The Burka. Should wearing it be banned?

sparkling sea

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

My point relates to the burka and several people including me have already explained how the harm is caused.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh dont mind me... I like the way you use inverted commas there to show you dont buy it at all. Anyway I'm done arguing on this point, people keep comparing face veils to other types of clothing and habitual face covering with situational face covering and blah blah.... And then underlying the 'tolerance' is a simmering abhorrance towards religion (in this case Islam) as a whole. Lovely

Now THIS made me hum a certain Simon and Garfunkel song

djpbarry wrote: »

Have a look at this photo, taken at a wedding I recently attended in Lahore; the second woman from the left is my mother-in-law.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sparkling sea

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I am referring to the many arguements that have been put forward including Laminations arguement.

Its already been established that we disagree on this matter, I feel that it is a fundemental right of all members of society to have full facial contact with all members of society, you it would appear do not

I further believe that wearing of a burka athough a right must be qualified and balanced against the harm this practice does to the cause of the empowerment of all women in relation to gender discrimination. I think the balance should to swayed in favour of the needs of the majority of women and this by extension would mean that the burka should be banned, this would also prevent a turning back of the clock. It appears that you do not feel that you do not feel there is cause for concern.

We don't agree on this issue

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, alcohol is not banned, but it is regulated, it is restricted. I cant go drinking in a creche or for the most part on the street. And again i stress i'm not suggesting a ban on niqabs, only restriction. Alcohol also doesn't harm society, its the abuse of alcohol and the consequenses manifested in behaviour that does the harm. And most of these harmful consequences are illegal- the violence, the public urination, the disorderly conduct. This is the difference, alcohol, like a belief system does no harm- its only the related behaviours that do harm. So i dont see a point in arguing about religion or irrational beliefs. I have no definite evidence that god doesn't exist, nor do i have evidence that covering ones face brings you closer to god. They can believe what they like, i cant criticise anyone or trump their belief system with mine. However we can argue about behaviour. You can believe what you want about covering your face, you just cant do it (in certain places) for the reasons x,y,z

sparkling sea

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As I said we don't appear to agree and to me your points are not valid, they don't follow on when put in context and don't hold with what would objectively be seen as basic presumptions in a democratic society.

Its easy to come up with random answers that ignore points that have been dealt with already and its easy to ignore points that are valid and quash your arguement, but thats not really allowing for proper discussion imo.

anymore

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You are doing a very good job of making the whole burqa arguement ridiculous ! Well done - I thought you well in favour of it ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

anymore

http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2010/02/06/buried-alive-in-turkey%E2%80%94and-under-the-burqa/

In Turkey — a country which was nearly accepted as a member by the European Union — a father and grandfather recently buried Medine Memi, a sixteen-year-old girl, alive — and all because she was seen talking to boys. Medine was repeatedly beaten. She ran to the police but they did not help her. When the men buried her she was “alive and fully conscious



This savage, heartless, primitive act is the ultimate, logical consequence of burying women alive — shrouding them — while they are still allowed to roam the earth. One becomes claustrophobic under the burqa, until one gets used to, indeed becomes dependent upon, being seen as a ghost, a phantom, invisible, not-quite-human, as good as dead

LeoB

anymore wrote: »

http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2010/02/06/buried-alive-in-turkey%E2%80%94and-under-the-burqa/

In Turkey — a country which was nearly accepted as a member by the European Union — a father and grandfather recently buried Medine Memi, a sixteen-year-old girl, alive — and all because she was seen talking to boys. Medine was repeatedly beaten. She ran to the police but they did not help her. When the men buried her she was “alive and fully conscious



This savage, heartless, primitive act is the ultimate, logical consequence of burying women alive — shrouding them — while they are still allowed to roam the earth. One becomes claustrophobic under the burqa, until one gets used to, indeed becomes dependent upon, being seen as a ghost, a phantom, invisible, not-quite-human, as good as dead

I hope you email this to the 166 people in Leinster House and to our Ambassador in Turkey if we have one!

This is scandelous. Sickening.

GuanYin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Firstly, most of those quotes are contextual and refer to a reaction to aggressors. Almost all calls to arms in the Qu'ran refer to aggression against assailants. Yes some of them seem needlessly aggressive, but lets not start pointing fingers at religions who tended to smite unbelievers. You've quoted far too many for me to go through my copy and contextually quote, and it's not really the place for it anyway (I suggest you read the passages rather than the apparent googling for "violence inthe qu'ran" that you appear to have conducted - apologies if I am incorrect on this).

Secondly, as has been pointed out, many other religious texts and historical theological works can be similarly quoted. The Old Testament has equally violent and aggressive texts. Even the New Testament has some passages that could be described as "unforgiving". The Art of War, which is often put forward as a work of theological enlightenment is a military treatise.

Yet the Qu'ran alone (which I might add, was probably not known to most westerners before 911) is singled out as a work of hatred. The MAJORITY of Muslims do NOT believe in the hardline interpretation of the Qu'ran. Take some passages you failed to quote.

For that cause we decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whosoever saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. [5.32]

Do not take life, which Allah has made sacred, except through justice and the law. He orders this so that you may acquire wisdom" [6:151]

Do not take life, which Allah has made sacred, except for a just cause. If anyone is killed unjustly, We allow his heir (to seek justice) but do not allow him to exceed bounds when it comes to taking life, for he is helped [17:33]. (help is taken as referring to law and justice systems)

My point is, that the Qu'ran is an OLD historical text from a time where team X was just as bad as team Y when it came to the cutting off hands and stabbing sides. Now things have changed and there is still a faction of team X cutting off hands (or blowing them off) and everyone remembers and compares to the team X of old, COMPLETELY ignoring the previous actions of team Y and the vast majority of team X who want no part in violence.

Yes, some Muslims read it and understand it to mean kill all in the name of Islam. But you can't hold Islam accountable for that anymore than I can hold you accountable for the actions of the IRA, who carried out their murders in your name.

Amusingly, it seems to me, when Catholics read the Bible, they view it as G for kids, they are quick to point out that it is mostly metaphorical, conveniently forgetting how much of it was put into practice in the past and equally dismissing those who do take it literally as crackpots. But if you try and do the same withe the Qu'ran.....

On top of that, there are factions of western religion who traditions every bit as restrictive as covering your face and in some more harmful).

The point of all this (and now I bring it all on topic) is that a burqa is viewed very much in the context of the general negativity that the west associates with Islam. What I see in this thread pretty much nails that home. So much tenuous reasoning for what is essentially just an inherent cultural prejudice.

I could tell you how some of my family members laugh when they see christian and catholic rituals.

sparkling sea wrote: »

As I said its very difficult to discuss any topic with someone who cherry picks.

Interestingly I was thinking the same of you. I'm still waiting to hear you explain why you feel your beliefs are more important than other people's.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

GuanYin wrote: »

The point of all this (and now I bring it all on topic) is that a burqa is viewed very much in the context of the general negativity that the west associates with Islam. What I see in this thread pretty much nails that home. So much tenuous reasoning for what is essentially just an inherent cultural prejudice.

Sorry whats my issue with hijabs? Whats my issue with djpbarrys mother in law? Whats my issue with islam in general? I dont care what any holy book says, the overwhelming majority of muslims are peaceful. I'm not gonna trade tit for tat like yourself and DF 'laughing' at each others rituals. I will agree that out of all religions, islam takes criticism least well. If you disagree try setting up a muslim equivalent of 'count me out'. I have an issue with habitual face covering in certain areas. I cant argue on the issue of beliefs of whether it brings one closer to god, there is no evidence either way. There is evidence of the detrimental effects of face covering for trust, cooperation and communication.

anymore

[

QUOTE=GuanYin;64524993].
Yes, some Muslims read it and understand it to mean kill all in the name of Islam. But you can't hold Islam accountable for that anymore than I can hold you accountable for the actions of the IRA, who carried out their murders in your name.

Memebrship of the IRA is illegal in the Republic and the Special Court can convoict solely on the evidence of a senior member of the Gardai who attests that the person in question is a memeber of the IRA. This is an example of how ordinary civil rights in a democracy are set aside for the greater good.
So you are right, you cannot hold most irish people accountable for the actions of the IRA.

sparkling sea

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In your opinion - but maybe secular Ireland holds that the impact of this particular religious practice is a direct danger to the struggle for equality of women in Ireland and the fundemental right of all people to be equal supercedes the right of a person to wear a burka. That doesn't mean that other cultural or religious practices aren't as harmful but the thread is entitled -The burka should wearing it be banned.

Any supposed enallage with headscarfs, masks, beards, etc are not valid enallages, please dont retort with them, they are meaningless. Every variable changes the question and the answer

As I don't believe in God, I personally hold the the veiw the religous freedoms and rights should be qualified against the basic right of gender equality and further against the harm cultural or religious freedoms cause to society.

Certain cultural or religious practices may offend people but that is completely different to actually causing harm to people. Offending someone is less serious than harming someone, so the limits imposed should be less severe than those for causing harm.

In the opinion of any authority on gender equality, Ireland is still falling way short of the mark on matters of gender equality, you may disagree with this but academic research will quash your arguement completely.
A burka is a specific tool used by both men and women to close women off from society and by doing so it closes society off from women. Its an accepted practice because of conditioning and we can be conditioned to act against our own development even as adults
Any instrument that takes women out of the equation is harmful - not offensive - harmful. There maybe other instruments in society that are also harmful and should be banned and maybe the next thread can focus on these - this thread is about the burka. It should be banned because although women should have the freedom to wear it, this freedom is constrained because of the harm the wearing of burka and all the problems surronding it causes to the development of society as a whole.
People may disagree that it causes harm and if the majority disagrees then we would have to abide by this discision, however in Western society, at least, it would appear that the majority would wish the burka to be banned. So democratic priciples dictate that - YES - the burka should be banned.

(Any chance I could find out what the gender makeup of moderators is on boards)

ChocolateSauce

GuanYin wrote: »

kill all in the name of Islam. But you can't hold Islam accountable for that .

If a religion tells someone to kill, and they kill for that reason, the religion is responsible. I do blame Islam for most the of problems associated with Islam-Western relations, because their religion teaches them to seek our destruction and tells them that our way of life is inferior to theirs and an affront to god.

wes

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

If a religion tells someone to kill, and they kill for that reason, the religion is responsible. I do blame Islam for most the of problems associated with Islam-Western relations, because their religion teaches them to seek our destruction and tells them that our way of life is inferior to theirs and an affront to god.

So, if we use the same logic. Democracy is to blame for the Iraq war then? After all it was done to spread democracy? Right?

sparkling sea

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

If a religion tells someone to kill, and they kill for that reason, the religion is responsible. I do blame Islam for most the of problems associated with Islam-Western relations, because their religion teaches them to seek our destruction and tells them that our way of life is inferior to theirs and an affront to god.

Irish people were conditioned not only not to question the churchs actions but further to believe that priests, etc where all knowing and righteous and this led to wide spread abuse of children. One of the ten commandments is thou shalt not kill, alot of people involved in alot of wars were and are practising catholics - how do they square the circle - their religion - church - governement - makes exceptions and changes the rules and value systems, however its still in breach of the core principles of the religion.

Is it really the founding principles of any religion that allows people to kill, or is it just rules and/or interpretations passed by the ruling bodies within any given religion at any given time to allow for killing - almost always to allow for political expediency of one form or another. Crusades, jihads, etc.

irishconvert

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I do blame Islam for most the of problems associated with Islam-Western relations, because their religion teaches them to seek our destruction .

Aaah come on, you are taking the piss now. Do you have any idea about Islam at all apart from the propaganda you read on anti-Islam websites?

Raiser

blueeyedboy wrote: »

Yes it should be banned.

From a security point of view especially in airports, public places, sensitive security buildings

What has the wearer to hide, they are in a western socirty and should respect that society and its customs.

I lived in London for many years and think the English were very tolerant people to put up with people wearing burkas especially after 7/7 terrorist bombings on the Tube and Bus system in London

Some good points made there......

