Banning the Burqa in the US? For or against?

[Lord Zerg]

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?

I was very clear in my post religious freedom only applies when you aren't hurting someone. So obviously people's rights not to be killed, raped, or tortured supersede someone's else's right to practice a brutal religion. But I'm actually fine with polygamy and polyamory as long as it doesn't involve a minor. Women choosing to wear burqas isn't hurting anyone else.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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?


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.

Not in the least. My position is that if a religion wishes to say "My religion requires that I _[fill in the blank]_.", and were that thing is something that is NOT "generally acceptable behaviour" in the great majority of the populace (and which the majority of the populace wishes to stop them doing), then that religion has to show where their RELIGION mandates it and that means that their "Holy Book" is their PRIMARY source of reference.

You might want to note that I am NOT in favour of banning either Burqas or Kippahs. All that I am saying is that NEITHER has any "constitutional protection" under the "freedom of religion" clause because NEITHER of them are mandated by the relevant "Holy Book".

As far as "communion" is concerned, I don't think that the "communicating churches" would have much difficulty in finding specific reference to it in "The Bible" (1 Corinthians 11:24-25 KJV [being just one example]).

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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

To the devout follower of Baal, the infant has no rights.

To those devout Christians who believe that man is the master and women the servant, women have no rights.

To those who "serve the Inquisition" their right to "return the sinner and heretic to God's Path" is paramount.

You are reduced to saying

In the United States of America everyone has a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED
'Freedom of Religion' and can practice their religion as they see fit
(unless we tell them that they cannot).​

I trust that you can see the absurdity of that statement.

Do you see what happens when you start thinking that "Constitutional Rights" and "Essential Freedoms" are the same thing?

 

[Gatsby]

Not in the least. My position is that if a religion wishes to say "My religion requires that I _[fill in the blank]_.", and were that thing is something that is NOT "generally acceptable behaviour" in the great majority of the populace (and which the majority of the populace wishes to stop them doing), then that religion has to show where their RELIGION mandates it and that means that their "Holy Book" is their PRIMARY source of reference.

Yeah, I'm not at all comfortable with American courts adjudicating what religious texts have to say about such-and-such religious custom. That's literally what religious tribunals do in Iran.

You might want to note that I am NOT in favour of banning either Burqas or Kippahs. All that I am saying is that NEITHER has any "constitutional protection" under the "freedom of religion" clause because NEITHER of them are mandated by the relevant "Holy Book".

Maybe the people who follow those customs don't claim to be textual literalists. The whole idea that a religious custom is invalid unless it's written somewhere in a sacred text is pretty much a 19th century American Protestant view. It's not even a majority viewpoint in America today, and it's certainly not an idea that needs to be given official sanction through the force of law.

As far as "communion" is concerned, I don't think that the "communicating churches" would have much difficulty in finding specific reference to it in "The Bible" (1 Corinthians 11:24-25 KJV [being just one example]).

And I don't think that slinging Bible verses back and forth across a courtroom is a good way for the American judicial system to operate.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I was very clear in my post religious freedom only applies when you aren't hurting someone. So obviously people's rights not to be killed, raped, or tortured supersede someone's else's right to practice a brutal religion. But I'm actually fine with polygamy and polyamory as long as it doesn't involve a minor. Women choosing to wear burqas isn't hurting anyone else.

Which, if you will check what I have been saying, is what I have been saying.

Now MEN or WOMEN forcing women to wear burkas is a different matter altogether.

 

[Lord Zerg]

Which, if you will check what I have been saying, is what I have been saying.

Now MEN or WOMEN forcing women to wear burkas is a different matter altogether.

I'm against anyone being forced to wear or not wear a burka. Both of these should be illegal.

 

[Rumpel]

freedom of religion is a Constitutional protection in the US

I know all this.
And it is beside the point.

 

[Rumpel]

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?

These are very good points!
These are exactly the arguments that I often bring also.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Yeah, I'm not at all comfortable with American courts adjudicating what religious texts have to say about such-and-such religious custom. That's literally what religious tribunals do in Iran.


