Remember the minarets?

Pot Noodle =

I just seen one on Manor St she had the Full Metal Jacket on Burka i mean , How is a Guard supposed to identify them in a line up

anymore

bonkey wrote: »

Some time ago, we had a good ol' ding-dong of a thread, discussing how the Swiss were or weren't completely out of line to ban minarets.

There were, at that point, two minarets in the country.

In the past week in the Swiss media, it seems like there's quite a storm brewing with moves to start a referendum to ban the burqha.

There are, apparently, less then 100 people estimated to wear this in Switzerland.

The finest democracy on earth rolls on...

Could you specific about what point your opening piece is making ?

sensibleken

Manic Moran wrote: »

Out of interest, I note that two predominantly muslim countries, Turkey and Tunisia, also bar wearing burkas in government buildings, schools, and universities. (And, I believe, they even go as far as to ban hijabs, Turkey draws the line at allowing the basortusu, a sort of loose headscarf, in university).

Would you say that these are also for xenophobic reasons?

NTM

that really isnt here nor there. the swiss muslims are not citizens of turkey or tunisia.

personally i am no fan of islam or any other religion for that matter. but i am less a fan of telling women what they can and cant wear. frankly its none of my business

prinz

bonkey wrote: »

Why is it that you keep creating these black-and-white situations?

I don't know the details of the Italian case, but from what you're describing....no....I don't think it was the appropriate response. And before you jump to the next semi-rhetorical question....not....I do not think that the correct response would have been for the police officer to just shrug and say "fair enough then".

Black and white situations? I didn't 'create' anything. Just gave the bare facts of an actual case. The kind of cases that will be increasingly common when laws such as this are enforced. What do you think the officer should have done may I ask? Apparently he should not apply the law, neither should he walk away....

bonkey wrote: »

Seriously...if we want to make a convincing argument for compromise, wouldn't you agree that a good start would be to show that the situation is not black-and-white, but that there are shades of grey on which compromise can be sought?

What is the shade of grey? A compromise is allowing any type of clothing that does not cover the face... which leaves everyone happy as far as I can see.

Laminations

bonkey wrote: »

That the Swiss are making moves to bring a referendum on the issue. Was that not clear from the OP?

the 'issue' remains the same

bonkey wrote: »

Do you not see that these questions are at odds with each other?

You start by staking a position that covering of one's face is not a tradition in Europe...and then go on to point that something being a tradition is not justification for its unchallenged continuance.

So what is the relevance that its not a tradition in Europe?

Let me rephrase.

Not covering ones face habitually is the tradition in Europe. Simply saying it is the tradition is NOT a good enough argument. Justifying why it is a good/important practice is grounds to preserve it. I have given that justification plenty of times without fallaciously 'appealing to tradition'.

bonkey wrote: »

For someone who's complained about people comparing things to sunglasses and platform shoes, I'm delighted to note that you have kept your comparisons in a far more relevant and reasonable light.

Explain how my comparison is inaccurate? The comparisons I criticisesd are all inaccurate as they are forms of dress that do not cover the face habitually. Motorcycle helmets, balaclavas or clown masks would be apt comparisons if they were worn habitually.

bonkey wrote: »

So you agree, then, that hte proposed referendum in Switzerland is discriminatory? It has been made clear that it targets burqas.

Does it target burqas specifically? As in 'you cannot wear a burqa in public buildings but you can wear a balaclava or motorcycle helmet? If it does then it is discriminatory and yes I would agree with you.

bonkey wrote: »

You've said that compromise is needed on both sides...so why is this something where there can be no compromise?

There is plenty of compromise. You have freedom of religion and freedom to dress how you want once you dont cover your face habitually? If you insist on making it a religious issue there are plenty of other ways to express your beliefs in Islam.

bonkey wrote: »

You've said that if its only the burqa then its discriminatory...but if we draw the line at habitual face-covering, how is that not discriminatory?

Is a law forbidding the parking of caravans on the side of motorways discriminatory. NOBODY can habitually cover their faces, not just cos a government feels like persecuting muslims but because it is justifiable to protect the tradition of open and transparent public spaces. And simply because I again mentioned the word 'tradition' there doesn't mean I'm 'appealing to tradition'.

bonkey wrote: »

Why is the line drawn here? You want it drawn there, and I don't see a reason why. So seriously....why draw it there?

Because I can argue for the importance of seeing faces for integration and trust in a community/society. If you can piece together a legitimate argument for seeing hair in public then we can argue about drawing the line at hair covering and hijabs. If you want to argue about platform shoes go make an argument but to try and use other forms of dress and say they are comparable to face covering - is absurd.

bonkey wrote: »

I like the way you throw around this "Libertarian" label and make comments like this. It shows that you really do want to raise the tone fo the debate above the mud-slinging that you complained about. Bravo.

the people who I call libertarians are self confessed libertarians. Because I am against habitual face covering does not make me xenophobic or anti-islamic although it'd suit your argument to play it that way.

bonkey wrote: »

I think mutual respect and compromise is a fantastic idea. I just have a problem with making that concept coincide with the attitude of "we don't like that, so you shouldn't do it at all".

Its not about 'like', its not about 'desirability' of dress sense, its about the importance of the face and the value our society puts on seeing faces in public.

bonkey wrote: »

You and Prinz both have said you'd disagree with a discriminatory law but would side with some sort of blanket ban on the grounds that you'd see it as not discriminatory. You've both talked about compromise, though. Where is the compromise in your position? You'd suypport banning all face covering, How is that compromise?

Because there are other ways you can express yourself without covering your face habitually.

bonkey wrote: »

Incidentally, I would point out that the referendum being proposed in Switzerland is not about all face coverings. It is targetting the burqa specifically. Additionally, Prinz's notional laws about face covering "for no justifiable reason" don't exist either.

So it would seem that despite making it clear that both of you think I'm taking some sort of extreme position, you both agree with my actual position, which is that the referendum, as currently being proposed and discussed, is discriminatory in nature, should not be supported, but that it is the right of the Siwss to make such a decision.

So after all that comparison-drawing with penis-wavers and comments about libertarians and the rest of it...you apparently agree with me.

Glad to hear it.

If thats the case I agree with you. You either have a problem with face covering in general (as I do) or you dont (as you do). I dont think you can target a group so if thats the case then I agree. Now think a little harder about the penis-waving man and get back to me on that one.

Laminations

My example of the ONE swinging dick man also shows the irrelevance of the numbers involved in a practice. It is either acceptable or unacceptable.

Laminations

sensibleken wrote: »

that really isnt here nor there. the swiss muslims are not citizens of turkey or tunisia.

personally i am no fan of islam or any other religion for that matter. but i am less a fan of telling women what they can and cant wear. frankly its none of my business

How people behave in society (i.e. a society in which you are a member) is none of your business?

bonkey

prinz wrote: »

Without justifiable cause no one should have their faces covered in public. End of.

Unfortunatley, without defining what you mean by "justifiable cause", its not "end of". It is, instead, "start of"....and will ultimately end up with a discussion of whether or not some Muslims consider it to be a religious obligation, whether or not you accept that they do.

So you are willing to answer these questions now? Why not earlier?

...

Again, what was the problem with saying this earlier?

If the question was so key to you, why is the answer to it not sufficient for you to now stake your position?

I wanted to make clear that the question wasn't key. You insisted time and time again that it was....and now that its answered are suddenly discovering that there's more information you need before you can make any sort of decision.

If I didn't answer it immediately, it was for that reason. I wanted it to be crystal clear that you thought this question lay at the heart of the matter...so that we could see just how much of an impact the answer to it had on your stance.

Now that this question is answered....you're finding it hard to accept the answer, and asking other questions besides. How has that helped anything?

As it is I find that hard to believe that no such restrictions exist.

I can't prove that something doesn't exist....nor can anyone, for that matter. Why do you find it hard to believe? Is such legislation common?

sensibleken

Laminations wrote: »

How people behave in society (i.e. a society in which you are a member) is none of your business?

other peoples clothing is none of my business. i said my clothing was no one elses business when i dressed as a punk, i say the same now

Laminations

bonkey wrote: »

Unfortunatley, without defining what you mean by "justifiable cause", its not "end of". It is, instead, "start of"....and will ultimately end up with a discussion of whether or not some Muslims consider it to be a religious obligation, whether or not you accept that they do.

Religious obligation, like tradition, is not a good enough justification for a behaviour. Or else you can condone all religious wars and welcome back with open arms penis-waving man, waving his penis for his god

The Corinthian

Laminations wrote: »

Or else you can condone all religious wars and welcome back with open arms penis-waving man, waving his penis for his god

That sounds like a far more interesting religion than Christianity. What to women wave for God? Where can I sign up?

Laminations

sensibleken wrote: »

other peoples clothing is none of my business. i said my clothing was no one elses business when i dressed as a punk, i say the same now

Some people may like or dislike a punks attire. This issue is not as simple as likeability of clothing preference, if you think it is then you misunderstand the importance a human face has for 'face-to-face' interaction.....the clue is in the name

Laminations

The Corinthian wrote: »

That sounds like a far more interesting religion than Christianity. What to women wave for God? Where can I sign up?

LOL. Its my religion but I only practice it at home. God loves a bit of willy waving, quite frankly its discriminatory that the nudity/decency laws that apply to everyone curtail my practice to the privacy of my home. Women wave what they believe god will appreciate.

anymore

Lets move this thread on a little and accept the principle that women, usually from thier pre -teen years- can be cajoled, trained or otherwise pressurised into believing that it is wrong or immodest to appear in public without a burqua. Then there is little reason not to allow them to believe that they cannot be treated by a male doctor or if they are doctors themselves, that they should not be treating male patients except in cases of emergency:
Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

“Female doctors must treat only women and male doctors must treat only men, except in cases of extreme necessity, if men are suffering a disease for which there is no male doctor available, in which case it is o.k. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
‘He has explained to you in detail what is forbidden to you, except under compulsion of
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/20460

So where does a society draw the line once it has accepted that women can be made to feel that it is wrong to appear in publuc dressed in the manner that was considered both acceptable and normal and decent ?

The Corinthian

Laminations wrote: »

Women wave what they believe god will appreciate.

Is God a boobs or legs man?

This is how schisms happen.

Laminations

bonkey wrote: »

If I didn't answer it immediately, it was for that reason. I wanted it to be crystal clear that you thought this question lay at the heart of the matter...so that we could see just how much of an impact the answer to it had on your stance.

Now that this question is answered....you're finding it hard to accept the answer, and asking other questions besides. How has that helped anything?

Well how do you explain my stance?
Its simple, if the law applies to burqas only then I disagree with it. But a law restricting all habitual face covering in public would get my support...probably

prinz

bonkey wrote: »

Unfortunatley, without defining what you mean by "justifiable cause", its not "end of". It is, instead, "start of"....and will ultimately end up with a discussion of whether or not some Muslims consider it to be a religious obligation, whether or not you accept that they do.

Since when has society depended on what a minority of a minority consider something to be? Should we ban pork, should we ban beef? Do you support the pubs closing on Good Friday?

Justifiable cause is a valid reason to be doing something. What justifiable causes depends on what the justice system accepts as a justifiable cause.

As per my example two people could walk around a city with a screwdriver.. one has a valid reason to have it, one doesn't. The first one goes on his merry way, and the second one gets charged with being in possession of a deadly weapon. Pretty simple concept.

IMO interpreting something to mean x, is not a valid enough reason. Basically it is a fashion choice. The burka and Islam are not inextricably linked. It is also of note that in the first case in Italy it was the husband of the woman who refused to allow her to remove it for identification purposes. He went on to say he would confine his wife to their home in future because he didn't want men looking at her. Lovely.

bonkey wrote: »

Is such legislation common?

Yes it is.

Laminations

The Corinthian wrote: »

Is God a boobs or legs man?

This is how schisms happen.

God is a 'face' man woman. Face and willies, all that concerns her

anymore

The Corinthian wrote: »

Is God a boobs or legs man?

This is how schisms happen.

Good question.
Lets see God gave man the capacity to grow a lot of facial hair and the ability to cover his face almsot completely if that is his desire.
Howver he choose not to give women this capacity; in general no matter how much a woman wants to grow a beard and moustache, she cannot.
It doestnt take a genius to conclude that a full face face covering for women is not part of God's plan for women. And if that is not persuasive enough for the doubters, then it is actually unhealthy for women to wear the burqua as a normal part of thier outdoor attire on a permanent basis.
So where oh where is the reason, be it religous or cultural, for this most odious and awful of practices ?

The Corinthian

anymore wrote: »

Howver he choose not to give women this capacity; in general no matter how much a woman wants to grow a beard and moustache, she cannot.

You've obviously not spent much time south of Rome.

anymore

The Corinthian wrote: »

You've obviously not spent much time south of Rome.

I bow to your superior knowledge of the Southern Italian woman, but in my neck of the woods, extensive facilal hair on a woman is very rare and i take it as a sign from God that that is the way he prefers it !

Manic Moran

In my view, there is no need for a nationwide ban on minarets, but it should be within the power of local communities to decide whether they want minarets (or crucifixes, or steeples) erected as a permanent built feature of their town.

Whilst I agree with you, I draw attention to the 'should.' What started this whole thing off was that a minaret was approved over the objections of the town council and residents of the town in which it was to be placed.

NTM

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

So now we have to accomodate everyone no matter their interpretation of x, y and z may mean?

Either it is a religious requirement or it isn't. Oh wait, clearly it isn't.

Fascinating. Which is the correct version of Islam, by the way - Sunni, Shia, Alevi?

anymore wrote:

Lets move this thread on a little (.....)and normal and decent ?

First, you might answer the questions put to you...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65755212&postcount=55

prinz wrote:

Since when has society depended on what a minority of a minority consider something to be? Should we ban pork, should we ban beef? Do you support the pubs closing on Good Friday?

How does the wearing of the Burqa have a similar impact as the banning of food stuffs?

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

How does the wearing of the Burqa have a similar impact as the banning of food stuffs?

Should we legislate to appease every interpretation of every religion? Should various religious groups get exemptions from any law they see fit to disagree with?

Mahatma coat

solution for Swis Muslim wimmins


then lets see if they move on to bannng all face coverings, Should have rather interestin ramifications for the tourist industry.

FTR I am in favour of the minaret ban, but not this from what I've read.

Dotsie~tmp

I think I will take a trip to Riyadh. Im sure they will respect my tradition of drinking and carousing with women in the sun. Speedos and bikins.

Will they bollox.

BlaasForRafa

Nodin wrote: »

Fascinating. Which is the correct version of Islam, by the way - Sunni, Shia, Alevi?

the Flying Spaghetti Monster rules all.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

Should we legislate to appease every interpretation of every religion? Should various religious groups get exemptions from any law they see fit to disagree with?

Try answering the questions

Which is the correct version of Islam- Sunni, Shia, Alevi? Or is it the Druze?

How does the wearing of the Burqa have a similar impact as the banning of food stuffs?

Nodin

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

I think I will take a trip to Riyadh. Im sure they will respect my tradition of drinking and carousing with women in the sun. Speedos and bikins.

Will they bollox.

So you think that every muslim should be treated with 'revenge' in mind for Saudi Arabia's attitudes?

bonkey

prinz wrote: »

Since when has society depended on what a minority of a minority consider something to be? Should we ban pork, should we ban beef? Do you support the pubs closing on Good Friday?

I'm not sure what any of the relevance of this has to the OP...but to answer your question, I'm not the one suggesting that there be a ban on anything. You are amongst those here supporting the notion that something should be banned because you have an objection to it....not me.

As per my example two people could walk around a city with a screwdriver.. one has a valid reason to have it, one doesn't. The first one goes on his merry way, and the second one gets charged with being in possession of a deadly weapon. Pretty simple concept.

Its a concept where it is easy to pick a simple example that suits your argument. That's not quite the same thing.

The burka and Islam are not inextricably linked.

I haven't suggested they are.