Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Remember the minarets?
Options
Comments
-
Try answering the questions
Which is the correct version of Islam- Sunni, Shia, Alevi? Or is it the Druze?
Which is the correct version of Christianity?
What is the correct version of Judaism? If we can't make our minds up do we have to accept every practice of every splinter group of every religion? I would be more than interested to know your opinion about the case of the street Christian street preacher arrested recently for describing homosexuality as a sin. Should he be entitled to preach that on a public street?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..
I would support a ban on anyone wearing anything which results in an inability for their identification with a valid reason. It is irrelevant to me whether it is a burqa or anything else - again as per the Belgian proposed legislation. As I have already repeatedly said I would not support a ban solely on burqas. Since you have not provided the wording of the proposed referendum I will hold my opinion, but I have made my position clear as of right now.Its a concept where it is easy to pick a simple example that suits your argument. That's not quite the same thing...
Are you or are you not going to acknowledge that similar laws exist in relation to other matters where a legitimate defense of justifiable cause provides the grey area you were looking for? Personally "because I feel like it" doesn't really count as a justifiable cause in my view and in the view of the courts so far. As yet no one has been able to provide any better reason to be wearing a burqa other than some Muslims feel like they have a certain interpretation therefore we must allow it on religious grounds. As above re the street preacher, should people like that be afforded the protection of the law?I haven't suggested they are.
You have claimed that religious reasons is a valid enough reason to go about covered up and unidentifiable. So either the role of the burqa in Islam is sufficiently important that the vast majority of Muslims feel compelled to use it or claiming religious reasons doesn't hold any water.
You have also claimed that if someone refuses to identify themselves a fine is not appropriate. Yet you haven't given any suggestions as to what you think would be appropriate.. I'd love to know what your grey area compromise is.0 -
Laminations wrote: »Tradition is not a good enough reason to ban anything, nor is religion a good enough reason to justify anything, if you think it is you can say hello to the swinging penis man.
You seem to not want to let go of this penis-man....so lets have a look at your example. For the sake of polite discussion, lets call penis-man Dick
We have a country where we have established laws with regards to where the legal limits of acceptability are drawn. We did this without consideration of Dick at all, just as we did it without consideration of burqa wearers, or, indeed, hot-pants wearers.
So Dick comes to our shores, and finds that our existing laws are at odds with his religion / beliefs / culture. The Burqa-wearer arrives, and finds that our existing laws aren't a problem, although there is obvious a cultural issue.
Sometime later, spurred by the arrival of these burqa-wearing Muslims, we decide that we should change our laws. Although we insist that its not a law about them, we create a law that effects primarily them....and perhaps others as well.
So...in the case of Dick, we have existing laws which we defined based on what our culture found acceptable.
In the case of the burqa...we don't have existing laws, we have the cultural shock, and we have the people who find it unacceptable to be confronted with them and who feel such things should not be tolerated in our society....but have to realise that either they were tolerated before burqa wearers arrived, or that the situation didn't arise before that point.
In the former case...we are moving from tolerance to intolerance, triggered by the arrival of Muslim women covering their faces. Our law would be in reaction to them, intended to target them.
In the latter case...we are again reacting based on the arrival of Muslim women covering their faces. We can prettify our law to say "and we won't let anyone else do it neither", but we would still be creating a law in reaction to them, intended to target them.
Did we discriminate against Dick? No...or if we did, then not in the same way. We didn't create our laws in response to Dick, formulating them in order to curtail his freedoms. We had an issue with it before he arrived, and we created a law before he arrived. Sure, that law effects him...but now we're getting from the question of did we knowingly discriminate against him in creating this law to the question of should we change our laws so suit everyone and anyone who comes to our shores.
I've never suggested the latter, and don't think anyone here would think that its a good idea.
So back to the former....is it necessarily wrong to create a law in cases like this? Well...maybe....but it has nothing to do with Dick.0 -
I would support a ban on anyone wearing anything which results in an inability for their identification with a valid reason. It is irrelevant to me whether it is a burqa or anything else - again as per the Belgian proposed legislation. As I have already repeatedly said I would not support a ban solely on burqas. Since you have not provided the wording of the proposed referendum I will hold my opinion, but I have made my position clear as of right now.
