The Burka. Should wearing it be banned?

MikeC101

Valmont wrote: »

A-s-s-o-c-i-a-t-i-o-n Fallacy.

Exactly - how somebody decides that the common link between people who are all members of the Communist Party (the hint is in the name I would have thought) is atheism and thus atheism is responsible for atrocities committed to maintain the sway of communism is beyond me.

Scofflaw

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

I'd say the pair of ye would be great with the customers too.

DogmaticLefty banned for a week for derailing the thread, soapboxing, personalising the discussion, posting AH-style picture rubbish, and general trolling and fighting. If you start again when you come back, we can up it to permanent.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Amhran Nua

allisbleak wrote: »

How can you respect religion?

You don't need to respect religion to respect people.

allisbleak wrote: »

I see no difference between scientology and any other religion.

The difference is in the treatment of its constituents and its interactions with wider society. This isn't a question of whether or not belief in a god is right, wrong or indifferent, its a question of whether or not one group of people is abusing another group of people, within our sphere of influence, in a recognisable fashion, no pun intended.

DF hit the nail directly on the head with his point about reaching out to these sects and making them aware of alternatives, this is the right way to do it - so is it right to enact legislation to force them to listen to these alternatives if they refuse to let their membership hear?

allisbleak

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The point is that religion isn't true. Its false.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I just want people to think for themselves !

Amhran Nua wrote: »

You don't need to respect religion to respect people.

We don't need religion at all. It serves no purpose.

allisbleak

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

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

Thats rich, considering the catholic church is the biggest paedo ring on the planet. There were the largest exporter of stolen children to the highest bidder.

Amhran Nua

allisbleak wrote: »

We don't need religion at all. It serves no purpose.

Neither does art or culture.

allisbleak

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Neither does art or culture.

But art and culture is not a delusion that is forced down our throats, it broadens our minds and provides an intellectual interest.

Religion is false. The bible is an unproven mess, so much so that even biblical scholars do not know who wrote it.

Amhran Nua

allisbleak wrote: »

But art and culture is not a delusion that is forced down our throats, it broadens our minds and provides an intellectual interest.

Some might say the same applies to religion - indeed religion is a subset of culture, the traditions that make one group of people unique in their outlook and way of life. Regardless, this is moving away from the topic of the thread.

allisbleak

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Regardless, this is moving away from the topic of the thread.

I agree, but it was by your direction.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Some might say the same applies to religion

Definitely not

Amhran Nua wrote: »

- indeed religion is a subset of culture, the traditions that make one group of people unique in their outlook and way of life.

Religion is a delusion that preys on the minds of weak willed individuals.

Amhran Nua

I know I should probably drop it here, but...

allisbleak wrote: »

I agree, but it was by your direction.

Take a look at posts 340 and 341 for the divergence point there.

allisbleak wrote: »

Religion is a delusion that preys on the minds of weak willed individuals.

Religion can be used by predators to prey on the vulnerable in some unfortunate cases, but so can any philosophy, as we have observed historically with National Socialism, Communism, and so on; that does not mean that religion isn't a form of cultural expression or entirely without merit.

allisbleak

Amhran Nua wrote: »

that does not mean that religion isn't a form of cultural expression or entirely without merit.

It is ENTIRELY WITHOUT MERIT

But back to the thread. The burqa should be banned. There is far too much tolerence shown to religion.

GuanYin

MOD POST

This is the Politics forum. As such, it isn't the place to discuss the validity of someone's deity or pass comment on someone's belief. If you want to discuss someone's right to worship or believe, that might be OK in Politics (but not this thread) but otherwise, be respectful of other posters or you will pick up an infraction, if not a ban.

Consider this the last warning to this effect on the thread.

This has been a public service announcement sponsored by GuanYin

irishconvert

allisbleak wrote: »

It is ENTIRELY WITHOUT MERIT

But back to the thread. The burqa should be banned. There is far too much tolerence shown to religion.

What is the problem with tolerating something which doesn't harm you personally?

Laminations

http://www.theage.com.au/world/strangebuttrue/groom-goes-to-kiss-bride---and-discovers-she-is-bearded-20100211-nsrg.html

I rest my case

Seriously though, a few points

irishconvert wrote: »

What is the problem with tolerating something which doesn't harm you personally?

It harms society (for the reasons I have stated). As I am a member of society it harms me.

People continue to compare the niqab to other types of clothing, it is not comparable to a hat or a head scarf or a bikini. It is comparable to other forms of face covering (balaclava ,ninja mask) and even then this comparison is not ideal as many forms of face covering have criminal associations/connotations. It is not about the motives/beliefs or desires of the person who covers their face, it is whether or not it is acceptable in society. Now there are very very few cases of women wearing the niqab so its not really an issue but whether something is right or wrong in a society shouldn't be determined by number of instances.

For example, one person flashing in public is both illegal and wrong. What if it wasn't illegal? would it still be wrong?
We've never had habitual face covering here so its never been an issue and still isn't an issue (in terms of numbers) but people continue to bring up decency without knowing its proper meaning.

Example:

bonkey wrote: »

You're identifying a cultural value (decency) which is clearly defined in both our society and law (if memory serves), and asking whether or not it would be a problem to allow someone to violate that.

I'm saying that face covering is against the established traditions and values of this society. Its indecent attire for public spaces - the definition of decency being the generally accepted rules of respectable or moral behaviour.

If you can personally argue against the morality of the thing...

Example:

donegalfella wrote: »

My personal view (as an atheist) is that the niqab, and the entire worldview that underpins it, is based on a religious archetype of female sexuality as something sinister that must be kept under control lest it destabilize the societal order. I'm not in favour of that world view, and I am vehemently opposed to the idea of compelling women to wear these garments, under threat of state punishment.

...then you should be able to argue that it is unsuitable for this society (on the grounds of decency).

If a culture came to Ireland that had a religion whose members shrieked constantly, this would also fall foul of decency (but there is probably not a law against it). Laws are usually made in response to an issue, face covering has never been an issue here before and like I said, numbers wise, it probably still isn't.


You also bring up the idea of respecting traditions

Example:

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Respect works both ways. When traditions clash, the merits or purposes of both need to be addressed. A religious reason cannot automatically trump a secular reason.

As for tolerance, I've seen what a facade that is here, when the thread is derailed the religious and non-religious go hells bells at each other. It appears that people think it apt to tolerate on the surface but underneath have very little respect for the autonomy of a person and their beliefs.

The moderators stepped in on this issue.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Good suggestion, is it practical? I'd love to see you try and convince a woman to take off the niqab...how would you even begin that argument of persuasion? This coulkd work with a che guevara tshirt (i'e' a preference issue) but I don't think it'd work when there are two clashing traditions.

Do you wear shoes?
Yes.
Would you take them off in a friends house to protect the carpet?
I assume so.
Would to take them off in a temple to observe the wishes of the temple folk?
I assume so.
Not much persuasion necessary so far.
Now what if you believed wearing your shoes was Gods wishes and brought you closer to God?
What could I say to convince you otherwise? And how would you act in the temple? Do you think they should allow you keep your shoes on or that if your belief is so strong you should just stay out of the temple to respect their views??

Its not as simple as comparing this to goths or che guevara tshirts or any other desirable or undesirable clothing, intimidating or not.

irishconvert

Laminations wrote: »

It harms society (for the reasons I have stated). As I am a member of society it harms me.

Forgive me if I don't have time to read through your 75 posts in this thread. Care to summarise how it harms society for me?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If I am a member of society and society is harmed then I am harmed, being offended is a separate issue. Plenty offends me.

How is society harmed?
Is trust, cooperation and communication important for society?
Facial expression is important for these things
Read
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1535/3453.abstract
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122459202/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://socialcapital.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/would-i-lie-to-you-engineering-trust-with-your-face/
http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/News/2009/News/WTX055260.htm

There is evidence from psychology and behavioural economics that support the importance of the face in social interaction.

donegalfella wrote: »

So if even one woman is spotted wearing a niqab, the Dáil should pass emergency legislation against the practice?

Nope. Its not a pressing issue at all.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

sorry what? I am aware there is no legislation, hence it is not currently illegal to cover the face, hence the 'should' in the thread title...there is a legal definition of indencency and a social definition. Can you only argue about right and wrong on the basis of legality?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Do we have the tradition of covering our faces in public?
No. Then the converse applies.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I've underlined the part where you are misunderstanding me

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think if people are going to live together they need to do more than just tolerate each other. Mutual respect of customs and traditions, cooperation and compromises and COMMUNICATION

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And? Even now the majority of muslim imams and scholars say the niqab is not necessary for the faith. Your example suggests things are getting worse and not better. Is this the result of rational suasion?

I notice you refrained from commenting about your holy shoes? Would you go in the temple??

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So you do think niqabs are restrictive? what is it they restrict?

Laminations

Ok so this lady sums up my argument, quite amazingly I haven't read this before but it echoes almost everything I've said (although she is far more eloquent and thoughtful in her argument)

For conservatives who can’t get past the sanctity of the individual’s right to freedom of expression, they might reconsider full coverage as less an expression issue than a public decency issue.
Normally we think of decency as a unilateral phenomenon involving too little body coverage. In private we may wear or not wear whatever we want. But we don’t allow public nudity, and there are bodily functions that are natural or appropriate in private that we do not permit in public.
In the last few years, since I have been exposed to the sight of real women in full cover walking in my own neighborhood — not many, but it didn’t take many to stimulate interrogation of my reflexive discomfort in their presence — I had never considered that decency is not a static phenomenon, but runs along a spectrum.
On one end of the spectrum is public nakedness. It’s forbidden. There are nudists for whom nakedness is a philosophical imperative, but they have always been, and will always be, a quirky fringe group at the margins of society. They compliantly confine themselves to designated enclaves because they understand it is unreasonable for them to claim the right to impose the sight of their nakedness on others for whom public nakedness is indecent.
For the same reason, there is no need to tell people they may wear bikinis on a beach but not in a courthouse or house of worship. Everyone is well aware of the rising stringency of propriety codes according to the degree of gravitas conferred by the setting or institution.
Moving to the opposite side of the spectrum, we find that the psychological discomfort we feel in seeing a person with exposed genitals in public is similar to what we feel in the presence of someone with the face fully covered. Outside of ski slopes, men in ski masks are threatening and nobody has a problem saying so. Curiously, although not in the same sense — we don’t fear physical aggression from covered women as we do covered men — people also find covered women psychologically threatening. But we don’t like to admit that, because we can’t articulate why this should be so.
I have come to believe that our discomfort with covered women relates directly to our sense of public decency. On the naked end of the decency spectrum, there is too much intimacy for comfort; on the fully covered end there is too much mystery for comfort. Too little coverage provokes disgust; too much coverage provokes anxiety. Nakedness projects the uncomfortable image of the human being as an animal; full coverage evokes the image of the human being as an object. That is why most people intuitively adjust their clothing to the middle of the decency spectrum to meet the psychological needs of their fellows — and to have their own met in return.

Read her full blog post here

Laminations

It is no use pretending fully covered women do no harm to the social fabric. They arouse internal disturbance: a mixture of pity, guilt, fear (of the men who own them), and resentment, the last because in any encounter with them we feel shunned. Thus any Westerner privileged to live according to the value of gender equality, as most of us do, who says that the sight of a woman in full coverage neither upsets nor offends him or her is either lying or has no heart.

Although I still think 'offend' is too strong a word with negative connotations.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How is society harmed by one person getting their junk out?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm not talking about 'many things'. Each 'thing' has to be debated separately under their own merits

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So our pluralist nation has deleted all traces of Irish tradition. How can you define nation without recognition of its traditions?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There are plenty of things I respect about muslims. This issue, I fundamentally disagree with - thats compromise. I'm not arguing against other forms of expression. In fact it was you who posted against minarets.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Maybe Eygpt has more fundamentalist clerics than elsewhere? who knows.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Still avoiding the question.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They seem analogous in terms of psychological distress.Or does genital exposure harm one in another non-psychological way?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This cant be compared to other clothing.

GuanYin

I like the idea put forward that wearing a burqa is reverse analogous to wearing a bikini or being nude in a public place, purely because it highlights the real issue here, which is intolerance.

Some cultures don't wear clothing and as such are considered freak shows or savages while some groups, such as nudists, are seen as weird freaks. The fact is, mostly, these people have either grown up in a way where modern conservative ideas on nudity either don't exists, don't apply or have simply been ignored. They're branded because the majority (western culture) doesn't like it when people don't follow their idealisms and that's exactly what is happening with the burqa.

Whatever way you want to dress it up, the real reason that people object is because they want "them" to be more like "us". Assimilation is human nature and cultures are generally wary of other culture - "why would you want to live like that, when you can live like this?".

The unfortunate thing is, this kind of mentality is mostly left over from British colonialism and really belongs back in those days, if not earlier. It amuses me that those citing progress and casting off the old superstitions of religion are trying to impose values and morals that are as deep rooted in old fashioned religious conservatism as any idea you can find.

The point on assimilation is something that has really been driven forward my commercialism in modern society. We clone each other, you see hundreds of kids each day dressing the same, talking the same, those that don't are cast out and ridiculed, even persecuted. We create icons and we clone them, we worship them, we want to be them, see how long after the Oscars you see 20 variations of cloned generic brand dresses of the clothes on the red carpet.

The amusing thing is, many of the same people who would agree with my dismay for these kids of things and see themselves as intellectually above it all, are the same people doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING, in their attempts to safeguard the position of their own culture as king of the hill. It the same way of thinking, it's the same implications, just on a different scale.

Laminations

GuanYin wrote: »

I like the idea put forward that wearing a burqa is reverse analogous to wearing a bikini or being nude in a public place, purely because it highlights the real issue here, which is intolerance.

Some cultures don't wear clothing and as such are considered freak shows or savages while some groups, such as nudists, are seen as weird freaks. The fact is, mostly, these people have either grown up in a way where modern conservative ideas on nudity either don't exists, don't apply or have simply been ignored. They're branded because the majority (western culture) doesn't like it when people don't follow their idealisms and that's exactly what is happening with the burqa.

Whatever way you want to dress it up, the real reason that people object is because they want "them" to be more like "us". Assimilation is human nature and cultures are generally wary of other culture - "why would you want to live like that, when you can live like this?".

The unfortunate thing is, this kind of mentality is mostly left over from British colonialism and really belongs back in those days, if not earlier. It amuses me that those citing progress and casting off the old superstitions of religion are trying to impose values and morals that are as deep rooted in old fashioned religious conservatism as any idea you can find.

The point on assimilation is something that has really been driven forward my commercialism in modern society. We clone each other, you see hundreds of kids each day dressing the same, talking the same, those that don't are cast out and ridiculed, even persecuted. We create icons and we clone them, we worship them, we want to be them, see how long after the Oscars you see 20 variations of cloned generic brand dresses of the clothes on the red carpet.

The amusing thing is, many of the same people who would agree with my dismay for these kids of things and see themselves as intellectually above it all, are the same people doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING, in their attempts to safeguard the position of their own culture as king of the hill. It the same way of thinking, it's the same implications, just on a different scale.

Hmmm, quite a hypocritical point you make."why would you want to live like that, when you can live like this?
Your counter to this is why live like a clone when we can all be individuals? Thats your view, fine. Its not good enough to try and champion your cultural values just for the sake of it, I agree, but it is valid if there is evidence some customs 'damage the fabric of society'. Yes there are 'norms' in every society, some anthropologists would suggest you can never debate someone elses customs or culture - when cultures live together, this view will inevitably lead to conflict. So not only are you against legislative restrictions but also the rational suasion argument of DF??

I'd be less against nudism than I am against face covering, there is no arguments about trust, cooperation or communication when debating nudism. It is simply the generalisation of disgust from food stuffs to animal parts to all things that remind us of our primative connections to apes, thats the reasons behind our abhorance to public nudity.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

bleedinrapidbud

Nobody in Ireland should have a problem with Muslim women wearin head-dress for the simple fact that if you walk up any town in the country your bound to meet a group of traveler girls wearin next to nothin.

Yet nobody would say boo to them cause they'd beat ya up with their really high-high heels:eek:

Anyway if they tried to ban Muslim head-dress they'd have to ban baseball caps and beanie hats wouldn't they

Its not a religious thing its freedom of expression thing

sparkling sea

Wearing a burka should definitely be banned as its original purpose was to hide woman. It is a symbol of the desexualistion of women - why - because as with most religious symbols created by male dominated religions, the burka was used as a mechanism for restricting women - hiding them.

Women have fought hard for their rights, they have progressed further in western society for all sorts of reasons and allowing any traditions that would in anyway suggest that a women is a lesser being either covertly or overtly should be banned - full stop.