ChocolateSauce

wes wrote: »

So, if we use the same logic. Democracy is to blame for the Iraq war then? After all it was done to spread democracy? Right?

What teaching of democracy calls for its supporters to kill?

Also, let us not forget that Bush has said that god (Christianity) told him to do it, and that the forces of gog and magog were gathering in the middle east.

sparklingsea wrote:

s it really the founding principles of any religion that allows people to kill, or is it just rules and/or interpretations passed by the ruling bodies within any given religion at any given time to allow for killing -

It is the founding principle. Donegalfella has already provided many passages from the Quran which justifies killing under many different circumstances. The Bible has similar passages. Tell me, if the holy books are not the founding principles of the religions, what are?

Irishconvert wrote:

Aaah come on, you are taking the piss now. Do you have any idea about Islam at all apart from the propaganda you read on anti-Islam websites?

You'll know when I'm taking the piss because I'll leave a smily somewhere;)

Seriously though, I formulated my opinion of Islam by myself; I don't need a website to tell me what I'm already thinking. I feel that I can back up everything I say about Islam by reference to either the Quran, or the actions of Islamists who cite the Quran as their guide.

As for Muslims who are not Islamists (honourable men and women like these guys), I have nothing to fling at them, except that I think they are deluding themselves to think they can be Muslim and at the same time disregard large swaths of the Quran (the same goes for Christians, et al); they believe in the one true god, but they don't believe in the book which is required to be believed in by Muslims. Either it is the word of god or it isn't; if it is, they shouldn't disregard a word, if it isn't, why pay it any heed at all?

Not that I have a problem with that, it's their life, and unlike the Saudi's, and unlike the French, they don't want to tell women what they can and cannot wear.

anymore

irishconvert wrote: »

Aaah come on, you are taking the piss now. Do you have any idea about Islam at all apart from the propaganda you read on anti-Islam websites?

I ponder on the subject every time I pass through airport security - nothing like a physical rub down to remind you to ask yourself why it is happening..?

Laminations

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

As for Muslims who are not Islamists (honourable men and women like these guys), I have nothing to fling at them,

Dont get those guys confused with these guys

Very similar acronyms...

Apologies to anyone who opens that link in work

wes

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

What teaching of democracy calls for its supporters to kill?

According to the Bush and Blair it did, and not to mention a great deal of pro-Intervention types.

The US democracy, was created via war, the French Repbublic as well, the British democracy was also created via war. Seems to me war and democracy often go hand in hand.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Also, let us not forget that Bush has said that god (Christianity) told him to do it, and that the forces of gog and magog were gathering in the middle east.

So it was God and Democracy whom are at fault then? There were multiple reasons for the Iraq war, so it does get confusing, but it was most certainly partially done in the name of democracy, as per your own logic, democracy is responsible.

ChocolateSauce

wes wrote: »

According to the Bush and Blair it did, and not to mention a great deal of pro-Intervention types.

I'm not really interested in what they have to say about it, I want to know what democracy has to say about it.

The US democracy, was created via war, the French Repbublic as well, the British democracy was also created via war. Seems to me war and democracy often go hand in hand.

Firstly, the British democracy gradually developed over hundreds of years without war. Secondly, democracy didn't tell people to go and fight for it- they chose to fight for it themselves because they decided they wanted it.

irishconvert

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I'm not really interested in what they have to say about it, I want to know what democracy has to say about it.

Democracy said the people didn't want it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/2765041.stm ('Million' march against Iraq war)

But the "democratic" leaders didn't listen

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

wes

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I'm not really interested in what they have to say about it, I want to know what democracy has to say about it.

Who speaks for democracy then? If not democratically elected leaders, who are promoting it then who?

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Firstly, the British democracy gradually developed over hundreds of years without war.

So you saying this never happened then:

English Civil War

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Secondly, democracy didn't tell people to go and fight for it- they chose to fight for it themselves because they decided they wanted it.

Well, there leaders told them to fight for democracy, and that there aims could be achieved via that method.

**EDIT**
Rightly or wrongly the name of democracy has been blackened by the Iraq invasion, and I don't see it be rehabilitated anytime soon imho.