Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Burka. Should wearing it be banned?

Options
1…89111314…26

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    LeoB wrote: »
    I actually discussed this thread with 2 people after a meeting this evening and both said they found it intimadating. I dont I just dont like it being worn in public in Ireland

    There's a number of things I find intimidating about other people on the street, things I don't like people wearing in public, and so forth.

    Without any details on what these things are, can you say whether or not it would be sufficient grounds to ban these things if enough people felt the same as me? Would it be reasonable of me to campaign to have such things banned, to try and gain this support?

    The reason I'm not giving details is because the principle should be seperated from the actual instance. If a sufficient number of people find something intimidating or they don't like it, is that grounds to ban it from public usage/display. If you feel the answer is yes, regardless, how many people do we need? A voting majority in a referendum? A vocal minority who can sway a political party? Something else?

    With such questions, its always worthwhile to consider the general case. Once the precedent is set...you may one day find yourself on the receiving end of a similar law. If you feel a minority is sufficient, some minority may take exception to something you like. Will you accept turnabout as fair play?

    (For clarity, I mean "you" in the general sense of "you the reader" as opposed to "you the person I am replying to").


  • Options
    #303
    allisbleak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 100 ✭✭allisbleak


    Laminations wrote: »
    You take your jacket belt and shoes off going through security in the airport, why dont you keep them off?

    Belt holds up trousers if I wore one.

    Shoes are an essential item to protect my feet.
    Laminations wrote: »

    The burqa doesn't restrict vision. Dangerous driving laws apply to everyone.

    Really


  • Options
    #304
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    allisbleak wrote: »
    Belt holds up trousers if I wore one.

    Shoes are an essential item to protect my feet.


    Really

    Ok that restricts vision as much as sunglasses. You can see out but you cant see in.
    Just to be clear i'm against niqabs in many public places, but not cars. I'm not going to start defending burqas, i dont personally agree with them. But like bonkey there are many forms of clothing i dislike. Similar to DF i agree with the right of property owners to decide dress codes, and am often happy to see this happen e.g. Tescos pyjama ban. But this is beyond dislike. I fundamentally disagree with habitual face covering for the reasons i've stated. My argument about niqabs stem from the belief that public spaces should not be privatised or dehumanised. I'm not anti-freedom of expression or anti- muslim, it just so happens this form of islamic expression falls under face covering. As it is, the tiny number of women wearing niqabs in ireland makes this a non issue.


  • Options
    #305
    fontanalis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You forgot about the free cars. Or has the supply of free cars dried up due to the current economic climate?

    Immigrants are not entitled to anything that Irish citizens are not entitled to. Non-EU immigrants are entitled to significantly less.

    Don't bother, it's like talking to a brick wall. All that is wrong in Ireland will be soon laid at the feet of immigrants. From his previous posts it seems he thinks that Ireland used to be a land of unique snowflakes as laid out by Dev.


  • Options
    #306
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    allisbleak wrote: »
    Laminations wrote: »
    The burqa doesn't restrict vision. Dangerous driving laws apply to everyone.
    Really

    https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/307289/104880.jpg
    At the risk of sounding pedantic, that's not a burqa. It's a chadri - rarely seen outside Afghanistan and rural areas in North-West Pakistan.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    allisbleak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 100 ✭✭allisbleak


    djpbarry wrote: »
    At the risk of sounding pedantic, that's not a burqa. It's a chadri - rarely seen outside Afghanistan and rural areas in North-West Pakistan.

    Thanks for the correction.

    Have you ever been to london?, whats the full black one called then with gauze, how de fuk could anyone drive with that.


  • Options
    #308
    allisbleak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 100 ✭✭allisbleak


    Laminations wrote: »
    Ok that restricts vision as much as sunglasses.

    I think you will find it is like wearing a set of blinkers, your spacial awareness would be compromised.


  • Options
    #309
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    allisbleak wrote: »
    I think you will find it is like wearing a set of blinkers, your spacial awareness would be compromised.

    Is this from personal experience of wearing one? If that is the case it would be dealt with the same as any other unsuitable eye wear that may result in reduced spatial awareness and/or dangerous driving


  • Options
    #310
    LeoB
    Registered Users Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭LeoB


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    Are you sure you're not racist?

    100% not racist. I have got off my backside and tried to put cases forward for needy Irish and saw what was happening. It came accross to me had they been non-national they would have been better looked after. I also helped make a case for a non national family who were having problems. I may have generalised a bit so may have come accross the wrong way.

