• 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!

61 arrested over banned Paris Muslim veil protest

PeteEU said:
And yet the laws are still being pushed by rabid right wing fanatics and they are being passed.
Click to expand...

And your point is? I've already said those laws are stupid, pointless, and ultimately meaningless. They have 0 impact on the lives of people, since Sharia law (and any other relgious law) could never be legally enacted before those laws were passed.

Fully comparable. US laws bans people from walking around nakid on the streets.. hence US law impacts on the way people live. Banning Sharia law will impact the way people live since it would be illegal for two Muslim to agree a contract according to Sharia law. Sorry but society impacts daily on how people live, and what the French and Belgiums are doing on Burka's is no different. Now what the Swiss did with the minaret issue, was just as stupid as banning Sharia law in the US. It had zero impact in reality.
Click to expand...

Laws prohibiting public nudity don't infringe on a person's right to practice their religion. Laws banning burquas do. Yes, laws usually impact the way people can live their lives, but not all laws infringe upon religious freedom. The burqua bans do and are just as xenophobic as the Swiss ban on minarets or the Oklahoma ban on Sharia law.
 
Psychoclown said:
Laws prohibiting public nudity don't infringe on a person's right to practice their religion. Laws banning burquas do.
Click to expand...

Banning burkas is not infringing on anyone's right to practice the religion of Islam. It's not even close.
 
That is a step for Iran war. The ruling class need excuse to start war on Iran – false flag attacks on Western countries. (Like 911 attack to justify Iraq, Afghanistan war) What causes the “terror attack”? In France, it will be “veil ban”. In US, it will be “Quran burning”. It’s not a coincidence they both happened in recent days. Beware of coming “terror attack” and followed by war on Iran. Discuss the civil right is a waste of time. The ban is a deliberate provocation, a part of war plan.
 
katsung47 said:
That is a step for Iran war. The ruling class need excuse to start war on Iran – false flag attacks on Western countries. (Like 911 attack to justify Iraq, Afghanistan war) What causes the “terror attack”? In France, it will be “veil ban”. In US, it will be “Quran burning”. It’s not a coincidence they both happened in recent days. Beware of coming “terror attack” and followed by war on Iran. Discuss the civil right is a waste of time. The ban is a deliberate provocation, a part of war plan.
Click to expand...

Those third world morons could find a tube of toothpaste "provocation".

The western democracies can't constantly be treading on eggshells for fear of provoking a people still living in the seventh century. It's up to them to adapt and move up to the modern world.
 
Grant said:
Banning burkas is not infringing on anyone's right to practice the religion of Islam. It's not even close.
Click to expand...

It seems some muslims view the practice as being integral to their faith. SO I fail to see how banning it *wouldn't interfere with the free practice of their religion
 
ManofthPeephole said:
It seems some muslims view the practice as being integral to their faith. SO I fail to see how banning it *wouldn't interfere with the free practice of their religion
Click to expand...

This tradition goes backs to the days of disco and Saturday Night Fever. It has nothing to do with Islam as preached by Mohamed.

Some people will argue that pot is central to their religion also, but that doesn't make it so. Not when all the evidence suggests otherwise.

It is a symbol of oppression, and a deliberate segregation of one group of people and their cultures from another. That's all it is and no more.
 
Grant said:
This tradition goes backs to the days of disco and Saturday Night Fever. It has nothing to do with Islam as preached by Mohamed.
Click to expand...

we are not discussing your views of Islam, we are discussing what other people see as an integral part of their religion


Grant said:
Some people will argue that pot is central to their religion also, but that doesn't make it so. Not when all the evidence suggests otherwise.
Click to expand...

and some random person making a claim on the internet does not make something so, especially when there are passages in the quran and sunnah that lend themselves to such an interpretation, a clear religious tradition of such, and a historical precedence of the belief


Grant said:
It is a symbol of oppression, and a deliberate segregation of one group of people and their cultures from another. That's all it is and no more.
Click to expand...

people view all manner of things as symbols of oppression. However, I fail to see how that justifies making something illegal, especially when it will restrict their constitutional rights
 
ManofthPeephole said:
we are not discussing your views of Islam, we are discussing what other people see as an integral part of their religion
Click to expand...

Just wonderin....You're a cop and you pull over a female driver for speeding who is wearing a burka which covers her face. The lady refuses to remove the face mask because "she is a Muslim" but has DL, insurance and registration all in order.

What do you do?

Here's a hint - There is a reason for the picture ID. The picture being the main way we identify people
 
ManofthPeephole said:
It seems some muslims view the practice as being integral to their faith. SO I fail to see how banning it *wouldn't interfere with the free practice of their religion
Click to expand...


And some Muslims think sending little giirls into burning buildings or 'honor' killings is integral to their faith. So what?

Non-Muslims needn't pay attention to them.
 
ManofthPeephole said:
and some random person making a claim on the internet does not make something so, especially when there are passages in the quran and sunnah that lend themselves to such an interpretation, a clear religious tradition of such, and a historical precedence of the belief
Click to expand...

The only mention on the Koran is to dress modestly. Not for women to wear a body shroud.



people view all manner of things as symbols of oppression. However, I fail to see how that justifies making something illegal, especially when it will restrict their constitutional rights
Click to expand...

How people view these things is of no matter. We all have differences of opinion.

The burka is not mentioned in any Constitution I'm aware of
Click to expand...
 
ric27 said:
Just wonderin....You're a cop and you pull over a female driver for speeding who is wearing a burka which covers her face. The lady refuses to remove the face mask because "she is a Muslim" but has DL, insurance and registration all in order.

What do you do?

Here's a hint - There is a reason for the picture ID. The picture being the main way we identify people
Click to expand...


forcing people to identify themselves, in security situations, is different than a blanket ban.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
The only mention on the Koran is to dress modestly. Not for women to wear a body shroud.
Click to expand...

are you claiming that religion is not interpretive?





How people view these things is of no matter. We all have differences of opinion.



Grant said:
The burka is not mentioned in any Constitution I'm aware of
Click to expand...

Just like it doesn't mention anything about radio or TV. But content in those mediums are still protected by the first
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
And some Muslims think sending little giirls into burning buildings or 'honor' killings is integral to their faith. So what?

Non-Muslims needn't pay attention to them.
Click to expand...

so someone wearing a burqa is akin to tossing someone into a burning building?
 
ManofthPeephole said:
forcing people to identify themselves, in security situations, is different than a blanket ban.
Click to expand...

But why does she get to drive a car using US law to get to drive and then invokes sharia law to get out of it?

Can a freeman do the same thing and invoke the god card and get away with it?
 
ManofthPeephole said:
are you claiming that religion is not interpretive?
Click to expand...

Language is pretty straightforward and suggesting someone should 'dress modestly" does not mean they should walk around looking like a canned ham.
How people view these things is of no matter. We all have differences of opinion.
Click to expand...

Sure, and we're offering ours.
Just like it doesn't mention anything about radio or TV. But content in those mediums are still protected by the first
Click to expand...

As well they should be.
 
ManofthPeephole said:
so someone wearing a burqa is akin to tossing someone into a burning building?
Click to expand...

And where did I say or suggest that, ManofthePeephole?

If you can't understand how religious beliefs can often be rather crazy, as in the examples I gave, then please tell me now
 
Grant said:
Language is pretty straightforward and suggesting someone should 'dress modestly" does not mean they should walk around looking like a canned ham.
Click to expand...

modesty is a relative and highly interpretive term


Grant said:
Sure, and we're offering ours.
Click to expand...

this was from trhe post I was responding to. Got screwed up while editing


Grant said:
As well they should be.
Click to expand...

You're not making any sense. You cited the fact that Burqas are not mentioned in the constitution. And to point out how trite a remark that was, I highlighted the fact that neither is TV or Radio.
 
Grant said:
And where did I say or suggest that, ManofthePeephole?
Click to expand...

You suggested it when you drew the comparison

Grant said:
If you can't understand how religious beliefs can often be rather crazy, as in the examples I gave, then please tell me now
Click to expand...

1) I'm unsure when constitutional protections were limited to what you approved of

2) in your example there is explicit harm being done. No such harm exists in someone wearing the burqa
 
ric27 said:
But why does she get to drive a car using US law to get to drive and then invokes sharia law to get out of it?

Can a freeman do the same thing and invoke the god card and get away with it?
Click to expand...

what are you even talking about? I already said a security situation is different than a general ban.
 
Burka type clothing predates Islam. It is not a religious form of dress.
 
ManofthPeephole said:
modesty is a relative and highly interpretive term
Click to expand...

So in order for a woman to be "modest" she has to cover her head and body in swathes of black cloth? That is "highly interpretive" but makes no sense whatsoever. Talk to a few 'modest' women and I doubt they would interpret it this way. Or men for that matter.

You're not making any sense. You cited the fact that Burqas are not mentioned in the constitution. And to point out how trite a remark that was, I highlighted the fact that neither is TV or Radio.
Click to expand...

TV and radio relate to transmissions of speech, which is mentioned in the Constitution. Burkas are not related to anything.
Click to expand...
 
ManofthPeephole said:
You suggested it when you drew the comparison
Click to expand...

You missed the point entirely, despite it being very straightforward. Read it again and of ou still don't understand I'll word it differently.


1) I'm unsure when constitutional protections were limited to what you approved of

2) in your example there is explicit harm being done. No such harm exists in someone wearing the burqa
Click to expand...

No, the risk exists for the woman in the form of NOT wearing the burka as demanded by her husband, and then wearing the burka while driving, for example. It is a dangerous and unnecessary garment symbolic only of a woman's servitude.
 
Grant said:
So in order for a woman to be "modest" she has to cover her head and body in swathes of black cloth? That is "highly interpretive" but makes no sense whatsoever. Talk to a few 'modest' women and I doubt they would interpret it this way. Or men for that matter.



TV and radio relate to transmissions of speech, which is mentioned in the Constitution. Burkas are not related to anything.
Click to expand...


when did religion ever need to make sense? And yes, the Burqa is related to the free exercise of religion. Not sure why such a simple concept is giving you such trouble
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
You missed the point entirely, despite it being very straightforward. Read it again and of ou still don't understand I'll word it differently.




No, the risk exists for the woman in the form of NOT wearing the burka as demanded by her husband, and then wearing the burka while driving, for example. It is a dangerous and unnecessary garment symbolic only of a woman's servitude.
Click to expand...

you're assuming that she was demanded to wear it by her husband. In fact, I personally know people who choose to wear it due to their religious belief

Also, I'm not seeing how a piece of clothing can be "dangerous"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom