• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Burka-ban here to stay!

a set of rational thoughts.

"What do you want to do today, Fatima?"

"I dunno, what do you want to do?"

"I just came up with the absolutely kickiest idea. Since it's 115 degrees f in the shade today , what say we cover ourselves from head to toe in black fabric with just slits for eyes and head out shopping?"

"Why stop there? We can ask our husbands if they will be willing to lead us about like herd animals while we are at it!"

"You go girl -- this is so sure to start a trend!!".
 
If you view wearing a 'Burka' as a "mere symbol" then sorry, you are intellectually inadequate to even discuss the issue..

Paul

In exactly the same way as how we shouldn't limit the "rights" of similarly proud americans to burn a cross in a black neighborhood.

It is just a symbol, you know.
 
Way to go France.

Now, I concede that this can be argued successfully on many fronts. It is, without a doubt, discriminatory. People can try to skate around it by claiming that it applies to all who elect to cover their face regardless of their reasoning. But we all know better. We know what it's about and who it's directed at.

People need to man up and admit it. No reason to be dishonest about it. It's pointed at Muslims. "Burka Ban," indeed.

All that being said, it upsets me none. First and foremost, it's France's law. Not my circus, not my monkeys. Second, I have no personal objection taken anywhere in the world that would send the message, loud and clear, that our society will not tolerate the cancer of Islam to weave itself into our culture. Even here in the US where there is Freedom of Religion. They could outlaw Islam here and I would applaud the action. I do not care.
 
You wouldn't be allowed to masturbate and your lifetime sexual partner would be chosen for you if you went so far to don the burka as well.

There is nothing about choosing to wear a burqa that mandates any of that. People can choose to wear something and still choose other things.

Lets not pretend this is an argument over 'genuine choice' because you know full well, or should, if you have a semblance of knowledge on Islamic practice--that if it was decreed by some senior cleric 'Burkas are NO longer allowed to be worn', there would NOT be some mass rebellion of thousands, upon thousands of Muslim women wanting the 'choice' given back to them. Because again, it really is NOT a choice, in the true sense of the word.

You don't know that. You presume to know that (out of arrogance), but you really don't.

They could outlaw Islam here and I would applaud the action. I do not care.

First they came for the Muslims and I did not care, because I was not a Muslim . . .
 
You don't know that. You presume to know that (out of arrogance), but you really don't.



. .

It is considered "arrogant" to listen to Muslim women instead of arrogant Islamist men, now, is it??
 
Way to go France.

Now, I concede that this can be argued successfully on many fronts. It is, without a doubt, discriminatory. People can try to skate around it by claiming that it applies to all who elect to cover their face regardless of their reasoning. But we all know better. We know what it's about and who it's directed at.

People need to man up and admit it. No reason to be dishonest about it. It's pointed at Muslims. "Burka Ban," indeed.

All that being said, it upsets me none. First and foremost, it's France's law. Not my circus, not my monkeys. Second, I have no personal objection taken anywhere in the world that would send the message, loud and clear, that our society will not tolerate the cancer of Islam to weave itself into our culture. Even here in the US where there is Freedom of Religion. They could outlaw Islam here and I would applaud the action. I do not care.

It isn't pointed at Muslims. It is pointed at Islamists.

Similarly, Islam isn't a cancer, but Islamism certainly is. Sure, there is a great deal of troublesome fundamentalism within Islam, but if we choose a side against all Muslims, all we do is toss aside the truly moderate and liberal ones.
 
There is nothing about choosing to wear a burqa that mandates any of that. People can choose to wear something and still choose other things.



You don't know that. You presume to know that (out of arrogance), but you really don't.



First they came for the Muslims and I did not care, because I was not a Muslim . . .

The only people that would come at me for NOT being Muslim, ARE Muslims. Many want to cut my ****ing infidel head off.

There is no room for those kind of people in my world. And I would fight to my death to prevent it.

I have no objection to them working their side of the street. Just stay the **** off mine.
 
There is nothing about choosing to wear a burqa that mandates any of that. People can choose to wear something and still choose other things.



