Should the veil be banned?

[798686]

Surely such a woman who is forced is being so against her will, and so how are we to know that her wearing the veil is not also forced?

I strongly dislike the idea of supporting every little liberty a person claims based on their spiritual beliefs.

It should be her choice, I reckon. She shouldn't be forced to wear one (ie: she should have the right to say no, if she doesn't want to follow her religion), but have the right if she does want to.

You can't argue for people to have the right to practise incest - but then deny them the right to wear what clothes they want, Mitch. :wink:

 

[TomCat84]

I believe that the right of a minority of muslim women to wear a full face covering is less important than the social cohesion, trust and liberty (for those women forced to wear it) collectively is more important.

This, right here, illustrates that for all the European smugness about being morally superior to the USA, they have a LONG way to go before they catch up to the US with regards to respect of minorities. Banning a veil because a few wet blankets are uncomfortable with it and think that everyone should look like everyone else is ridiculous and straight up WRONG.

 

[mitchymo]

What's next mitchy? Will the government ban the wearing of yamakas in public? What about the wearing of star of david necklaces or crosses? How can you be sure this will stop at face-covering veils. Don't try to pretend this about public safety- this is about a deep rooted fear of the "other" in a time of economic uncertainty. It's a tale as old as time- a way of distracting the populace from the REAL problems.

I would'nt disagree with you on that, but, it is a distraction based on strong public opinion.
Pitching left v right on any issue of contention is great cloud cover.

 

[scotchirish]

Oh, and we have a muslim women in our cabinet, so integration is going fairly well here too. But more can be done.

Yeah? Well we have a muslim president on his own personal Jihad to destroy the Great Satan. Who's more progressive now? :tongue:

 

[mitchymo]

We're not suggesting that. We're talking about allowing someone to wear whatever the fuck they wish to on PUBLIC lands. We're not for allowing, say, a Muslim taxi driver, to refuse transport to a homosexual, or a woman with a tank top on. We're not supporting Sharia law for the general populace or for Muslims even. This is about the freedom of someone to choose how they publicly express their religous beliefs.

1. no need to be hostile stud

2. Yet refusing a homosexual to drive in their cab is somehow an unacceptable way of expressing their religious beliefs which this anti-ban is trying to promote?

 

[TomCat84]

Yeah? Well we have a muslim president on his own personal Jihad to destroy the Great Satan. Who's more progressive now? :tongue:

:haha:

 

[mitchymo]

It should be her choice, I reckon. She shouldn't be forced to wear one (ie: she should have the right to say no, if she doesn't want to follow her religion), but have the right if she does want to.

You can't argue for people to have the right to practise incest - but then deny them the right to wear what clothes they want, Mitch. :wink:

Yeah, you got me banged to rights there Joll!

Naturally i'll argue that the lack of religion and politics involved in the latter is far less controversial to me. :tongue:

 

[TomCat84]

2. Yet refusing a homosexual to drive in their cab is somehow an unacceptable way of expressing their religious beliefs which this anti-ban is trying to promote?

Yes, exactly. When you own a licensed business, your religous freedoms are necessarily curtailed a tad. You are obligated (at least here in the US) to serve everyone, regardless of your approval/disapproval of them. There are certain conditions that must be met before you refuse service, in any industry. Your skill in making analogies is lacking in this thread- first you said cigarette smoking is analogous to veil wearing, now you're saying walking down the street in a veil is the same sort of religous expression as refusing a homosexual a ride in a taxi. The maxim we should live by is that I (or you) have the right to do anything we want, up until the point where what I want to do interferes with your rights. Me (or a woman) wearing a veil on public land in no way harms your rights. My right to service IS harmed if someone refuses me service at a business if for no other reason than because I am gay.

 

[mitchymo]

This, right here, illustrates that for all the European smugness about being morally superior to the USA, they have a LONG way to go before they catch up to the US with regards to respect of minorities. Banning a veil because a few wet blankets are uncomfortable with it and think that everyone should look like everyone else is ridiculous and straight up WRONG.

Respecting minorities is one thing. Disrespecting the majority is another. They both hold value and as such, some things are worth banning. I'm sure a few satanists out there are bothered that they can't ritually sacrifice people.
Drastic point i know, but still.

And can we get off this idea of european smugness? If you feel that it exists, surely it must be out of a sense of constant criticism....not something which i indulge in to a level that makes me feel superior to anyone

 

[mitchymo]

Yeah? Well we have a muslim president on his own personal Jihad to destroy the Great Satan. Who's more progressive now? :tongue:

Who was your first female president again?

 

[TomCat84]

Respecting minorities is one thing. Disrespecting the majority is another. They both hold value and as such, some things are worth banning. I'm sure a few satanists out there are bothered that they can't ritually sacrifice people.
Drastic point i know, but still.

I don't give a shit what the majority thinks. If that's your viewpoint- it's then all too easy for the majority to trample over the minority because they feel "disrespected".

 

[798686]

Yeah, you got me banged to rights there Joll!

Naturally i'll argue that the lack of religion and politics involved in the latter is far less controversial to me. :tongue:

Awww, you're very self-aware Mitch. :wink:

 

[scotchirish]

Who was your first female president again?

Hillary, back in the 90's

 

[TomCat84]

Hillary, back in the 90's

:lol:

I'm gonna butter you up, cuz you're on a roll! :biggrin1:

 

[mitchymo]

Yes, exactly. When you own a licensed business, your religous freedoms are necessarily curtailed a tad. You are obligated (at least here in the US) to serve everyone, regardless of your approval/disapproval of them. There are certain conditions that must be met before you refuse service, in any industry. Your skill in making analogies is lacking in this thread- first you said cigarette smoking is analogous to veil wearing, now you're saying walking down the street in a veil is the same sort of religous expression as refusing a homosexual a ride in a taxi. The maxim we should live by is that I (or you) have the right to do anything we want, up until the point where what I want to do interferes with your rights. Me (or a woman) wearing a veil on public land in no way harms your rights. My right to service IS harmed if someone refuses me service at a business if for no other reason than because I am gay.

I understand this. Same here too.

However, if the law is different in application depending on business on one hand and out in public on the other then surely rather than integrating, you are just forcing people to submit their beliefs when it suits on one hand whilst promoting holy virtues on the other.

I'm exhausted, between this statement and Jolls i'm all out of thinking.
I'm going to have to concede that my mind has been changed.

I still don't like the veil tho.

 

[mitchymo]

I don't give a shit what the majority thinks. If that's your viewpoint- it's then all too easy for the majority to trample over the minority because they feel "disrespected".

That is such a dictatorial principle though. And somewhat elitist.

 

[TomCat84]

I understand this. Same here too.

However, if the law is different in application depending on business on one hand and out in public on the other then surely rather than integrating, you are just forcing people to submit their beliefs when it suits on one hand whilst promoting holy virtues on the other.

I'm exhausted, between this statement and Jolls i'm all out of thinking.
I'm going to have to concede that my mind has been changed.

I still don't like the veil tho.

Look, if people don't think they will be able to force themselves to go against some of their beliefs when running a business- then they have a choice- don't open a licensed business. But the bar should be set the absolute highest in terms of regulation of expression when said expression occurs in the public square. Wearing a veil in public does NOT harm you personally, or anyone, really. Wearing a veil in a bank or other business could arguably cause difficulty in finding someone should said veiled person rob said business.

 

[TomCat84]

That is such a dictatorial principle though. And somewhat elitist.

How is that dictatorial principle? Or elitist? I'm just saying I don't care what the majority thinks. If they think me constantly wearing liberal shirts is wrong and should be illegal, well then I direct both of my middle fingers to them

 

[mitchymo]

How is that dictatorial principle? Or elitist? I'm just saying I don't care what the majority thinks. If they think me constantly wearing liberal shirts is wrong and should be illegal, well then I direct both of my middle fingers to them

Would you want a president that had such an attitude?

 

[Drifterwood]

Are they banned in France now, too?

:wink:

The hate that is unseen or seen as acceptable is more hateful than that which they wish you to hate.