Burka ban

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

A secular society largely rejects the the perspective offered by the church of any religion. The worth of religion is at a cultural level, an individual level and that of the organisation of any given church or faith. Many great things have come from Islam, in terms of maths, arts, etc..., but that doesn't mean society should adopt its less desirable archaic traditions, any more than we would take on undesirable traditions of ancient Greece or Rome.

So in short Islam does have something to offer, even if it's only cultural, or mathematical, or artistic. So really we don't need to punish people for being Muslims in a secular society.

smacl wrote: »

Wearing a burka in France will get you some nasty looks and sneers and a fine. Wearing a bikini in Kabul will get you stoned. Who's got the bigger problem?

As I said before, the argument 'our bad choices aren't as bad as their bad choices' doesn't make our bad choices good choices.

smacl wrote: »

In Europe, you can complain if you're not happy about the rules, as was the case with high court actions against the burka bans in France and Belgium. Both societies went through due process, decided that burka wearing was not good for them, and hence upheld the bans.

Indeed, and I can only hope that people will continue to complain until their freedom is restored.

smacl wrote: »

If you're in a tiny minority, trying to uphold an archaic tradition that everyone else considers wrong, perhaps they're right and your wrong.

So, being a tiny minority is the definition of wrong? That's a worry!

smacl wrote: »

I think this very important, and can be more simply stated as respect your fellow citizens. Religious zeal, or a misplaced sense of modesty, are not excuses to show two fingers to the rest of society.

Can you honestly say that telling your next door neighbour how he may or may not dress, on pain of fine, is respecting your fellow citizens? What comes after the burka? Lederhosen? Mime outfits? Christmas jumpers?

kalych wrote: »

Up till now I thought we were discussing merits of the law, but it seems that you do not believe such a thing as fathers forcing their teenage daughters to wear Burka's happens at all, did I understand you correctly on this? You are looking for statistical evidence of this, right?

No, you did not understand me correctly on either point I'm afraid.

Mark Hamill

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

Absolam wrote: »

I'm assuming that Islam, like other religions, has something worth assimilating into a society, even if it's simply the availability of an additional perspective.

I didn't ask about Islam, I asked about the burka. Two different philosophies. What aspect of the burka and it's associated philosophy on women is worth keeping to the benefit of all?

Since when does recognising some benefit to a philosophy mean you have to integrate it wholesale?

And what is the use of having an additional perspective if its wrong?

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Absolam wrote: »

So in short Islam does have something to offer, even if it's only cultural, or mathematical, or artistic. So really we don't need to punish people for being Muslims in a secular society.

We're not punishing anyone for being Muslim. We're punishing a tiny minority of Muslims for breaking a law, which has been arrived at in the normal democratic fashion, and tested as reasonable by the high courts. What Islam has to offer society doesn't really affect this. Doing something good or positive for society does not give you carte blanche to break its laws.

Indeed, and I can only hope that people will continue to complain until their freedom is restored.

In western society, we're free to complain all we like, and it seems we invariably do.

Can you honestly say that telling your next door neighbour how he may or may not dress, on pain of fine, is respecting your fellow citizens? What comes after the burka? Lederhosen? Mime outfits? Christmas jumpers?

If what they wear is considered by the public as offensive to the point of being unacceptable yes. I'm not aware of anyone being overly offended by Lederhosen or mime outfits. A ban on Christmas jumpers I could live with

Would you wear something in public that you knew would upset or offend a large number of people? How would you feel if you were coerced into this situation? At what point does the polarising affect of your actions and resultant damage become your responsibility?

Milly33

If people are upset by seeing women wearing burkas mmm me thinks they should not go out.. I do not see a problem with them. fine I think that the woman should have the choice to wear it if she wants to, it should not be her husbands demand but other than that I think they look beautiful. If it is a case of security then it is easily solved... if we all followed suit to what people think we should act or look like it would make the world a very boring place. I for one hope they do not ban it

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I didn't ask about Islam, I asked about the burka. Two different philosophies. What aspect of the burka and it's associated philosophy on women is worth keeping to the benefit of all?

Actually, you asked

Mark Hamill wrote: »

exactly what aspect of the burka (and its associated philosophy concerning women) is in any way a benefit to all?

in response to my post about punishing encroaching philosophies. In my reply to you I was trying not to draw attention to your mistake; the burka doesn't have an associated philosophy, and unlike Islam isn't a philosophy; it's a piece of headgear. They're not two different philosophies; one is a piece of fabric worn by some of those who believe in the other.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Since when does recognising some benefit to a philosophy mean you have to integrate it wholesale?

I don't know. you'd need to ask someone who advocates integrating philosophies wholesale?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And what is the use of having an additional perspective if its wrong?

Can a perspective be wrong? Looking at something a different way, you still see the same thing. Maybe a wrong perspective is handy to have around in case your right perspective turns out to be the wrong perspective after all, and you need an new perspective?

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

We're not punishing anyone for being Muslim. We're punishing a tiny minority of Muslims for breaking a law, which has been arrived at in the normal democratic fashion, and tested as reasonable by the high courts.

Well sort of... they're being punished for breaking a law, but the law doesn't exactly inadvertently target them does it? In fact it was designed specifically to create a punishment for someone who wears a garment specific to being a Muslim. That's pretty much punishing some people for being Muslim. Not all Muslims of course, that would be bad. Just the ones who are obvious about it.

smacl wrote: »

What Islam has to offer society doesn't really affect this. Doing something good or positive for society does not give you carte blanche to break its laws.

I agree totally, on both points.

smacl wrote: »

If what they wear is considered by the public as offensive to the point of being unacceptable yes. I'm not aware of anyone being overly offended by Lederhosen or mime outfits. A ban on Christmas jumpers I could live with

So what's the difference between unacceptably offensive and just plain ok offensive? Some Christmas jumpers are so nauseating they could actually cause someone to vomit, but they're ok? I've never heard of anyone being physically affected by someone else wearing a burka (and I'm certain some hardline Muslims would argue that some people are unacceptably physically affected by women not wearing a burka), yet that's what's illegal?

smacl wrote: »

Would you wear something in public that you knew would upset or offend a large number of people? How would you feel if you were coerced into this situation? At what point does the polarising affect of your actions and resultant damage become your responsibility?

I have been known to wear unfeasibly tight jeans in public, to the dismay (and righteous offence) of most normal people. To my shame, I can't even claim I was coerced (except by the fashion of the time), I was solely and wholely responsible. However, for those who took offense, I never offered it and they took it all the same, so any damage done to them is none of my responsibility.

old hippy

I'm religious and support the ban

Dublin Red Devil wrote: »

When in Rome do as the Romans do, Have some fcking respect for the country you are living in. Learn the language, Try to integrate with society. By all means practice your religion in mosques, among your fellow Muslims or in the privacy of your own home with your family. But respect the customs and traditions of the country where you reside

Are you saying Muslims in Ireland do not respect the country? That's a serious charge.

Gerry T

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

Milly33 wrote: »

If people are upset by seeing women wearing burkas mmm me thinks they should not go out.. I do not see a problem with them. fine I think that the woman should have the choice to wear it if she wants to, it should not be her husbands demand but other than that I think they look beautiful. If it is a case of security then it is easily solved... if we all followed suit to what people think we should act or look like it would make the world a very boring place. I for one hope they do not ban it

How is it easily solved ?
Hoodies are banned in a lot of shopping centres because of the security risk. These public areas have cameras which can after an event be used to identify a person. They can also track people from one area of town to another, which I have seen done in a rape case 15 years ago which did surprise me how much the garda used these systems.
If a woman wants to wear a burka fine, but not if it infringes on the general public right to identify the person (man or woman) wearing it.

One concern I would have is how free a decision do these women have in wearing the Burka, is there social and family pressure brought on them and in school are the "brain washed" into wearing them ?
It really doesn't make any logical sense to wear it, my ignorant view would be that its men controlling women, but I don't understand enough about the reasons behind wearing the burka.

robindch

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

Dublin Red Devil wrote: »

Have some fcking respect for the country you are living in.

No need to resort to that kind of language.

MrPudding

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

Absolam wrote: »

Well sort of... they're being punished for breaking a law, but the law doesn't exactly inadvertently target them does it? In fact it was designed specifically to create a punishment for someone who wears a garment specific to being a Muslim. That's pretty much punishing some people for being Muslim. Not all Muslims of course, that would be bad. Just the ones who are obvious about it.