You don't know that. You presume to know that (out of arrogance), but you really don't.



First they came for the Muslims and I did not care, because I was not a Muslim . . .

Well, considering in several muslim countries women aren't allowed to go out in public unless accompanied by their master, and in at least one they aren't allowed to drive a car, it's not a terrible leap of faith to assume that this is a voluntary choice by these women in the same way slavery was a voluntary choice for blacks.
 
It isn't pointed at Muslims. It is pointed at Islamists.

Similarly, Islam isn't a cancer, but Islamism certainly is. Sure, there is a great deal of troublesome fundamentalism within Islam, but if we choose a side against all Muslims, all we do is toss aside the truly moderate and liberal ones.

Yeah. True dat. I do know some folks around my town that I suspect are Muslim and they seem decent enough. But I do not trust them any further than I can throw them. But I will be as civil to them as they are to me.

I won't pretend to even understand Islam. I will go as far as to admit my ignorance and prejudice. But there are a couple of things about that religion that are in direct conflict with tolerance. Because of that foundation, I can find nothing redeemable about the religion or the cultures that religion has cultivated. I want no part of that. If I could eradicate it with a wave of the wand, I would do so. Therefore, my distrust, is warranted in my opinion.
 
I have no objection to them working their side of the street. Just stay the **** off mine.

Then maybe we should stop working their side of the street. We have had an enourmous military presence in the Middle East for the last 50 years to protect our access to their oil. We sponsor coups and prop up military dictatorships. Are you surprised that some of them are angry that we invaded their side of the streeet?
 
But there are a couple of things about that religion that are in direct conflict with tolerance. Because of that foundation, I can find nothing redeemable about the religion or the cultures that religion has cultivated. I want no part of that. If I could eradicate it with a wave of the wand, I would do so. Therefore, my distrust, is warranted in my opinion.

Fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam are two sides of the same coin. You should distrust all fundamentalists and welcome all non-fundamentalists who practice tolerance and respect. There are good Christians and good Muslims, and there are some really awful people in both camps as well.
 
Then maybe we should stop working their side of the street. We have had an enourmous military presence in the Middle East for the last 50 years to protect our access to their oil. We sponsor coups and prop up military dictatorships. Are you surprised that some of them are angry that we invaded their side of the streeet?

Hell no I'm not surprised. I have as much contempt for the greedy, war mongering, neo-con types who think it is our right, privilege and destiny to rape and pillage the resources of nations all across the planet because we, after all, ARE American. I totally understand why they hate us.

So there we are. They hate us. I hate them. Popcorn anyone?
 
Last edited:
Fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam are two sides of the same coin. You should distrust all fundamentalists and welcome all non-fundamentalists who practice tolerance and respect. There are good Christians and good Muslims, and there are some really awful people in both camps as well.

I agree 100%. And we have enough christian religious looney-tune types in the US to deal with already. The best way to deal with those whackos is just to ignore and out-vote them.

Ignoring Islamists doesn't work. That's why we don't want the seeds of that cancer to take firm roots here in the US.
 
Well-intentioned, but completely misguided. You don't protect women's freedom to dress how they want by making it illegal for women to dress how they want.

As others have pointed out, this does absolutely nothing for Muslim women under oppression. The passage of this law is not going to allow such women the freedom to appear in public wearing what they want any more than they were allowed before.
 
Secular governments have a history of not allowing some religious practices,
that do not meet to social norms of the times.

So? That there's a history doesn't mean it's ok - then or now.
 
Well-intentioned, but completely misguided. You don't protect women's freedom to dress how they want by making it illegal for women to dress how they want.
As others have pointed out, this does absolutely nothing for Muslim women under oppression. The passage of this law is not going to allow such women the freedom to appear in public wearing what they want any more than they were allowed before.

Can you not see the contradictory and paradoxical element of your position? hint: freedom entails choice = radical Islam (by reasonableness, I associate Burka wearing with a radical interpretation) it defies very simple logic.

