Swiss Region Votes to Ban Muslim Full Face Veils..[W:48]

[Dr. Chuckles]

Not necessarily. You've mentioned that veils were worn because of bandits in another time and place.

I mentioned that as the possible root of the custom when the subject was brought up. i never offered it as a justification for it's modern practice. But I am not sure what that has to do with the fact we are discussing Swiss law and western ideals of religious freedom.

You may not be too familiar with the weak position of women in Islam.

No, I am quite familiar with it. But that doesn't change the fact they, as individuals, can seek legal protection for their choices if they are threatened due to them.

There is no scriptural precedence and the historical precedence is shaky.

I already cited 2 Islamic scholars making a note of the practice as far back as the 8th century, and religous doctrine is highly intepretive. SO the fact that you can find other sects that disagree with these interpretations matter little. What matters is that other sects view it as an aspect of their religious faith, can cite doctrine to support it (even though you may disagree with such interpretations) and historical records that point to a well established religious legacy for those ideals

We can see that very devout Muslim women never wore a burka until outside pressures prevailed

the fact that certain sects disagree with the trinity doesn't change the fact that it's a key religious belief in others ...

Although I disagree with her in this instance she makes some good points

Yeah, I agree, the burqa represents all manner of oppressive and stupid ****, but the fact remains that individuals are allowed to believe and practice such things, especially within a religious context.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

The eating, or non eating, of shellfish is a private act while wearing a burka in public is not.

no, wearing a burqa is indeed a private choice. You wanting to create some type of nebulous distinction that holds no merit, does not change that

An integral part of their religious practice is quite different from freedom of religion. But we have already seen that it is not an integral part of a religious practice. Some sects perhaps, as you say, but not overall. And if it was religious there would be no need to have the practice enforced by the dress code police.

In no tradition of religous freedom does a practice need to exist "over all" to be afforded protection

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

So what?eace

It directly addresses the argument you made ...

 

[Jack Hays]

It directly addresses the argument you made ...

Not at all. It's just another in your continuing series of dodges and irrelevancies.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Not at all. It's just another in your continuing series of dodges and irrelevancies.

lol, if you say so

 

[Jack Hays]

lol, if you say so

And I do.

 

[Grant]

I mentioned that as the possible root of the custom when the subject was brought up. i never offered it as a justification for it's modern practice. But I am not sure what that has to do with the fact we are discussing Swiss law and western ideals of religious freedom.

I wasn't sure either.

No, I am quite familiar with it. But that doesn't change the fact they, as individuals, can seek legal protection for their choices if they are threatened due to them.

That's a clear case of theory conflicting with reality.

I already cited 2 Islamic scholars making a note of the practice as far back as the 8th century, and religous doctrine is highly intepretive.

Then theirs is just more interpretation.

SO the fact that you can find other sects that disagree with these interpretations matter little. What matters is that other sects view it as an aspect of their religious faith, can cite doctrine to support it (even though you may disagree with such interpretations) and historical records that point to a well established religious legacy for those ideals

We would have to go to the koran to see where Muhammad insists that wearing a burka is essential to Islam but it's just not there. And as far as the custom of ancient religious sects goes i'd say our customs are more worthy than theirs. They need to respect our customs and so should we. This would not include body covers.

the fact that certain sects disagree with the trinity doesn't change the fact that it's a key religious belief in others ...

We can debate that when Catholics begin behaving like Muslims

Yeah, I agree, the burqa represents all manner of oppressive and stupid ****, but the fact remains that individuals are allowed to believe and practice such things, especially within a religious context.

I agree as well but I'm not defending it from a religious point of view because a) it's history is dubious b) no mention in the Koran c) It's an assault on women and d) our cultures and values are of far greater importance than theirs.

 

[Grant]

no, wearing a burqa is indeed a private choice. You wanting to create some type of nebulous distinction that holds no merit, does not change that

I think we both agree that women in Islam are oppressed and nothing represents that repression more than a burka. We don't know that any woman chooses to wear a burka or the men in her life insist she wear a burka. If islam was any ordinary religion, where we knew women weren't beaten or arrested for not wearing a burka, then we might have a kinder, gentler approach to it.

In no tradition of religous freedom does a practice need to exist "over all" to be afforded protection

Wearing a burka is not part of religious freedom. Anyone can be a Muslim (though you cannot leave) and no one outside the family really cares. And they are free to practice and worship whom they choose. But human rights and freedoms top religious rights and freedoms. If we are to err I'd prefer to err on the side of human rights.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Then theirs is just more interpretation.

It shows that interpretation of the religous texts has a historical precedence dating back to the 8th century, directly undermining the idea it was a reletively new development within the religion.

We would have to go to the koran to see where Muhammad insists that wearing a burka is essential to Islam but it's just not there.

Actually the quran is like any other religious text: it's interpreted.

And as far as the custom of ancient religious sects goes i'd say our customs are more worthy than theirs. They need to respect our customs and so should we. This would not include body covers.

We have a major custom of free expression and free practice of religion, which is at the core of this discussion

We can debate that when Catholics begin behaving like Muslims

Actually no, because it directly undermines the previous claim from you that something needs to be continuous throughout denominations to be afforded protection

I agree as well but I'm not defending it from a religious point of view because a) it's history is dubious b) no mention in the Koran c) It's an assault on women and d) our cultures and values are of far greater importance than theirs.

All points we have covered and all points your arguments have been shown to be week on

 

[gunner]

Actually the quran is like any other religious text: it's interpreted.

Then who says the particular interpretation that promotes the veil, is the one that should be respected?

We have a major custom of free expression and free practice of religion, which is at the core of this discussion

No one suggests otherwise. Freedom of religion is protected, and rightly so. the wearing of a veil does not come under that. Again, you trivialize 'the right to religious freedom' by including an item of clothing, that is not universally worn, and is a contested notion.

All points we have covered and all points your arguments have been shown to be week on

And your points are strong? I already showed you under the UN states are within their right to act as they wish, as long as they do not contravene certain rules. You are not of the 'firm ground' that you seem to think you are.

Paul

 

[Grant]

It shows that interpretation of the religous texts has a historical precedence dating back to the 8th century, directly undermining the idea it was a reletively new development within the religion. Actually the quran is like any other religious text: it's interpreted. We have a major custom of free expression and free practice of religion, which is at the core of this discussionActually no, because it directly undermines the previous claim from you that something needs to be continuous throughout denominations to be afforded protection All points we have covered and all points your arguments have been shown to be week on

It's been a good debate and I think you for it but I think we've covered all the ground we possibly can. Cheers!

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Then who says the particular interpretation that promotes the veil, is the one that should be respected?

We already covored this at the beginning of the debate: how protection under religous freedom is usually established is by showing a historical precedence for the religous view and doctrinal support for it

No one suggests otherwise. Freedom of religion is protected, and rightly so. the wearing of a veil does not come under that. Again, you trivialize 'the right to religious freedom' by including an item of clothing, that is not universally worn, and is a contested notion.

No, these people clearly see it as an integral aspect of their religious faith. You not liking that and it not being universally adopted by the various other islamic sects does not change that, as we have already covered numerous times

I already showed you under the UN states are within their right to act as they wish

1) I acknowledged religious freedom wasn't some universal appeal when this discussion first started and long before you brought it up.

2) No, what you cited said they could rightly restrict religious freedom based on various principles. But the one you quoted wasn't even used by the very people who wrote the law

 

[Jack Hays]

We already covored this at the beginning of the debate: how protection under religous freedom is usually established is by showing a historical precedence for the religous view and doctrinal support for it




No, these people clearly see it as an integral aspect of their religious faith. You not liking that and it not being universally adopted by the various other islamic sects does not change that, as we have already covered numerous times




1) I acknowledged religious freedom wasn't some universal appeal when this discussion first started and long before you brought it up.

2) No, what you cited said they could rightly restrict religious freedom based on various principles. But the one you quoted wasn't even used by the very people who wrote the law

This should help you to a better understanding. European states are committed to protecting freedom of religious belief but have a long tradition of limiting religious expression.

[h=3]freedom of religion in european constitutional and ... - Hamline Law[/h]law.hamline.edu/files/Hammond.Rev_.pdf‎
4/22/2008 10:46:51 AM. 101. FREEDOM OF RELIGION IN EUROPEAN CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL. CASE LAW. By Renáta Uitz. Council of ...More results for freedom of religion in europeeace

 

[Grant]

This should help you to a better understanding. European states are committed to protecting freedom of religious belief but have a long tradition of limiting religious expression.

[h=3]freedom of religion in european constitutional and ... - Hamline Law[/h]law.hamline.edu/files/Hammond.Rev_.pdf‎
4/22/2008 10:46:51 AM. 101. FREEDOM OF RELIGION IN EUROPEAN CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL. CASE LAW. By Renáta Uitz. Council of ...More results for freedom of religion in europeeace

Yes, it is the the case of religious freedom being free but, not necessarily, religious expression. The overall culture. laws, traditions and history of human rights of the country should have priority over religious expression and this should be understood by any immigrants.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

This should help you to a better understanding. European states are committed to protecting freedom of religious belief but have a long tradition of limiting religious expression.

This wasn't a point I ever disagreed with. But again, we are discussing normative verses positive. So not addressing why such a practice should be limited, and simply going "but they limit such practices" amounts to nothing more than additional vacuous BS that does nothing to address the issue ...

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Yes, it is the the case of religious freedom being free but, not necessarily, religious expression. The overall culture. laws, traditions and history of human rights of the country should have priority over religious expression and this should be understood by any immigrants.

if your going to appeal to the right to limit religious expression, then you would need to wrestle with the selective character of the law and how it only deals with religous expression in relation to one particular group

 

[Jack Hays]

This wasn't a point I ever disagreed with. But again, we are discussing normative verses positive. So not addressing why such a practice should be limited, and simply going "but they limit such practices" amounts to nothing more than additional vacuous BS that does nothing to address the issue ...

I believe normative vs prescriptive was intended.eace

 

[Jack Hays]

if your going to appeal to the right to limit religious expression, then you would need to wrestle with the selective character of the law and how it only deals with religous expression in relation to one particular group

And my point has been that the Swiss are within their rights. I guess we're done here.eace

 

[Grant]

if your going to appeal to the right to limit religious expression, then you would need to wrestle with the selective character of the law and how it only deals with religous expression in relation to one particular group

A law can relate to all religious, and private, groups. Many rioters wore ski masks during protests, for example, and that has now become outlawed in many areas.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I believe normative vs prescriptive was intended.eace

normative: normative statements make claims about how things should or ought to be

vs

positive: factual statements that attempt to describe reality

 

[Jack Hays]

normative: normative statements make claims about how things should or ought to be

vs

positive: factual statements that attempt to describe reality

Fair enough. My recollection was that normative is what is done and prescriptive is what should be done.eace