Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 81

Thread: Five European states back burka ban

  1. #71
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Five European states back burka ban

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    Nuns are NOT required to wear their full traditional garb everywhere they go nor is there ANY law in Judism forbidding mini skirts. Would you please stop grasping at straws before you embarrass yourself any further.
    The same goes for Islam. No one is forcing women to do anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    Actually it is you who don't have clue what the argument is about. You claim the Burka is a religious symbol as your reasoning for not banning the outfit yet you admit there are "innumerable religious practices that are not explicitly mandated by any primary religious text"
    Look at the pic earlier in this thread. When you see people dressed that way, you know they are religious. How hard is that to understand? Stop clinging to obtuseness. You're wrong and need to get over it.

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    So....exactly how can you keep claiming you can't ban it because its religious?
    Culture and religion are intertwined. Just because the holy books don't mandate that kind of dress, doesn't mean that religious culture hasn't evolved to include those forms of dress. This isn't rocket science. Put two and two together.

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    Please make up your mind which argument you are going to use and get back to us
    Please read a book, and then get back to us.

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    If they walk into a bank, get a driver's license, enter any high security area and are completely covered including the face? Exactly how hard is this for you to understand? I even gave you links to stories about it and you still don't get it.
    What does this have to do with banning it everywhere? People should have the right to wear whatever clothing they want. It's about freedom of expression. Why is the burka being honed in on? Why not other forms of religious garb that cover women? Why is only Islam being targeted?

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    No, it is not. You keep pretending all interpretations of Islam are all protected under freedom of religion but fail to understand that security is also an issue that conflicts with this setup.
    Secured areas can have different rules then. A society-wide ban is not necessary. It's a racist law and there's no way to downplay that.

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    So thats the only place? How about a bank? How about a workplace? How about a high security area? Are you just completely oblivious to the hundreds of situations where this would be a problem or is this a special day for you?
    If this is all you've got for justifying the ban then you really are on thin ice.

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    And I honestly don't know how to explain to you that this is an interpretation of Islam not a universal belief. How hard is that to understand?
    It doesn't have to be universal for people's beliefs to be respected. If a woman chooses to wear a burka it's her damn choice and you have no right to tell her she can't.

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    Yes I have and I'm waiting for you to back up your claim that the garmet being any female is the majoirty argument used against the burka.
    Argument ad populum. The whole world doesn't have to be wearing burkas for it to be okay for one woman to wear one.

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    Newsflash. Halloween isn't every single day my little friend.
    Your bigotry is obvious at this point so don't bother concealing it anymore. You don't care about the correctness of the law, you just hate Muslims.

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    It is a sad and child-like appeal to the politically correct world and it truely is sad you are going so far out to defend something that isn't even practiced by all Muslims.
    It's not "politically correct" to advocate the freedom of self expression in any place on earth, let alone Europe. If women choose to wear a burka it's their god damn right and you have no business telling them they can't.

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    I can wait to see you jump on board when the pagans want to sacrifice live animals in the public square and defend their right to religious freedom.
    Religious ceremony and religious garb are two totally different things. Nice try at changing the goalposts though.

  2. #72
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Five European states back burka ban

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    My God you are clueless.

    Nuns are NOT required to wear their full traditional garb everywhere they go nor is there ANY law in Judism forbidding mini skirts. Would you please stop grasping at straws before you embarrass yourself any further.

    LOL What does that have to do with this argument in any way?

    Never said that either. Please do not lie about what I have stated.

    Actually it is you who don't have clue what the argument is about. You claim the Burka is a religious symbol as your reasoning for not banning the outfit yet you admit there are "innumerable religious practices that are not explicitly mandated by any primary religious text"

    So....exactly how can you keep claiming you can't ban it because its religious?

    Please make up your mind which argument you are going to use and get back to us
    For the last time:

    Something does not have to be explicitly mandated by a primary religious text for it to be considered a protected religious activity. There is nothing in the Bible that requires nuns to wear that garb, nothing that requires priests to wear their collars in church, nothing that requires people to wear crosses around their necks, nothing that requires orthodox women to dress that way, etc. However, despite that, all of the activities I mentioned are religious in nature. It would be unconstitutional to ban any of them, much like it would be unconstitutional to ban the wearing of the niqab here in the US.

    If they walk into a bank, get a driver's license, enter any high security area and are completely covered including the face? Exactly how hard is this for you to understand? I even gave you links to stories about it and you still don't get it.
    You really don't seem to understand the concept of a compelling government interest. For the last time, the government is well within its authority to infringe on constitutional rights should it make a showing that it is warranted. In the case of licenses, etc., that proof is fairly obvious. In the case of someone sitting on their porch or walking in a park, it's not. How is this confusing?

    So thats the only place? How about a bank? How about a workplace? How about a high security area? Are you just completely oblivious to the hundreds of situations where this would be a problem or is this a special day for you?
    Oh, so you think the government should be able to trample on individual rights in private workplaces? Funny how cases like this tend to winnow the real supporters of conservatism and individual rights from those who just support it when it meshes with their opinions.

    And I honestly don't know how to explain to you that this is an interpretation of Islam not a universal belief. How hard is that to understand?


    Nice dodge but if you don't want to understand that not all Muslims follow this practice just say so.
    It's not hard. Where we're having the problem is that you don't realize that something doesn't have to be universal to be religious. Use your head - every ****ing sect of Christianity is a different interpretation of the Bible - does that mean that only the practices of one particular sect are protected?

    Well gee, with all the facts in that statement I must be!
    I'm telling you that you don't understand how the first amendment works here in this country. If you think that such a ban would not be immediately overturned here, you very clearly don't. I don't really give a **** if you disagree, because I'm not looking for legal advice from you.

    Yes I have and I'm waiting for you to back up your claim that the garmet being any female is the majoirty argument used against the burka.

    Did you really think you can pull that from your backside and think it will just be accepted because you say so?
    You obviously haven't done even the most basic research on this. Where do you think I could have gotten the idea that the justification for the French ban is that the burqa supposedly violates the woman's freedom and dignity?

    Commission members began their work six months ago after French President Nicolas Sarkozy controversially told lawmakers that the full veil was "not welcome" in France.

    Sarkozy said the issue is one of a woman's freedom and dignity, and did not have to do with religion.
    France moves toward partial burqa ban - CNN.com

    Yea, guess I just pulled that one out of my backside.

    There is nothing to answer. You throw theoretical arguments to answer a debate question and think its evidence? Next time try using unicorns in your "what if" arguments. At least it will be more amusing
    I'm really just perplexed at your absolute refusal to engage in any critical thought on this topic.

    I can wait to see you jump on board when the pagans want to sacrifice live animals in the public square and defend their right to religious freedom.
    Funny you should mention that...

    Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    But hey, what do I know - you're the expert on religion and law.
    Last edited by RightinNYC; 03-04-10 at 01:15 AM.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  3. #73
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Five European states back burka ban

    Tex, now you've lost it. Almost a whole page worth of replies in this thread is just you posting.

    You're in the hopper with the conspiracy theorists on that, now.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  4. #74
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Five European states back burka ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    The same goes for Islam. No one is forcing women to do anything.
    LOL Really. You obviously haven't read Sharia Law.

    Look at the pic earlier in this thread. When you see people dressed that way, you know they are religious. How hard is that to understand? Stop clinging to obtuseness. You're wrong and need to get over it.
    If you actually had bothered to read this thread I provided examples of how the garmet was used by criminals and how some Muslim women refused to remove the garb even for licensing. If you want to pretend you've actually read the thread start there.

    Culture and religion are intertwined. Just because the holy books don't mandate that kind of dress, doesn't mean that religious culture hasn't evolved to include those forms of dress. This isn't rocket science. Put two and two together.
    I am. Obviosuly you aren't. So in your mind we should never ban anything no matter what security it violates because some cultures choose to wear it?

