• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would You Support A Burqa Ban In USofA?

Would you support a Burqa Ban in USA?

  • Total voters
    110
Dragonfly

Dragonfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
31,319
Reaction score
19,849
Location
East Coast - USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
To be clear here, this is a Burqa:

736298-burqa.jpg



Not to be confused with a Hijab:

DENIM_SOFT_G_HIJAB.jpg
 
This is not who we are. When the founders talked about freedom of religion they did not mean this.
 
Dragonfly said:
To be clear here, this is a Burqa:

736298-burqa.jpg



Not to be confused with a Hijab:

DENIM_SOFT_G_HIJAB.jpg
Click to expand...

In the US? Restrict religious practice outright? A US citizenry that allowed that would be in a highly dangerous state of mind.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
This is not who we are. When the founders talked about freedom of religion they did not mean this.
Click to expand...

That is not who we are. It is about who we are. The US is not about restricting the right to expression political, religious or otherwise. And this would be an even more blatant restriction than putting the baker out of business. It would be in direct conflict with Constitutional rights.
 
joG said:
In the US? Restrict religious practice outright? A US citizenry that allowed that would be in a highly dangerous state of mind.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between "religious practice", and clothing.

Don't ya think?

Can one practice their religion naked?
 
Dragonfly said:
To be clear here, this is a Burqa:

736298-burqa.jpg



Not to be confused with a Hijab:

DENIM_SOFT_G_HIJAB.jpg
Click to expand...

Its a gross over reach of law to dictate how someone should dress in a free country. Guilty until proven innocent is not the law enforcement of a free society.
 
Pozessed said:
Its a gross over reach of law to dictate how someone should dress in a free country. Guilty until proven innocent is not the law enforcement of a free society.
Click to expand...

Simply saying that people can't completely cover their faces and eyes has nothing to do with "guilt" or 'innocence".
 
Dragonfly said:
There's a difference between "religious practice", and clothing.

Don't ya think?

Can one practice their religion naked?
Click to expand...

Some might think so and others might disagree. That is what protecting freedom of practice means. I might think the practice horrid or stupid or infuriating. But that is no reason to desist from protecting her right to practice as she thinks she must. The case of the baker pointed the way down this slippery slope and this kind of development was to be expected.
 
Pozessed said:
Its a gross over reach of law to dictate how someone should dress in a free country. Guilty until proven innocent is not the law enforcement of a free society.
Click to expand...
Not when it comes to security.

The Government should be required to have them removed for identification purposes, such as for security, when taking a license or identifying themselves to the police, etc...
And as the People have a right of association, a business should have the right not to deal with those who dress that way.
 
Dragonfly said:
There's a difference between "religious practice", and clothing.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you can make such a sharp distinction. There are several examples of clothing or jewellery that some religious people consider key to practicing their faith.

Dragonfly said:
Can one practice their religion naked?
Click to expand...
There is a difference between something that would be illegal regardless of why you’re doing it (such as public nudity) and something that is normally legal and only being prohibited when done for religious reasons (such as face-covering).
 
To my understanding, there is no requirement to wear a burqa in the Holy Book of Islam, the Quran. If someone wants to wear this at home or private gatherings that is perfectly reasonable choice.

When driving or going into stores, areas of the general public where the face is covered and mischief can be done by those desiring to take advantage of this to ill ends... or to have it on when being photographed for identification... nah.
 
Excon said:
Not when it comes to security.

The Government should be required to have them removed for identification purposes, such as for security, when taking a license or identifying themselves to the police, etc...
And as the People have a right of association, a business should have the right not to deal with those who dress that way.
Click to expand...

There is no demonstrable security issue in Europe or the US. I cannot remember one incident perpetrated by a burqaed woman there, let alone any number even remotely close to the umber of terrorist acts committed in plain civilian cloths.

But even if there were a security issue, it would have to be extremely great to justify allowing the state to act directly opposed to the Constitution. It was very stupid to allow the case of the baker to stand, as that precedent was bound to push other groups to equally seek action against Constitutional rights that they did not like. And here we are, where any educated person back then should have expected we would go.
 
Last edited:
joG said:
There is no demonstrable security issue in Europe or the US. I cannot remember one incident perpetrated by a burqaed woman there, let alone any number even remotely close to the umber of terrorist acts committed in plain civilian cloths.

But even if there were a security issue, it would have to be extremely great to justify allowing the state to act directly opposed to the Constitution.
Click to expand...
1. There is nothing here directly opposed to the constitution.

2. Identification, as in a Gov issued Drivers license, is for security purposes as well and any offender should have to ID their self with the garbed removed.
 
Why would we restrict clothing in public spaces?


At schools, sure.


Look....people in actual criminal street gangs get to wear their colors, or biker gangs, same. Fairs fair.
 
Oh, and I would bang the **** outa that second lovely lady you posted, with the hijab. It would be the best minute and 45 seconds of her life.
 
Dragonfly said:
Simply saying that people can't completely cover their faces and eyes has nothing to do with "guilt" or 'innocence".
Click to expand...

If they were perceived innocent of wrong doing, this discussion wouldn't be happening.
 
The burqa is a Middle Eastern thing - not a Muslim thing.

There's nothing in the Quran about specific clothing. Simply states "modest dress" for both men and women.

The term "modest" has been bastardized by some radical factions of the Muslim world, and turned into this anomaly of clothing.
 
HonestJoe said:
There is a difference between something that would be illegal regardless of why you’re doing it (such as public nudity) and something that is normally legal and only being prohibited when done for religious reasons (such as face-covering).
Click to expand...

So if you make face-covering illegal regardless of why you're doing it, than there is no problem.
 
Excon said:
1. There is nothing here directly opposed to the constitution.

2. Identification, as in a Gov issued Drivers license, is for security purposes as well and any offender should have to ID their self with the garbed removed.
Click to expand...

1. It is a restriction of religious practice.
2. I am not sure that profiling by religion is perfectly legal. Is that, what you are claiming?
 
joG said:
1. It is a restriction of religious practice.
2. I am not sure that profiling by religion is perfectly legal. Is that, what you are claiming?
Click to expand...

Covering the face isn't a religious practice. It's a cultural act of control.

Please point to the phrase or directive in the Quran that says a woman's face should/must be covered when in public.
 
Dragonfly said:
So we can all go naked then? If it's a "free" society that shouldn't regulate clothing?
Click to expand...

As of this moment I am leaning towards yes. Who is in harms way from people walking around naked if they so wished other than themselves? I never have considered the thought much. But, if people want to scour about naked, why should I tell them not to? Why would people being naked be regarded as dangerous to a community as a whole?
 
Dragonfly said:
The burqa is a Middle Eastern thing - not a Muslim thing.

There's nothing in the Quran about specific clothing. Simply states "modest dress" for both men and women.

The term "modest" has been bastardized by some radical factions of the Muslim world, and turned into this anomaly of clothing.
Click to expand...

That makes no difference. If the person says she needs it to practice her religion, it is beyond arrogant to forbid her to do it. One can argue with her, but forcing her to act differently than she believes her religion requires is an abomination of our Constitution. Even if it were not religiously but only morally motivated or for comfort, it is unspeakable to stop her form doing, what she wants, because someone else might some day use such behavior to assist in a crime. This whole thing is so un-American that I can hardly believe this discussion is real. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom