Banning The Burqa

[Lil Red]

http://article.nationalreview.com/438941/ban-the-burqa/claire-berlinski?page=1

[cmotherofpirl]

[Hassan]

This is one of the best articles written on this subject that I have read (that's not to say that I agree with it).

Now let me ask a question, do people who agree with it accept this logic being extended to Catholic nuns who wear the full, traditional habit?

Edited August 5, 2010 by Hassan

[Hassan]

[i]Headscarves cannot at this point be banned. It is politically impossible, and it is also too late: The practice is too widespread. But the decision to wear them should be viewed much as the decision to wear Klan robes or Nazi regalia would be in the United States. Yes, you are free to do so, but no, you cannot wear that and expect to be hired by the government to teach schoolchildren, and no, we are not going to pretend collectively that this choice is devoid of a deeply sinister political and cultural meaning. Such a stance would serve the cause of liberty more than it would harm it: While it is true that some women adopt the veil voluntarily, it is also true that most veiling is forced. It is nearly impossible for the state to ascertain who is veiled by choice and who has been coerced. A woman who has been forced to veil is hardly likely to volunteer this information to authorities. Our responsibility to protect these women from coercion is greater than our responsibility to protect the freedom of those who choose to veil. Why? Because this is our culture, and in our culture, we do not veil. We do not veil because we do not believe that God demands this of women or even desires it; nor do we believe that unveiled women are whores, nor do we believe they deserve social censure, harassment, or rape. Our culture’s position on these questions is morally superior. We have every right, indeed an obligation, to ensure that our more enlightened conception of women and their proper role in society prevails in any cultural conflict, particularly one on Western soil.[/i]

I wonder how St. Paul would feel about her feelings concerning covering hair.

[Hassan]

I also take exception to her rather ignorant claim that pretending to ban he burqa on security grounds will meet the threat that she sees, while not starting a dangerous precedent. That anyone could take this seriously is shocking to me. And I doubt she has seriously studied developing democracies. That is exactly today Russia does all the time. Laws are applied with a wink and a nod, on paper everything is for one purpose, when everybody really knows that the purpose of the law is something totally different. The result is pretty predictable. The idea of a rule of law is fundamentally undermined. Laws are tools to be used for expediency, they have no principle to them. There is nothing noble or worth defending about them.

Putin wants a law to accomplish objective 'y'. Sadly, said law would be antithetical to the professed values of the Russian constitution, so the Duma passes a law supposedly for objective 'x', everybody exchanges a wink and a nod because the form of the law is upheld, even though the substance is clearly tarnished. This is what illiberal democracies all over the world do all the time. Guess what the result is? Hint: it isn't good for the rule of law, and it a great aid to the establishment of authoritarian regimes in the country that practices it.

[organwerke]

[quote name='Hassan' date='05 August 2010 - 08:18 PM' timestamp='1281032309' post='2152753']
This is one of the best articles written on this subject that I have read (that's not to say that I agree with it).

Now let me ask a question, do people who agree with it accept this logic being extended to Catholic nuns who wear the full, traditional habit?
[/quote]

The burqa is not a simple veil which covers only the head, but a veil which covers partially, or entirely, the face.

So it is completely different from a traditional nun's habit, except for some habits of nuns who live in enclosure, but the ban only matters the wearing in public, not in private, so the religious habits in convents is not included in the case (such as women who wear burkas in their home).

I'm in favour of this ban and don't think this is against the freedom of religion, on the contrary it is in favour of the dignity of the women that is absolutely mortified with this kind of wearing; second, it is in favour of the public society's security, because, at least in my country, a person can't go in public places covering his face so that he can't be recognized. You can find this ridicolous, but a law that forbids people to go in public places with the face covered was made much earlier that Muslim immigration started here, so the burqa's cultural problem was not at all an excuse to this law.

Banning the burqa is simply an act of common sense for plenty of reasons, another one is a simple rule of respect among the persons that is that when I speak or deal with a person I would like to see her in her face (and of copurse I show myself), and not to speak with a "ghost" who hides herself with a veil.

I can't see ridicolous or shocking motives in banning the burqa, on the contrary, I can only see plenty of reason in favour of it.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Hassan' date='05 August 2010 - 03:18 PM' timestamp='1281032309' post='2152753']
This is one of the best articles written on this subject that I have read (that's not to say that I agree with it).

Now let me ask a question, do people who agree with it accept this logic being extended to Catholic nuns who wear the full, traditional habit?
[/quote]
you know full well nuns habits don't cover their faces, so this is irrelevant to the discussion.

[Hassan]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='05 August 2010 - 03:09 PM' timestamp='1281035375' post='2152789']
you know full well nuns habits don't cover their faces, so this is irrelevant to the discussion.
[/quote]


No, it is not. The fundamental reasoning of this author has isn't about the face being covered. She is only against banning the hair scarf on pragmatic grounds and advocates treating Muslim women wearing the hijab be treated like social lepers. If you agree with her reasoning. If you agree with her reasoning that we must stop the male patriarchy driven phobia of female sexual freedom and liberation, which Muslims women modesty norms support, then at least bite the bullet and demand those nuns with their medieval, anti modern habits be forced to wear more revealing clothing, or be shunned like someone wearing Klan robes too.

Do you think for one moment that Dawkins or the militant atheist would not say that my reasoning is spot on? If you do, then you are just fooling yourself. And when the same reasoning that forces Muslim women to disrobe is turned on pious Catholic women, nuns, Orthodox Christian women and the like in ever more militantly secular Europe, I hope you will take a moment to reflect on your supporting role in this.

When you make a pact with the devil, don't be surprised when he comes to collect.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Hassan

[Marie-Therese]

I am torn on this issue. I can see the security related issues to any person covering their face so that their identity is not easily discernible. However, I am strongly in opposition to anything that would inhibit the free exercise of religion for any person in our country. There must be some middle ground that could be reached in this circumstance.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Hassan' date='05 August 2010 - 04:18 PM' timestamp='1281035914' post='2152794']
No, it is not. The fundamental reasoning of this author has isn't about the face being covered. She is only against banning the hair scarf on pragmatic grounds and advocates treating Muslim women wearing the hijab be treated like social lepers. If you agree with her reasoning. If you agree with her reasoning that we must stop the male patriarchy driven phobia of female sexual freedom and liberation, which Muslims women modesty norms support, then at least bite the bullet and demand those nuns with their medieval, anti modern habits be forced to wear more revealing clothing, or be shunned like someone wearing Klan robes too.

Do you think for one moment that Dawkins or the militant atheist would not say that my reasoning is spot on? If you do, then you are just fooling yourself. And when the same reasoning that forces Muslim women to disrobe is turned on pious Catholic women, nuns, Orthodox Christian women and the like in ever more militantly secular Europe, I hope you will take a moment to reflect on your supporting role in this.

When you make a pact with the devil, don't be surprised when he comes to collect.
[/quote]

Wearing a habit and being a nun is a choice, being forced by men to cover your face because you are fear for your life and skin is not. Covering your face is not the same as covering your body - one is covering and negating your identity as a human being, the other is a choice of standards of modesty.

[Hilde]

Would some women not be able to go out anymore?

This discussiona has already been here in this country, and for now there is no ban.

[CatherineM]

For over 6 months a year, I never go out in public without a full balaclava on. Would that get banned too? My cheeks can't take the cold.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='05 August 2010 - 08:12 PM' timestamp='1281053546' post='2152927']
For over 6 months a year, I never go out in public without a full balaclava on. Would that get banned too? My cheeks can't take the cold.
[/quote]
I concur with this. However, it is for survival purposes. I don't wear it indoors once I get to my destination. My first -45F day I thought many bad things about this place.

[Winchester]

Some religious convictions may require sacrifice. If you're intent on not revealing your face, then you might not be able to get a driver's license or buy designer wolverines.

[MissScripture]

So, I can kind of understand the thing about security as far as someone whose face is not seen is a lot more difficult to recognize and probably less likely to be remembered, as humans are drawn to look at faces. However, I could also see this being harmful to a lot of the women that are forced to dress this way. If a woman is forced into dressing this way, and cannot go out in public dressed this way, will she even be allowed out in public now? Or will she just be forced to stay in the confines of her home?

[havok579257]

what about the women who want to wear one. by not allowing them, your denying them the freedom of religion. the problem is if the government is able to deny one group of people thier rights to freedom of religion, then it will be no time before they deny all relgions their rights. if the burqa gets banned, it will only be a while before the nun's outfit is banned. if you really think the liberal left will stop at one religion's clothing then your deluding yourself.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='organwerke' date='06 August 2010 - 06:55 AM' timestamp='1281034540' post='2152783']
The burqa is not a simple veil which covers only the head, but a veil which covers partially, or entirely, the face.

So it is completely different from a traditional nun's habit, except for some habits of nuns who live in enclosure, but the ban only matters the wearing in public, not in private, so the religious habits in convents is not included in the case (such as women who wear burkas in their home).

I'm in favour of this ban and don't think this is against the freedom of religion, on the contrary it is in favour of the dignity of the women that is absolutely mortified with this kind of wearing; second, it is in favour of the public society's security, because, at least in my country, a person can't go in public places covering his face so that he can't be recognized. You can find this ridicolous, but a law that forbids people to go in public places with the face covered was made much earlier that Muslim immigration started here, so the burqa's cultural problem was not at all an excuse to this law.

Banning the burqa is simply an act of common sense for plenty of reasons, another one is a simple rule of respect among the persons that is that when I speak or deal with a person I would like to see her in her face (and of copurse I show myself), and not to speak with a "ghost" who hides herself with a veil.

I can't see ridicolous or shocking motives in banning the burqa, on the contrary, I can only see plenty of reason in favour of it.
[/quote]

[Hassan]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='05 August 2010 - 03:57 PM' timestamp='1281038267' post='2152818']
Wearing a habit and being a nun is a choice, being forced by men to cover your face because you are fear for your life and skin is not. Covering your face is not the same as covering your body - one is covering and negating your identity as a human being, the other is a choice of standards of modesty.
[/quote]

Do you accept the logic by which the author arrived at her conclusion?

[Hassan]

bump.

[Resurrexi]

I see no reason why the Burqa should be banned in today's climate. Although in an ideal state where the large majority of citizens are Catholics, the propagation and practice of non-Catholic beliefs would be severely punished by law, in today's world I think it would be most practical to work for the toleration of all different religious beliefs and customs (within reason). In the eyes of secularists, Catholics are not terribly different from Muslims, and I would not want to see the head-coverings for women at Mass or the habits of nuns made illegal.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Resurrexi