    Are you that deep over the PC edge?

    Please read a book, and then get back to us.
    I used to hear that argument. Then I turned 5. If you can't debate, just say so.

    And take the cape off superhero and stick to the argument.

    What does this have to do with banning it everywhere? People should have the right to wear whatever clothing they want. It's about freedom of expression. Why is the burka being honed in on? Why not other forms of religious garb that cover women? Why is only Islam being targeted?
    Oh yes. Poor Islam. Name one other religion that uses a full body garb and you will see me support its ban as well.

    Secured areas can have different rules then. A society-wide ban is not necessary. It's a racist law and there's no way to downplay that.
    LOL Oh my God. Another simpleton thinking Islam is a race. How sad for you. Try reading a book on Islam sometime my little friend. Then go look up the definition of race

    If this is all you've got for justifying the ban then you really are on thin ice.
    And if thats your best argument you just broke through

    It doesn't have to be universal for people's beliefs to be respected. If a woman chooses to wear a burka it's her damn choice and you have no right to tell her she can't.
    Sorry sport but countries have laws. If a religion had a few morons who claimed it was their culture to go around naked should we bend to that rule too? No. There are always limitations in a democracy. Thats why its a democracy not anarchy.

    If you would just stop and think. Only for a second, I'd appreciate it.

    Argument ad populum. The whole world doesn't have to be wearing burkas for it to be okay for one woman to wear one.
    Thats a nice google but if you bothered to take the tights off just for a second and look at the claim he made, you wouldn't make such a fool of yourself.

    Your bigotry is obvious at this point so don't bother concealing it anymore. You don't care about the correctness of the law, you just hate Muslims.
    LOL And your stupidity knows no bounds. I've already stated earlier in this thread I would be against any garmet that conceals the entire body.

    Way to look like a complete fool once again.

    It's not "politically correct" to advocate the freedom of self expression in any place on earth, let alone Europe. If women choose to wear a burka it's their god damn right and you have no business telling them they can't.
    The stupidity you are showing is truely amazing. I suggest you start your own country where everyone can do whatever they want whenever they want. Here, we have democracies

    Religious ceremony and religious garb are two totally different things. Nice try at changing the goalposts though.
    [/quote]

    Its not different at all. Both are cultural religious practices. Too bad you aren't forward thinking enough to understand that.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  5. #75
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Five European states back burka ban

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    For the last time:

    Something does not have to be explicitly mandated by a primary religious text for it to be considered a protected religious activity.
    And for the last time. CITE THE LAW.

    Put up your shut up. I grow tired of your baseless claims.

    There is nothing in the Bible that requires nuns to wear that garb, nothing that requires priests to wear their collars in church, nothing that requires people to wear crosses around their necks, nothing that requires orthodox women to dress that way, etc. However, despite that, all of the activities I mentioned are religious in nature. It would be unconstitutional to ban any of them, much like it would be unconstitutional to ban the wearing of the niqab here in the US.
    How many times do I have to explain that nuns do not cover their entire body with that garb? How many times must this be explained to you?

    You really don't seem to understand the concept of a compelling government interest. For the last time, the government is well within its authority to infringe on constitutional rights should it make a showing that it is warranted. In the case of licenses, etc., that proof is fairly obvious. In the case of someone sitting on their porch or walking in a park, it's not. How is this confusing?
    Because we already have instances where the burka in full form is challenging the very security situations I mentioned and I even cited them for you and you still refuse to see it.

    Its some amazing arrogance of yours to assume you are right and the majority of 5 European nations are all wrong.

    Oh, so you think the government should be able to trample on individual rights in private workplaces? Funny how cases like this tend to winnow the real supporters of conservatism and individual rights from those who just support it when it meshes with their opinions.
    Unlike you I do read the law. There are requirements against countless things in the private sector. You somehow think anarchy is the way to go and refuse to see how a democracy actually works.

    Try pinching a woman's ass in the workplace or refusing to hire based on race and then come back to the big people table.

