France Bans Burqa

[Mills 0]

It seems like you're excusing religious intolerance by moral relativism, which hurts my brain.

I think what he was saying is that our first amendment would expressly prohibit something like this

[BaseJester 1]

What? I can't even figure out what this is supposed to mean.

Why would it be OK for France to pass the law but not for the US? If we say that the cultural context makes the law immoral in one place but moral in another, that's moral relativism (i.e., what is moral is relative to the culture norm -- Is that the wrong term? Cultural relativism?). Which is ironic, because the law is enforcing one culture on a minority.

[SweetDee 0]

I don't think I could support a ban on Burqas anymore than I could support a ban on say, home schooling of Polygamist sect children, although I believe both are ultimately destructive practices. I think the key would be to continuously make sure and fight for a womans rights to choose who they want to be, I can't speak for France but I know we do a good job of that here, so outlawing Burqas just would not be necessary, a woman can do as she pleases here, and if she needs help to do so, she can get it, in many ways.In short I think this is a step in the wrong direction, but we have been doing this for awhile so it's nothing new. Anyone remember back in the 90's when all of the sudden it was against the rules to wear a Raiders jacket or hat because of the gang affiliation? I mean, I got it then and I get it now but that didn't solve anything, hopeless youth in gangs were still hopeless youth in gangs, they just had to sell more drugs to buy new clothes so we would allow them to go to the one place that should have offered them some hope. Now, it may have protected me because it took a target of sorts off of my back, but how dumb was my mom to allow me to wear that target? I will always lean towards self-responsibility.

[Roll the Bones 74]

So a culture that treats women different than you is 'abusing' them?What if the women like wearing burkas? Should they be forced not to wear them because you have decided that they are a tool of religious oppression??Telling a few million people they are wrong because of your personal opinion is the reason they flew planes into the twin towers.I thought your side wanted to understand them?

So a culture that treats women different than you is 'abusing' them

?I has nothing to do with how I treat women, it is about common moral decency. Even if you are for them being allowed, Imam Faisal isn't and he seems to be a man of reason so I side with him.

What if the women like wearing burkas? Should they be forced not to wear them because you have decided that they are a tool of religious oppression??

Well, what they do in their own home is fine with me, they just aren't allowed in public.

Telling a few million people they are wrong because of your personal opinion is the reason they flew planes into the twin towers.

Well, there is alot more to it than that, but I guess we'll have to take our chances. I have no problem calling out religons for archaic idiotic beliefs, especially those that hurt people.

I thought your side wanted to understand them?

What side is that? The issue for me is that most Americans don't know squat about muslims and tend to view it as a freedom of clothing issue which it isn't.

[vbnautilus 48]

Why would it be OK for France to pass the law but not for the US? If we say that the cultural context makes the law immoral in one place but moral in another, that's moral relativism (i.e., what is moral is relative to the culture norm -- Is that the wrong term? Cultural relativism?). Which is ironic, because the law is enforcing one culture on a minority.

Ah. I think there's a big difference between moral relativism (which I don't support) and tailoring your laws to your specific circumstances. For example, in a place where water is scarce, you might need to regulate how often people water their lawns, but in a rainforest this law is not going to be appropriate.Moral relativism says that there is no truth of the matter as to what is right in a given circumstance, all that matters is what people think is right. I think there is a truth of the matter as to what is right given each circumstance. That of course is a separate issue from what is legal.

[vbnautilus 48]

religious intolerance

the law is enforcing one culture on a minority.

Also, to address this. Clearly "religious tolerance" cannot be the end of the discussion of what kinds of things we should allow people to do in the name of religion. We should not allow human sacrifices, ritual genital mutilation, and the like to go on simply because they are someone's religion. (this is actually the trap of moral relativism. relativists are forced to accept that these things are ok within the cultures that practice them. )The question becomes where to draw the line. Forcing women to exist within bags seems to me like the kind of thing we should not allow to happen.If anything, they should be forced to wear bikinis.

[vbnautilus 48]

It's worth adding some details about the law to this discussion. While there is a small fine for wearing the burqa, the real big punishments go to those who force women to wear them: "Given the damage it produces on those rules which allow the life in community, ensure the dignity of the person and equality between sexes, this practice, even if it is voluntary, cannot be tolerated in any public place," the French government said when it sent the measure to parliament in May.The bill envisions a fine of 150 euros ($190) and/or a citizenship course as punishment for wearing a face-covering veil.Forcing a woman to wear a niqab or a burqa would be punishable by a year in prison or a 15,000-euro ($19,000) fine, the government said, calling it "a new form of enslavement that the republic cannot accept on its soil."http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07-13/world/f...eil?_s=PM:WORLD

[ShakeZuma 585]

I think it really boils down to a question of who is worse: the french, muslims, or women. quite a dilemma indeed.

[hblask 1]

I'm not sure why it's a surprise that France would do this. This is a natural progression of the nanny state. If they have a say in your medicine, in your music, in your TV, in your food, in your language, in your retirement, of course they will also want a say in your clothes.

[SweetDee 0]

I'm not sure why it's a surprise that France would do this. This is a natural progression of the nanny state. If they have a say in your medicine, in your music, in your TV, in your food, in your language, in your retirement, of course they will also want a say in your clothes.

That's kind of what I was saying about us, we did it to control gangster wear in schools, it's no stretch that we could end up following France someday, shit we are on that path now- But, what if girls here started wearing Burqas to schools, then what?

