Should countries outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka?

[mlmooney89]

Chris,

How is that without a basis?

The basis is that people wearing full disguises cannot be identified and are therefore dangerous to society.

They cannot be identified by security camera footage and eye witnesses.

I didn’t realize that being distinguishable on security tapes was illegal. If the person doesn’t identify themselves to the police THAT is illegal but really what difference is there in the question garb from someone wearing a large hoody with sunglasses on? Cameras still can’t tell who they are. If the person wants to be suspicious and act badly they are going to regardless of their attire. Taking the garb from the women that would use it innocently for the fear that someone MIGHT use it badly is just wrong. That’s like the anti-gun people taking guns from us law abiding citizens because criminals use them. Taking my gun won’t stop the criminal from getting the gun it simply leaves me unarmed.

[Flann 5]

I do not brand them all the same way as all do not practice their religions faithfully.

The essential nature of targeting civilians means it's impossible to prevent suicide attacks no matter how much security is enforced.
It's a mistake to view Isil's brand of Jihad as a majority view among Muslims. The war in Syria came after a famine and grievances against Assad's regime and the Arab spring hopes of popular democracy being called for.
The majority in Syria are Sunni while the rulers are Shia the reverse of Iraq.
Assad cracked down violently provoking armed resistance.Ultimately Isil came as the deliverers of retribution to Assad's regime with a sense of just mission underpinning it.
They have proved to be the most effective militarily and financially and have assimilated or co opted many other opposition militias so that it's almost impossible to speak of moderates opposing Assad.
Isil's Caliphate is a global and territorial project.
The U.S. supported the popular demand for regime change and democracy but was indecisive at crucial moments while all the time Isil was gaining monopoly as the alternative to Assad.
As things stand with the counterbalancing support of various nations neither side can win this war militarily. Isil is a huge problem because of it's extreme religious interpretation and it's theatrical barbarity. Not that Assad is averse to barbarity himself,just not globally.
Iraq was shambolic with the new rulers discriminating against the overthrown minority. It seems though that there were moments if the government had been more equitable that some kind of peaceful coexistence was possible.

Whether the majority of Syrians would really want to be ruled by Isil is an interesting question. Probably not.

Whatever solution the various power brokers in the conflict can agree on I think some kind of election is desirable with lessons learned from Iraq guiding whoever the ruling government is.

Unlikely that Russia will want to lose it's ally in the middle east. It seems though that Isil needs to be defeated at least to the extent that real negotiation is possible.
And also to deflate their fantasy of divinely conferred invincibility and approval.

Copper fastening Assad's regime is not going to work with the extent of popular resentment against it. There's a need for real diplomacy if the various nations and factions are to see beyond their individual interests of various kinds.

In reality the U.S. probably needs to work with Assad's Syrian army against Isil to break the impasse and bring them to a willingness to negotiate in politically meaningful terms.
It can happen. We had decades of sectarian war here in Ireland and eventually both sides had to recognize the futility of endless violent conflict and the need for political agreement.

[ant]

That is one of the most racist comments I have heard from you on this thread. ANYONE can have a bomb and ANYONE can do something bad to you in a plane. I recall that it was white kids that shot up Columbine, a white man that shot up the Colorado movie theater, and a white man that killed those people in the South Carolina church. Imagine just going to school, church, or the movies and getting killed. The danger is not just from the Muslim community it is all around you and to single out just that group because of their skin color (seeing how you can’t tell a person’s religion based on a few men standing around) is the very definition of racism.

It's more of a grossly bigoted comment than it is a "racist" one.

But it's not surprising considering the source.

Yes it is very stupid to be able to believe what you want. I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t be happy in the Catholic countries that don’t give that freedom of religion. I know I am very lucky to not be forced to lie about what I believe. America was built on this freedom and I sure as hell would start another world war if someone tried to take it from me.

Yup. Very well said.

[ant]

Any garment that completely disguises the identity of a person concerns me. What is to prevent a group of men with AK-47s or bombs from walking into the middle of a public area hiding beneath burkas?

Chad was a victim of just that, just to name on country, and did not screw around with stupid freedom of religion.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-33166220

Regards
DL

Is this kind of idiocy for real, people?

[mlmooney89]

It's more of a grossly bigoted comment than it is a "racist" one.

But it's not surprising considering the source.

I agree it's also bigotry but I say racist because you can't tell what a person is thinking, what their religion is, or anything personal when it's just men sitting on a plane. In order to hate them DB is basing all of his presumptions on the fact that those men have dark skin, eyes, and hair. I don't know if I am mistaken but I consider middle eastern a race in itself and to me if you look at a person that is middle eastern and decide they are dangerous based solely on that fact I consider it racist.

[DWill]

Try this as a comparison: if you call the U.S. a Christian country, then just about any craziness that happens could be attributed to Christianity, such as the existence of the KKK. But this would be a false attribution, simply a correlation, and a weak one at that.

Really? Let me explain something to you: the KKK very definitely IS a product Christianity. There is NO WAY the Klan could EVER have formed without it. There is NO WAY it would still exist except that Christianity has prolonged it. If Christianity somehow died, the Klan would die. Christian identity was developed and spread by Klan preachers and it is the ideological glue behind the far right racist groups in America--even those that don't claim to follow Christianity because virtually all of them were CI adherents at one time or another and got their training that way. "simply a correlation"? Maybe you should look up the definition of correlation. You can't look at how strong Christianity is in the American conservative right wing, whether racist or otherwise, and tell me that this is a weak connection. The connection is direct and powerful. The left wing is openly, if not almost entirely, atheistic or agnostic. The right is overwhelmingly Christian. That's not just a coincidence. And those Christians are overwhelming climate-change deniers and evolution-deniers. Yeah, that's a correlation alright.

So you believe, D.B., that had Christianity somehow not existed, we would never have seen a scourge like the KKK--I mean that no group would have arisen that had a core ideology of hatred of blacks and other minorities? It doesn't matter, does it, that the group wouldn't be specifically the KKK. You've acknowledged (haven't you?) that Christianity is not a racist religion, so why do you say that Christianity was so essential to the rise of the KKK? You seem to be placing too much importance on what groups use as an identity. Anyone can wrap themselves in the mantle of Christianity or any other religion, cite or interpret some scriptures, and say that they're acting in strict accordance with that faith. It's a great opportunity for any wayward group to claim legitimacy, by co-opting the dominant respected religion. But we need at least to be cautious when approaching the matter of whether the religion itself was truly enabling of the resulting ideology. Reza Aslan said, in the video geo linked us to, that people bring a bunch of notions and dispositions to the religion they adopt, and I generally agree with that. Religions are more plastic than many critics are willing to admit.

In the rest of your post, you seem to be implying that I'm ignoring or denying that people who identify as Muslim have done a whole lot of terrible things, especially recently. I'm not. But I don't agree, as you seem to be claiming, that being Muslim means that inevitably they will act in these destructive ways, because that element in encoded into anyone who says he or she is Muslim. I'm well aware of the problem passages in the Koran and that currently Islam is undergoing a dangerous and threatening phase on the part of a significant number of its adherents. We simply need to avoid letting emotions ruin an analysis of the larger picture. This is especially important in not playing into the hands of ISIL, which wants us to marginalize Muslims in general so that more will be driven into the radical ranks and will flock to the IS, which will then be the scene of Armageddon.

[Gnostic Bishop]

Lemmie just jump right in here…
DL,

If we pass a woman wearing such garb on the street, we have no idea as to whether she is forced or not but should ere on the side of freeing women from oppression in order to insure that all share our freedom in our free lands.

I know I catch major hell for wanting to be a 50’s Stepford wife by staying home with the kids, doing the bills, cooking, running errands, cleaning, having dinner on the table when the husband comes home, etc. They say it’s repression I say it’s a perfect life. One person’s hell is another person’s heaven. To assume that a woman walking down the street is being repressed simply because she is wearing certain clothing seems to be a bit dramatic.

I have forgotten if I posted this but I do like some of his ideas of sending immigrants back to fight for their rights the same way we had to.

While for the most part I agree I do think back and wonder what would have happened to the Jewish community during WWII if we as on lookers simply said ‘ya know what? How about you figure this out yourselves?’ It’s hard to get back up on your feet and battle an existing force while still trying to catch your breath.

So when a Muslim walks by you, you just know whether he's a terrorist or not. I'll put it this way--you're sitting on a plane waiting to get airborne and several Arab guys get on and there's just something about them. Do you really want to be stuck at 20,000 feet with those guys? I don't. I can rationalize that most Muslims are decent people but that doesn't make me feel any more comfortable in that situation. I'm getting off.

That is one of the most racist comments I have heard from you on this thread. ANYONE can have a bomb and ANYONE can do something bad to you in a plane. I recall that it was white kids that shot up Columbine, a white man that shot up the Colorado movie theater, and a white man that killed those people in the South Carolina church. Imagine just going to school, church, or the movies and getting killed. The danger is not just from the Muslim community it is all around you and to single out just that group because of their skin color (seeing how you can’t tell a person’s religion based on a few men standing around) is the very definition of racism.

Chad was a victim of just that, just to name on country, and did not screw around with stupid freedom of religion.

Yes it is very stupid to be able to believe what you want. I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t be happy in the Catholic countries that don’t give that freedom of religion. I know I am very lucky to not be forced to lie about what I believe. America was built on this freedom and I sure as hell would start another world war if someone tried to take it from me.

Some of those quotes are not mine but I will speak to two things.

To your last.
I do not care what people believe. It is the actions that I care about.

--------

"To assume that a woman walking down the street is being repressed simply because she is wearing certain clothing seems to be a bit dramatic."

You seem to be under the impression that most Muslim women wear the scarves and masks voluntarily. I do not as I believe the women in the link I posted as well as many other testimonials in the net. I also have an anecdotal story but those are not that pertinent.

