Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned women?

[theatheistguy]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Right, the same way we ban the nun's habit... and wait, people ARE allowed to wear ski masks everywhere. :facepalm:

It isn't a security issue, it is a cultural bigotry issue.

Actually in certain situations, in a bank, in a shopping mall or any shop, in court, in surgery, etc, wearing any facial covering is illegal or against policy.

Here's a few cases of why:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3745402
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1273914/Robber-wearing-burka-leads-raiders-jewellery-shop-heist.html

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Right, the same way we ban the nun's habit... and wait, people ARE allowed to wear ski masks everywhere. :facepalm:

It isn't a security issue, it is a cultural bigotry issue.

Actually in certain situations, in a bank, in a shopping mall or any shop, in court, in surgery, etc, wearing any facial covering is illegal or against policy.

Here's a few cases of why:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3745402
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1273914/Robber-wearing-burka-leads-raiders-jewellery-shop-heist.html

Against policy is different from illegal. I'm fine if banks want to have a policy.

 

[Don-Sama]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

It's about the same as banning a balaclava.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

It's about the same as banning a balaclava.

Or banning big sunglasses and hats?

 

[Worldquest]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Maybe we should be examining the mentality of the oh so righteous who love to ban things that they personally disapprove of or disagree with. Didn't Hitler and Mussolini and other dictators do that? Dictators are very well known for that kind of thing. What hypocrisy. Opposames.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Here's my take on it:

We would all of us approve of Muslims becoming less fundamentalist and less extreme. We would all love to see Muslim immigrants become more integrated into their new homelands. We had better all agree that women should be as free as men to make their own decisions.

Banning the Burka is a decision that acts counter to all of those goals. It isolates women in burkas, keeping them from becoming more moderate. It prevents the very first step of integration, in that it prevents fundamentalist Muslim women from even leaving their homes. It also attacks the rights of women, because some women voluntarily CHOOSE to wear the burka.

I am an American, and I know American Muslims, and even Muslim women. Some of them are pursuing college degrees in engineering, and nevertheless prefer to maintain some semblance of their cultural heritage by keeping their heads covered. In less enlightened places, which seems to include most of Europe these days, wouldn't the antagonism against burkas cause some Muslim women to cling to it even more tightly?

 

[DavidB]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

You're right, my apologies, it's just banning specific free thought and expression that you disagree with. Short of inciting or enacting violence or hatred, all forms of expression and thought should be allowed. Even if some of those are reading from the same book as the extremists.

Yes, but that's the point, Islam incites and enacts violence and hatred. And it is not about whether or not I disagree with Islam, it is about the nature of the ideology itself. It is an ideology of hatred, violence and subjugation. I'm sorry if you do not agree with my position, but I will not tolerate this ideology in my country, not now, not ever, no matter where it comes from, Islam, Nazism, Communism, or anywhere else.

I agree, however, as has been stated already, Muslims are like everyone else in that they're hypocritical and will pick and choose from their religious text.

Yes, this is true, generally we as a species seem completely obsessed in perpetuating preposterous ideologies, at any cost.

No, so long as 'people like you' just see something you don't like and therefore throw a fit and try to ban it, religion will always have something to rail against, claiming to be persecuted and gain sympathy from bleeding hear liberals.

As I stated, not liking Islam has nothing to do with it. I don't like Brussels sprouts neither but I'm not about to take any position to have them banned.

I want Islam banned because it is an ideology of hatred, violence and subjugation, plain and simple. And if I had it my way, those bleeding heart liberals would be prosecuted for treason, for aiding and abetting enemies of the state. And I did not throw a fit, I spent a great deal of my time and effort educating myself about Islam and it's ideology, before deciding to oppose it.

Why should Islam be banned and not Christianity or Judaism or indeed atheism? And are you banning the religion or the religious? What exactly would you ban?

I'd ban Islam. Muslims can stay, so long as they don't practice Islam. I'm a reasonable person, if they don't want to stay and want to practice Islam, then there are 52 Islamic nations on this planet where they can practice their ideology to their hearts content.

Ha! Please. I have not excused religion everything, I hold it accountable for everything it has done, however, I'm not so blind as to forget that nationalism and greed have fucked up also.

Oh, so that is your issue then, that I should have no right to demand that I should be able to live in a society of my own choosing?

In the case of nationalism, if your referring to Nazism and Communism, then yes, that was definitely a fuck up. But be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water my friend, because without a strong national identity, built on moral and ethical virtues, ideally, then what do we have? You prefer Anarchy?

I totally agree with your feelings about greed, and if you are referring to capitalism, then indeed, greed has and does play a large role in many of the worlds current problems associated with that ideology. But I think the capitalism we see in the world is barely recognisable from the version prescribed by Ayan Rand, not that I agree with all the precepts of Objectivism.

And I might remind you, that we were intelligent enough to recognise that we did not want to embrace a world dominated with either Nazism nor Communism nor Japanese imperialism and took extremely drastic measures to ensure that it did not eventuate. I assure you, Islam as an ideology, is no better, maybe even worse.

Again, who is being arrested and why? The believers? Why not a different type of believer? And for what reason? Surely this is the very definition of fascism.

No, it is not the definition of Fascism. I suggest you read up on Fascism and then read up on Islam, you appear to be confused.

Islam, perhaps not, Muslims, yes, much more than Muslims.

I have no problem with Muslims per se, but I do have a major problem with Islam. If you do not understand why Islam is a dangerously hostile ideology of hatred, violence, bigotry, sexism and subjugation, then I suggest you make the effort to read and understand the Koran and Sharia law.

So ban everything till it curtails itself to your standards? How accepting of you. If you want to talk about banning literal interpretations of holy texts, fine, I'm all with you, lets ban a literal interpretation of the Qur'an, the Holy Bible, the Torah, etc, they're all horrific, however, lets not arrest people who associate themselves with these texts, however distant, and certainly not only the followers of one specific text.

I'd certainly love to live in a world devoid of religion and based entirely on sober judgement and rational discourse, but we do not live in that sort of world. We live in a world were liberty and freedom require constant protection from aggressively hostile ideologies such as Islam. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Islam has as its stated goal, the complete and total domination of world, at any cost. Now that is something to be wary of, very wary indeed.

 

[DavidB]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Here's my take on it:

We would all of us approve of Muslims becoming less fundamentalist and less extreme. We would all love to see Muslim immigrants become more integrated into their new homelands. We had better all agree that women should be as free as men to make their own decisions.

Banning the Burka is a decision that acts counter to all of those goals. It isolates women in burkas, keeping them from becoming more moderate. It prevents the very first step of integration, in that it prevents fundamentalist Muslim women from even leaving their homes. It also attacks the rights of women, because some women voluntarily CHOOSE to wear the burka.

I am an American, and I know American Muslims, and even Muslim women. Some of them are pursuing college degrees in engineering, and nevertheless prefer to maintain some semblance of their cultural heritage by keeping their heads covered. In less enlightened places, which seems to include most of Europe these days, wouldn't the antagonism against burkas cause some Muslim women to cling to it even more tightly?

Yep, and there are 52 Islamic nations where they can do just as you described, I'm not stopping them from doing that. This is a western country and we don't wear the burka, get used to it.

 

[DavidB]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

So if instead there was an ideology that demanded that their women never wear clothes in public, then that would be perfectly reasonable? And when people protested that being naked in public was a woman's right, then there ought not be any objections, as that is their right and freedom to choose?

Sometimes you people sicken me with your delusional higher than though attitudes of freedom and liberty.

We have social conventions for a reason. Banning the bhurka is about preserving our own culture while not placing foreign cultures above our own, or had that completely flown over your head in your misguided attempt to implement yet more culturally relative absurdity?

 

[Andiferous]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

We have social conventions for a reason. Banning the bhurka is about preserving our own culture while not placing foreign cultures above our own, or had that completely flown over your head in your misguided attempt to implement yet more culturally relative absurdity?

I think you'd be more convincing, were, according to your post, we not divided along cultural lines. Why bother argue any longer?