    Its a fine line but I am sure I am the right side of it.


  • Options
    #311
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    LeoB wrote: »
    It came accross to me had they been non-national they would have been better looked after.

    I know you do not mean it in a derogatory sense, and I realise its a bit PC of me but the term is foreign nationals as they do have a nationality.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    fontanalis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    LeoB wrote: »
    100% not racist. I have got off my backside and tried to put cases forward for needy Irish and saw what was happening. It came accross to me had they been non-national they would have been better looked after. I also helped make a case for a non national family who were having problems. I may have generalised a bit so may have come accross the wrong way.

    Its a fine line but I am sure I am the right side of it.

    More of offering a scenario without evidence, big difference.


  • Options
    #313
    LeoB
    Registered Users Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭LeoB


    fontanalis wrote: »
    More of offering a scenario without evidence, big difference.
    .

    There is plenty of evidence of what I see and I see it every day. I could not just make up stories and post them here or anywhere else. And its not urban myth as some politicans will like us to believe.

    Back to O.P I am still against the Burka being wore in public. And not for racist reasons.


  • Options
    #314
    allisbleak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 100 ✭✭allisbleak


    Laminations wrote: »
    Is this from personal experience of wearing one? If that is the case it would be dealt with the same as any other unsuitable eye wear that may result in reduced spatial awareness and/or dangerous driving

    Exactly, it is unsuitable to wear while driving.


  • Options
    #315
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    allisbleak wrote: »
    Exactly, it is unsuitable to wear while driving.

    Exactly, so there are laws in place and if that is the case then it would be dealt with under those laws. So there is no issue here.


  • Options
    #316
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    I think its a question of respecting religious freedom and tradition versus what some might see today as an abusive practise. Are these women being treated in a manner repugnant to many people in the west? According to those people in the west, yes. According to these women and their attendant faith, no.

    So really, when you drill down to the basic issue people in the west don't so much have a problem with the burqa or any problems with driving safety, intimidation etc as with the fabric of faith and society that supports and perpetuates its use.

    To take things to another extreme, lets look at a group like Scientology. Ostensibly a religion, but steps are being taken to outlaw it completely as a dangerous cult in Germany and France, as well as other countries. Adherents to Scientology and those within its systems would no doubt strenuously deny that they were being mistreated or abused in any way. This is as a result of their being isolated by the cult and effectively sealed off from the rest of society, which creates vulnerability which cult leaders are more than happy to exploit.

    Does this mean that certain groups within Islam could be seen in a similar fashion? Thats for each person to answer for themselves, in my opinion, but it won't change anything unless enough people feel strongly enough about it.

    Make no mistake however, the question is about Islamic sects, not headdresses.

    My sister in law is married to an Egyptian Muslim by the way, doesn't have to wear a burqa or otherwise adjust her beliefs, and has a perfectly happy relationship with several children.


  • Options
    #317
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #318
    allisbleak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 100 ✭✭allisbleak


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Agree 100%
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    But should they have the right to wear it because only religion dictates that its so. Thats where I have an issue.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    How can we?
    We come from a country destoyed by delusional religious values, where 2 factions of the same religion murdered close to 4,000 of their own people. We cannot even convince the % of religious nuts in this land that there whole bible and religion is made up. FFS Our primary schools are still controlled by the biggest paedo ring the world has ever known.


  • Options
    #319
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    allisbleak wrote: »
    ... We come from a country destoyed by delusional religious values, where 2 factions of the same religion murdered close to 4,000 of their own people...

    Religious values had nothing to do with the conflict in NI.


  • Options
    #320
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #321
    DogmaticLefty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 265 ✭✭DogmaticLefty


    I'm thinking of hiring this guy.

    crazy-tattoo_1822.jpg

    I'd say he'd be good with customer interfacing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    allisbleak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 100 ✭✭allisbleak


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Sorry my point is that religion is a fictional delusion. So the wearing of a cross or burqa is insane.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    We are not a minority anymore, 61% of people want separation of church. I would love to see a poll on removing the church in its entirety.

    Just think every single day there are more and more of us and less of them.

    I would love to know how many atheists live here now. Its gotta be more than 20% of the population.


  • Options
    #323
    MikeC101
    Registered Users Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭MikeC101


    allisbleak wrote: »
    Sorry my point is that religion is a fictional delusion. So the wearing of a cross or burqa is insane.

    While I'd be inclined to agree with you on this - it's still their choice to believe what they do and act accordingly, and I really don't want the state mandating otherwise.


  • Options
    #324
    allisbleak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 100 ✭✭allisbleak


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    I think its a question of respecting religious freedom and tradition .

    How can you respect religion?

    If everyone person on the planet believed in the same god and rules then maybe.

    But surely the fact that at most only 1 billion people could be right, that means the rest are delusional. At those odds surely the whole lot is delusional. Why is it tolerated. Why are the facts kept from people.
    Amhran Nua wrote: »

    To take things to another extreme, lets look at a group like Scientology. Ostensibly a religion, but steps are being taken to outlaw it completely as a dangerous cult in Germany and France, as well as other countries. Adherents to Scientology and those within its systems would no doubt strenuously deny that they were being mistreated or abused in any way. This is as a result of their being isolated by the cult and effectively sealed off from the rest of society, which creates vulnerability which cult leaders are more than happy to exploit.

    I see no difference between scientology and any other religion.


  • Options
    #325
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #326
    DogmaticLefty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 265 ✭✭DogmaticLefty


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    The atheist regime have tried it though. My opinion is that they need to be kept at arms length in society.


  • Options
    #327
    MikeC101
    Registered Users Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭MikeC101


    DogmaticLefty wrote: »
    The atheist regime have tried it though. My opinion is that they need to be kept at arms length in society.

    I have a feeling I might regret asking this, but what atheist regime?


    (Edit: I'm wondering if we're in "Stalinist / Nazi regime = Atheist regime territory?)


  • Options
    #328
    DogmaticLefty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 265 ✭✭DogmaticLefty


    MikeC101 wrote: »
    I have a feeling I might regret asking this, but what atheist regime?

    Here's what Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn has to say on the great tragedies that occurred under the brutal regime he and his fellow citizens suffered under:

    "Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.'

    Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."


  • Options
    #329
    MikeC101
    Registered Users Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭MikeC101


    It doesn't logically follow that because Stalin was an atheist, atheism bears any blame for the atrocities he perpetrated. He had people killed because they were seen as threats to the establishment and maintenance of communism in Russia. Equally, the Orthodox Church in Russia was a rival for power, another reason for followers to be purged - though in pursuit, and consolidation, of power rather than anything else. In essence, atheism was only promoted because of it's lack of an ideology. Any other ideology was a rival to communism, and thus couldn't be tolerated.

    It's a basic association fallacy - Stalin was an atheist, Stalin was bad, therefore atheism is bad.

    Ironically, the people carrying out those orders were exhibiting blind obedience and loyalty to their dogma of choice, which happened to be communism. No critical thinking or scepticism in evidence there. Atheism is the absence a belief in a God or Gods - other than that there aren't any set beliefs, tenets or dogma, so how anyone can blame it, or link it, to atrocities such as those committed by Stalin, I don't know. If anything, communism was too similar to a religion (or cult): believe it's dogma at all costs, don't question it, do as you're told.

    A society that perpetrates such atrocities is not one that follows reason, or that allows critical thinking, it's one mired in dogma, and personality cults.


  • Options
    #330
    DogmaticLefty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 265 ✭✭DogmaticLefty


