I believe that there are some versions of Islam that are dangerous to Western society, that seek to overthrow and destroy everything that does not fit in with their ideology and beliefs. These versions are almost always very conservative in how they view what women can wear. I feel like this law is targetting that kind of Islam, so I support the feeling behind it.
On the other hand, Holland is showing that same attitude towards these Muslims that the extremists have towards Holland and the west. It presumes guilt on people before the fact. So, I can't say that I support this law in principle, because of that.
I'm sure that many of you will want to make this into a pure freedom of religion issue and be against this law without question. While I respect that, I think we ought to acknowledge that there are some religions, forms of religion, which are just inimical to both the members and others around them. Laws like this speak to that truth.
I don't know what the answer is, but I can condemn both this law and Islamofascism.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Overwhelmingly, abortion clinic bombers wear crosses. We should ban the wearing of crosses, in hopes that this will suppress clinic bombing.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Good post, Storm.
The problem is that burka-wearing is not confined to the most virulent strains of Islam. I have some sweet and wonderful girls in my classes right here in Central Florida who wear one daily.
I am pretty much against this law without question. I condemn terrorism, but I don't see this law as anything like a solution. I don't even see this law as an attempt at a solution, but merely as a hateful act. A sticking out of the civic tongue.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Heh. That puts it in a good perspective, Tom.
(You are joking, right? )
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
/tangent
You have girls that wear burkas or head scarves, Icarus?
/tangent
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Yes. Surprisingly, quite a few.
And I had an awkward situation last year when I walked in on one with her ankles, and possibly her bare head (I wasn't really looking, so I don't know what all, just that people were upset) exposed.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Here is a thought experiment. What if we could somehow, beyond a shadow of a doubt, say that a certain percentage of some forms of Islam that support women wearing burkas support terrorism, want to overthrow the state and replace it with an Islamofascist state. Is there a point a which laws like this *might* be justified? At what percentage, if any? 50%? 75%? 90%?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Wow. It says something about those girls' parents that they are willing to mix their children in with girls who don't dress the way they theirs do. Good for them. Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I walked in on one with her ankles, and possibly her bare head (I wasn't really looking, so I don't know what all, just that people were upset) exposed.
Who could be upset? The girl and her father?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
IMO, while the burkas may symbolize that kind of ideology to some, they don't symbolize that to everyone. Remove the burkas and some would feel the threat removed. Others would likely be incensed at such a confusing and insulting act.
The law is poorly placed that wants to remove what only some see as an ominous symbol. Or, it is well-placed, itself symbolizing the point that Holland's leaders seem to be trying to make: that they don't want overt Muslim presence in the country.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
To me, the burka represents deep-rooted misogyny, not violence. I'd support a women's lib movement against the burka, but banning it altogether exchanges fundamentalist control for governmental control -- too slight an improvement, and too dangerous a precedent.
The devil's advocate in me would enjoy seeing this law last five years or so, then being withdrawn. Just so what Muslim women remained in Holland would live life without the burka, then have the choice to return later. I can't support this, but my inner fascist likes the thought.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It says something about those girls' parents that they are willing to mix their children in with girls who don't dress the way they theirs do.
Is there not a very large Muslim community in your area, Storm? Around here, both burkas and headscarves are relatively common.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Theaca, I don't really have all the facts, but I'll do my best to explain:
A group of girls, with a female faculty member, were doing this afterschool dance thing. Apparently, they wanted to see this middle eastern dance that this girl had told them of. So, after school they went to the teacher planning are on my floor--chose because of its lack of windown. They covered the one window with paper, and started playing their music and doing their thing.
Now, I'm used to seeing that planning area used by teachers for different student activities, so I don't think twice about it. However, that area is where the faculty restrooms are. So when I needed to go to the restroom, I went to the workroom and used my key to let myself in. I heard the music coming from inside, and saw the paper over the window in the door, but it never occurred to me that I was not supposed to go into the faculty planning area. There was no sign on the door to this effect.
Apparently, when I walked in, the other girls quickly attempted to block my view of the girl in question by standing between me and her. I couldn't tell you for sure, frankly, because I didn't stop to look. I walked straight through to the bathroom, and left immediately afterward.
I didn't find out there had even been an issue until a couple of kids told me about it later.
Nobody ever expressed anger at me or anything. But when I say that people were upset, I mean, in addition to presumably the girl herself, her friends were upset for her that this had happened. Not necessarily angry at me, but . . .
I don't know what the consequences were, if any, for this girl. I'd feel bad if there was anything unpleasant.
But it's not like I had any clue.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
There is a significant Muslim population in my school, Tom.
-o-
btw, Eddie, it's good to see you back. Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
That's what I was wondering... if non burka wearing girls were protecting her/upset for her. I don't know that I could have been so thoughtful.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Is there not a very large Muslim community in your area, Storm? Around here, both burkas and headscarves are relatively common.
...and they all go to public schools, or what?
I don't know how large the Muslim community is around here. I have never seen a burqa that I can recall around here. However, I do know many people who are strongly religious, and it is somewhat common for them to not want to expose their children to 'worldly influences'. They want to send their children to religious schools that cater to their faith and their worldview. My comment was based solely on that.
Is it very common in your area for burqa wearing girls to go to public schools or more common for them to go to Muslim schools?
By the way, I don't like to just answer questions from you, where I write something and you continually just ask questions or just kind of grunt one-line expressions in response. I find it extremely irritating for a lot of reasons. If you want to have a dialogue with me, that's great. I look forward to an exchange of ideas.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I think Muslims are less likely to go to Muslim schools than Christian kids are to go to Christian schools because--and forgive me if I am horrifically misinformed here--I think Christian schools are just so much more common than Muslim schools. I've seen like two private Muslim schools ever.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Sounds reasonable.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: To me, the burka represents deep-rooted misogyny, not violence. I'd support a women's lib movement against the burka, but banning it altogether exchanges fundamentalist control for governmental control -- too slight an improvement, and too dangerous a precedent.
I have heard of several Muslim women's groups that oppose the burka for the reasons you have given.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
You mean it's just good to see me.
Heh. Hey, Jose! Missed you too, big guy.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:That's what I was wondering... if non burka wearing girls were protecting her/upset for her. I don't know that I could have been so thoughtful.
I think you would. If they spent that much time with her, they had probably become friends, and had a discussion at one time or another about what covering herself meant to her, or at least understood that it was important to her. They immediately moved to protect their friend from something they knew would embarass her and violate her bounds of modesty-- like they would move to stand in front of a girl who was in a sports bra without a top if a man walked into the locker room.
I hope rivka doesn't mind if I use this as an example: When we were at Dallas Con, I happened to be in the hotel room while she was getting ready and did not have her head covered yet (we were all girls in there.) If the door had been unlocked and a man had unexpectedly walked in, I would have immediately called out, "Man in the room!" while turning him around and getting him out the door so her modesty would not be violated. I wouldn't have thought twice about it, even though it doesn't violate my personal bounds of modesty for a man to see my head uncovered. Since you're a good person and a good friend, I think you would do the same were you friends with this girl. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Is it very common in your area for burqa wearing girls to go to public schools or more common for them to go to Muslim schools?
I'm not actually aware of a single Muslim school in the area, although there's probably one somewhere; these are public school students. And frankly, based on the madrasa precedent, I think we have plenty of religious private schools already.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Here is a thought experiment. What if we could somehow, beyond a shadow of a doubt, say that a certain percentage of some forms of Islam that support women wearing burkas support terrorism, want to overthrow the state and replace it with an Islamofascist state. Is there a point a which laws like this *might* be justified? At what percentage, if any? 50%? 75%? 90%?
At no percentage. I'd say we've got a pretty high percentage of swastika-wearing, shorn-headed guys in black boots that want to overthrow the government and implement a white-supremecist state and I don't support banning those things, either.
quote:I'm sure that many of you will want to make this into a pure freedom of religion issue and be against this law without question.
Which is pretty much a good indication that you don't understand the position on religious free exercise that many of us take. It's never unquestioning - the easy example would be human sacrifice.
But here we have personal behavior which affects no one else. A particular type of clothing is being banned because it is worn by believers of a particular religion. It's the same problem I have with France's law: the practice does not directly affect others, and the intent of the law is to inhibit free exercise. There's no non-discriminatory motive even attempted in either case. In France, if it's religious and visible, you can't wear it to school. In the Netherlands, the law will be, if it's a particular form of religious garment, it can't be worn in public.
From the article:
quote:The country’s hardline Integration Minister, Rita Verdonk, known as the Iron Lady for her series of tough anti-immigration measures, told Parliament that she was going to investigate where and when the burka should be banned. The burka, traditional clothing in some Islamic societies, covers a woman’s face and body, leaving only a strip of gauze for the eyes.
Mrs Verdonk gave warning that the “time of cosy tea-drinking” with Muslim groups had passed and that natives and immigrants should have the courage to be critical of each other. She recently cancelled a meeting with Muslim leaders who refused to shake her hand because she was a woman.
...
The ban is likely to be enforced in shops, public buildings, cinemas, train and bus stations and airports, as well as on trains and buses.
For those who think this might somehow "liberate" the couple dozen women in the Netherlands who wear them:
quote:“Women have a very strong opinion about the burka. If you ban it they won’t leave the house. It is not a good way to integrate and emancipate Muslim women. Everything Muslims do is criticised by Verdonk. She is doing it to get votes. She doesn’t care about Muslims and their problems.”
The supposed justification (they can use it for concealment) is ridiculous. The person who proposed it did not do so merely for security reasons:
quote:Mrs Verdonk made the proposals after Geert Wilders, the right-wing MP, requested the ban. Mr Wilders claimed that the garment was unfriendly towards women and a threat to security.
This is an attempt to restrict a religious practice, motivated at least in part by a desire to change a religous belief. There's no way to pretend otherwise.
If the concealment issue is really the problem, will they ban carrying non-transparent bags in public? Mandate mini-skirts? A black armband could carry a joint, but no one even tried to pretend that was the reason for banning the armbands in t Tinker.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Mandate mini-skirts?
Hmm . . .
::writes congressman::
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Icarus, there's a Muslim school in Clermont, and, I believe, another one in the Orlando area.
My friend's wife was going to be a teacher at the one in Clermont until they left town.
But I can't imagine there are more than a handful of formal Muslim schools in the Central Florida area. Perhaps there are places kids can go for language or religious training in people's homes, though.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I want to feel outrage because I am religious and wouldn't want to have my rights taken away. My own feelings about the secularization of society makes me respect the Muslim perspectives. It would be nice to live among such conservatively God fearing people as long as they allowed me to be equally conservatively God fearing in my own way.
However, I just can't feel outrage at this. My feelings against Modern Muslims are too strong. Their actions are a danger to world peace and society. Not enough of them are speaking out against violence and extremism violence. Those who claim they are, but we don't hear them, only goes to show they aren't trying hard enough. Where are the anti-terrorist Muslim marches? Where are the Muslim countries sending troops or even using troops to root out insurgence? Where are the harsh words toward Iran's government and Middle East news? Even the most Democratic of Muslim nations are doing nothing (or very little) toward controlling terrorist Muslims. Those they don't support, they fight for purely political reasons! In fact, they seem to be rooting for them (and financially supporting them) in Israel and Iraq. I will feel outrage at Holland as soon as my outrage at the Muslim community is quelled by actions rather than quiet and almost unperceptable whispers.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Occasional,
Could you give examples of what you think the average Muslim should be doing in order to convince you of their commitment to peace?
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
We have at least a small population of Muslim students here, since I've seen severl girls with burkas and I know they had an "Understanding Islam" talk thing at one point.
I disagree with this law. It's basically what Tom pointed out. Just because a few bad eggs from that group do something horribly wrong doesn't mean you can deny the whole group its rights. I know there are some extreme sects that basically want to overthrow western society, but I'm not sure if banning burkas is the way to combat them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'd be interested in hearing just how much marching Occassional did in support of things like, say, the Civil Rights movement, or in outrage over things like My Lai (sp?).
Also, I'd be interested to hear how much exactly Muslims in the Arabic world should be doing to protest the actions of their frequently brutal, authoritarian, often cruel governments...while under the power of that same government.
As for what Muslims in the West should be doing, well, they are doing those things. You just don't hear about it on Fox.
I think it's an interesting point of view that in your opinion, Occassional, one outrage negates any possibility of outrage about anything else.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I'm curious what Holland is trying to get out of this law. It seems to be to make the country less attractive to conservative Muslims so they don't move there. It certainly isn't going to do anything for the oppression of women. . . none of these women are going to say, oh, it's illegal to wear my burka now, guess I better embrace feminisim and the West. Instead, it's just going to make them (and their men) feel more oppressed and quite likely more sympathetic to the terrorists, seeing this as a sign that western governments really are evil and out to destroy their religion.
In other words, not only do I think this law is wrong, I also think it's counterproductive and stupid. (Not that I see it as a legitimate justification for terrorism. I don't believe there is such a thing. But I can see, for people who are already leaning that way, how it could increase their support.)
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
quote: Not enough of them are speaking out against violence and extremism violence. Those who claim they are, but we don't hear them, only goes to show they aren't trying hard enough.
The reason we don't hear them is because they aren't being listened to, or fear retribution. There are women that are beaten in their homes but people aren't doing anything because they think they "deserve" it. Men have most of the power in those societies, and if they refuse to listen to them, then there's nothing they can do without fear of being hurt even more by the men in their lives.
And in terms of the insurgency and standing up to extreme terrorism, it's the same thing. People live in so much fear of being targeted by those groups that they feel they can't say anything. I don't think it's the fact that people just don't feel like saying anything. It's the fact that people are still afraid.
In terms of the burka, I think it is wrong to prohibit religious expression. Just because a small percentage of Muslims are extremists doesn't mean that Holland has the right to ban burkas. It is a personal choice, like Tom said, it's like wearing a cross. We shouldn't ban religious expression, no matter what a small group of individuals do.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
What exactly should they be doing? Standing up to said governments with life and limb. People are blowing themselves up in the name of Islam. Don't see why others are afraid to die for the ideal of freedom and social change. Someone mentioned FOX (to get my goad of course), but you don't see anything on CNN either.
Where are the powerful Western Muslim voices? Oh yea, saying nasty things about Bush and the U.S. Token statements about how bad terrorism is happens to be just that: Token. How does that saying go? If your not part of the solution than your part of the problem.
Rakeesh, considering what you picked I would say no marching, as they are issues not of my concern. Then again, I don't live in a part of the country that believes in marching. At least, you won't see other than a very few people who march or would consider it socially acceptable to march. Besides, I don't have the money, means, or influence for a march of any consiquence. I am, however, here writing my mind in an open forum. That is a start.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Occassional,
quote:Standing up to said governments with life and limb. People are blowing themselves up in the name of Islam. Don't see why others are afraid to die for the ideal of freedom and social change.
I should think it was obvious that the people blowing themselves up in the name of Islam don't think the same as the 'average' Muslim. D'uh.
quote:Where are the powerful Western Muslim voices? Oh yea, saying nasty things about Bush and the U.S. Token statements about how bad terrorism is happens to be just that: Token. How does that saying go? If your not part of the solution than your part of the problem.
What would suffice to you as a non-token statement? Since you're ready and willing to be the arbiter of what Good Muslims should be saying, of course.
Turn that cutting rhetorical wit inward, Occassional. If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem. (This was not italicized to criticize spelling, but to ask the question: Whnat are YOU doing?)
No marching? Issues not of your concern? What, you're not a human being, Occassional? Does not the standard of living, does not justice, concern you as a human being? And what is this nonsense about living in a part of the nation that 'doesn't believe in marching'? Which part of the nation is that?
And besides, you're nitpicking on marching to attempt to avoid the question which was not hinged upon marching. The question you have yet to answer, Occasional, is which moral, social, or legal problems have you, personally, ever done anything about to the same degree that you're insisting Muslims should be doing things?
You don't need money, means, or influence to 'march' or agitate for social change. It helps a great deal, yes, but to begin these things are not required. Malcolm X started his efforts from a prison cell. That's just one example.
And as for writing your mind on an open forum? Talk is cheap. In fact, talk is free. It's not a start, it's not anything.
Or at least it's certainly not a start the way you mean it's a start. Do some volunteer work. Work for a political campaign. Try to persuade people face-to-face about the things you believe. Spend your money according to your political and moral beliefs. Those things are a 'start'. Certainly not what we're doing here.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
What should average Muslims be doing? I would say, for every body bag filled by Terrorists, they should be writing a column in their local papers expressing disdain for that action. They should be writing books, getting interviews, starting a PR campaign. If you have to start your own papers, produce your own shows, and present your own words than try. Most of all, talking with their mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, and nieghbors about how horrible it all is and discussing what to do about the carnage. Then, along with that, rat out potential terrorists in public and private. Make it a shame to be considered a radical Muslim. Don't let the Imams speak for you if you don't believe they speak your words.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, Occasional. Do that in the Arabic world, and please, by all means, we'll have a seance with you to hear about what else you're doing after the first time you did one of those things.
Of course, it's very easy to tell other people, living far, far away from you with problems you've never experienced in your life, to risk their lives for what you say is right.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Or at least it's certainly not a start the way you mean it's a start. Do some volunteer work. Work for a political campaign. Try to persuade people face-to-face about the things you believe. Spend your money according to your political and moral beliefs. Those things are a 'start'. Certainly not what we're doing here.
Actually, I have done all of those things for many things I believe in.
Do some volunteer work: I have done at least two years of that actually. Of course, I have done more than just that, although not nearly as intense.
Work for a political campaign: Actually something I haven't done, but definantly supported those I voted for.
Try to persuade people face-to-face about the things you believe: Again, for at least two years I did this continually, and continue to not hesitate doing this when presented with the opportunity.
Spend your money according to your political and moral beliefs: I have been doing this since I was old enough to earn money.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Maybe I should have said average Western and Democratically free Muslims should be doing.
Besides, Protestants eventually survived in equally hostile and dangerous times.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
*blinks*
Did you miss the part where they don't have a free press?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Are you speaking of missionary work for the LDS Church? If so, good for you.
Of course, that doesn't do much to help raise the standards-of-living and lower the crime-rates of people and places outside the areas you proseltized.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You are aware that the 'average Western and Democratically free Muslims' are a tiny, tiny minority of all Muslims, right?
And yes, Protestants surived in hostile and dangerous times. And they as a whole frankly did not behave in a remotely Christlike fashion, either.
But let's not talk about that. Let's talk more about Muslims.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I don't really want to get into this argument, but I wanted to point out a flaw in Rakeesh's statement. Protestants survived in hostile and dangerous times, and yes they did behave in an un-Christlike fashion to do this. That's true. Muslims at the moment aren't in hostile and dangerous times. They are in times of religious tolerance, unlike the early days of the Protestants (where Catholicism was the major religion and it was trying to squash out Protestantism). Protestants' un-Christlike behavior can be somewhat forgiven for their circumstances (note, I say somewhat, since nothing excuses all of it). Some of the Muslim behavior being exhibited though is not excusable in a religiously tolerant world. Now maybe if everyone was out to squash Islam or something, then I might be more likely to agree with the comparison. This is a much different thing though, therefore the comparison is flawed.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Again Rakeesh, you ask me to support things I don't particuarly support as priorities. You are asking why I am not more of a Liberal when I am actually a Conservative.
By the way, what have YOU done?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Most conservatives I know are extremely supportive of private persons working to raise standards of living and lower crime rates.
But allow me to summarize so far:
Raise standards of living, negative.
Lower crime rates, negative.
Be okay with laws preventing law-abiding citizens from exercising their religious beliefs, affirmative.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Pfresh,
The world here is not hostile or violent-to us, the majority. I put forward that the Arabic world is quite different.
I put forward also that the horribly unChristlike behavior of the Protestant world in general extended beyond its status as a minority in Christendom. In many of the same ways as does the current Islamic world.
------
Occasional,
The things I mentioned are not Liberal priorities, and I think it's pretty unsurprising that you've already assigned Liberal and Conservative labels to this discussion-with yourself as the Conservative and presumably myself as the Liberal.
Which is funny, given my voting history. But that's a complicated issue, and you're more prone to telling people who live in a world totally alien to you what to do than think about complex issues.
----
Fugu,
I don't get what you're saying.
But for the record, Occasional isn't 'OK' with it, he's just not outraged about it. Because when you think about it, 'the Muslims' haven't 'earned' his consideration.
The idea you're supporting, Occasional, that it's acceptable to tolerate injustice just because the victim has behaved badly, is reprehensible. And also very unChristlike, I might add, since you brought up your missionary work.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh! I forgot to answer your question as to what I've done, which is put simply not much. I can answer 'yes' to the questions I put forward to you, as well as the one about supporting political campaigns, but not to the degree that I'd like. Right now I work mostly paycheck to paycheck.
But then again, I'm not telling people what standard they need to measure up to before I'll get huffed up about people pushing them around, either.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Would you take "Not particularly care"?
I'm trying to capture the feeling evinced by the post with this:
quote:However, I just can't feel outrage at this.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And of course, I do have to wonder what Occasional expects.
For instance, here's a Google search which shows plenty of vocal, peace-oriented groups (and its a naive search, not targeting many terms I know muslim peace organizations to use).
I'm not sure why he's blaming the millions of islamic people involved in peace efforts for his own inability to see.
Posted by Law Maker (Member # 5909) on :
Some of you seem to be missing the point. Most Muslims that are allowed to speak do speak against terrorism. I don't know what things you've done to make the world a better place, but does that mean you haven't done anything? Just because you may not be aware of them, doesn't mean they aren't doing anything.
Let me ask you, is it a good thing to deprive a people of the right to practice their religion? Would you have that done to you? Burkas harm no one. Banning them won't stop terrorism.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Pfresh,
The world here is not hostile or violent-to us, the majority. I put forward that the Arabic world is quite different.
I put forward also that the horribly unChristlike behavior of the Protestant world in general extended beyond its status as a minority in Christendom. In many of the same ways as does the current Islamic world.
I didn't realize we were speaking about the Arabic world. I thought we were talking about the Western world and the Muslims in it. Sorry, my mistake.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I think this law is absolutely disgusting. If their religion requires them to wear a burka, how dare anyone pass a law preventing them from doing so?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If your not part of the solution than your part of the problem.
Out of interest, can anyone think of a situation to which this quote could be fairly applied? I've never heard it used without disagreeing with it.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I guess if somehow you were impeding the progress of the solution without being directly opposed to it. That's equally vague though.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* I don't think it's especially hard, Tom. Goes along with one of my favorite sayings, "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
German citizens living in Germany during the buildup of the Third Reich and Hitler's rise to power without actively opposing it, for example. To come close to invoking Godwin's law, that is.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: To me, the burka represents deep-rooted misogyny, not violence. I'd support a women's lib movement against the burka
I'm not offended by the burka. But I do think that mini-skirts, bare midriffs, halter tops, and skin-tight jeans ARE misogynistic. And offensive. But hey, it's all about freedom of choice. If a woman chooses to dress in a way that exploits her own body, that is her choice. And if a woman chooses to dress in a way that minimizes the impact of her body, and focuses attention instead on her words and her actions, that is her choice, too.
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: My feelings against Modern Muslims are too strong. Their actions are a danger to world peace and society. Not enough of them are speaking out against violence and extremism violence. Those who claim they are, but we don't hear them, only goes to show they aren't trying hard enough. Where are the anti-terrorist Muslim marches? Where are the Muslim countries sending troops or even using troops to root out insurgence? Where are the harsh words toward Iran's government and Middle East news? Even the most Democratic of Muslim nations are doing nothing (or very little) toward controlling terrorist Muslims. Those they don't support, they fight for purely political reasons! In fact, they seem to be rooting for them (and financially supporting them) in Israel and Iraq.
I have trouble refuting such bald-faced bigotry. I shudder when faced with the closed-minded hatred of this post, and lose my ability to be reasonable and articulate. Give me time, and I'll calm down enough to respond properly. But I just couldn't read this bigoted post and say nothing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I believe that things like misogny much depend on the individuals involved. For instance, I believe there can be a loving, romantic relationship of equals in which a woman might wear a mini-skirt and a midriff-baring halter top, and be neither exploiting her body nor have the man be misogynistic.
But speaking generally, I do believe such clothing does encourage mysoginistic thoughts in many men. It is our job as men to overthrow and discard such thoughts, but women should not deceive themselves (I feel) that by dressing in such clothing, they will be *ahem* exciting mysoginistic thoughts in some men.
Then again, I also think that a man who wants to see women in the world dressed only in burka-like clothing is the perhaps more likely to be mysoginistic in the world, at home, at work, etc.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
:lol: Good points, Tante. I tend to look at things that way myself.
I was looking through Porter's D20 Modern book the other day just at the artwork for fun. I marveled once again at how nearly every drawing of a female showed far more skin than any of the male drawings.
I wondered if the artist was male.
But then, I thought, I wonder if female artists would draw the same way because we are brainwashed from birth to believe that showing skin and advertising sex is the best way to get attention from *men*, the holders of all the "real power" in the world.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but modesty is not only a Muslim virtue. Isn't it also a Christian virtue? In any event, my values, virtues, and beliefs are my own, and while I wouldn't object to having everyone adopt mine, I would never be chutzpadik enough to try to impose my values on everyone else.
Not even the Dutch.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
CURSE YOU, STORM SAXON. Was there no way you could have posted this BEFORE I was 95% finished my presentation on Shariah law in Ontario? And here I was just coming to see if Hatrack had had any interesting insights on the question, and you post an even better topic.
Curses.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm a winner.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: If a woman chooses to dress in a way that exploits her own body, that is her choice. And if a woman chooses to dress in a way that minimizes the impact of her body, and focuses attention instead on her words and her actions, that is her choice, too.
It's good that you condemn societies that don't functionally give women a choice in how they can dress themselves.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
I was raised a muslim and I have no problem with this ban whatsoever.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Okay, Hatrack, I have till Thursday. Tell me, should I go with my nearly-finished presentation, or change to this more recent and interesting one?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Eh, go ahead and change the whole thing. No sweat off my hide, I'm sure. Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: It's good that you condemn societies that don't functionally give women a choice in how they can dress themselves.
I thought we were talking about Holland. Which has a proposed ban on how women can dress themselves.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: It's good that you condemn societies that don't functionally give women a choice in how they can dress themselves.
I thought we were talking about Holland. Which has a proposed ban on how women can dress themselves.
I think it's pretty clear that there is a difference between a) forcing women to dress in a particular way and b) preventing them from dressing in a certain way.
It is quite logically consistent to be opposed to both, and opposing of the latter does not impute support of the former.
[Edit: Wrong word. Also, I'm pretty much agreeing with Tante here.] ***
Occasional - I really don't know what to say. I have tried to type something but it's just not coming out right.
Suffice to say your post made me very sad. It also scared me - I really hope your view is not shared by many of your compatriots, but I fear it is. I wish I could show you how your words have that effect on me but at the moment I can't get away from the base feelings to do so.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I'm not offended by the burka. But I do think that mini-skirts, bare midriffs, halter tops, and skin-tight jeans ARE misogynistic. And offensive. But hey, it's all about freedom of choice. If a woman chooses to dress in a way that exploits her own body, that is her choice. And if a woman chooses to dress in a way that minimizes the impact of her body, and focuses attention instead on her words and her actions, that is her choice, too.
We were, but you made this post which invokes a general principle. I find this comment very interesting. Consider, don't most societies have laws that say that women/people can't dress a certain way in public? I think so.
The argument is that this law is especially heinous because it targets a religious group. Yet, most fashion laws target those who belong to an out-group, or favor the scruples of an in-group. What makes the targetting of a religious group especially heinous? If we condemn Holland for trying to keep women from wearing what they want, outlawing certain fashion choices in public, why not respect the principle and condemn all societies who do so?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Hey, I'm fine with the government letting people wear what they want to, as long as it does not violate the customary standards of decency. So, if there is a society where customary standards of decency dictate that a woman's breasts should be covered in public, then it would be OK to have a law stating that women must cover their breasts in public.
And if there is a society where customary standards of decency dictate that a woman's neck should be covered in public, then it would be OK to have a law stating that women must cover their neck in public.
I don't see the inconsistency of that.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Hey, I'm fine with the government letting people wear what they want to, as long as it does not violate the customary standards of decency. So, if there is a society where customary standards of decency dictate that a woman's breasts should be covered in public, then it would be OK to have a law stating that women must cover their breasts in public.
And if there is a society where customary standards of decency dictate that a woman's neck should be covered in public, then it would be OK to have a law stating that women must cover their neck in public.
I don't see the inconsistency of that.
I'm sure the burka violates 'customary standards of decency' for many Dutch.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Really, Storm? Violates them, or exceeds them? Perhaps to a degree that makes them uncomfortable? It's not the same thing at all.
Oh, and kq, Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Because this law is being targeted at Islamic traditions because they are Islamic traditions, by a right-wing anti-immigration politician, this situation doesn't even rise to the argument you make.
Beyond that, it's clear they don't consider the burka a violation of decency standards. At most, they consider the message they are reading into the burka to be a violation of decency standards. An entirely different thing.
Finally, deliberately trying to restrict someone's ability to act according to the dictates of conscience is different from restricting other types of actions.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Tante, are you okay with laws that say women must wear burkas when out in public?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
But then no one would see her awesome shoes!
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: Tante, are you okay with laws that say women must wear burkas when out in public?
If I were living in a society where the customary standards of decency dictated that women wear burkas, then yes, I would support such a law. And I would want to wear one, too.
And yeah, my shoes are awesome!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Really, Storm? Violates them, or exceeds them? Perhaps to a degree that makes them uncomfortable? It's not the same thing at all.
quote: Because this law is being targeted at Islamic traditions because they are Islamic traditions, by a right-wing anti-immigration politician, this situation doesn't even rise to the argument you make.
Sure it does. In-groups. Out-groups. Fits right in.
quote:
Beyond that, it's clear they don't consider the burka a violation of decency standards. At most, they consider the message they are reading into the burka to be a violation of decency standards. An entirely different thing.
Indecency is an extremely vague term that can mean just about anything. Really, all it means is 'violates cultural norms'. We can quibble about whether this restriction really is targetting 'indecency' or not, and because the term is so vague, I doubt that we'll ever come to a metting of minds, but the basic logic behind this law and other public dress codes is still the same: we are infringing on someone's 'rights' not because of the danger they actually represent, but because they violate cultural norms.
I agree with a previous poster who said that the Dutch are trying to drive conservative Mulims out of the country. I think the whole terrorism issue is just an excuse and it really boils down to the fact that because the burka represents a very conservative ethic that many Dutch percieve to not fit in with their culture, they are targetting consevative Muslims and encouraging them to leave the country.
I recognize that many people are going to want to twist themselves into knots to justify the stupidity that occurs in this country in the name of decency because you feel like your definition of decency makes what we do o.k., but there is no difference between what's happening in Holland and the ban on what people can or can't wear in the name of 'decency' here.
quote: Finally, deliberately trying to restrict someone's ability to act according to the dictates of conscience is different from restricting other types of actions.
The 'dictates of conscience'? Who doesn't act according to the 'dictates of conscience'? What law isn't aimed at restricting someone's 'dictates of conscience'?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Murder laws.
Stealing.
Speed limits.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
You're going to have to elaborate.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Murder laws aren't aimed at forcing people to violate their dictates of conscience. Laws against stealing aren't aimed at forcing people to violate their dictates of conscience. Speed limits aren't aimed at forcing people to violate their dictates of conscience.
They aren't telling Muslims in Holland "don't do this thing that you don't think is wrong." They are telling them, "Do this thing that you think is wrong."
What you are utterly ignoring is that the decency laws are NOT aimed at particular people. These laws are. Just like poll taxes and literacy tests aren't technically racist, but the ones implemented in this country were because of the intent.
This is discrimination. It's an ugly attempt to make the country less hospitibale to Islam so they'll stay out. Holland can't close their borders entirely due to EU regulations, so they're doing the next "best" thing.
No amount of rationalization on your part will change this.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Murder laws aren't aimed at forcing people to violate their dictates of conscience. Laws against stealing aren't aimed at forcing people to violate their dictates of conscience. Speed limits aren't aimed at forcing people to violate their dictates of conscience.
People do things because of their dictates of conscience. Everything someone does is because of her 'dictates of conscience'. Laws are always aimed at dictates of conscience.
quote: They aren't telling Muslims in Holland "don't do this thing that you don't think is wrong." They are telling them, "Do this thing that you think is wrong."
That's part of living in a society, is it not? Bending your will to the rule of law. Not doing what you want to do, doing what you sometimes have to do.
quote: What you are utterly ignoring is that the decency laws are NOT aimed at particular people. These laws are. Just like poll taxes and literacy tests aren't technically racist, but the ones implemented in this country were because of the intent.
Sure they are. People who believe that those standards of dress are o.k.. Now, you can say that they don't constitute an organized group, but they are still a group of people. Specifically, those people who aren't part of the in-group culture of belief. (Edit: I should probably note that there are organized groups of people, most notably nudists/naturists, who believe that being naked is perfectly o.k..)
quote: This is discrimination. It's an ugly attempt to make the country less hospitibale to Islam so they'll stay out. Holland can't close their borders entirely due to EU regulations, so they're doing the next "best" thing.
I agree.
quote: No amount of rationalization on your part will change this.