 

[DavidB]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

I think you'd be more convincing, were, according to your post, we not divided along cultural lines. Why bother argue any longer?

Try rephrasing and elaborating, so that your comment makes sense. I cannot properly respond to your reply unless it is decipherable.

 

[Worldquest]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

David B -


If you were to try and prove that you're not a fascist, you'd have a really hard time.

Would you care to try?

 

[DavidB]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Oh right, so if someone makes any argument which involves culture, they are therefore by definition a fascist?

League of reason? Might need to change the title, I suggest.

 

[Andiferous]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

I think you'd be more convincing, were, according to your post, we not divided along cultural lines. Why bother argue any longer?

Try rephrasing and elaborating, so that your comment makes sense. I cannot properly respond to your reply unless it is decipherable.

Very well. I am responding to this:

We have social conventions for a reason. Banning the bhurka is about preserving our own culture while not placing foreign cultures above our own, or had that completely flown over your head in your misguided attempt to implement yet more culturally relative absurdity?

And I'm reminding you that this is an international forum. I have no idea what nation you are from, or from where your culture originates, but chances are you and I have been socialised with different cultural norms. As such, I can only interpret this statement as directed at people like myself, as I come from said foreign culture. You might want to watch what you're saying on an international forum.

 

[Worldquest]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Oh right, so if someone makes any argument which involves culture, they are therefore by definition a fascist?

League of reason? Might need to change the title, I suggest.

No, I don't mind you talking about culture. I do it myself. You're just trying hard to get out of showing us how you're not a fascist, what with your banning mentality and all, so I don't think there's any difference between you and a fascist.

 

[Aught3]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Worldquest, please be more careful when throwing around epithets such as 'fascist'. There is a difference between saying an idea is fascistic and saying someone is a fascist.

 

[theatheistguy]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Yes, but that's the point, Islam incites and enacts violence and hatred. And it is not about whether or not I disagree with Islam, it is about the nature of the ideology itself. It is an ideology of hatred, violence and subjugation. I'm sorry if you do not agree with my position, but I will not tolerate this ideology in my country, not now, not ever, no matter where it comes from, Islam, Nazism, Communism, or anywhere else.

Then in that vain you should pursue banning capitalism and Christianity too. Thing is, you'll never actually be able to do any of these things by force, but rather through rational education that allows people to see the flaws for themselves.

I'd ban Islam. Muslims can stay, so long as they don't practice Islam. I'm a reasonable person, if they don't want to stay and want to practice Islam, then there are 52 Islamic nations on this planet where they can practice their ideology to their hearts content.

You didn't answer my main question, why not ban Christianity or Judaism too? And how do you enforce this law that stops Muslims from practising their faith? Why ban all of it, why not just bad bits, like we've done for Christianity and other religions?

Oh, so that is your issue then, that I should have no right to demand that I should be able to live in a society of my own choosing?

No, as you keep on saying about Muslims, if you don't like what you've got here, move somewhere else. If you do not accept the way society is here, move, make your own society.

In the case of nationalism, if your referring to Nazism and Communism, then yes, that was definitely a fuck up. But be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water my friend, because without a strong national identity, built on moral and ethical virtues, ideally, then what do we have?

You're verging on competing with the religious here, this sounds very similar to 'without a god to give morals, then what do we have?' We have individuals or small societies who are not blinded by idiotic and unnecessary allegiances to countries, who can rely on their own morals and be held accountable to those close to them and not some imaginary state.

You prefer Anarchy?

Yes. And please note that anarchy does not mean no rules, but rather no ruler.

And I might remind you, that we were intelligent enough to recognise that we did not want to embrace a world dominated with either Nazism nor Communism nor Japanese imperialism and took extremely drastic measures to ensure that it did not eventuate. I assure you, Islam as an ideology, is no better, maybe even worse.

Yes, but Nazi, Communist and imperialist ideas are still allowed within our borders, people are not expelled for holding them, and neither should Muslims. I agree that some of the practices should be banned, like killing Jews for Nazis, or beating women for Islam.

ANo, it is not the definition of Fascism. I suggest you read up on Fascism and then read up on Islam, you appear to be confused.

"A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism."
Stringent social control, check
economic control, nope, not that you've said anyway
strong centralised government, possibly check
dictator, nope
nationalism, check
Fairly close.

I have no problem with Muslims per se, but I do have a major problem with Islam. If you do not understand why Islam is a dangerously hostile ideology of hatred, violence, bigotry, sexism and subjugation, then I suggest you make the effort to read and understand the Koran and Sharia law.

I've agreed with you several times that Islam is horrific, however, I've also told you that it's on par with Christianity and Judaism, yet I don't see you rallying against them. I've also said that the majority of Muslims, like the majority of Christians, pick'n'mix their faith from the bible.

I'd certainly love to live in a world devoid of religion and based entirely on sober judgement and rational discourse, but we do not live in that sort of world. We live in a world were liberty and freedom require constant protection from aggressively hostile ideologies such as Islam. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Islam has as its stated goal, the complete and total domination of world, at any cost. Now that is something to be wary of, very wary indeed.

I too would love a world without religion, but I would never force it out of someone, mainly because I know such a thing is impossible. Banning the expression of someone's belief (so long as it does not interfere with the right of others) is unjustified and serves no purpose, and would do more harm than good to ridding the world of religious dogma and ignorance. Islam wants the world, so does Christianity and Judaism and Hinduism, etc, but most Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc are happy enough to have a semi-comfortable life.

 

[DavidB]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

I too would love a world without religion, but I would never force it out of someone, mainly because I know such a thing is impossible. Banning the expression of someone's belief (so long as it does not interfere with the right of others) is unjustified and serves no purpose, and would do more harm than good to ridding the world of religious dogma and ignorance. Islam wants the world, so does Christianity and Judaism and Hinduism, etc, but most Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc are happy enough to have a semi-comfortable life.

I'm not talking about banning someone's belief, there are many places in this world where Islam can be practised exclusively. I'm talking about banning it in my country.

And by the way, why is it perfectly acceptable for an exclusively Islamic nation to practice their ideology and belief the way they desire, but when I want to live in a society that is aligned with my belief systems (which is devoid of Islam) then oh boy, I'm just a xenophobic fascist.

Give me a break.

 

[Worldquest]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

David B -

Just because there are countries where everyone is forced to do something or not do something, it doesn't make it right. Presumably, you live in a country where no one forces you to do or not do anything (religion wise). Isn't that enough? Or would you like to force everyone else to be like you? Why the obsession with getting everyone else to behave as you wish them to, or not behave as you don't wish them to? What business is it of yours anyway? If you don't like islam, then you should just simply put up with it as it isn't your business. Experience your intense hatred of it, and live with it.

In the good old days, when someone didn't like something that they saw, they used to say "Oooh, I don't like that, so I won't do that myself"

Now, more and more people say "Oooh, I don't like that, and so no one should do it".

Maybe it's because society is becoming more whiney these days. It's so easy to sue people over trivial things now, compensation claims, etc, it's becoming a whiney culture where if you don't like it, it is presumed that you have a right to put a stop to it, when in reality you have no such right. People are becoming busybodies, snooping into other people's lives as though they have a right to dictate to them. It's embarassing to watch adults behave like this. If you don't like it, it's no one's problem but yours.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

I'm not talking about banning someone's belief, there are many places in this world where Islam can be practised exclusively. I'm talking about banning it in my country.

And by the way, why is it perfectly acceptable for an exclusively Islamic nation to practice their ideology and belief the way they desire, but when I want to live in a society that is aligned with my belief systems (which is devoid of Islam) then oh boy, I'm just a xenophobic fascist.

Give me a break.

Actually, no. Most of us feel that nations that are BY LAW exclusively Islamic would be just as "xenophobic fascist" as your viewpoint is. One standard for everyone. You don't get to pretend that your views are any different than what they are by whining that Muslims have the same view.

And what do you mean "your country"? Do you own the whole thing?