So which of the following items which conceal the face would you include in your ban?:
Swine flu mask:
Oversized sunglasses:
Hat, scarf & sunglasses:
0 -
Which is the correct version of Christianity? What is the correct version of Judaism? .
Seeing as you effectively claim to have the correct interpretation of Islam tied down, I had presumed you'd be telling me.
And again - which is the correct interpretation of Islam?If we can't make our minds up do we have to accept every practice of every splinter group of every religion?.
Essentially, yes, certain caveats aside.I would be more than interested to know your opinion about the case of the street Christian street preacher arrested recently for describing homosexuality as a sin. Should he be entitled to preach that on a public street?
If its a sin according to his religion, he should be able to preach that on a public street, yes.I would support (.....) right now. ?
Given your posts on the minarets issue, and various remarks passed, I'm afraid I can't accept that.Personally "because I feel like it" doesn't really count as a justifiable cause in my view and in the view of the courts so far.
As long as its not harming anyone else, I would have thought that was one of the advantages of living in a free society.As yet no one has been able to provide any better reason to be wearing a burqa other than some Muslims feel like they have a certain interpretation therefore we must allow it on religious grounds. As above re the street preacher, should people like that be afforded the protection of the law?
Why not? It's only a piece of cloth.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
I've never tried to argue that "because I feel like it" is a justifiable reason for anything...other than, perhaps, it being my original response to people asking why I started this thread. Thankfully, that's something I don't expect to have to defend in a court of lawAre you or are you not going to acknowledge that similar laws exist in relation to other matters where a legitimate defense of justifiable cause provides the grey area you were looking for? Personally "because I feel like it" doesn't really count as a justifiable cause in my view and in the view of the courts so far.
Protection of the law?As yet no one has been able to provide any better reason to be wearing a burqa other than some Muslims feel like they have a certain interpretation therefore we must allow it on religious grounds. As above re the street preacher, should people like that be afforded the protection of the law?
There is no existing law which they are violating. What is being proposed is that we create a law in reaction to their presence. In such a situation, then yes...they deserve the protection of the law. They deserve that the law hold to its established understanding of what constitutes religious discrimination, and sees that creating a new law would be violating that.
The preacher should also be afforded the protection of the law. In his case, he broke an existing law. It wasn't one spurred by his presence. Just like Dick...being a preacher doesn't put him above the law....but the law shouldn't be modified in reaction to his beliefs.
I think you either misunderstand or are misinterpreting the concept of freedom of religion. It is not the state's position to decide which is the correct interpretation of any religion.So either the role of the burqa in Islam is sufficiently important that the vast majority of Muslims feel compelled to use it or claiming religious reasons doesn't hold any water.
Anyway...lets leave that aside for a moment...
Let me ask you this instead...if it were a religious belief, would that make any difference to your position? If not, then the line of argument that its not a religious belief would seem entirely spurious to your position either which way.
I said in one specific case, based only on the details of it I was given is that my opinion was that it was not the appropriate response.You have also claimed that if someone refuses to identify themselves a fine is not appropriate.
If you want to generalise that, I would say that if someone refuses to identify themselves, a fine may or may not be an appropriate response.I'd love to know what your grey area compromise is.
My grey area compromise is based on the basis that I see no fundamental issue with the general idea of someone covering their face in public....and that as the law currently stands, there is nothing against it.
Note that if we move from the general case to situationally-specific cases, that may change...just as many laws apply situationally-specifically.
If the person is causing a disturbance, or acting aggressively, or acting suspiciously (and no, I don't covering your face suspicious in and of itself), then its no longer the general case.
If there is a valid reason for a police officer to need to identify the person, then some sort of consideration needs to be given as to how that is accomplished.
If we start talking about access to any sort of secure areas, then we're not longer talking about public areas...and again, differing considerations may be needed and should be addressed on a case-by-case basis, as relevant.
This may, ultimately, lead to a curtailment in the total set of freedoms enjoyed by someone as a result of wearing a burqa...but that's the compromise.0 -
-
The Corinthian wrote: »OK, but what happens when a religious minority seeks to change those existing laws, or be excluded from them?
I believe that everyone has a right to seek to have laws changed, or indeed challenged to see if they are compatible with other laws.
Exclusion from law is not something where I can think of a case which I would support.
