Burka ban

Michael OBrien

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

magicbastarder wrote: »

you do know religious people can be quite sane?
one of the most intelligent people i've been lucky to know is a priest, who has a PhD in astrophysics. insanely intelligent guy. i'd love to hear the debate if you called him anything from your list above.

So this guy is a woman then, because that was the context of the question. But hey, yes priests are delusional or insane and do lie to themselves too. Its called prayer. They believe in invisible beings, magic, and that they have the power to communicate with a possibly mythical 1st century jew.

John Lennox is a math professor in Oxford. He is extremely intelligent and a apologist. He is also very delusional.

The pope says he can turn his infallibility on and off, yes he is crazy. He is also intelligent. Being crazy does not preclude intelligence.

Deepak Chopra is a medical doctor. He spouts gibberish all the time. He may be a nice guy, very intelligent, highly qualified, but his views are still delusional nonsense.

Your point being......

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

Akrasia wrote: »

I think every time someone says 'I choose to wear the burka' they should be asked, 'Ok, so what would happen if you don't wear the burka'

who should ask them? do we want a morality police (there's an interesting dovetail) interrogating women about the validity of what they wear?

why do people have so much trouble getting their head around the fact that there are some people who choose to do this?
i vaguely know someone (the 'vaguely' will become obvious) who is a member of the palmarians; it's a catholic sect, which i think originated in spain. perfectly nice chap, but is not allowed talk to anyone in work, except to say hello, or in dealing with work-related topics. i.e. he will not talk about the weather with you, or the latest football match, because he's only allowed small talk with other palmarians. and had to marry one, and the usual 'you must go forth and multiply' exhortations.

you may want to call him insane or delusional, but this was his choice. you've no right or ability to prevent him from doing things you consider bizarre, as long as they don't impact anyone but himself.

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

magicbastarder wrote: »

why do people have so much trouble getting their head around the fact that there are some people who choose to do this?

and yes, i am aware there are women who are coerced into it, but banning the burka is not a solution. it's tackling the symptom, and not the cause, and it's doing so in a potentially very counterproductive way.

Akrasia

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Deleted User wrote: »

That is patently not the same 'test'.

What if I apply your test to 'a Suit at a wedding'?



I think my answer would be something like

"I really wouldn't even consider it, the societal norms, traditions and expectations from my parents and family mean that you really ought to wear one. I would be embarrassed to not be dressed well and feel that I would have drawn unnecessary attention on myself and that would be letting the bride and groom down in that event."

So, my answer is not - 'I'll just wear something else, it's not a big deal'

So I have 'failed/passed' your test as you see fit. Which if we follow means that


Ban suits at weddings?

Suits at weddings, or sports clothes while playing sports etc are not the same as a burka which is something a woman from this cultural background is compelled to wear just to leave her house.

If a muslim woman feels she has to wear a burka for the reasons you gave for wearing a suit at a wedding " I would be embarrassed to not be dressed well and feel that I would have drawn unnecessary attention on myself and that would be letting the bride and groom down in that event" then there is clearly a problem. A burka is not a suit at a wedding, it is the complete covering up of a woman's entire body, from head to toe. If someone feels enormous social pressure to dress this way then it's not really a free choice, and the consequences of the burka are a lifetime of subjugation

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Deleted User wrote: »

With respect, I think you might need to re-read their post again, and consider the punctuation.

I don't think so;

Peregrinus wrote:

If you engage in public displays of affection with someone who hasn't chosen to do so, smacl, we call that sexual assault.

By inserting my user name in the above sentence, the word 'you' has been qualified as specifically being me, as opposed to be an alternative to 'if one were to engage...' I imagine the intention was actually to paint me unkindly using a simple association by proximity technique, i.e. by putting two phrases close together even without relating them the reader makes an association by reading on after the other. In this case he got the language wrong, but really it is not a technique I'd expect from peregrinus to stoop to either way, hence my response.

Akrasia

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Deleted User wrote: »

Welcome to my side of the Burka Ban argument.

But you can legislate for the burka ban. It's easy, France have already done it.

The argument was made that it was an effort to preserve a lineage, a heritage, a religion and a culture that had in the past century enormous strides to wipe it off the face of the planet.

That you or I deem immediate family as more important than that is our choice.

Yes, it's our choice to value the freedom and happiness of the people we love over the racial purity of jewish people.

I think one attitude is cold callous and wrong, and I think cultural sensitivity allows people to tolerate attitudes that are outdated and backwards and monsterous that they wouldn't accept under other circumstances.