    MikeC101 wrote: »
    It doesn't logically follow that because Stalin was an atheist, atheism bears any blame for the atrocities he perpetrated. He had people killed because they were seen as threats to the establishment and maintenance of communism in Russia.
    It's great having an ad-hoc belief system without a top-down hierarchy isn't it? It allows for the perception that atheism can do no wrong and is inherently good.
    MikeC101 wrote: »
    Equally, the Orthodox Church in Russia was a rival for power, another reason for followers to be purged - though in pursuit, and consolidation, of power rather than anything else. In essence, atheism was only promoted because of it's lack of an ideology. Any other ideology was a rival to communism, and thus couldn't be tolerated.
    So it's communism and not atheism that's to blame now eh? You should look more closely at who was in charge. I blame those responsible for the communist regime and they were, by all accounts, Church-haters, racists as well as staunch atheists.
    MikeC101 wrote: »
    It's a basic association fallacy - Stalin was an atheist, Stalin was bad, therefore atheism is bad.
    His ideology failed. Miserably. He also killed millions along the way. The Church has had many wars too, but the difference is that we won.
    MikeC101 wrote: »
    Ironically, the people carrying out those orders were exhibiting blind obedience and loyalty to their dogma of choice, which happened to be communism. No critical thinking or scepticism in evidence there.
    I wonder how many Christians made it into the higher ranks? Not to many I can assure you. They were supressed. Some were put in prison and tortured.
    MikeC101 wrote: »
    Atheism is the absence a belief in a God or Gods - other than that there aren't any set beliefs, tenets or dogma, so how anyone can blame it, or link it, to atrocities such as those committed by Stalin, I don't know. If anything, communism was too similar to a religion (or cult): believe it's dogma at all costs, don't question it, do as you're told.
    I love the way atheists just throw their hands up in the air when their regimes go wrong and claim they weren't ideologically driven. I once knew a Chinese girl whose father is very senior in the Communist Party. If you don't conform to atheism, you won't last very long in that party.
    MikeC101 wrote: »
    A society that perpetrates such atrocities is not one that follows reason, or that allows critical thinking, it's one mired in dogma, and personality cults.
    Atheism is dogmatic. Don't try and claim otherwise. There's the dogma of the scientific method for starters - a fundamental tenant of your belief.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    MikeC101
    Registered Users Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭MikeC101


    DogmaticLefty wrote: »
    It's great having an ad-hoc belief system without a top-down hierarchy isn't it? It allows for the perception that atheism can do no wrong and is inherently good.

    It does appear you've an axe to grind with atheism, and you seem more interested in point scoring than actual discussion, but I'll give it a shot.

    I don't see atheism as being inherently anything, either good or bad. You're ascribing beliefs to me that I don't have. Atheism, as I perceive it, is nothing more than the absence of belief in a god or gods. There's no morality that follows from it. It doesn't follow that it can do wrong, or right. There does appear to be, however, a correlation with rational thinking and scepticism.

    So what if I don't have a belief system with a top-down hierarchy? Am I required to have this for some reason?
    DogmaticLefty wrote: »
    So it's communism and not atheism that's to blame now eh? You should look more closely at who was in charge. I blame those responsible for the communist regime and they were, by all accounts, Church-haters, racists as well as staunch atheists.

    It's the leaders and adherents to communism that were to blame, yes. And their followers who carried out the orders from above. Who else would it be? But they weren't doing so in the name of atheism, much as you'd like to believe it. They were following the dogma of communism, and dedicated to wiping out anything - including rational thinking and scientific method where it didn't suit them (see Stalin and his opinion on Darwin) - that they thought might rival communism.
    DogmaticLefty wrote: »
    His ideology failed. Miserably. He also killed millions along the way. The Church has had many wars too, but the difference is that we won.

    Eh...right. What wars are you referring to? To be honest, I'm not sure where this is going...

    DogmaticLefty wrote: »
    I wonder how many Christians made it into the higher ranks? Not to many I can assure you. They were supressed. Some were put in prison and tortured.

    Yes, for the reasons I've already said. No ideology allowed but Communism. By default someone who has no religious ideology is an atheist - but it doesn't follow that atheism was in any way a motivator to members of the communist party.
    DogmaticLefty wrote: »
    I love the way atheists just throw their hands up in the air when their regimes go wrong and claim they aren't ideologically driven. I once knew a Chinese girl whose father is very senior in the Communist Party. If you don't conform to atheism, you won't last very long in that party.

    It's not my regime. I have no time for communism or totalitarianism. I'm not sure of the relevance, but I knew a girl whose mother was very senior in the Chinese Communist party. Again, no ideologies but communism allowed. But a lot of your claims seem to hinge on the idea that there's a homogenous group of people with identical "atheist beliefs". That's very flawed thinking.
    DogmaticLefty wrote: »
    Atheism is dogmatic. Don't try and claim otherwise. There's the dogma of the scientific method for starters - a fundamental tenant of your belief.

    I believe in sceptical thinking, rationality and constant re-evaluation and of accepted ideas. I see no evidence of a deity, so I don't believe in one. But I remain open to the idea - If I'm ever presented with evidence I'd have to re-evaluate.

    The only reason I refer to myself as an atheist is because I don't believe in a deity. I have no interest in trying to convert people to my way of thinking and no desire to promote atheism as a "better" system or morally superior. As long as it doesn't hurt other people, everyone else can do as they please, and it won't bother me.


Advertisement