[vbnautilus 48]

That's kind of what I was saying about us, we did it to control gangster wear in schools, it's no stretch that we could end up following France someday, shit we are on that path now- But, what if girls here started wearing Burqas to schools, then what?

Schools regulating the dress of their students is a far cry from the government outlawing a specific type of clothing.

[BaseJester 1]

Also, to address this. Clearly "religious tolerance" cannot be the end of the discussion of what kinds of things we should allow people to do in the name of religion. We should not allow human sacrifices, ritual genital mutilation, and the like to go on simply because they are someone's religion.

I totally agree with what you're saying here.It's also not what is going on with the burqa. The French law is exactly designed to target a religious practice. It's not that there's a specific exception allowing a kooky, anti-social behavior because it is a religious practice.

The question becomes where to draw the line. Forcing women to exist within bags seems to me like the kind of thing we should not allow to happen.

Right, but problem IMHO is the compulsion, not the specific behavior. Are these women held captive against their will? It seems that there would be existing laws that prohibit compelling anything like this out of an adult.

[ahosang 0]

hblask said:

I'm not sure why it's a surprise that France would do this. This is a natural progression of the nanny state. If they have a say in your medicine, in your music, in your TV, in your food, in your language, in your retirement, of course they will also want a say in your clothes.

Don't know whether you're being sarcastic or not, but clearly clothing is somewhat basic to the nature of society. No clothing = increased sexual arousal, drooling(and other problems) etc and every civilization bar primitives have outlawed public nudity(even primitives seem to have some covering of genitalia, if not womens' breasts). So to suggest that clothing laws are products of nanny states is a little misleading

[Balloon guy 158]

It is funny to me that when France disproves of the US, some people are so worried of our standing in the world community, yet France has no qualms doing whatever it wants.Guess we are back to freedom fries?

[Balloon guy 158]

It's worth adding some details about the law to this discussion. While there is a small fine for wearing the burqa, the real big punishments go to those who force women to wear them:

Well then this is stupid even by French standards.In a culture where women who dishonor their father can be stoned to death, now they are going to come forward and tell the police that their "husband is making them wear a burka, fine him!"I would have thought the major infusion of German blood into their stock during WW2 would have given the French some common sense.

[vbnautilus 48]

I totally agree with what you're saying here.It's also not what is going on with the burqa. The French law is exactly designed to target a religious practice. It's not that there's a specific exception allowing a kooky, anti-social behavior because it is a religious practice.

The whole point is that forcing women to wear burkas is an anti-social behavior.

Right, but problem IMHO is the compulsion, not the specific behavior. Are these women held captive against their will? It seems that there would be existing laws that prohibit compelling anything like this out of adult.

The problem is that the "compulsion" is embedded deeply in the culture, so that you are likely to have a sort of Stockholm Syndrome going on. It's required by the Koran [24:31] and hadith. It certainly represents the subjugation of these women, so if they are doing it "voluntarily".. are they really? And also:

In a culture where women who dishonor their father can be stoned to death, now they are going to come forward and tell the police that their "husband is making them wear a burka, fine him!"

[Mills 0]

The whole point is that forcing women to wear burkas is an anti-social behavior. The problem is that the "compulsion" is embedded deeply in the culture, so that you are likely to have a sort of Stockholm Syndrome going on. It's required by the Koran [24:31] and hadith. It certainly represents the subjugation of these women, so if they are doing it "voluntarily".. are they really? And also:

Well they are and they aren't. You see elements of this in other religions too. "A slave you are, and glad of your chains."

[Balloon guy 158]

Well they are and they aren't. You see elements of this in other religions too. "A slave you are, and glad of your chains."

You see this in elements of any group of people that has a membership greater than 2.To lay this at religion only feet is disingenuous

[Balloon guy 158]

So what is the over under on deaths caused by the followers of 'the religion of peace' when they begin the riots in France?I'll set it at 50 for the first week

[vbnautilus 48]

So what is the over under on deaths caused by the followers of 'the religion of peace' when they begin the riots in France?I'll set it at 50 for the first week

There was already a bomb threat at the Eiffel Tower yesterday.

[Balloon guy 158]

There was already a bomb threat at the Eiffel Tower yesterday.

Just getting started.I worry about the lawmakers who voted for this. Why do you think 100 of them voted "Not going to vote"?20 Euros says the one guy who voted no has a sign on his front lawn that says :"I voted no, please don't kill my entire family"

[Mills 0]

Just getting started.I worry about the lawmakers who voted for this. Why do you think 100 of them voted "Not going to vote"?20 Euros says the one guy who voted no has a sign on his front lawn that says :"I voted no, please don't kill my entire family"

ill match your Euros with the ' all ieghty ollar' as Homer Simpson put it.

[Mills 0]

You see this in elements of any group of people that has a membership greater than 2.To lay this at religion only feet is disingenuous

I wasn't I was just saying it isnt only in Islam as far as religious groups go.

[akoff 0]

I'm not sure why it's a surprise that France would do this. This is a natural progression of the nanny state. If they have a say in your medicine, in your music, in your TV, in your food, in your language, in your retirement, of course they will also want a say in your clothes.

Jesus don't go saying this, Barak and company will be all over it.

[mk 11]

I'm not sure why it's a surprise that France would do this. This is a natural progression of the nanny state.

No joke, when I picked up Legedu Naanee in several fantasy football leagues early this week I thought of hblask.