View Full Version : Five European states back burka ban
Maybe there is hope for Europe yet. I am starting to see signs of life after all.
heartbreakridge01
03-01-10, 20:23
Maybe there is hope for Europe yet. I am starting to see signs of life after all.
hope for what? Are muslims not allowed to practice there religion? Outlawing the wearing of a burka is the biggest abuse of power ive ever seen.
Why dont we just hold them under water if they drown then they are ok to live among the rest of us, if not then they are evil devil creatures that need to be prosecuted.
wtf:mad:
A very large step to something that no doubt will be abused and misinterpreted. At what point would winter attire be considered a burka, etc?
hope for what? Are muslims not allowed to practice there religion? Outlawing the wearing of a burka is the biggest abuse of power ive ever seen.
Why dont we just hold them under water if they drown then they are ok to live among the rest of us, if not then they are evil devil creatures that need to be prosecuted.
wtf:mad:
Is this a serious post, or are you jesting us for amusement?
Riots and car burnings to follow...
MarshallDodge
03-01-10, 22:00
Government imposed dress codes. Really?
I have an issue with them wearing a burka while getting a picture taken for an ID but if that is how they want to dress then I have no issue with it.
I think I get what heartbreakridge01 is alluding to. I can't believe I'm about to say what I am about to say, because I hate apologists, bleeding-hearts, and...well just about everybody really. My usual response to everything and everyone is "f*** it/them".
This would not fly in the US. Wearing a burka is religious practice (please, correct me if I'm wrong), and prohibitting it by law would be a violation of freedom of religion here in America. Do I like burkas? No, I feel they are degrading to their women and can pose safety/security risks to others, but we must remember why our founding fathers revolted: money (taxation) and for freedom of religion (freedom from the Church of England). It would be hypocritical to support other free nations to outlaw religious practices.
I think it should not even get to the point of religion, it should stop at "govt imposed dress code."
I think I get what heartbreakridge01 is alluding to. I can't believe I'm about to say what I am about to say, because I hate apologists, bleeding-hearts, and...well just about everybody really. My usual response to everything and everyone is "f*** it/them".
This would not fly in the US. Wearing a burka is religious practice (please, correct me if I'm wrong), and prohibitting it by law would be a violation of freedom of religion here in America. Do I like burkas? No, I feel they are degrading to their women and can pose safety/security risks to others, but we must remember why our founding fathers revolted: money (taxation) and for freedom of religion (freedom from the Church of England). It would be hypocritical to support other free nations to outlaw religious practices.
Eh, to an extent it is a religious practice & it'd be groovy if that is all it was. I happen to live 3 blocks from a Somali mall. I have to drive past it to get to the major East/West and have routinely almost been in serious car accidents because of women wearing burkas that are unable to see around their coverings, but drive none-the-less. They pose a serious health hazard to my family and I. Whatever other reasons for or against . . . . when these women drive with what is in effect like blinders on a horse or an IFR hood on a pilot . .. it is a problem. It is a problem, I don't see a solution to . . . aside from banning the Burka or banning driving while burka-ed. I dunno (shrugs shoulders) seems most of the Somalis are driving huge SUV's or the Lexus of your choice, can't speak the language, don't have jobs, and aren't remotely interested in the rules of the road . . . the Burka takes all that and adds the effect of many of the women flying blind.
Maybe it falls into that realm of "Your rights only extend as far as they don't trample on your neighbor's" Somali (speaking of my 'hood specifically") religious freedom as expressed in the wearing of head coverings resulting in restricted vision while driving . .. pretty clearly tramples the rights of everybody who is trying to get home safely from the grocery. * I have never known a Jew's Kippah, a Catholics's Crucifix, or a Hari Krishna's robes to restrict vision to the point a driver was unsafe. I see it with Burka's everytime I go out between 6am and 10pm
If Europe wants to survive, they need to do a population transfer and reverse the destruction of the family (IE end no-fault divorce and subsidies for non-widows/orphans/geriatrics). Same thing here. It has nothing to do with burkas or pork soup. At a certain point, the need to survive cancels out the rights of people trying to tear your civilization down. Europe has grown very vain, and soon, they really will be foreigners in their own country. In case you haven't noticed, if you came from a family that taught you to admire and strive for strong work ethics, taught you to love your country and your constitution and showed you the difference between right and wrong... you are fast becoming more alien in this country than an illegal.
Yeah this is about the same as Indiana passing a law saying Women can't wear Denim Skirts anymore.
Not a good precedent to set.
When we can get fat chicks banned from wearing spandex let me know where to vote.
It would be hypocritical to support other free nations to outlaw religious practices.
Under normal circumstances yes. But some of you are forgetting that the burka itself is an institutional, indoctrinated form of oppression. Just because they were born and raised to believe that's the correct way in their backwards-assed nations doesn't mean it should be the way here or in Europe.
We as a nation are the antithesis of the burka, therefore we have no real obligation as a free nation to enable such primitive, indignant practices.
Under normal circumstances yes. But some of you are forgetting that the burka itself is an institutional, indoctrinated form of oppression. Just because they were born and raised to believe that's the correct way in their backwards-assed nations doesn't mean it should be the way here or in Europe.
We as a nation are the antithesis of the burka, therefore we have no real obligation as a free nation to enable such primitive, indignant practices.
While I agree with you, I also feel the same way about most religions and their practices. Places like FLDS, and even mainstream Christianity have many practices that I consider throwbacks to our bronze age ancestry that have no place in modern society. However we allow them because that is one of the things that this country is about. We can't start picking and choosing what we allow and what we don't. Short of Sacrifice, and the like of course.
Under normal circumstances yes. But some of you are forgetting that the burka itself is an institutional, indoctrinated form of oppression. Just because they were born and raised to believe that's the correct way in their backwards-assed nations doesn't mean it should be the way here or in Europe.
We as a nation are the antithesis of the burka, therefore we have no real obligation as a free nation to enable such primitive, indignant practices.
While oppressive, I dont think banning it would be smart either. Going against the oppression perhaps, but not by making towels illegal. Who is to stop them from banning "facial covering" garments?
Outlander Systems
03-02-10, 09:33
Freedom of Religion was, upon intent, to prevent the State from meddling in the affairs of the church. Not the other way around.
Just sayin'.
Freedom of Religion was, upon intent, to prevent the State from meddling in the affairs of the church. Not the other way around.
Just sayin'.
I strongly disagree. It goes both ways. Government has no place in religion and religion has no place in Government. Many of our Founding Fathers were Deist and they did not want the two mixing.
Outlander Systems
03-02-10, 09:57
Negative.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The intent was to ensure that the government couldn't restrict religion, with the exception of human sacrifice, etc. which was/is considered an affront on peaceful people.
There are a lot of misconceptions floating around about this issue. Having lived under a tyrannical government, the FF's didn't want a state-sponsored religion, and sought to prevent the government from meddling in the free exercise of religion.
Saying I can't pray in a public school, or that I can't rock a burkha is as much an assault on my constitutional rights as snatching guns.
That being said, I didn't pray in public school, nor do I have favourable opinions on burkhas, but government has no business telling anyone that they cannot do either. And THAT is the gist of the matter. It's neither implied nor specified that you can't wear a burkha and hold office, it does imply and specify that the office cannot tell you that you can't.
If Europe wants to survive, they need to do a population transfer and reverse the destruction of the family (IE end no-fault divorce and subsidies for non-widows/orphans/geriatrics). Same thing here. It has nothing to do with burkas or pork soup. At a certain point, the need to survive cancels out the rights of people trying to tear your civilization down. Europe has grown very vain, and soon, they really will be foreigners in their own country. In case you haven't noticed, if you came from a family that taught you to admire and strive for strong work ethics, taught you to love your country and your constitution and showed you the difference between right and wrong... you are fast becoming more alien in this country than an illegal.
You nailed it, exactly. There is a book titled Suicide of the West (http://www.amazon.com/Suicide-West-Meaning-Destiny-Liberalism/dp/0895265990/ref=tag_dpp_lp_edpp_img_ex) that explains how the Western European countries, and the U.S., are essentially destroying themselves with the ideas that we hold. Another great book, Ideas Have Consequences (http://www.amazon.com/Ideas-Have-Consequences-Richard-Weaver/dp/0226876802), also outlines this trend.
It is not necessary to violate the fundamental rights set forth in the Bill of Rights, but if we are to survive as a country, we will have to reject some of the current ideas that seem to hold sway, and reinforce the ideas we were established upon. I know EXACTLY what you mean, when you talk of feeling like an alien in your own country. I feel far more in common with traditional, conservative believers in God who live in some Eastern countries (Poland, Russia, etc.) than I do with many in the U.S. who live what--to me--appears to be a form of insanity and self-destruction (progressivism, socialism, whatever you want to call it). There are many in this country who still believe in the Founders' vision of American exceptionalism ("a City Upon a Hill"), and in honor, integrity, hard work, God, family, duty, country. But it seems like increasingly, almost NONE of the large public decisions that are made FOR us by our leaders are based on any of these beliefs/values. In fact, nearly all decisions that have been made in the last number of years seem to directly contradict these values.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
I know the wording friend. Would you be ok with the Government being run in a Christian fashion? how about an Islamic Fashion? Or Jewish? Or Hindu? Freedom of religion also means Freedom FROM religion in our governing body. I am not saying that we should have to remove any reference to God or Gods in government but I don't want it in Laws being passed or decisions being made.
Under normal circumstances yes. But some of you are forgetting that the burka itself is an institutional, indoctrinated form of oppression. Just because they were born and raised to believe that's the correct way in their backwards-assed nations doesn't mean it should be the way here or in Europe.
We as a nation are the antithesis of the burka, therefore we have no real obligation as a free nation to enable such primitive, indignant practices.
While I agree with you, I also feel the same way about most religions and their practices. Places like FLDS, and even mainstream Christianity have many practices that I consider throwbacks to our bronze age ancestry that have no place in modern society. However we allow them because that is one of the things that this country is about. We can't start picking and choosing what we allow and what we don't. Short of Sacrifice, and the like of course.
I must say I also agree with both... If burka's are out lawed whats next? Morman Temple Garments? The Pope hat?
I think the best think to do in the name of public safety is disallow the issuance of driver's lisences or other forms of ID if the picture is taken with anything covering the face of the person. Also, if I can get a "obstruction of vision" ticket for driving with a radar detector in my windshield, they can get the same ricket for driving with a burka on. I think it abstructs vision much more than my radar detector.
Let them wear what they want as long as they don't try to pawn their ideology on us. I love the USA
Negative.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The intent was to ensure that the government couldn't restrict religion, with the exception of human sacrifice, etc. which was/is considered an affront on peaceful people.
There are a lot of misconceptions floating around about this issue. Having lived under a tyrannical government, the FF's didn't want a state-sponsored religion, and sought to prevent the government from meddling in the free exercise of religion.
Saying I can't pray in a public school, or that I can't rock a burkha is as much an assault on my constitutional rights as snatching guns.
That being said, I didn't pray in public school, nor do I have favourable opinions on burkhas, but government has no business telling anyone that they cannot do either. And THAT is the gist of the matter. It's neither implied nor specified that you can't wear a burkha and hold office, it does imply and specify that the office cannot tell you that you can't.
+1
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This sentence establishes freedom of religion in the United States; not freedom from religion.
There are still areas in which religious rights and rites may be restricted (airport screening, drivers' license photos, etc.); but that cannot legally happen if doing so would create a constitutional paradox. In other words, the federal government cannot legally force a person to choose between two constitutionally-protected rights--such as religious freedom and the right to bear arms. They are both guaranteed under the US Constitution.
(It is worth noting that the states have similar restrictions, but federally-guaranteed rights not incorporated to the states cannot be enforced outside of federal jurisdictions. So, for example, without Second Amendment incorporation, the State of Illinois can restrict the carrying of a firearm by a person wearing a burkha or chadri; but, in theory, they would not be able to do this if both religious freedom and the right to bear arms were incorporated.)
Look, I don't care one bit about burkhas and other religious apparel. But I do care about freedom of religion, and of expression. I think these rights are universal. While our constitution protects them, some other nations' constitutions may not. But setting aside the legal unknowns, I must express disappointment that any civilized nation would move to ban an expression of religion; especially one as common as the burkha.