    It's not hard. Where we're having the problem is that you don't realize that something doesn't have to be universal to be religious. Use your head - every ****ing sect of Christianity is a different interpretation of the Bible - does that mean that only the practices of one particular sect are protected?p
    EXACTLY THE POINT. We don't accommodate every single sect of Christianity in the workplace or in public nor do we for any other relgion. We have limitations on behavior. How you continue to miss this basic point is beyond rational thought.

    I'm telling you that you don't understand how the first amendment works here in this country. If you think that such a ban would not be immediately overturned here, you very clearly don't. I don't really give a **** if you disagree, because I'm not looking for legal advice from you.
    You don't have a clue how the first amendment works so I have to keep teaching you. Its sad but necessary.

    The first amendment is not without limits. For God's sake please open up a law book once in a while before trying to debate that the first amendment is without limitations.

    You obviously haven't done even the most basic research on this. Where do you think I could have gotten the idea that the justification for the French ban is that the burqa supposedly violates the woman's freedom and dignity?
    So you still can't back up your claim with even one source. Sad but not unexpected.

    France moves toward partial burqa ban - CNN.com

    Yea, guess I just pulled that one out of my backside.
    That doesn't prove the claim you made that the garment being any female is the majoirty argument used against the burka.

    Did you even read the article? That was only the president's opinion, not the opinion of the majority. You haven't proven a thing except you have no idea how to back up your claims.

    I'm really just perplexed at your absolute refusal to engage in any critical thought on this topic.
    I engage you when you actually argue. When you throw out what if theories and claim those are arguments its worth perhaps a chuckle but nothing serious enough to debate because there is no substance.


    Funny you should mention that...

    Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    But hey, what do I know - you're the expert on religion and law.
    Once again you prove in spades the limitations of your thinking.

    If you had bothered with something other than wiki, you would have found this:

    The core failure of the ordinances were that they applied exclusively to the church. The ordinances singled out the activities of the Santeria faith and suppressed more religious conduct than was necessary to achieve their stated ends. Only conduct tied to religious belief was burdened. The ordinances targeted religious behavior, therefore they failed to survive the rigors of strict scrutiny.

    So the law was poorly written not that it would never be acceptable if written properly. But then again, that would have required you to read more than google.

    Try reading some of these:

    Supreme Court Decisions - Trans World Airlines v. Hardison

    With Justice White writing the majority opinion, the Court decided 7-2 that TWA adequate efforts to accommodate Hardison's religious beliefs and that the company was justified in firing him when he refused to comply with his work assignments.

    Supreme Court Decisions - Larkin v. Grendel's Den

    The Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Warren Burger writing the majority opinion, ruled 8-1 that the Massachusetts law was indeed unconstitutional because it substituted religious fiat for public legislative authority.

    The Court has acknowledged the need for local communities to offering zoning protection to schools and churches, but this case was different because a religious organization can be given power to determine whether a permit may be issued. While the statute had a permissible secular purpose of protecting churches and schools from the disruptions often associated with liquor establishments, the Court concluded that these purposes could be accomplished by other means, e.g. an outright ban on liquor outlets within a prescribed distance, or the vesting of discretionary authority in a governmental agent required to consider the views of affected parties.


    Supreme Court Decisions - Larkin v. Grendel's Den

    With the majority opinion writen by Chief Justice Burger, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that Connecticut's law was unconstitutional because it advanced a particular religious practice.

    Supreme Court Decisions - Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc.

    And that is just 3 decisions. There are many more limiting religious practice and cultural observances.


    So, we see that there are limitations put on religous practice and tradition depsite your claims of the opposite.

    Next time before making these ridiculous anarchy for all and everyone can do what they want, read some case law.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  6. #76
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Five European states back burka ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    Tex, now you've lost it. Almost a whole page worth of replies in this thread is just you posting.
    Oh its true that I've received plenty of emails with people asking why I keep debating people who are so hopelessly lost but I'm an incurable optimist that someday you will actually begin to think rationally.