Maybe the people who follow those customs don't claim to be textual literalists. The whole idea that a religious custom is invalid unless it's written somewhere in a sacred text is pretty much a 19th century American Protestant view. It's not even a majority viewpoint in America today, and it's certainly not an idea that needs to be given official sanction through the force of law.


And I don't think that slinging Bible verses back and forth across a courtroom is a good way for the American judicial system to operate.

A "religious custom" is not "invalidated" simply because it is not MANDATED in a "Holy Book". All that does happen is that it doesn't enjoy any "constitutional protection".

After all, polygamy IS "approved of" in "The Bible" and IS "approved of" in "The Book of Mormon" so it IS a "religious custom" (at the very least) but it is also illegal under the laws of the United States of America REGARDLESS of whether all parties to the polygamous marriage are informed adults who are voluntarily consenting to the union.

Whether or not society is prepared to allow a "religious custom" to be practiced legally is something that the US courts have a lengthy history of determining (right back to the very first immigrants who outright banned some religions from their colonies).

 

[Gatsby]

A "religious custom" is not "invalidated" simply because it is not MANDATED in a "Holy Book". All that does happen is that it doesn't enjoy any "constitutional protection".

Why should the courts act as religious tribunals to determine whether a custom is mandated by a Holy Book? Judges are trained in law, not theology. Furthermore, some religions don't even have Holy Books.

After all, polygamy IS "approved of" in "The Bible" and IS "approved of" in "The Book of Mormon" so it IS a "religious custom" (at the very least) but it is also illegal under the laws of the United States of America REGARDLESS of whether all parties to the polygamous marriage are informed adults who are voluntarily consenting to the union.

The elected government has determined (and the courts have upheld) that there is a compelling secular reason to ban polygamy that has nothing to do with religion.

Whether or not society is prepared to allow a "religious custom" to be practiced legally is something that the US courts have a lengthy history of determining (right back to the very first immigrants who outright banned some religions from their colonies).

Yes but none of those objections would hold up in the case of wearing a burqa, which doesn't affect anyone else.
You would need to show that it somehow hurts others. Arguing that it's not "really" mandated by the religion is a total dead-end.

 

[roguenuke]

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.

View attachment 67344427​

There are very few things that are actually religiously mandated. The government doesn't get to decide though what is or isn't religiously mandated. That would in itself violate the 1st, because it would be the government deciding on other people's beliefs, their religion.

 

[roguenuke]

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?

All of the things you mention here actually, demonstrably violate someone else's rights. Your religious rights cannot violate other people's rights. But wearing a burqa or a niqab in no way can be said to be violating anyone else's rights. It does not do harm to anyone.

 

[roguenuke]

A "religious custom" is not "invalidated" simply because it is not MANDATED in a "Holy Book". All that does happen is that it doesn't enjoy any "constitutional protection".

After all, polygamy IS "approved of" in "The Bible" and IS "approved of" in "The Book of Mormon" so it IS a "religious custom" (at the very least) but it is also illegal under the laws of the United States of America REGARDLESS of whether all parties to the polygamous marriage are informed adults who are voluntarily consenting to the union.

Whether or not society is prepared to allow a "religious custom" to be practiced legally is something that the US courts have a lengthy history of determining (right back to the very first immigrants who outright banned some religions from their colonies).

That doesn't matter.

Did you know that Sikhs are allowed to wear knives, the kirpan, due to their religion? And there have been plenty of lawsuits over banning, firing, or harassing people over wearing crosses, which most certainly are not called for by Christian religion (just a symbol of their devotion). Heck, even people in prison are given some rights in regards to their religions, including being able to wear certain religious items and/or even not have to shave/cut their hair. In basic training, there was a girl who didn't have to get her hair cut because of her religion (the rest of us had to have it cut above our shoulders).

There is no rational way to claim that banning the burka and/or niqab is anything but for religious discrimination.

 

[ClaraD]

I know all this.
And it is beside the point.

No, it actually isn't....no one should be entertaining the idea of violating the Constitution, period..

 

[Lord Zerg]

A "religious custom" is not "invalidated" simply because it is not MANDATED in a "Holy Book". All that does happen is that it doesn't enjoy any "constitutional protection".

After all, polygamy IS "approved of" in "The Bible" and IS "approved of" in "The Book of Mormon" so it IS a "religious custom" (at the very least) but it is also illegal under the laws of the United States of America REGARDLESS of whether all parties to the polygamous marriage are informed adults who are voluntarily consenting to the union.

Whether or not society is prepared to allow a "religious custom" to be practiced legally is something that the US courts have a lengthy history of determining (right back to the very first immigrants who outright banned some religions from their colonies).

So now you want to government to interpret religious books to decide whats mandated and not in that book? That is a very clear violation of church and state, the constitution has never given the government the right to do this.

Technically there is no law against having multiple relationships and you can consider yourself married to has many people as you want and live with many women. So there is no violation of religious liberty to be polygamous. But the legal marriage certificate is one to one. I personally think that should change.

I understand that our country did have a rough start about truly respecting the separation of church and state. I'm glad we have so much progress in not discriminating against anyone based on their religion.

 

[Rumpel]

No, it actually isn't....no one should be entertaining the idea of violating the Constitution, period..

You did not understand my posting - comma,

 

[Rumpel]

After all, polygamy IS "approved of" in "The Bible" and IS "approved of" in "The Book of Mormon" so it IS a "religious custom" (at the very least) but it is also illegal under the laws of the United States of America REGARDLESS of whether all parties to the polygamous marriage are informed adults who are voluntarily consenting to the union.

Exactly!
Good argument.
So there is no "freedom of religion" for the Mormons.

 

[Rumpel]

No, it actually isn't....no one should be entertaining the idea of violating the Constitution, period..

Just look at my last posting now.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Why should the courts act as religious tribunals to determine whether a custom is mandated by a Holy Book? Judges are trained in law, not theology. Furthermore, some religions don't even have Holy Books.


The elected government has determined (and the courts have upheld) that there is a compelling secular reason to ban polygamy that has nothing to do with religion.


Yes but none of those objections would hold up in the case of wearing a burqa, which doesn't affect anyone else.
You would need to show that it somehow hurts others. Arguing that it's not "really" mandated by the religion is a total dead-end.

Courts should determine if something is, or is not, covered by the law because that is what courts are for.

Indeed, the government has determined that it should infringe on people's religious beliefs because the government says it should (and the courts have upheld that infringement).

You appear to think that I am in favour of banning the Burka. That is not my position at all. My position is that the government is under no constitutional restraint from banning the Burka.

I happen to think that a government ban on the Burka would be an incredibly silly and stupid thing and, since I have an aversion to governments doing silly and stupid things, I am opposed to a government ban on the Burka.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

There are very few things that are actually religiously mandated. The government doesn't get to decide though what is or isn't religiously mandated. That would in itself violate the 1st, because it would be the government deciding on other people's beliefs, their religion.

Which, of course, is why it wasn't a violation of the first amendment to the US constitution when the US government banned the adherents of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from practicing some of their religious beliefs.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

All of the things you mention here actually, demonstrably violate someone else's rights. Your religious rights cannot violate other people's rights. But wearing a burqa or a niqab in no way can be said to be violating anyone else's rights. It does not do harm to anyone.

"All of the things you mention here actually, demonstrably violate someone else's rights."

Yes they do.

"Your religious rights cannot violate other people's rights." - really?

I didn't know that the First Amendment said

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances (unless, of course, in the opinion of the government, anyone doing any of those things violates the rights of someone else).​

and I'm very glad that you drew that lack of knowledge to my attention.

"But wearing a burqa or a niqab in no way can be said to be violating anyone else's rights. It does not do harm to anyone."