I see the garb in question as the tip of the iceberg of Muslin misogyny and ask that you consider the Muslim rape law where a woman cannot refuse her husband, the Muslim rules on just how to beat your wife and child brides where children are forced to marry old men.

As I said, thoughts I do not care about, but if you do not think those actions to be quite foul then you are not much of a moral woman.

I also have no problem with either house wives or house husbands. I am a supporter of Woman Liberation and think we, male or female, should be proud to fulfill whatever family role we choose.

Here is a quick example of why I see the apparel as oppressive and also why I dislike Sharia law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Mecc ... chool_fire

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

I do not brand them all the same way as all do not practice their religions faithfully.

The essential nature of targeting civilians means it's impossible to prevent suicide attacks no matter how much security is enforced.
It's a mistake to view Isil's brand of Jihad as a majority view among Muslims. The war in Syria came after a famine and grievances against Assad's regime and the Arab spring hopes of popular democracy being called for.
The majority in Syria are Sunni while the rulers are Shia the reverse of Iraq.
Assad cracked down violently provoking armed resistance.Ultimately Isil came as the deliverers of retribution to Assad's regime with a sense of just mission underpinning it.
They have proved to be the most effective militarily and financially and have assimilated or co opted many other opposition militias so that it's almost impossible to speak of moderates opposing Assad.
Isil's Caliphate is a global and territorial project.
The U.S. supported the popular demand for regime change and democracy but was indecisive at crucial moments while all the time Isil was gaining monopoly as the alternative to Assad.
As things stand with the counterbalancing support of various nations neither side can win this war militarily. Isil is a huge problem because of it's extreme religious interpretation and it's theatrical barbarity. Not that Assad is averse to barbarity himself,just not globally.
Iraq was shambolic with the new rulers discriminating against the overthrown minority. It seems though that there were moments if the government had been more equitable that some kind of peaceful coexistence was possible.

Whether the majority of Syrians would really want to be ruled by Isil is an interesting question. Probably not.

Whatever solution the various power brokers in the conflict can agree on I think some kind of election is desirable with lessons learned from Iraq guiding whoever the ruling government is.

Unlikely that Russia will want to lose it's ally in the middle east. It seems though that Isil needs to be defeated at least to the extent that real negotiation is possible.
And also to deflate their fantasy of divinely conferred invincibility and approval.

Copper fastening Assad's regime is not going to work with the extent of popular resentment against it. There's a need for real diplomacy if the various nations and factions are to see beyond their individual interests of various kinds.

In reality the U.S. probably needs to work with Assad's Syrian army against Isil to break the impasse and bring them to a willingness to negotiate in politically meaningful terms.
It can happen. We had decades of sectarian war here in Ireland and eventually both sides had to recognize the futility of endless violent conflict and the need for political agreement.

No argument that much needs to be done. Even after some peace returns to that area, some other area will flare up. That is why I would rather send a clear message to all of Islam that at least Canada and the U.S. and hopefully the rest of the West is fed up and that Muslims will be denied the riches and freedom of the West unless they revue their views of Sharia and stop their more vile practices, --- be they religious or political.

Enough is enough. We are a world community and should not need to suffer such a barbaric interpretation of Sharia and Islam.

It is time to squeeze Islam into civilization or destroy them.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

That is one of the most racist comments I have heard from you on this thread. ANYONE can have a bomb and ANYONE can do something bad to you in a plane. I recall that it was white kids that shot up Columbine, a white man that shot up the Colorado movie theater, and a white man that killed those people in the South Carolina church. Imagine just going to school, church, or the movies and getting killed. The danger is not just from the Muslim community it is all around you and to single out just that group because of their skin color (seeing how you can’t tell a person’s religion based on a few men standing around) is the very definition of racism.

It's more of a grossly bigoted comment than it is a "racist" one.

But it's not surprising considering the source.

Yes it is very stupid to be able to believe what you want. I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t be happy in the Catholic countries that don’t give that freedom of religion. I know I am very lucky to not be forced to lie about what I believe. America was built on this freedom and I sure as hell would start another world war if someone tried to take it from me.

Yup. Very well said.

Yes it was but have you both recognized that Muslim women cannot say what they believe. Remember Honor Killing.

That is what Muslim men use to shut their women up.

Have a quick look at freedom of speech Islam style.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4gNBf2n3o

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

It's more of a grossly bigoted comment than it is a "racist" one.

But it's not surprising considering the source.

I agree it's also bigotry but I say racist because you can't tell what a person is thinking, what their religion is, or anything personal when it's just men sitting on a plane. In order to hate them DL is basing all of his presumptions on the fact that those men have dark skin, eyes, and hair. I don't know if I am mistaken but I consider middle eastern a race in itself and to me if you look at a person that is middle eastern and decide they are dangerous based solely on that fact I consider it racist.

That was not my quote.

No apology required as mistakes are often made.

Regards
DL