I know the wording friend. Would you be ok with the Government being run in a Christian fashion? how about an Islamic Fashion? Or Jewish? Or Hindu? Freedom of religion also means Freedom FROM religion in our governing body. I am not saying that we should have to remove any reference to God or Gods in government but I don't want it in Laws being passed or decisions being made.
Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values. There's never been any debate about that. There is no freedom FROM religion. The federal government simply cannot pass any law which promotes one religion over another. You might consider that "freedom from religion"; but I disagree. They may not influence religious practice unless those practices deprive others of their own constitutional rights. That's to ensure freedom OF religion. But there is no constitutional ban on expressions of religous belief in the government. We still have benedictions and prayer before government ceremonies and congressional sessions. As long as those are kept non-denominational--not placing one religion above any others--they are widely considered legal and constitutional expressions. On the other hand, restricting those expressions would be depriving government workers of their religious freedoms. (A constitutional paradox between two constitutionally-protected rights: Religious freedom and the right of qualified persons to hold a representative office.)
I must say I also agree with both... If burka's are out lawed whats next? Morman Temple Garments? The Pope hat?
I think the best think to do in the name of public safety is disallow the issuance of driver's lisences or other forms of ID if the picture is taken with anything covering the face of the person. Also, if I can get a "obstruction of vision" ticket for driving with a radar detector in my windshield, they can get the same ricket for driving with a burka on. I think it abstructs vision much more than my radar detector.
Agreed. But there's no problem with requiring the burkha be taken off to drive, because there is no "right to drive a motor vehicle". You want to wear your burkha, you can do so. Nobody can tell you to take it off. But you can't drive if you're wearing it. The constitution doesn't say that we have to let you drive.
Agreed. But there's no problem with requiring the burkha be taken off to drive, because there is no "right to drive a motor vehicle". You want to wear your burkha, you can do so. Nobody can tell you to take it off. But you can't drive if you're wearing it. The constitution doesn't say that we have to let you drive.
Also agreed. The Gov should not start meddling in rights, but if need be, they could restrict privileges while exercising your rights for the interest of the common good. That's what will be important in instances such as airport screenings and issuing a driver's license. Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right. In my opinion, many forget the difference between "privileges" and "rights" how many privileges they truly have, especially here in the US where we have been very privileged.
Under normal circumstances yes. But some of you are forgetting that the burka itself is an institutional, indoctrinated form of oppression. Just because they were born and raised to believe that's the correct way in their backwards-assed nations doesn't mean it should be the way here or in Europe.
We as a nation are the antithesis of the burka, therefore we have no real obligation as a free nation to enable such primitive, indignant practices.
This. I would go further and say the burkha and what it represents is the antithesis of natural freedom itself.
So the head wrap some choose to wear is "the antithesis of natural freedom" as well as "an institutional, indoctrinated form of oppression"?...
But government mandating what is an acceptable hat is not?
I guess I have it all backwards.
:rolleyes:
A free nation doesn't outlaw items simply because they're offensive to some(or even many/most).That's far more damaging to liberty than any ****in hat could ever be.
heartbreakridge01
03-02-10, 19:46
For those that agree with the orignal post, how would this be any differnt than banning nuns from wearing what they wear? or banning a cross outside a public church?
I find it crazy that any one would agree with a goverment banning an article of clothing for a religious group. What would this thread say if this happened in the USA but change it to the outfit that nuns wear. Not much of a differnce, the biggest problem i see here is not the burka but the goverment meddiling citizens lives because it "polls" good...
I'm going to give a different opinion fron a different direction. To me it is not a religious issue, it is a safety issue. I couldn't care less about what they think we are infringing upon. I'm not sure how you outlaw face coverings or full length body dresses. Only where it becomes a safety issue should it be addressed. If driving a vehicle is unsafe, for the rest of us then eliminate it. If it becomes unsafe for whatever reason for certain activities, that's a real reason to get rid of it.
Europe doesn't have a constitution like ours, so things are different. I think they are banning the burkas for what they perceive as safety issues. They might think it is unsafe to not be able to identify possible terrorists. It also seems that a large percentage of terrorists practice the religion of peace. At least they are doing something, finally, however weak.
Christians and mooselimbs have been at war ever since a child molesting pervert decided to form his own way of life. It is much more than a religion. Mohommad was the general, president, religious leader, end all be all. The sooner we recognize it the better chance we'll have of surviving as a nation, culture, and way of life. I don't have much sympathy for any of them, mooselimbs or Europeans. If Europe doesn't figure it out soon it will cease to exist as we know it. It is simply demographics. Numbers tell the tale. The good news is it won't be in our lifetime.
So the head wrap some choose to wear is "the antithesis of natural freedom" as well as "an institutional, indoctrinated form of oppression"?...
Yes, it is.
But perhaps you would you care to give us your version of the burka. This in the context of Islam and the woman's place in it's societies, of course.
Yes, it is.
But perhaps you would you care to give us your version of the burka. This in the context of Islam and the woman's place in it's societies, of course.
How about...
A piece of clothing.
In context-An inanimate object that's merely a symptom of larger issues.
Banning it in hopes of addressing those larger issues is asinine.NTM government intrusion on personal liberty.
How about...
A piece of clothing.
In context-An inanimate object that's merely a symptom of larger issues.
A symptom of larger issues, or a symbol of them? Even the epitome of them, dare I say. :rolleyes:
Burkas are designed to hide and suppress because muslims fear the flawed human emotion known as lust. That is irrational in it's context and has no place being enforced in our free country.
A symptom of larger issues, or a symbol of them? Even the epitome of them, dare I say.
Semantics.
It makes absolutely no difference.A free country has no business regulating symbols of any kind.
I can think of many which disgust me.
Burkas are designed to hide and suppress because muslims fear the flawed human emotion known as lust. That is irrational in it's context and has no place being enforced in our free country.
That's your view.One I happen to agree with.
Fortunately(IMO) our views don't decide what others wear.As others views don't dictate what we wear.
By "enforce" I assume you're refering to abusive/controlling husbands?...
Don't tell me the culture at large(at least in this country).I see muslim women all of the time who aren't wearing the nefarious head gear.Often side by side with others who are.They usually appear to be in the same family at that.
So again,the burkha itself isn't the real problem is it?You're going to cure a disease with a change of clothing?...At the cost of personal and religious freedom?...because it's not your freedom right??
Let me clarify that I did not state that a ban was the right thing to do, or what a free nation would do. However, I was pointing out the message of the burkha and what it represents is against what a free nation represents and I will not change my mind on that subject.
I'm sure someone will inevetibly bring up how a misinterpretation of any foundation of principles will lead to disaster, but none in recent history has been as damaging as what is at the base of this thread.
ForTehNguyen
03-03-10, 23:23
the way islam is practiced sometimes it basically is a political ideology. If some religion said you dont have free speech, so it should be allowed?
the way islam is practiced sometimes it basically is a political ideology. If some religion said you dont have free speech, so it should be allowed?
Huh?:confused:
Should it be allowed?
Yes.You're entitled to believe whatever nonsense you like.
Should its views be imposed on others?
Absolutely not.
I was pointing out the message of the burkha and what it represents is against what a free nation represents and I will not change my mind on that subject.
I can't argue with that.
variablebinary
03-04-10, 01:49
Slippery slope.
Think long and hard before you applaud.
ForTehNguyen
03-04-10, 08:00
if a religion said you have to be naked, then it should be allowed here? Some of the ways Islam is practiced is hugely oppressive and totally against our ideals of freedom. Thats why in some ways you could argue its a political ideology, because it can completely govern someones way of life.
I would only caution against ethnocentrism.
I would only caution against ethnocentrism.
If the western european nations practiced this they would not have the immigration problems they have. The problem is the complete lack of ethnocentrism. Are you suggesting that this is what is happening? Mooselimbs come in about every shape, color, size, that exists on this earth.
GermanSynergy
03-04-10, 18:43
A healthy dose of nationalism will do Europe good. The pandering and blatant self hatred has to stop for Europe to survive another 20 years....
If you go to their countries, often times they aren't very tolerant of your beliefs or lifestyle.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.