Akrasia

I'm religious and support the ban

Akrasia wrote: »

Suits at weddings, or sports clothes while playing sports etc are not the same as a burka which is something a woman from this cultural background is compelled to wear just to leave her house.

Please expand on this further and not simply assert it.

What is the difference between;
'In order to go to John & Joe's wedding, I have to wear a suit'
'In order to leave my private home, I have to wear a burka'
(beyond the symbolisation and power that you and others are granting the burka)

Akrasia wrote: »

If a muslim woman feels she has to wear a burka for the reasons you gave for wearing a suit at a wedding " I would be embarrassed to not be dressed well and feel that I would have drawn unnecessary attention on myself and that would be letting the bride and groom down in that event" then there is clearly a problem. A burka is not a suit at a wedding, it is the complete covering up of a woman's entire body, from head to toe. If someone feels enormous social pressure to dress this way then it's not really a free choice, and the consequences of the burka are a lifetime of subjugation

Who deems which societal pressures are the correct ones? The majority?

That the burka as a garment is anathema to what we perceive to be 'correct' way of dressing does not make it so.

Societal pressure and norms are felt by all, an explicit ban on a garment goes far, far, far beyond societal pressure though.

This argument is almost puritanical!

What has happened to this logic?

Akrasia wrote:

I don't think we can legislate for this, but we can try to make it socially unacceptable.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

I don't think so;



By inserting my user name in the above sentence, the word 'you' has been qualified as specifically being me, as opposed to be an alternative to 'if one were to engage...' I imagine the intention was actually to paint me unkindly using a simple association by proximity technique, i.e. by putting two phrases close together even without relating them the reader makes an association by reading on after the other. In this case he got the language wrong, but really it is not a technique I'd expect from peregrinus to stoop to either way, hence my response.

I think, smacl, that this is simply a case of misunderstanding.

I think that this is simply, smacl, a case of misunderstanding.

I think that this is simply a case, smacl, of misunderstanding.

(seriously)

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

By inserting my user name in the above sentence, the word 'you' has been qualified as specifically being me, as opposed to be an alternative to 'if one were to engage...' I imagine the intention was actually to paint me unkindly using a simple association by proximity technique, i.e. by putting two phrases close together even without relating them the reader makes an association by reading on after the other. In this case he got the language wrong, but really it is not a technique I'd expect from peregrinus to stoop to either way, hence my response.

that is not the interpretation i would give to the sentence in question. anyway, it's clear that even if that was the formulation of the sentence, it's fair to say it was not intended.

Akrasia

I'm religious and support the ban

Akrasia wrote: »

But you can legislate for the burka ban. It's easy, France have already done it.

France have banned all garments that cover the face, which so happens to include the burka.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/01/france-burqa-ban-upheld-human-rights-court

Akrasia wrote: »

Yes, it's our choice to value the freedom and happiness of the people we love over the racial purity of jewish people.
I think one attitude is cold callous and wrong, and I think cultural sensitivity allows people to tolerate attitudes that are outdated and backwards and monsterous that they wouldn't accept under other circumstances.

I agree, I laughed when he told me at first, thinking it was a joke. It is miles from what I would consider normal.

However, it takes a lot to make this world. And a lot of it is not what I would consider 'normal'.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

magicbastarder wrote: »

that is not the interpretation i would give to the sentence in question. anyway, it's clear that even if that was the formulation of the sentence, it's fair to say it was not intended.

Humour me then. How exactly does the sentence below fit into the conversation we're having, and what exactly is the purpose of adding in sexual assault? I'm seeing a non-sequitur and an undeserved slur. YMMV.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Plus, sexual orientation may not be a choice, but engaging in public displays of affection certainly is. If you engage in public displays of affection with someone who hasn't chosen to do so, smacl, we call that sexual assault.

Maybe Peregrinus might be so good as to respond as to where exactly he's getting sexual assault from and why he chooses to juxtapose my name in with it?

Akrasia

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

magicbastarder wrote: »

who should ask them? do we want a morality police (there's an interesting dovetail) interrogating women about the validity of what they wear?

The person they're talking to should ask them. They're already talking about reasons for wearing the burka. If the woman says she chooses to wear it, the follow up should be to examine if it's a free choice or coerced in some way.

That's the logical next step in that debate.

why do people have so much trouble getting their head around the fact that there are some people who choose to do this?

There are some people who choose to do this, and there are some people who choose to get tied up and whipped during sex.

