Dutch government says it plans to ban burqa

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by LordShiva


It does. But many argue that it shouldn't.

The state should be unresponsive to its citizens? Who makes the rules then?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Oerdin


The idea being that allowing religious symbols in publicly owned buildings is in a way an endorsement. Thus religion should be kept at arms length from all state functions in order to insure no one can think the state is endorsing any religion over others.

If a member of the public (not a state employee) wears a religious symbol in a publicly owned building, how could that possibly be seen as a state endorsement of that religion? Even with regard to state employees, it should be a matter of common sense for people to realize that it is the individual's choice to wear such a symbol, not the government's.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Caligastia
If a member of the public (not a state employee) wears a religious symbol in a publicly owned building, how could that possibly be seen as a state endorsement of that religion? Even with regard to state employees, it should be a matter of common sense for people to realize that it is the individual's choice to wear such a symbol, not the government's.

Yikes... I agree with Cali on something .

Kind of hard to argue that the woman wearing a cross necklace in a government building is the government endorsing religion, even if they ARE a state employee (as long as they don't call attention to it while interviewing others or whatnot).

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Caligastia
The state should be unresponsive to its citizens? Who makes the rules then?

Personal choices should not be dictated by majority rule.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Sava


So he's basically like every other leader in history?

ZOMFG

Oerdin, do me a favor. Name a culture or human society that hasn't fought any wars, commited any murders, or been responsible for any evils.

K THX

Your sh1t stinks just as bad as everyone elses.

Would your response have been the same if he had been talking about Hitler?

[Elok]

As a religious leader, Mohammed wasn't very impressive in his ethics. But for a conquering despot, which is more descriptive of his actions IMO, he was almost saintly. Especially given the precedent set by other warlords at that point in history. He was a hell of a lot nicer than Charlemagne two centuries later...

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Sava


I get to a DanS post.

You should nhave chosen a better post. If forbidding "obscene" clothing (a gum-like term) is a legitimate criterum for dress code, forbidding full body covering can be a legitimate criterium too. Claiming something else is just stupid.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I like to point out that Mohammed was a murderer, a pedophile, a rapist, and he commited genocide against the Jews of Arabia. Mohammed, by any decent standard, was an evil man.

... and then you wonder why people say the things about you that they do (especially since you were totally pwned on the pedophila thing and you still continue to repeat it)

Imran - why are you ignoring that he was actually

a paedophile (Aisha's marriage consummated when she was nine, source being all the Hadith traditions),

a marital rapist,

a murderer of his critics (remember that poet he murdered? Or that woman who was killed in her sleep),

an iconoclast of the worst sort (the destruction of the idols at Mecca, the destruction of Somnath, which was believed to hold one idol which "escaped" from Mecca, which set the pattern for the destruction of all the major temples of North India),

and a person who committed genocide against the Arabian Jews?

I can quote to you the accepted Muslim sources if you want. Do you really think that such a twisted man can serve as an ideal for all of us today?

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Hueij

Yeah, we all know how great ethnic groups got along in your country these last 100 years...

Considering the extremely high people who have been non-natives to a few generation in the US, past century, I would say they have done fairly well.
That's just me though.

Feel free to show us examples of a countries with as many immigrants who had much less problems (what are the problems exactly anyway)...

[MikeH]

I notice no-one is trying to ban Ninja Chicks from wearing their uniforms. TOO SCARED!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Imran - why are you ignoring that he was actually

a paedophile (Aisha's marriage consummated when she was nine, source being all the Hadith traditions),

As a political marriage, and as we know that marriages are not finalized until consummated. After consummation, he didn't have sex with her until her teens. Pedophile means you like sex with prepubescent kids. Him having sex with one prepubescent for the reasons of consummation of a political marriage is not the same thing.

a marital rapist,

And if this actually did happen was it upheld?

a murderer of his critics (remember that poet he murdered? Or that woman who was killed in her sleep),

Was this really anything different from others at the time? As Elok said, look at the other leaders around.

an iconoclast of the worst sort (the destruction of the idols at Mecca, the destruction of Somnath, which was believed to hold one idol which "escaped" from Mecca, which set the pattern for the destruction of all the major temples of North India),

Iconoclasm is not exactly considered a bad thing in someone trying to create a new religion. It'd probably be par for the course, I'd imagine.

and a person who committed genocide against the Arabian Jews?

Those who sold out his army and were killed after a judicial ruling?

Do you really think that such a twisted man can serve as an ideal for all of us today?

So do you consider everyone who was not born during modern morals to be such 'twisted men' who cannot be followed?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MikeH
I notice no-one is trying to ban Ninja Chicks from wearing their uniforms. TOO SCARED!

It's the same reason PETA people don't throw paint on bikers wearing leather jackets.

[Lul Thyme]

I think there are two issues that need to be separated.

1. Should burkas and such symbols be bannable if they are found "oppresive"?

2. Should burkas and such symbols be bannable if they are found to be "security concerns"?

For example, some people are in favor of banning burkas for security reasons, just like say ski masks in certain situation.

Now, in very "tolerant" places, like Quebec say, they will even allow "religious" symbols to disregard rules.

There have been recent cases for example where students were allowed to wear ceremonial weapons to school.

In such places, the answer is two no's.
In France, it seems closer to two yes.
But you will also find people who will defend a yes and no.
Basically, you can wear whatever symbol you want, as long as it follows the already existing rules.
For example, if there is a rule no masks in bank, wearing a religious mask doesn't make it an exception.
I'm closer to this last view point.
So in a way, I think we are a bit too tolerant in Quebec and maybe in Canada in general.

[MikeH]

Beating women for not wearing a burqua is wrong, and it's against the law.

Banning burqua's to prevent that happening is the wrong solution to the problem.

Some women genuinely do choose (ie. not be forced) to wear a burqua for religious reasons and they should be allowed to do so.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme


Considering the extremely high people

Who are these people, and what made them extremely high?