end of the road wrote: » just like the catholic church used children as property.
CptMackey wrote: » Don't you see the problem? She NEVER covered her face before so why now? What has changed?
CptMackey wrote: » She converts to Islam because of her husband and bam face covered. It can't be for cultural reasons as she is Irish so it must be religious. Therefore it stands to reason that it was imposed on her.
CptMackey wrote: » We shouldn't be allowing peoples faces to be covered for religious reasons(stupid reason) .
CptMackey wrote: » As for talking to Muslims , I deal with them every day. Most are fine however when I meet women with their face covered it is impossible to deal with them .
CptMackey wrote: » if their husbands are there you can't even look at them.
CptMackey wrote: » Ban covering the face on religious grounds and ban any other religious rubbish along with it. Not just islam but every denomination. We would all be better off.
CptMackey wrote: » By ban on religious nonsense I mean no veil covering the face, no religious schools a secular society where the Catholic church , Islam has no sway . Remove any and all references to God from the constitution etc. And tell people that if they come here they are welcome but you can't cover your face in public places with religious garb etc. Practice your religion but don't wave it in peoples faces and for the religion of peace that women are equal citizens in this country and if you don't like it there is the door
CptMackey wrote: » when they cover their faces they are creating a barrier and fermenting and attitude of them vs us.
CptMackey wrote: » It will only lead to problems . Just look at the uk.
CptMackey wrote: » Thankfully France have seen sense
end of the road wrote: » but enforcing that would be the same as the likes of isis, and would mean large amounts of funding to enforce it being taken away from those that need it, hospitals, sick children, and so on. not worth it so you can impose your views on someone. time to get over it, its a non issue
fedor.2. wrote: » You're being oversensitive, I was asking you a question. Regarding the niqab, I didn't really expect you to know or understand the reasoning behind the wearing of it. At the end of the day, the French have banned covering your face in public, it applies to everyone in France. A lot of people agree with it and some don't. It's the law now so people will just have to accept it and move on.
end of the road wrote: » get this. religion doesn't effect you me or anyone as we don't take part.
end of the road wrote: » or they could break it in mass, so much that if the government try anything there will be enough of a backclash to topple them. the french are known for their protesting whatever the cost so this won't be a problem
SeanW wrote: » Do you even live in Ireland? Or know anything about Irish history? Religion hurts people who do not take part all the time. Whenever we defer to a religion or allow it any privilege in our society, we open the door to darkness, hatred and unimaginable misery. Our history of domination by the Catholic Church should serve us as a grim warning. Islam is 100 times worse as proven repeatedly in Islamic communities and societies. For Ireland to go from being controlled by the Catholic Church to being in any way deferential to Islam would be like jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. The French, Swiss and others recognise this and are acting accordingly.
Hitchens wrote: » Hopefully, we would do the same here!
chatperche wrote: » I don't claim to be an expert but at least I have first hand knowledge of the subject matter. Having been born and raised in the country, raised on the French republican system and being in secondary school there when the law on religious signs was being discussed. That my friend gives me a lot more insight than someone whose knowledge comes from a colleague from Marseille and and an ultra liberal niquab wearing, converted colleen who goes around Dublin shaking guys hands. Now, may be the irish muslims are different from the ones I have met in France. In my experience you had the majority who are law abiding and understand that in school, or any republican buildings religious signs aren't accepted. That doesn't seem to bother them. Then you have the more extremist ones that do not even try remotely to integrate in the society, ask for segregation in the swimming pools and wear the niquab. Women wearing the niquab in my experience do not go round chatting to fellows and shaking their hands.
chatperche wrote: » And whether you think that the law is stupid, it's the law of the land. Simple as And that goes for your water charges too!
end of the road wrote: » and they are there to be broken.
jimboblep wrote: » If, that law had been created with the sole purpose of oppressing a minority, why was its legitimacy upheld in the ECHR? Or is that court a bastion of bigotry ?
SeanW wrote: » Do you even live in Ireland? Or know anything about Irish history?
SeanW wrote: » Religion hurts people who do not take part all the time.
SeanW wrote: » Whenever we defer to a religion or allow it any privilege in our society, we open the door to darkness, hatred and unimaginable misery. Our history of domination by the Catholic Church should serve us as a grim warning. Islam is 100 times worse as proven repeatedly in Islamic communities and societies.
SeanW wrote: » For Ireland to go from being controlled by the Catholic Church to being in any way deferential to Islam would be like jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.
SeanW wrote: » The French, Swiss and others recognise this and are acting accordingly.
CptMackey wrote: » you seem to be all for the veil. Doesn't seem to be much opposition to the ban in France apart from the Muslim population who support wearing of the veil burka etc
jimboblep wrote: » And then punished
SeanW wrote: » ................ For Ireland to go from being controlled by the Catholic Church to being in any way deferential to Islam would be like jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. The French, Swiss and others recognise this and are acting accordingly.
hoodwinked wrote: » on the "they are covering their faces" it's as i said above you also assume it will lead to problems? but what if it doesn't? what if tomorrow and the next day and the day after that are just the same as today with everybody cohabiting together, just like we are now?
France hasn't "seen sense" they are just implementing more rules for the women to follow.
end of the road wrote: » not the 2 laws mentioned. they are okay to break
jackofalltrades wrote: » France already regularly experiences riots. One of the main complaints coming from the people in the areas where these riots occur is that they feel alienated from society. This law was brought in to stop people alienating themselves from society. ...............
Nodin wrote: » So, disaffected young men in deprived areas riot = ban tiny minority of women wearing niqab. Joined up thinkin.
jackofalltrades wrote: » Your missing the point. You can't complain about being alienated from society, while at the same time alienating yourself from society.
One of the main complaints coming from the people in the areas where these riots occur is that they feel alienated from society. This law was brought in to stop people alienating themselves from society.
fedor.2. wrote: » Disaffected, deprived, and minority. 3 words which have nothing to do with a law against covering your face in public. It's a simple law for simple reasons, it's very understandable. You're reading way too much in to it.
Nodin wrote: » Yeah, a tiny, tiny number of French muslim women wore something the right didn't like, and to try and woo voters back from another party, Sarkozy brought in a law that effectively targeted them.
fedor.2. wrote: » If you can prove that, I'll stand with you and we'll take it all the way to the top