But for every person who loves the idea of wearing a burka and gets a massive kick out of it, there are others who resent it and only wear it out of fear, or because they have been conditioned to feel shame if they're not wearing it.

Just because some people like getting tied up during sex, doesn't mean that coercing someone into bondage gear and having sex with them isn't rape.

i vaguely know someone (the 'vaguely' will become obvious) who is a member of the palmarians; it's a catholic sect, which i think originated in spain. perfectly nice chap, but is not allowed talk to anyone in work, except to say hello, or in dealing with work-related topics. i.e. he will not talk about the weather with you, or the latest football match, because he's only allowed small talk with other palmarians. and had to marry one, and the usual 'you must go forth and multiply' exhortations.

you may want to call him insane or delusional, but this was his choice. you've no right or ability to prevent him from doing things you consider bizarre, as long as they don't impact anyone but himself.

He's free to join a cult. But is he free to raise his children in a cult? Is he free to force the rules of his cult onto his children?

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Deleted User wrote: »

Akrasia wrote: »

I don't think we can legislate for this, but we can try to make it socially unacceptable.

Welcome to my side of the Burka Ban argument.

From this, is your suggestion we try to make the burqa socially unacceptable without banning it? What course of action do you then take if it already is socially unacceptable and yet some still choose to wear it?

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

From this, is your suggestion we try to make the burqa socially unacceptable without banning it? What course of action do you then take if it already is socially unacceptable and yet some still choose to wear it?

The same argument against religions in general. Education.

Nothing whatsoever. People do things that are socially unacceptable all the time. We live in a liberal democracy not a totalitarian regime.

Akrasia

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Deleted User wrote: »

Please expand on this further and not simply assert it.

What is the difference between;
'In order to go to John & Joe's wedding, I have to wear a suit'
'In order to leave my private home, I have to wear a burka'
(beyond the symbolisation and power that you and others are granting the burka)

Because a wedding is an event run to a theme, the theme is usually formal wear.
Leaving your house is not an 'event' with a theme, it is a prerequisite for living a normal life. And most people are happy to go along with a dress code for a specific event in order to fit in, But if John and Joe tried to control what you wear on your own free time, you'd be quick in telling them where to go.

Also, John and Joe are not likely to have you beaten up if you wear the wrong type of suit.

Who deems which societal pressures are the correct ones? The majority?

not necessarily the majority, but the social mood is set by what the bounds of reasonable behaviour are. It's not formally decided, and boundaries are pushed all the time.

But the burka is an extreme example, it is extremely anti social in western culture to cover your entire body in public, and the consequences of not complying with the burka can be extreme for some women from particularly fundamentalist places.

That the burka as a garment is anathema to what we perceive to be 'correct' way of dressing does not make it so.

It is the wrong way to dress. Its restrictive, it's uncomfortable, it's hot, it's anti social, it's a security risk, it's degrading to women, and worst of all, it's often forced upon women by threat of force.

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

Humour me then.

sorry, i couldn't be bothered.

beach_walker

The obsession with the burka is somewhat telling. You don't hear the same about Jewish men and the kippah, Catholic nuns and their habit etc. I know a few girls who always wear a veil to Mass, good luck to you if you try telling them that it's banned :eek:

Seems the calls are usually from two types, your average anti-religious fanatics and the group that would be likely to vote for Trump given a chance. Dress up the totalitarian calls in the visage of "freedom" and away you go.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Deleted User wrote: »

The same argument against religions in general. Education.

Nothing whatsoever. People do things that are socially unacceptable all the time. We live in a liberal democracy not a totalitarian regime.

I think suggesting that the only options are liberalism or totalitarianism is presenting a false dichotomy. Firstly, there is a spectrum between the two, secondly there are other things a society might also aspire to such as egalitarianism and fraternity. The French for example are pretty clear in seeking to balance these three and also espouse laïcité is their interpretation of secularism, which many would consider hard secularism.

Michael OBrien

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

beach_walker wrote: »

The obsession with the burka is somewhat telling. You don't hear the same about Jewish men and the kippah, Catholic nuns and their habit etc. I know a few girls who always wear a veil to Mass, good luck to you if you try telling them that it's banned :eek:

Seems the calls are usually from two types, your average anti-religious fanatics and the group that would be likely to vote for Trump given a chance. Dress up the totalitarian calls in the visage of "freedom" and away you go.

You either have no idea what a burka is (you think it is a hijab) or you don't know what a kippah is.
The kippah is a tiny circle that goes on top of a man's head. It is in no way comparable. Its not restrictive, not a security concern, does not have the misogyny behind it, or the abuse that goes on to enforce it.
You have no idea what the argument is about and are seeking to be inflammatory.

Akrasia

I'm religious and support the ban

Akrasia wrote: »

Because a wedding is an event run to a theme, the theme is usually formal wear.
Leaving your house is not an 'event' with a theme, it is a prerequisite for living a normal life.

There's that term again....

If I choose to consider leaving my house as an event, am I not allowed to?

If I'm someone who has a 'public face' like a politician or a celebrity, am I not entitled to consider the 'harsh light of the public domain' differently than my private home? And take any steps that I personally choose to when 'heading out' into that public domain?

Akrasia wrote: »

And most people are happy to go along with a dress code for a specific event in order to fit in, But if John and Joe tried to control what you wear on your own free time, you'd be quick in telling them where to go.

I sure would. But I wouldn't demand that all would.

Akrasia wrote: »

Also, John and Joe are not likely to have you beaten up if you wear the wrong type of suit.

Assault is illegal. If John and Joe are likely to commit a crime if I don't 'bow to their wishes' that is also a crime - Extortion.

If indeed either of these crimes affect the people in our hypotheticals, then there already exists recourse.

Educating people as to the existence of this protection and recourse, and imploring them to make the decisions necessary and bring the criminals that threaten them to justice is the way to avoid the scenario you are painting.

Akrasia wrote: »

not necessarily the majority, but the social mood is set by what the bounds of reasonable behaviour are. It's not formally decided, and boundaries are pushed all the time.

Infinite regress I believe here..

Akrasia wrote: »

But the burka is an extreme example, it is extremely anti social in western culture to cover your entire body in public,

Totally agree.
Are we compelled to be social by law in western culture?

Akrasia wrote: »

and the consequences of not complying with the burka can be extreme for some women from particularly fundamentalist places.

Illegal as above, same point really.

Akrasia wrote: »

It is the wrong way to dress. Its restrictive, it's uncomfortable, it's hot, it's anti social, it's a security risk, it's degrading to women, and worst of all, it's often forced upon women by threat of force.

Marvelously authoritarian to the point of farce.

Akrasia

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

beach_walker wrote: »

The obsession with the burka is somewhat telling. You don't hear the same about Jewish men and the kippah, Catholic nuns and their habit etc. I know a few girls who always wear a veil to Mass, good luck to you if you try telling them that it's banned :eek:

Seems the calls are usually from two types, your average anti-religious fanatics and the group that would be likely to vote for Trump given a chance. Dress up the totalitarian calls in the visage of "freedom" and away you go.

Comparing apples with oranges there. The Burka is the extreme form of dress. Nobody is arguing to ban the Hijab which is the islamic headscarf.

The Burka and the Niqab are both full body veils, the Niqab reveals only the eyes, the Burka covers even the eyes with a veil, so the poor woman is trapped and can't even see out properly.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

I think suggesting that the only options are liberalism or totalitarianism is presenting a false dichotomy. Firstly, there is a spectrum between the two, secondly there are other things a society might also aspire to such as egalitarianism and fraternity. The French for example are pretty clear in seeking to balance these three and also espouse laïcité is their interpretation of secularism, which many would consider hard secularism.

I agree completely. I believe that the French ban on facial coverings can be argued to have merit. The reasoning used has merit.

This ban clearly manages to ban the wearing of the Burka in public places.

The reasons behind that ban are not at all what are being presented here in this thread though, which have so far been thoroughly puritanical, authoritative and totalitarian.

Michael OBrien

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree completely. I believe that the French ban on facial coverings can be argued to have merit. The reasoning used has merit.

This ban clearly manages to ban the wearing of the Burka in public places.

The reasons behind that ban are not at all what are being presented here in this thread though, which have so far been thoroughly puritanical, authoritative and totalitarian.

So the parts of my argument about security concerns, anonymity, discussions on other forms of head gear like full bike helmets, etc passed you by.
You can have more than ONE line of argument for a ban and there are more than one counter argument out there against the ban. We discussed the various issues outside of the immediate security concerns because they do matter too.
Unless you don't see any link with why removing the burka is a problem for women from extremist backgrounds with the extremist backgrounds.

beach_walker

Michael OBrien wrote: »

You either have no idea what a burka is (you think it is a hijab) or you don't know what a kippah is.
The kippah is a tiny circle that goes on top of a man's head. It is in no way comparable.

It's an item of religious clothing, of course they're comparable.

Its not restrictive, not a security concern, does not have the misogyny behind it, or the abuse that goes on to enforce it.

The only one of these which I'd accept, and isn't completely subjective, is the securtiy one. I'd have no problems with private businesses like banks of whatever not allowing them in, like people wearing motorbike helmets. But the government banning it in everyday use? C'mon.

You have no idea what the argument is about and are seeking to be inflammatory.

I've honestly never met someone who's been an advocate of banning the burka who hasn't fallen into one of those categories. And they're usually very concerned about it too.

Akrasia wrote:

Nobody is arguing to ban the Hijab which is the islamic headscarf.

Well this is blatantly untrue. I've heard/read it called for plenty of times and indeed a few countries have had (not sure of the ones which still do) bans on it in aspects of public life.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Deleted User wrote: »

If I choose to consider leaving my house as an event, am I not allowed to?

If a woman in Europe can't (as opposed to chooses not to) leave her house without wearing a burqa, we should really ask why that is? This is particularly true in the context of a city where wearing a burqa is liable to draw unwanted and unpleasant attention. Once we accept it is not a matter of choice the only reasons that come to mind are fear of reprisal, deeply indoctrinated religious zeal, or possibly embarrassment / modesty. Who doesn't allow her leave the house without a burqa and why? Is it basically an unhealthy and unpleasant state of affairs that we should strenuously seek from being passed on to future generations?

Michael OBrien

I'm religious and support the ban

Michael OBrien wrote: »

So the parts of my argument about security concerns, anonymity, discussions on other forms of head gear like full bike helmets, etc passed you by..

Well no, not at all.

Michael OBrien wrote: »

You can have more than ONE line of argument for a ban and there are more than one counter argument out there against the ban.

Perhaps it might make sense to remove those demonstrably illiberal, poorly thought out, terribly illogical, unfairly applied and oft repeated lines of argument from the argument for a ban so?

You are entitled to have many lines of arguments of course, but when the reasoning doesn't work, it is best to unwed yourself from those that don't work imo.

Michael OBrien wrote: »

We discussed the various issues outside of the immediate security concerns because they do matter too.
Unless you don't see any link with why removing the burka is a problem for women from extremist backgrounds with the extremist backgrounds.

Projection?

Michael OBrien

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

beach_walker wrote: »

It's an item of religious clothing, of course they're comparable.

The only one of these which I'd accept, and isn't completely subjective, is the securtiy one. I'd have no problems with private businesses like banks of whatever not allowing them in, like people wearing motorbike helmets. But the government banning it in everyday use? C'mon.

No they are not. You are stripping the issue down to ONE characteristic and that's it. That is like saying amputation is the same as a hair cut as both involve a part of your body being removed.
Come on. Its a strawman (a weaker argument attributed to your opponent than what was originally presented).

Also the argument here at least the last few days I have bothered to discuss it is about security concerns and the political use and religious abuse of the burka. All of which I have gone over in great depth.

The thread title is the ban on Burkas. Not hijabs. If other people want hijabs banned I would oppose it for the same reasons I would support a ban on burkas.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Deleted User wrote: »

The reasons behind that ban are not at all what are being presented here in this thread though, which have so far been thoroughly puritanical, authoritative and totalitarian.

I'd suggest the reasons behind the ban are complex, numerous and fluid. My gut reaction, as per my initial posts on this thread is that they are primarily down to a fear of cultural erosion by an increasing Muslim population, heightened of late by ISIS attacks and the resulting rise of the far right. The burqa is symbolic of this, and while many of the arguments in this thread are perhaps made for other than the stated reasons it doesn't make them any less valid.

As I've said on a number of occasions, I think moderate Islam could contribute significantly by stating its position more clearly and address these concerns on a global basis.

Michael OBrien

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps it might make sense to remove those demonstrably illiberal, poorly thought out, terribly illogical, unfairly applied and oft repeated lines of argument from the argument for a ban so?

How is my statement that the religious justifications for the burka are false any of those things? Or how about that there are religious benefits from banning the burka? That Islam allows for modification of religious practice if the country they are a minority in has a law opposing said practice.
This point has not been addressed at all by anyone so far.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps it might make sense to remove those demonstrably illiberal, poorly thought out, terribly illogical, unfairly applied and oft repeated lines of argument from the argument for a ban so?

Ah here, censorship? What kind of a liberal are you