In a sense, its a bit like moderating a forum. We have rules. People can make a case to have the rules changed. As a general case, we're on a hiding to nothing when we make a decision that the rules don't apply to some people.
I don't believe any of those examples are cases where there is a valid case to not apply existing law to the religious.A few examples include:
You're describing activity which is technically a breach of the law, but in a situation where the law is not enforcing it. I certainly wouldn't suggest that the correct response would be for the London judiciary to say that because she was in a Muslim part of town, that the normal laws didn't apply, so the people who spat on her and/or intimidated her acted perfectly reasonably.My sister lived in a Muslim dominated part of London for a while and found herself spat upon or jeered for not wearing a veil on a number of occasions. How does that fit into the theory of existing laws?
Not to mention carnivalOf course, I would agree that the banning of either the burqa or minarets is irrelevant - a law that bans people disguising their identity would pretty much kill Halloween if genuinely applied.
I don't know, myself. I look at the various cultures here in Switzerland, and sometimes I genuinely fail to see why there is so much of an issue with some, but not with others.In short, I think that such reactions, while partially fueled by post-9/11 islamophobia are also a reaction to the failure of many Muslim immigrants to integrate into their host culture.
Maybe its a case that they simply haven't been around long enough. Apparently, the Tamils were considered highly shifty when they first arrived...whereas today it seems that the general opinion is that they're hard-working, honest folk who still hold tightly to their own communities and traiditions...so people just leave them to themselves.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
irishconvert wrote: »So which of the following items which conceal the face would you include in your ban?
Again, someone with difficulty understanding justifiable cause.Seeing as you effectively claim to have the correct interpretation of Islam tied down, I had presumed you'd be telling me..
Where have I 'effectively claimed' any such thing? What anyone interprets anything to mean is of no consequence when it comes to the law.Essentially, yes, certain caveats aside.
And who decides these caveats? The voters perhaps?If its a sin according to his religion, he should be able to preach that on a public street, yes..
And neo-nazis should be free to peddle their nonsense in public?Given your posts on the minarets issue, and various remarks passed, I'm afraid I can't accept that... Accept whatever you like. However you have no right to then go on and continue remarks about xenophobia, bigotry etc.As long as its not harming anyone else, I would have thought that was one of the advantages of living in a free society.
Should people be allowed carry knives, guns etc? If I feel like carrying a gun because I feel like it, and have no intention to use it, is that ok?Why not? It's only a piece of cloth.
So is a KKK hood. So is a swastika armband.I've never tried to argue that "because I feel like it" is a justifiable reason for anything...other than, perhaps, it being my original response to people asking why I started this thread. Thankfully, that's something I don't expect to have to defend in a court of law.
So what other reasoning coud possibly be relied on to give a justifiable reason?There is no existing law which they are violating. What is being proposed is that we create a law in reaction to their presence. In such a situation, then yes...they deserve the protection of the law..
We pass reactionary laws all the time. Do you disagree with the CAB etc? On that basis that those targeted should have the protection of the laws before such a body was established?The preacher should also be afforded the protection of the law. In his case, he broke an existing law...
And the law against covering your face etc in Italy was an existing law. But when I cited that case you claimed it was wrong to apply the letter of the law to a woman in a burqa...... when she broke an existing law why did you declare it to be inappropriate to apply it? doube standard much?I think you either misunderstand or are misinterpreting the concept of freedom of religion. It is not the state's position to decide which is the correct interpretation of any religion. ...
I never claimed it was. Neither is it the state's job to accomodate every interpretation of every religion when legislating.Let me ask you this instead...if it were a religious belief, would that make any difference to your position? If not, then the line of argument that its not a religious belief would seem entirely spurious to your position either which way...
If Muslims were required to wear a burqa in order to comply with their religion fully then yes that is something where I would have to reconsider my position.I said in one specific case, based only on the details of it I was given is that my opinion was that it was not the appropriate response.If you want to generalise that, I would say that if someone refuses to identify themselves, a fine may or may not be an appropriate response.
Even though it is the correct application of an existing law?This may, ultimately, lead to a curtailment in the total set of freedoms enjoyed by someone as a result of wearing a burqa...but that's the compromise.
I have read through this piece and have yet to see the compromise 0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement