, the rest of us can look right through you.

I don't have a huge ego that exists with those who take moral highgrounds VB, you're more than welcome to see otherwise, meanwhile i'll continue to post in the same vein as always, to give my opinion. I'm not here to be respected VB, any i get is down to my attitude usually anyway, not my opinions.

Live and let live, mitchymo.
Freedom of religion, mitchymo.
Every religion has a Fundamentalist & Extreme side to it, mitchymo, and the mass majority of a religion's followers don't adhere to these stipulations. Regardless of what you want to believe, if they're not causing harm to innocent people or breaking standard law then why the hell should you care, mitchymo? What part of this don't you understand, mitchymo?

I can be just as belligerent with an ideology. But in the end, who has the better message? Contextually speaking, of course, since I know you think people with potty mouths can't have anything worth saying.

You are insinuating that my beliefs are bigotted using Islam as a whole. This is not true. You paint a bleaker picture of me than is either fair or true.
Spreading the wrong message as you are, as readers not paying attention might infer i'm islamophobic is not a great way to gain the moral highground. If anyone has spun anything, it's you.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

so, what is religion?

is Islam a religion?

is there to be no governmental circumscription of any aspect of religion?

Stop trying to sound philosophical or thought provoking by using questions that can be answered with adult level common sense. You're not that deep.

 

[B_Nick4444]

Stop trying to sound philosophical or thought provoking by using questions that can be answered with adult level common sense. You're not that deep.

or are they questions you have never pondered, in this or any other context?

(oh, of course, not in the Little Red Book, so nothing you can recite!
Never mind!)

 

[B_VinylBoy]

or are they questions you have never pondered, in this or any other context?

(oh, of course, not in the Little Red Book, so nothing you can recite!
Never mind!)

You should really consider drinking something besides Petrone with a shot of Cyanide before bedtime. As it stands, government already places limits on what can be done in the name of religion. Some extreme Christians find it perfectly OK to kill abortion doctors or homosexuals in the name of their religion but they still get arrested and in most instances convicted of a crime for their actions. So to propose such a red herring of a question in any context speaks volumes of your dishonesty and/or intellectual shallowness. Take your pick.

Again, you're not that deep. Although your reference to Mao Tse Tung was amusing just on the basis that you're desperately grasping at straws to have a point.

 

[FRE]

Completely agree. There's probably a lot of Muslim women gratified by the ban.

I suppose you could conceal a weapon in a sihk's turban, but it doesn't obscure his facial features. Although it looks dumb in the west and is probably a pain in the ass to wear. But so is a suit and tie.

Mostly the people who would obscure their facial features in the West are people who have been disfigured. Really no one I've ever known has worn more than an eye patch, except the Phantom of the Opera.

According to what I've read, some families would not permit unveiled women to leave the house. Thus, banning the veil would reduce the little freedom that some Muslim women have. Also, some Muslim women themselves do not want to be seen unveiled. These are problems that most Muslim women would not be facing, but some would.

I've pretty much decided that veils should be permitted in public except under limited circumstances, but that it should be permissible to ban them on private property; dress codes on private property are generally accepted.

 

[TomCat84]

How would you propose dealing with religious extremism? Perhaps freedom of religion means we can't really do anything?
If religious freedom was never meant to be absolute, why is VB citing the first amendment to argue against a ban on the grounds that it is against F o R knowing that it is perfectly plyable. The US constitution is not a universal one after all. We may not have over here, or in France, or elsewhere any legislation that prevents religious extremism such as the analogy i gave and so have other ways of dealing with it.
Is that part about religious rights extending only as far as your rights an amendment or is that already in the first?

While I admit to being disturbed by religious extremists, I cant justify outlawing being a religious extremist- and you haven't proven that veil wearing is NECESSARILY religious extremism- until one does something like blow up (or attempt to blow up) a building or airliner, or something of that nature. Great American political philosophers have commented on the greatness of a "marketplace of ideas", where even the extremes are displayed. The advantage being that if the extremes are allowed to be displayed, they will be seen for what they are- ridiculous. You can fight them by displaying and acting your ideal...Extremes will usually only take root under certain conditions- vast disparities of resources chief among them- so preventing those disparities is key to minimizing extremism. Banning stuff- like veils- that make you uncomfortable WILL NOT minimize extremism- it will simply brush that stuff under the rug....but it will still be there.

Let me quote the 1st Amendment. Keep in mind that my words about religious rights extending only so far as someone else's rights is basically (in a very small nutshell) how the courts have determined the extent and limits of said religious freedom:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

And the 14th Amendment, which has been interpreted by the courts to extend these requirements to the states:

"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

For instance, the courts have determined that satanic churches, while legal, may not legally conduct ritual sacrifices, just as an esoteric example. The same logic would apply to Muslims attempting to apply sharia law to other Muslims.