Technically the legislation does not specifically target them, it is a ban on all face coverings. As we previously discussed, ninjas and anyone wanting to wear a balaclava is also subject to the ban.

Absolam wrote: »

So what's the difference between unacceptably offensive and just plain ok offensive? Some Christmas jumpers are so nauseating they could actually cause someone to vomit, but they're ok? I've never heard of anyone being physically affected by someone else wearing a burka (and I'm certain some hardline Muslims would argue that some people are unacceptably physically affected by women not wearing a burka), yet that's what's illegal?

A couple of points here. First, in certain countries muslim authorities are keen to legislate against dress which they find unacceptable. Now, before anyone jumps in, I am not suggesting for one second that we should follow their lead, nor am I engaging in whatabouttery, I am mere pointing out the utter hypocrisy of your hardline muslims complaining of their rights being trampled when in countries like France.
Second point, why does someone need to be physically effected? I am perfectly happy to say that seeing women in burqas offends me. It annoys me greatly and I won’t apologise for it. The reason it offends and annoys me is I see it as an offence to humanity. It is a reminder that however far we might advance as a species, there is always someone trying to drag us back to a time that we should have left behind. The burqa is a symbol of oppression and exploitation of women. I despise it and I refuse to apologise for it.

Absolam wrote: »

I have been known to wear unfeasibly tight jeans in public, to the dismay (and righteous offence) of most normal people. To my shame, I can't even claim I was coerced (except by the fashion of the time), I was solely and wholely responsible. However, for those who took offense, I never offered it and they took it all the same, so any damage done to them is none of my responsibility.

Are you really running with this argument? What level of coercion, exactly, was levelled against you? Were you beaten? Where you threatened with eternal damnation? Where you not allowed out of the house? Your analogy is an offence to those that are forced to wear the burqa against their will.
MrP

Dublin Red Devil

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

The bottom line in my opinion is that the face should not be covered. It is provocative and offensive. It presents issues of identity and security, It's also anti-social and is sexist and oppressive toward women

Also the Quran says nothing about Burkas or Niqabs. It is not a requirement of Islam. So the argument that banning Burkas is an affront to their religion is redundant.

Here is a very good debate that was held in Australia. If you have an interest in the issue, I recommend watching all 4 parts, Especially part 3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4E7vZsow54

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3_ht5KF-qc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PAIpmRH3hk

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

Banbh

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

Mr P. I am perfectly happy to say that seeing women in burqas offends me. It annoys me greatly and I won’t apologise for it. The reason it offends and annoys me is I see it as an offence to humanity. It is a reminder that however far we might advance as a species, there is always someone trying to drag us back to a time that we should have left behind. The burqa is a symbol of oppression and exploitation of women. I despise it and I refuse to apologise for it.

Bravo! Well said sir!

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Absolam wrote: »

So what's the difference between unacceptably offensive and just plain ok offensive?

Context. Something that symbolizes extremes of religious repression and the treatment of women as lesser beings will certainly do the trick in a country such as France that is strongly secular and egalitarian. I'd imagine wearing a t-shirt with a swastika on it would do the trick in Israel. Wandering around Dundrum stark naked could similarly cause grave offence.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

MrPudding wrote: »

Technically the legislation does not specifically target them, it is a ban on all face coverings. As we previously discussed, ninjas and anyone wanting to wear a balaclava is also subject to the ban.

Technically, quite true. The fact that is has generally been called a burka ban may be simple misdirection to avoid the ire of the ninja clans.

MrPudding wrote: »

A couple of points here. First, in certain countries muslim authorities are keen to legislate against dress which they find unacceptable. Now, before anyone jumps in, I am not suggesting for one second that we should follow their lead, nor am I engaging in whatabouttery, I am mere pointing out the utter hypocrisy of your hardline muslims complaining of their rights being trampled when in countries like France.

Couldn't agree more; advocating one law in one country and another in another would be hypocritical.

MrPudding wrote: »

Second point, why does someone need to be physically effected? I am perfectly happy to say that seeing women in burqas offends me. It annoys me greatly and I won’t apologise for it. The reason it offends and annoys me is I see it as an offence to humanity. It is a reminder that however far we might advance as a species, there is always someone trying to drag us back to a time that we should have left behind. The burqa is a symbol of oppression and exploitation of women. I despise it and I refuse to apologise for it.

The point being, you may be utterly disgusted, but you still have the same money in your pocket, eat the same food, breathe the same air, love the same girlfriend, work the same job. A woman choosing to wear a burka makes no actual difference to the quality of your life.

MrPudding wrote: »

Are you really running with this argument? What level of coercion, exactly, was levelled against you? Were you beaten? Where you threatened with eternal damnation? Where you not allowed out of the house? Your analogy is an offence to those that are forced to wear the burqa against their will.

As I said, the level of coercion was exactly nil.
The point is: I didn't offend anybody. They chose to take offense. People being offended is not an issue. We don't need to legislate to prevent it.

But since the thrust of your post is about oppression, exploitation, coercion and violence; these are the things we need to legislate against. Protecting people from the actual harm others do to them is the difficult work that needs to be done, and fining the victims isn't going to do it.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

old hippy wrote: »

Are you saying Muslims in Ireland do not respect the country? That's a serious charge.

No. Firstly, as with France and Belgium a tiny minority of Muslims living in this country wear a burka, so it is totally unreasonably to make a sweeping statement about Muslims in Ireland on that basis. Secondly, we don't as yet have a burka ban in this country.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

Context. Something that symbolizes extremes of religious repression and the treatment of women as lesser beings will certainly do the trick in a country such as France that is strongly secular and egalitarian. I'd imagine wearing a t-shirt with a swastika on it would do the trick in Israel. Wandering around Dundrum stark naked could similarly cause grave offence.

Yet France doesn't ban nuns? Israel doesn't ban crucifixes? Glenda Gilson isn't an unusual sight in a bikini around Dundrum?
I suspect some things are easier to get away with being contextually offended by...

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Absolam wrote: »

Yet France doesn't ban nuns? Israel doesn't ban crucifixes? Glenda Gilson isn't an unusual sight in a bikini around Dundrum?
I suspect some things are easier to get away with being contextually offended by...

Exactly. Nor does France ban the hajib. What is banned are the extremes which are considered unacceptable. Nuns, crucifixes and bikinis are all significantly less offensive examples in each context.

Dublin Red Devil

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

Absolam wrote: »

Yet France doesn't ban nuns? Israel doesn't ban crucifixes? Glenda Gilson isn't an unusual sight in a bikini around Dundrum?
I suspect some things are easier to get away with being contextually offended by...

Nuns don't cover their faces. There is no problem with head scarfs/Hijabs. The issue is face covering

gaynorvader

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

I think the burka ban is less about banning an article of clothing and more about banning a symbol of oppression. In much the same way Germany has banned the swastika. The actual shape has no problems, it's the associations it implicates.

old hippy

I'm religious and support the ban

Dublin Red Devil wrote: »

Nuns don't cover their faces. There is no problem with head scarfs/Hijabs. The issue is face covering

Maybe surgeons, couriers and trick or treaters need to learn some respect, too

gaynorvader

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

old hippy wrote: »

Maybe surgeons, couriers and trick or treaters need to learn some respect, too

Damned trick-or-treaters need to be stopped!

Mark Hamill

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

Absolam wrote: »

Actually, you asked in response to my post about punishing encroaching philosophies. In my reply to you I was trying not to draw attention to your mistake; the burka doesn't have an associated philosophy, and unlike Islam isn't a philosophy; it's a piece of headgear.

Either the burka is not part of a philosophy, which makes your original statement I responded to (about punishing encroaching philosophies) completely irrelevant to this thread, as banning the burka would have nothing to do with punishing encroaching philosophies
OR
The burka is obviously part of a philosophy and your denial here is completely disingenuous.

Given that your first attempt to answer my question had you defend Islam, I'm going with the latter.

Absolam wrote: »

I don't know. you'd need to ask someone who advocates integrating philosophies wholesale?

When I asked what aspect of the burka and its philosophies were worth integrating, you defended Islam as a whole, so it would seem that you advocate integrating philosophies wholesale.

Absolam wrote: »

Can a perspective be wrong? Looking at something a different way, you still see the same thing. Maybe a wrong perspective is handy to have around in case your right perspective turns out to be the wrong perspective after all, and you need an new perspective?

Then you will have two wrong perspectives. And yes a perspective can be not just wrong, but objectively wrong. Just ask the KKK.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Either the burka is not part of a philosophy, which makes your original statement I responded to (about punishing encroaching philosophies) completely irrelevant to this thread, as banning the burka would have nothing to do with punishing encroaching philosophies
OR
The burka is obviously part of a philosophy and your denial here is completely disingenuous.
Given that your first attempt to answer my question had you defend Islam, I'm going with the latter.

To be clear: SMACL posted

smacl wrote: »

This is why I think the bans are primarily about visibly and publicly taking a stance against the encroachment of more extreme branches of Islam in those societies.

I replied

Absolam wrote: »

Isn't a worry though, that a secular society takes a visible, punitive stance against the 'encroachment' of a philosophy, rather than having the cultural wherewithal to absorb and include that philosophy to the benefit of all?

My response was relevant to SMACLs post, your attempt to parlay that response into a different point that you feel you can attack is what is actually disingenuous.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

When I asked what aspect of the burka and its philosophies were worth integrating, you defended Islam as a whole, so it would seem that you advocate integrating philosophies wholesale.

What I said was

Absolam wrote: »

I'm assuming that Islam, like other religions, has something worth assimilating into a society, even if it's simply the availability of an additional perspective.!

If you deliberately reinterprate that as advocating wholesale integration, I don't think I need to defend your interpretation.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Then you will have two wrong perspectives. And yes a perspective can be not just wrong, but objectively wrong. Just ask the KKK.

Honestly, I don't think I'd rely on the KKK for advice on perspectives.

old hippy

I'm religious and support the ban

gaynorvader wrote: »

Damned trick-or-treaters need to be stopped!

Indeed! How they terrify us with their monstrous culture, their covered faces and begging for handouts.

Mark Hamill

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

Absolam wrote: »

To be clear: SMACL posted

I replied

My response was relevant to SMACLs post, your attempt to parlay that response into a different point that you feel you can attack is what is actually disingenuous.

smacl's post was about the burka ban, which makes your response (about punishing encroaching philosophies) about the burka. Therefore my question (asking what aspects of the burka and its philosophies are of benefit to society) stands.

Absolam wrote: »

What I said was
If you deliberately reinterprate that as advocating wholesale integration, I don't think I need to defend your interpretation.

When I questioned the Burka, you defended Islam. If the burka is just a subset of Islam, then why bring up all of Islam to defend it.
Also, why bring up Islam to defend the Burka, if only Islam is a philosophy?

Absolam wrote: »

Honestly, I don't think I'd rely on the KKK for advice on perspectives.

Precisely. Some perspectives, like the KKKs, can be entirely wrong and therefore ignored and rejected entirely.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

smacl's post was about the burka ban, which makes your response (about punishing encroaching philosophies) about the burka. Therefore my question (asking what aspects of the burka and its philosophies are of benefit to society) stands.

I'm sure it does, but it's based on your erroneous conclusion, not mine.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

When I questioned the Burka, you defended Islam. If the burka is just a subset of Islam, then why bring up all of Islam to defend it. Also, why bring up Islam to defend the Burka, if only Islam is a philosophy?

I think you're tripping yourself up with your own questions.
You haven't questioned the burka. You questioned its' benefit to all, based on the assumption that I had claimed it had some. I didn't actually make that claim.
I haven't defended Islam. I've questioned the desiriblity of attacking muslims.
No one said the burka is a subset of Islam. A burka is a physical item of clothing, Islam is a religion. Burkas are worn by some followers of Islam. The philosophy of some Burka wearers may be be a subset of Islam; Burkas are not.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Precisely. Some perspectives, like the KKKs, can be entirely wrong and therefore ignored and rejected entirely.

All perspectives can be ignored and rejected entirely. Ignoring the ones you don't like just means you understand less. Just like you chosen organisation the KKK I should think.

Mark Hamill

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

Absolam wrote: »

I'm sure it does, but it's based on your erroneous conclusion, not mine.

What is about this forum that we get so many posters afraid to stand by what they say?
You were responding to a post about the burka, either your post was about the burka (therefore the burka is part of philosophy) or what the hell has it got to do with what smacl said?

Absolam wrote: »

I think you're tripping yourself up with your own questions.
You haven't questioned the burka. You questioned its' benefit to all, based on the assumption that I had claimed it had some. I didn't actually make that claim.
I haven't defended Islam. I've questioned the desiriblity of attacking muslims.
No one said the burka is a subset of Islam. A burka is a physical item of clothing, Islam is a religion. Burkas are worn by some followers of Islam. The philosophy of some Burka wearers may be be a subset of Islam; Burkas are not.

This has to be one of the most self-contradictory posts I have ever seen. If the burka is only a physical item of clothing, sometimes worn by only a subset of muslims, and it is separate from any philosophies, then how is questioning the burka an attack on muslims?

Absolam wrote: »

All perspectives can be ignored and rejected entirely. Ignoring the ones you don't like just means you understand less. Just like you chosen organisation the KKK I should think.

You are now saying that rejecting the KKK is because of not understanding them? Do you not reject them? Is there something you know that everyone else doesn't?

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What is about this forum that we get so many posters afraid to stand by what they say?
You were responding to a post about the burka, either your post was about the burka (therefore the burka is part of philosophy) or what the hell has it got to do with what smacl said?

I'm guessing it happens to you a lot on the forum? Unfortunately that will probably continue for as long as you tell people what they said, and argue against that instead of what they actually say.
I maintain it's a worry, that a secular society takes a visible, punitive stance against the 'encroachment' of a philosophy, rather than having the cultural wherewithal to absorb and include that philosophy to the benefit of all. I have nothing to do with with your statement that the burka and its associated philosophies are of benefit to society.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This has to be one of the most self-contradictory posts I have ever seen. If the burka is only a physical item of clothing, sometimes worn by only a subset of muslims, and it is separate from any philosophies, then how is questioning the burka an attack on muslims?

See, you just did it again. I never said questioning the burka was an attack on muslims. Why bother making things up? There's plenty of real statements for you to disagree with here.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You are now saying that rejecting the KKK is because of not understanding them? Do you not reject them? Is there something you know that everyone else doesn't?

And again..... Instead of saying 'You are now saying', and making something up, you could just, for instance, respond to what I said. That way we could debate the issue instead of whatever other conversation you have playing in your head.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Absolam wrote: »

I maintain it's a worry, that a secular society takes a visible, punitive stance against the 'encroachment' of a philosophy, rather than having the cultural wherewithal to absorb and include that philosophy to the benefit of all.

I suspect that the citizenship of the secular societies in question feel the symbolism associated with the burqa is a direct affront to their societies core values. Where one of those societies core values includes egalitarianism, it seems reasonable to limit symbols that represent women as lesser beings, in much the same way you would limit racists or homophobic symbols. As such the value of following a more liberal agenda that allows the burka is by far outweighed by the repression it is seen to symbolise.

It is worth remembering that secular societies still hold core values, and look for its citizens to adhere to those values. Secular society does of course adapt to the needs of a very varied population, but individuals also in turn have to adapt to the needs of society.

Mark Hamill

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

Absolam wrote: »

I'm guessing it happens to you a lot on the forum? Unfortunately that will probably continue for as long as you tell people what they said, and argue against that instead of what they actually say.

No, it happens to most people debating theists on this forum.

Absolam wrote: »

I maintain it's a worry, that a secular society takes a visible, punitive stance against the 'encroachment' of a philosophy, rather than having the cultural wherewithal to absorb and include that philosophy to the benefit of all. I have nothing to do with with your statement that the burka and its associated philosophies are of benefit to society.

The bolded part is your statement, not mine. You said, right there, that the burka ban is a "punitive stance against the 'encroachment' of a philosophy" and that our culture should have the "wherewithal to absorb and include that philosophy to the benefit of all". You are arguing that there is something to the burka that is of benefit to our society. What is it?

Absolam wrote: »

See, you just did it again. I never said questioning the burka was an attack on muslims. Why bother making things up? There's plenty of real statements for you to disagree with here.

Ok again:
If the burka is only a physical item of clothing, sometimes worn by only a subset of muslims, and it is separate from any philosophies, then how is questioning the burka an attack on muslims?
When questioned on the burka, you defended islam.

Absolam wrote: »

And again..... Instead of saying 'You are now saying', and making something up, you could just, for instance, respond to what I said. That way we could debate the issue instead of whatever other conversation you have playing in your head.

I did respond to what you said. You said:
All perspectives can be ignored and rejected entirely. Ignoring the ones you don't like just means you understand less. Just like you chosen organisation the KKK I should think.
What does that mean if not that you think "that rejecting the KKK is because of not understanding them"?