    You're in the hopper with the conspiracy theorists on that, now.
    Is that your new debate tactic? Ignore an entire reply and declare victory standing on the shoulders of others?

    When you are actually ready to debate, try replying to my post to you.

    Until then your childish declarations of victory are just hopeless rantings by a defeated foe.


    I do enjoy the fact you think you are right despite being vastly outnumbered in 5 European countries. Its very Lilliputian of you
    Last edited by texmaster; 03-05-10 at 01:55 AM.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  7. #77
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Five European states back burka ban

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    And for the last time. CITE THE LAW.

    Put up your shut up. I grow tired of your baseless claims.
    What in the blue **** are you talking about? What "law" do you want me to cite for the proposition that religious practices are religious? This isn't something that is covered by a law.

    How many times do I have to explain that nuns do not cover their entire body with that garb? How many times must this be explained to you?
    And how many more times am I going to keep responding to your frantic dodges if you can't actually respond to my ****ing points rather than pretending we're only talking about the one thing that you (erroneously) think is your best argument? Answer: zero.


    Because we already have instances where the burka in full form is challenging the very security situations I mentioned and I even cited them for you and you still refuse to see it.
    And in those challenging security situations, should there be a compelling government interest, it can be limited. I've explained this four times so far. If you haven't gotten it yet, you're not going to get it.

    Its some amazing arrogance of yours to assume you are right and the majority of 5 European nations are all wrong.
    So if you disagree with the majority of those 5 nations on anything, does that make you arrogant? I'm sure there are some things that you don't share with them.

    Unlike you I do read the law. There are requirements against countless things in the private sector. You somehow think anarchy is the way to go and refuse to see how a democracy actually works.

    Try pinching a woman's ass in the workplace or refusing to hire based on race and then come back to the big people table.
    And that wins the award for the worst argument in this entire thread. Are you really having a hard time understanding the difference between sexual harassment and rules allowing an individual to wear religious garb?

    EXACTLY THE POINT. We don't accommodate every single sect of Christianity in the workplace or in public nor do we for any other relgion. We have limitations on behavior. How you continue to miss this basic point is beyond rational thought.
    And if a workplace wants to ban the burqa because it interferes with work, it can do so. See, here in America, private employers are not considered the same as the state. That's kind of an important distinction in the law that you fail to grasp.

    You don't have a clue how the first amendment works so I have to keep teaching you. Its sad but necessary.

    The first amendment is not without limits. For God's sake please open up a law book once in a while before trying to debate that the first amendment is without limitations.
    Oh yes, you're the person I need to be learning about the first amendment from. Not my law professors, who have argued some of the most important first amendment cases of the past century, but you.

    Believe it or not, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

    So you still can't back up your claim with even one source. Sad but not unexpected.
    ...except for the link that directly proved my claim.

    That doesn't prove the claim you made that the garment being any female is the majoirty argument used against the burka.

    Did you even read the article? That was only the president's opinion, not the opinion of the majority. You haven't proven a thing except you have no idea how to back up your claims.
    You're so goddamn disingenuous. HE'S THE GUY WHO PROPOSED THE ****ING BILL. HOW HARD IS THIS TO UNDERSTAND?


    Once again you prove in spades the limitations of your thinking.

    If you had bothered with something other than wiki, you would have found this:

    The core failure of the ordinances were that they applied exclusively to the church. The ordinances singled out the activities of the Santeria faith and suppressed more religious conduct than was necessary to achieve their stated ends. Only conduct tied to religious belief was burdened. The ordinances targeted religious behavior, therefore they failed to survive the rigors of strict scrutiny.

    So the law was poorly written not that it would never be acceptable if written properly. But then again, that would have required you to read more than google.
    This would be hilarious if it weren't so embarrassing. I studied that case under one of the amici. I think I know a little bit more about it than you do.

    The reason why the law failed was because it was drafted to apply directly to the practitioners of this particular religion rather than as a neutral law of general applicability. Guess which one a burqa ban falls under?

    Supreme Court Decisions - Trans World Airlines v. Hardison

    With Justice White writing the majority opinion, the Court decided 7-2 that TWA adequate efforts to accommodate Hardison's religious beliefs and that the company was justified in firing him when he refused to comply with his work assignments.
    Think real hard about a possible difference between a case where a private employer is trying to limit dress and where the state is trying to do so. I know you can come up with one.

    Supreme Court Decisions - Larkin v. Grendel's Den

    The Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Warren Burger writing the majority opinion, ruled 8-1 that the Massachusetts law was indeed unconstitutional because it substituted religious fiat for public legislative authority.

    The Court has acknowledged the need for local communities to offering zoning protection to schools and churches, but this case was different because a religious organization can be given power to determine whether a permit may be issued. While the statute had a permissible secular purpose of protecting churches and schools from the disruptions often associated with liquor establishments, the Court concluded that these purposes could be accomplished by other means, e.g. an outright ban on liquor outlets within a prescribed distance, or the vesting of discretionary authority in a governmental agent required to consider the views of affected parties.


    Supreme Court Decisions - Larkin v. Grendel's Den

    With the majority opinion writen by Chief Justice Burger, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that Connecticut's law was unconstitutional because it advanced a particular religious practice.
    And that's an establishment clause case, not a free exercise case like we're discussing here. That's like citing to a 4th amendment case to prove that the 2nd amendment protects your right to have a gun. Did you miss that day in law school?

    And another establishment clause case. Just give up.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  8. #78
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Five European states back burka ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    The fact that there are Americans in favor of this ban is absolutely mind-boggling.

    Just so you understand, you're favoring a government deciding what people can wear in a manner directed solely at one particular religion.
    I "favor" this ban precisely because I'm an American. Germany, France, the UK, Spain, and Italy are all sovereign nations governed by the consent of their people. They are perfectly within their rights to impose such a policy. Of course, I would never support something like this in the United States, but that doesn't mean we should hold other countries to our specific standard.

    I think the hardline Muslim populations in Europe should be "encouraged" to culturally assimilate into their host nation. That doesn't mean they have to stop being Muslims, it just means they have to respect certain Western values, like social equality and human rights.

  9. #79
    Sage
    Laila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Seen
    04-28-17 @ 01:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    10,095

    Re: Five European states back burka ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    I think the hardline Muslim populations in Europe should be "encouraged" to culturally assimilate into their host nation. That doesn't mean they have to stop being Muslims, it just means they have to respect certain Western values, like social equality and human rights.
    A very small population of women actually wear it. What such a ban would be doing is discouraging the majority of Muslism to assimilate. Why try and integrate into a society that seems to be targeting only your religion for bans?

    Jack Straw has already ruled out any such laws. I would support this law only if Christianity, Judaism and other religions are similarly targeted and their religious garb banned as well.


  10. #80
    Sage
    Laila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Seen
    04-28-17 @ 01:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    10,095

    Re: Five European states back burka ban

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    You don't want to go toe to toe with me on Islam I promise
    LOL

    Is that a warning?

    Yes I am well aware of the Hadiths. You do realize there are more than one interpretation of the Qur'an correct? Does that mean we have to accept all interpretations in the pursuance of universal tolerance? Are you that demented?

    And since you claim to be so well versed, please show us the universal Hadith that requires all women wear the Burka.
    There is no verse for the last time. It is an interpretation from the texts in regards to religion.
    And yes, their interpretation of the Qu'ran is as valid as any scholars.
    We accept religion into our society and we have the freedom to practice what we wish. Any form of ban on religion is curbing an individuals right to worship how they please.


    Name one that requires Christians cover the entire body because I will be 100% against it.
    You are being deliberately obtuse.

    Clearly you need to do far more research on the subject.
    Go read the Qu'ran and hadiths and go to the local mosque for a session. Then come back and discuss Islam.
    Last edited by Laila; 03-05-10 at 04:22 AM.


Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •