Banning the Burqa in the US? For or against?

[TU Curmudgeon]

And if you are Muslim, it's your right to pipe up about whether your traditions have value. The rest of us, not so much.

You have every right to conform to your traditions, you just don't have the right to cram them down my throat.

Considering that up until the 1930's the position of the Roman Catholic Church was NOT opposed to "therapeutic abortion" and that up until the 1960s the Roman Catholic Church's position was that "Abortion is a sexual sin" and was NOT "Abortion is a mortal sin", your "RCC Tradition" is about 60 years old (90 if you push it), please don't tell me that it is "Pure Catholic Doctrine" that you are defending.

PS - The difference between "Mortal Sin" and "Sexual Sin" in the Roman Pantheon of Sinful Acts is roughly akin to the difference between "murder" and "parking in a handicapped space so that you can run a marathon" in the secular pantheon of criminal acts.

PPS - The Roman Catholic Church has never really had any difficulty in providing abortions to nuns who got pregnant nor to women whom priests had impregnated.

 

[MaryP]

You have every right to conform to your traditions, you just don't have the right to cram them down my throat.

Considering that up until the 1930's the position of the Roman Catholic Church was NOT opposed to "therapeutic abortion" and that up until the 1960s the Roman Catholic Church's position was that "Abortion is a sexual sin" and was NOT "Abortion is a mortal sin", your "RCC Tradition" is about 60 years old (90 if you push it), please don't tell me that it is "Pure Catholic Doctrine" that you are defending.

PS - The difference between "Mortal Sin" and "Sexual Sin" in the Roman Pantheon of Sinful Acts is roughly akin to the difference between "murder" and "parking in a handicapped space so that you can run a marathon" in the secular pantheon of criminal acts.

PPS - The Roman Catholic Church has never really had any difficulty in providing abortions to nuns who got pregnant nor to women whom priests had impregnated.

Are you replying to the right post?

 

[roguenuke]

Because that is "Christian" repression of women and that is something that you just don't talk about in polite company.

Notice how they conveniently miss that the Duggars admit that they absolutely force their girls to wear only long skirts due to their religious beliefs. That their girls are only allowed to do very specific jobs because their main "job" should be taking care of their husbands and having babies. These things are all from religious beliefs, yet despite openly admitting to them they are still completely legal in this country.

But for some reason I'm supposed to support outlawing the burqa and/or niqab because those Muslim women (or potentially others who just feel it is more conservative) may or may not want to wear them in the US? That is ridiculous.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Are you replying to the right post?

Yep.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Notice how they conveniently miss that the Duggars admit that they absolutely force their girls to wear only long skirts due to their religious beliefs. That their girls are only allowed to do very specific jobs because their main "job" should be taking care of their husbands and having babies. These things are all from religious beliefs, yet despite openly admitting to them they are still completely legal in this country.

But for some reason I'm supposed to support outlawing the burqa and/or niqab because those Muslim women (or potentially others who just feel it is more conservative) may or may not want to wear them in the US? That is ridiculous.

If it wasn't inconsistent it wouldn't be bigotry - it would simply be stupidity.

 

[devildavid]

Overly long red ties should be banned.

 

[MaryP]

You have every right to conform to your traditions, you just don't have the right to cram them down my throat.

How is a woman wearing the traditional garb of her culture 'cramming it down your throat?' I don't get the Church/abortion tie in.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

How is a woman wearing the traditional garb of her culture 'cramming it down your throat?' I don't get the Church/abortion tie in.

[1] She wouldn't be unless she was attempting to force me to wear the "traditional garb" of HER culture.

[2] The RCC Inc. is attempting to force everyone, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, Sikh, Jain, Wiccan, Zoroastrian, and every other non-RCC faith to comply with the doctrines of the RCC Inc. and those doctrines aren't even that "Traditional" since they only became what they are today around 50 years ago (and I've been alive longer than that).

At least the RCC Inc. bases it's opposition to abortion on "Because The Pope said that God Said ..." rather than "We don't like it because it's different and we don't know anything about it so we're scared of it."

Heck, according to RCC Inc. dictates, every woman who is not producing four pregnancies every three years is "failing in their God Mandated duty" so maybe the RCC Inc. should start excommunicating women who aren't continuously gravid (absent, of course, medical certification that the woman is physically incapable of becoming pregnant).

 

[MaryP]

[1] She wouldn't be unless she was attempting to force me to wear the "traditional garb" of HER culture.

[2] The RCC Inc. is attempting to force everyone, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, Sikh, Jain, Wiccan, Zoroastrian, and every other non-RCC faith to comply with the doctrines of the RCC Inc. and those doctrines aren't even that "Traditional" since they only became what they are today around 50 years ago (and I've been alive longer than that).

At least the RCC Inc. bases it's opposition to abortion on "Because The Pope said that God Said ..." rather than "We don't like it because it's different and we don't know anything about it so we're scared of it."

Heck, according to RCC Inc. dictates, every woman who is not producing four pregnancies every three years is "failing in their God Mandated duty" so maybe the RCC Inc. should start excommunicating women who aren't continuously gravid (absent, of course, medical certification that the woman is physically incapable of becoming pregnant).

Now I get it.

 

[Gatsby]

Against. It's blatantly unconstitutional.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Against. It's blatantly unconstitutional.

Show me where the Constitution of the United States of America says

"The right to wear any type of clothing you want being essential to a free state, the right of the people to keep and wear whatever clothes (including no clothes at all) that they feel like wearing under any conditions that they feel like wearing them in any place that they feel like wearing them at any time that they want to wear them shall not be infringed."​

 

[Gatsby]

Show me where the Constitution of the United States of America says

​

"The right to wear any type of clothing you want being essential to a free state, the right of the people to keep and wear whatever clothes (including no clothes at all) that they feel like wearing under any conditions that they feel like wearing them in any place that they feel like wearing them at any time that they want to wear them shall not be infringed."​

Freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The government can't ban wearing burqas for the same reason they can't ban wearing crosses.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The government can't ban wearing burqas for the same reason they can't ban wearing crosses.

The Burka is NOT a "religiously mandated" form of attire, it is a "culturally driven" form of attire and thus, absent some specific constitutional prohibition against "Congress" legislating regarding it, there is no "constitutional" reason why it should not be banned.

PS - Kippah's fall into the same category as they can easily be replaced by something that is a more "American" form of headgear.

 

[Gatsby]

The Burka is NOT a "religiously mandated" form of attire, it is a "culturally driven" form of attire

That's a very fine line that I'm uncomfortable having the government draw. I don't like the idea of governments deciding whether something is "really" part of a religion. If the adherents think it's part of their religion, then it's part of their religion IMO.

and thus, absent some specific constitutional prohibition against "Congress" legislating regarding it, there is no "constitutional" reason why it should not be banned.

PS - Kippah's fall into the same category as they can easily be replaced by something that is a more "American" form of headgear.

I would strongly oppose a government ban on kippahs for exactly the same reason. We don't need or want the courts to become theology experts.

 

[Lord Zerg]

Banning the Burqa in the US?

The wording of my other poll was rather unclear.
Here now comes a poll with a clearcut wording.

For or against a burqa-ban?

Banning in Burqa violates the separation of church and state under the constitution so I oppose it. If there is a real problem with Islam then restrict immigration from those regions.

 

[ClaraD]

Banning the Burqa in the US?

The wording of my other poll was rather unclear.
Here now comes a poll with a clearcut wording.

For or against a burqa-ban?

freedom of religion is a Constitutional protection in the US the only way it can be banned is by amendment of the Constitution removing freedom of religion and that is not ever going to happen in the US

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

That's a very fine line that I'm uncomfortable having the government draw. I don't like the idea of governments deciding whether something is "really" part of a religion. If the adherents think it's part of their religion, then it's part of their religion IMO.


I would strongly oppose a government ban on kippahs for exactly the same reason. We don't need or want the courts to become theology experts.

There is a real difference between "I don't want the government to ..." and "The government is constitutionally prohibited from ..."

I agree with you on both points at the "I don't want the government to ..." level and am only making the point that there is NO constitutional prohibition applicable with respect to banning either the Burqa or the Kippah.

The Burqa is a cultural instrument designed to "preserve modesty (as defined in the particular culture)" and the Kippah is a cultural instrument designed to "cover the head (which shows fear and respect for God)".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Banning in Burqa violates the separation of church and state under the constitution so I oppose it. If there is a real problem with Islam then restrict immigration from those regions.

The "religion" mandates "modesty", the "culture" defines what "modesty" means and in SOME Muslim cultures that means "wear a Burqa" in OTHER Muslim cultures it doesn't.

The US constitution does not provide a constitutional right to "freedom of culture" (and, in fact, the US government has taken steps to suppress "cultures" [and, in fact, "religions"] within the United States of America before this).

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

freedom of religion is a Constitutional protection in the US the only way it can be banned is by amendment of the Constitution removing freedom of religion and that is not ever going to happen in the US

See Post #268

 

[Gatsby]

The Burqa is a cultural instrument designed to "preserve modesty (as defined in the particular culture)" and the Kippah is a cultural instrument designed to "cover the head (which shows fear and respect for God)".

I'd venture to guess that adherents of both religions would earnestly protest that distinction, and insist that their actions were indeed mandated by their religion.
And if they did so, would we leave it up to the courts to determine if their religion actually mandated their actions, or if they were mistaken in their theological interpretations?
At that point, it seems like the courts are essentially just a theocratic religious tribunal passing judgment on who is right/wrong about their religion.

 

[Lord Zerg]

The "religion" mandates "modesty", the "culture" defines what "modesty" means and in SOME Muslim cultures that means "wear a Burqa" in OTHER Muslim cultures it doesn't.

The US constitution does not provide a constitutional right to "freedom of culture" (and, in fact, the US government has taken steps to suppress "cultures" [and, in fact, "religions"] within the United States of America before this).

No its more than just culture. Different Muslims interpret the Koran differently. Stopping people from living a stricter interpretation of their religion is a violation of church and state. As long as they aren't hurting anyone else then its unconstitutional to stop them.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I'd venture to guess that adherents of both religions would earnestly protest that distinction, and insist that their actions were indeed mandated by their religion.
And if they did so, would we leave it up to the courts to determine if their religion actually mandated their actions, or if they were mistaken in their theological interpretations?
At that point, it seems like the courts are essentially just a theocratic religious tribunal passing judgment on who is right/wrong about their religion.

If they can point to the specific place in their "Holy Book" where it says "_[fill in the blank]_ must wear the _[fill in the blank]_." then they win, hands down. If they can't, then they have to fall back on "Well, our cultural way of ..." at which point the lose.

After all, not all devout Muslim women wear the Burqa when not actually worshiping and not all devout Jewish men wear the Kippah when not actually worshiping.

 

[Gatsby]

If they can point to the specific place in their "Holy Book" where it says "_[fill in the blank]_ must wear the _[fill in the blank]_." then they win, hands down. If they can't, then they have to fall back on "Well, our cultural way of ..." at which point the lose.

So your view is that American courts should officially adopt the position of biblical literalism, as a matter of US government policy? And that they should use religious texts to determine US law?

After all, not all devout Muslim women wear the Burqa when not actually worshiping and not all devout Jewish men wear the Kippah when not actually worshiping.

No, but certain sects do. I'm uncomfortable drawing that distinction for the same reason I wouldn't be OK with a law banning Christians from taking communion, just because certain denominations don't take communion.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No its more than just culture. Different Muslims interpret the Koran differently. Stopping people from living a stricter interpretation of their religion is a violation of church and state. As long as they aren't hurting anyone else then its unconstitutional to stop them.

So, if a person were a devout worshiper of Baal, it would be "unconstitutional" to prevent them from conducting services in which infants were "thrown into the fiery furnace" - right?

And, if a person were a devout Christian who believed that to "be fruitful and multiply" meant that they had the right to keep their wives (plural wives are sanctioned by "The Bible" constantly pregnant REGARDLESS of whether or not their wives wanted to engage in sexual intercourse when their husband wanted to [which means that that devout Christian had the right to compel their wives to have sex with them by force]), to charge the husband with "rape" would be "unconstitutional" - right?

And if a duly appointed official of the Roman Catholic Church believed that their religion not only gave them the right, but actually required them, to use torture in order to "convince the sinners to confess their sins and the heretics their heresy" it would be "unconstitutional" to prohibit them doing just that - right?

 

[Gatsby]

So, if a person were a devout worshiper of Baal, it would be "unconstitutional" to prevent them from conducting services in which infants were "thrown into the fiery furnace" - right?

And, if a person were a devout Christian who believed that to "be fruitful and multiply" meant that they had the right to keep their wives (plural wives are sanctioned by "The Bible" constantly pregnant REGARDLESS of whether or not their wives wanted to engage in sexual intercourse when their husband wanted to [which means that that devout Christian had the right to compel their wives to have sex with them by force]), to charge the husband with "rape" would be "unconstitutional" - right?

And if a duly appointed official of the Roman Catholic Church believed that their religion not only gave them the right, but actually required them, to use torture in order to "convince the sinners to confess their sins and the heretics their heresy" it would be "unconstitutional" to prohibit them doing just that - right?

Infanticide, marital rape, and torture violate the rights of other people.
What is the comparable argument against wearing burqas or kippahs?