Paul
 
Can you not see the contradictory and paradoxical element of your position? hint: freedom entails choice = radical Islam (by reasonableness, I associate Burka wearing with a radical interpretation) it defies very simple logic.

There is no contradiction in my position. Islam can and does oppress women. Legally restricting a woman's right to wear a Burka doesn't stop such oppression.

The contradiction lies in the supporters of this law who try to protect women's rights by restricting them.
 
There is no contradiction in my position. Islam can and does oppress women. Legally restricting a woman's right to wear a Burka doesn't stop such oppression.

The contradiction lies in the supporters of this law who try to protect women's rights by restricting them.

If you accept 'radical interpretations' of Islam "oppress women" do you also accept the wearing of a Burka, is the most overt display of that oppression?

Or, are you saying 'women of Muslim faith' choose to be covered from head to toe, incorporating the Burka, opposed to donning a less restrictive, more comfortable set of clothing ?

Paul
 
If you accept 'radical interpretations' of Islam "oppress women" do you also accept the wearing of a Burka, is the most overt display of that oppression?

It can be a display of such oppression, yes.


Or, are you saying 'women of Muslim faith' choose to be covered from head to toe, incorporating the Burka, opposed to donning a less restrictive, more comfortable set of clothing ?

I said exactly what I said - nothing more nothing less. Which part is unclear to you?
 
Well-intentioned, but completely misguided. You don't protect women's freedom to dress how they want by making it illegal for women to dress how they want.

As others have pointed out, this does absolutely nothing for Muslim women under oppression. The passage of this law is not going to allow such women the freedom to appear in public wearing what they want any more than they were allowed before.

It can be a display of such oppression, yes.



I said exactly what I said - nothing more nothing less. Which part is unclear to you?

My thoughts are clear. If you accept the Burka is a form of 'oppression' over women, then that must entail NO choice, for those 'oppressed' women (let alone rational choice (see examples within thread about Black slavery for clarity)). So, for one, France encourages ALL migrants to become French citizens, it holds no favour with 'multiculturalism'. Thus, France is saying come live here, but as French citizens, or not at all (of course, they do not literally say this) but from their government policy (all migrants are encouraged to be French citizens) you can reasonably infer cultural, let alone radical Islamic practises are not tolerated, let alone encouraged.

Unfortunately, I don't know your persuasion, but this is exactly the criticism of 'difference blind liberalism' "Liberal Philosophers should support cultural exemptions because cultural exemptions promote autonomy"

Paul
 
My thoughts are clear. If you accept the Burka is a form of 'oppression' over women, then that must entail NO choice, for those 'oppressed' women

I don't accept that. I accept that the Burka can be, and often is, a product of oppression. But to say that no woman has ever voluntarily worn a burka is, very likely, false.

(let alone rational choice (see examples within thread about Black slavery for clarity)).

I don't think many choices based on religion are very rational. But that doesn't mean they aren't valid.

So, for one, France encourages ALL migrants to become French citizens, it holds no favour with 'multiculturalism'. Thus, France is saying come live here, but as French citizens, or not at all (of course, they do not literally say this) but from their government policy (all migrants are encouraged to be French citizens) you can reasonably infer cultural, let alone radical Islamic practises are not tolerated, let alone encouraged.

If the intent of the law is to signal religious intolerance, then the law is an effective means to do so. If the intent of the law is to fight oppression of women, then it is not effective.
 
Can you not see the contradictory and paradoxical element of your position? hint: freedom entails choice = radical Islam (by reasonableness, I associate Burka wearing with a radical interpretation) it defies very simple logic.

Paul

I'm reminded of the arguments made by some of the pedophiles who have slithered into these forums from time to time who pervert logic in similar fashion by claiming they are only seeking greater children's rights.

Similar to this discussion, it isn't difficult to find those victims who have been groomed in such a way they agree.
 
There is no contradiction in my position. Islam can and does oppress women. Legally restricting a woman's right to wear a Burka doesn't stop such oppression.

The contradiction lies in the supporters of this law who try to protect women's rights by restricting them.

The use of the Burqa has grown exponentially in recent years as Islamist predators use the existing practice to justify their grooming of a new generation of victims. By eliminating the practice altogether, at least the French government can deprive the predators of this justification for expanding the practice. It WILL curtail at least some of this oppression, if not for the women who have been groomed already, but for their daughters and granddaughters.

There is great contradiction in your position, as your weasel words negate your insincerely stated opposition.
 
Do the women in our culture who "choose" to wear clothing that is harmful to their health have Stockholm syndrome?
beautiful+girl+in+black+pencil+tight+skirt+black+pantyhose+tights+and+black+high+heels.JPG

"I feel so free now that the government took away my right to choose to wear a burka. It takes me an hour to get dressed, I'm in a lot of pain and I can barely walk now in my officially approved western value clothes, but now I am free to be a good CONSUMER*"



The law only addresses what women wear, not whether they are free or slaves. It attacks a symbol, not the underlying problem of sexist oppression. Bras, high heels and tight clothes that keep women from being fully mobile and can permanently harm their bodies are considered OK. The real motive of these anti-burka laws is simply harassment of Muslims, not concern over the welfare of women.




"One in 10 women wear high heels at least three days a week and a third have fallen while wearing them. Statistics show that high heels are one of the biggest factors leading to foot problems in women, with up to a third suffering permanent problems as a result of prolonged wear.... "Extended wear of high heels and continually bending your toes into an unnatural position can cause a range of ailments, from ingrown toenails to irreversible damage to leg tendons. Additionally, cramming your toes into a narrow toe box can cause nerve damage and bunions," says Dr. Nevins. "High heels have also been linked to overworked or injured leg muscles, osteoarthritis of the knee, plantar fasciitis and low back pain," she adds.... According to Dr. Nevins, many women who wear high heels often suffer a shortening of the Achilles tendon because once the heel is pointed upwards, it tightens up. Stretching it again or switching to flats can be very painful; it can even lead to plantar fasciitis...."
The Real Harm in High Heels

Wearing a bra does more harm than good - it does nothing to reduce back pain and weakens the muscles that hold up the breasts, resulting in greater breast sagging, Jean-Denis Rouillon, a sports science expert from the University of Besançon, France, reported after a 15-year study...."
Bras Make Breasts Sag, 15-Year Study Concludes - Medical News Today

"...Dr. Orly Avitzur, a neurologist at Yale University, has found yet another way skinny jeans have been hurting people in the long-term, meralgia paresthetica.

Avitzur said doctors used to see meralgia paresthetica among girdle wearers, but the lycra-infused denim worn by women and young hipster men today has resurrected the fashion-derived pain.

The condition starts when tight-fitting clothing compresses a nerve in the groin close to the skin's surface. Put enough pressure on it, and the whole nerve can begin to react, running from your groin, to your outer thigh and down toward the knee....

...When a woman wears tight jeans, tight underwear, or even thongs with tight jeans, Steiner said it can set up just the right conditions to move the bacteria from the anus, where they normally live, up to areas where the bacteria doesn't belong.

"The friction can move bacteria along the perineum up to the vagina and to the urethra," she said. "Bacteria are sneaky."

Then, because women's urethras are very short compared to men, the bacteria can move up into the bladder and cause a bladder infection or urinary tract infections....."
In Pain? Skinny Jeans Can Do Nerve Damage - ABC News

"Some studies have linked hair dyes with a higher risk of certain cancers, while other studies have not found this link. Most hair dyes also don't have to go through safety testing that other cosmetic color additives do before hitting store shelves. Women are often on their own trying to figure out whether hair dyes are safe.

When hair dyes first came out, the main ingredient in coal-tar hair dye caused allergic reactions in some people. Most hair dyes are now made from petroleum sources. But FDA still considers them to be coal-tar dyes. This is because they have some of the same compounds found in these older dyes."
Hair Dyes and Cancer Risk - National Cancer Institute

*Consumerism the new religion, to buy is to pray.
 
Back
Top Bottom