And banning them doesn't violate a single CONSTITUTIONAL right. (It would just be an incredibly petty, silly, and stupid thing to do [which, of course, in a country where the elected representatives vote to enact laws that they have never read, probably isn't a substantial drawback].)

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

That doesn't matter.

Did you know that Sikhs are allowed to wear knives, the kirpan, due to their religion? And there have been plenty of lawsuits over banning, firing, or harassing people over wearing crosses, which most certainly are not called for by Christian religion (just a symbol of their devotion). Heck, even people in prison are given some rights in regards to their religions, including being able to wear certain religious items and/or even not have to shave/cut their hair. In basic training, there was a girl who didn't have to get her hair cut because of her religion (the rest of us had to have it cut above our shoulders).

There is no rational way to claim that banning the burka and/or niqab is anything but for religious discrimination.

"Did you know that Sikhs are allowed to wear knives, the kirpan, due to their religion?"

I guess that you didn't pay much attention to where I choose to live. (BTW, since the kirpan is SYMBOLIC, there is no actual requirement that it be functional.)

Turbans, however, are NOT required by the Sikh religion.

You might have noticed that there is a positive dirth of posts from me accusing politicians of being "rational" (on anything other than the question "If I _[fill in the blank]_ will it help or hinder my chances in the next election?")

When you attempt to link "rational" and "what the law actually is", you are (in many cases) embarking on a fool's errand. When you attempt to link "rational" and "what people believe", you are (in even more cases) embarking on a fool's errand.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Austria’s new anti-burqa law isn’t quite working as intended​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/10/09/austria-wanted-to-ban-burqas-now-it-also-fines-mascots-and-stops-cyclists-who-wear-scarves/

Austrian constitutional court rules headscarf ban in primary schools 'unconstitutional'

Austria's constitutional court rules headscarf ban 'unconstitutional'

The constitutional court in Austria ruled that a 2019 law banning girls under the age of 10 from wearing religious headscarves at school is "unconstitutional".

www.euronews.com

I don’t support the ban, but I also would heavily restrict Islam and not allow any new Islamic immigrants if I were in charge of a European country so it would be a rare sight.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

So now you want to government to interpret religious books to decide whats mandated and not in that book? That is a very clear violation of church and state, the constitution has never given the government the right to do this.

Technically there is no law against having multiple relationships and you can consider yourself married to has many people as you want and live with many women. So there is no violation of religious liberty to be polygamous. But the legal marriage certificate is one to one. I personally think that should change.

I understand that our country did have a rough start about truly respecting the separation of church and state. I'm glad we have so much progress in not discriminating against anyone based on their religion.

"So now you want to government to interpret religious books to decide whats mandated and not in that book?"

Not at all, I merely say that the courts (not the government) have the power and right to say what is, and what is not, "constitutionally protected". That is, you know, one of functions of the courts.

You might be surprised that those religions which allow for polygamy are also opposed to adultery. Thus, a person who devoutly followed the teachings of "The Book of Mormon" would NOT be able to "live with several women as man and wife" UNLESS they were actually married to them according to church law. And, since ministers of "The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints" are legally allowed to perform marriage ceremonies which are recognized as legal marriages by the government, they would be in contravention of the profane law were they to marry more than one woman at the same time so as to avoid committing the sin of adultery.

As far as "respecting the separation of church and state" is concerned, there was never any real question about it - it was simply not done in the majority of the colonies. The real reason why the "establishment of religion" clause was tossed in was that the delegates from the majority of the colonies (those that actually had "established religions") could not agree on WHOSE religion would be the "established" religion and compromised on "Well, if it can't be mine, then it can't be anyone else's either.".

Remember, most of those colonists who came to America (for religious reasons) did so in order to change from "persecuted" to "persecutor" by placing THEIR religion in the privileged position and imposing restrictions on other religions.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I don’t support the ban, but I also would heavily restrict Islam and not allow any new Islamic immigrants if I were in charge of a European country so it would be a rare sight.

In short, you believe in "Freedom of Religion (provided, of course, that it is my religion)".