- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 3,969
- Reaction score
- 1,209
- Location
- Dallas TEXAS
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Tex, now you've lost it. Almost a whole page worth of replies in this thread is just you posting.
You're in the hopper with the conspiracy theorists on that, now.
And for the last time. CITE THE LAW.
Put up your shut up. I grow tired of your baseless claims.
How many times do I have to explain that nuns do not cover their entire body with that garb? How many times must this be explained to you?
Because we already have instances where the burka in full form is challenging the very security situations I mentioned and I even cited them for you and you still refuse to see it.
Its some amazing arrogance of yours to assume you are right and the majority of 5 European nations are all wrong.
Unlike you I do read the law. There are requirements against countless things in the private sector. You somehow think anarchy is the way to go and refuse to see how a democracy actually works.
Try pinching a woman's ass in the workplace or refusing to hire based on race and then come back to the big people table.
EXACTLY THE POINT. We don't accommodate every single sect of Christianity in the workplace or in public nor do we for any other relgion. We have limitations on behavior. How you continue to miss this basic point is beyond rational thought.
You don't have a clue how the first amendment works so I have to keep teaching you. Its sad but necessary.
The first amendment is not without limits. For God's sake please open up a law book once in a while before trying to debate that the first amendment is without limitations.
So you still can't back up your claim with even one source. Sad but not unexpected.
That doesn't prove the claim you made that the garment being any female is the majoirty argument used against the burka.
Did you even read the article? That was only the president's opinion, not the opinion of the majority. You haven't proven a thing except you have no idea how to back up your claims.
Once again you prove in spades the limitations of your thinking.
If you had bothered with something other than wiki, you would have found this:
The core failure of the ordinances were that they applied exclusively to the church. The ordinances singled out the activities of the Santeria faith and suppressed more religious conduct than was necessary to achieve their stated ends. Only conduct tied to religious belief was burdened. The ordinances targeted religious behavior, therefore they failed to survive the rigors of strict scrutiny.
So the law was poorly written not that it would never be acceptable if written properly. But then again, that would have required you to read more than google.
Supreme Court Decisions - Trans World Airlines v. Hardison
With Justice White writing the majority opinion, the Court decided 7-2 that TWA adequate efforts to accommodate Hardison's religious beliefs and that the company was justified in firing him when he refused to comply with his work assignments.
Supreme Court Decisions - Larkin v. Grendel's Den
The Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Warren Burger writing the majority opinion, ruled 8-1 that the Massachusetts law was indeed unconstitutional because it substituted religious fiat for public legislative authority.
The Court has acknowledged the need for local communities to offering zoning protection to schools and churches, but this case was different because a religious organization can be given power to determine whether a permit may be issued. While the statute had a permissible secular purpose of protecting churches and schools from the disruptions often associated with liquor establishments, the Court concluded that these purposes could be accomplished by other means, e.g. an outright ban on liquor outlets within a prescribed distance, or the vesting of discretionary authority in a governmental agent required to consider the views of affected parties.
Supreme Court Decisions - Larkin v. Grendel's Den
With the majority opinion writen by Chief Justice Burger, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that Connecticut's law was unconstitutional because it advanced a particular religious practice.
The fact that there are Americans in favor of this ban is absolutely mind-boggling.
Just so you understand, you're favoring a government deciding what people can wear in a manner directed solely at one particular religion.
I think the hardline Muslim populations in Europe should be "encouraged" to culturally assimilate into their host nation. That doesn't mean they have to stop being Muslims, it just means they have to respect certain Western values, like social equality and human rights.
You don't want to go toe to toe with me on Islam I promise
Yes I am well aware of the Hadiths. You do realize there are more than one interpretation of the Qur'an correct? Does that mean we have to accept all interpretations in the pursuance of universal tolerance? Are you that demented?
And since you claim to be so well versed, please show us the universal Hadith that requires all women wear the Burka.
Name one that requires Christians cover the entire body because I will be 100% against it.
Clearly you need to do far more research on the subject.
LOL
Is that a warning?
There is no verse for the last time. It is an interpretation from the texts in regards to religion.
And yes, their interpretation of the Qu'ran is as valid as any scholars.
We accept religion into our society and we have the freedom to practice what we wish. Any form of ban on religion is curbing an individuals right to worship how they please.
You are being deliberately obtuse. :roll:
Go read the Qu'ran and hadiths and go to the local mosque for a session. Then come back and discuss Islam.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?