Good thing I'm not trying to rationalize that their law is right.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
For the sake of completeness, I should note that Italy also passed a similiar measure with the same anti-terrorism rationale.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:People do things because of their dictates of conscience. Everything someone does is because of her 'dictates of conscience'. Laws are always aimed at dictates of conscience.
Are you contending that the average murderer feels compelled to commit his crime because his conscience tells him to? And please don't cite the rare exception as "proof," I have always acknowledged that sometimes laws will conflict with conscience. I'm talking about laws aimed at making people do something they believe is wrong.
quote:That's part of living in a society, is it not? Bending your will to the rule of law. Not doing what you want to do, doing what you sometimes have to do.
And in this case, "sometimes" is every single time they leave the house being required to do something you think is wrong. Not sometimes. And not refraining from doing something one thinks is acceptable. Do you truly not see the difference?
quote:Sure they are. People who believe that those standards of dress are o.k.. Now, you can say that they don't constitute an organized group, but they are still a group of people. Specifically, those people who aren't part of the in-group culture of belief. (Edit: I should probably note that there are organized groups of people, most notably nudists/naturists, who believe that being naked is perfectly o.k..)
And yet you agree with my very next sentence. That's the difference I'm trying to point out. No one passed a law requiring that people keep their pants on in public in order to try to kick people out of their country.
Murder laws are aimed at people who want to kill. Nudity laws are aimed at people who want to go outside naked. This law is aimed at Muslims.
quote:Good thing I'm not trying to rationalize that their law is right.
I didn't say you were. I did say you were rationalizing in an attempt to reduce the magnitude of the intrusion in this law in an attempt to equate it with the magnitude of the intrusion in public decency laws.
Telling someone they are not allowed to walk around in public naked is NOT the same thing as telling someone they need to either stay in the house and be excluded from society or dress in a way they believe to be a sin.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Woah, wow, incredible discussion keep up the good work.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I recognize that many people are going to want to twist themselves into knots to justify the stupidity that occurs in this country in the name of decency because you feel like your definition of decency makes what we do o.k., but there is no difference between what's happening in Holland and the ban on what people can or can't wear in the name of 'decency' here.
Well, as long as you're willing to have a reasonable and courteous discussion about the issue...
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Personally I have problems with it on both extremes - I disagree with laws that mandate women must wear burkas in public and I diasgree with the banning of them.
I have no problem with a country having decency standards, but when you define those standards by banning something that people wear out of religious observance, it's moved beyond a need for decency into discrimination.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: Tante, are you okay with laws that say women must wear burkas when out in public?
Religious laws or secular laws? I'd be against the latter. As for the former, it's a matter of context. If a true religion requires such a thing, that's fine. If it's not a true religion to begin with, I can't support it. But since a secular government shouldn't be deciding what's a true religion and what isn't, a law like this is bad.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: For the sake of completeness, I should note that Italy also passed a similiar measure with the same anti-terrorism rationale.
Italy hates any religion that isn't Christianity.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Doesn't italy happen to have a far larger muslim minority?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: quote:People do things because of their dictates of conscience. Everything someone does is because of her 'dictates of conscience'. Laws are always aimed at dictates of conscience.
Are you contending that the average murderer feels compelled to commit his crime because his conscience tells him to? And please don't cite the rare exception as "proof," I have always acknowledged that sometimes laws will conflict with conscience. I'm talking about laws aimed at making people do something they believe is wrong.
There is very little that people do that is instinctual. People choose to do things. This is what I think doing what your conscience tells you to do.
quote: quote:That's part of living in a society, is it not? Bending your will to the rule of law. Not doing what you want to do, doing what you sometimes have to do.
And in this case, "sometimes" is every single time they leave the house being required to do something you think is wrong. Not sometimes. And not refraining from doing something one thinks is acceptable. Do you truly not see the difference?
Standards of decency effect everyone that would like to be 'indecent', so to speak. Yes, it is patently obvious this law is aimed at invonveniencing a specific organized group, no question, but just as we could say that, well, anyone can be indecent and, thus, no indency law is really aimed at at a specific group, we could as well say that anyone could wear a burka. However, we all know that it's pretty unlikely anyone but Muslims are going to wear burkas, just as it is obvious that indecency laws aren't going to effect the 'moral majority' in this country. This is why I bring up the whole in-groups/out-groups point and why I think the burka situation in the Netherlands and the decency laws in general and the clothing decency laws specifically are cut from the same cloth.
quote: quote:Sure they are. People who believe that those standards of dress are o.k.. Now, you can say that they don't constitute an organized group, but they are still a group of people. Specifically, those people who aren't part of the in-group culture of belief. (Edit: I should probably note that there are organized groups of people, most notably nudists/naturists, who believe that being naked is perfectly o.k..)
And yet you agree with my very next sentence. That's the difference I'm trying to point out. No one passed a law requiring that people keep their pants on in public in order to try to kick people out of their country.
I agree that the laws in Holland are more extreme in some respects. However, they are on the same continuum. The punishment for, say, me being naked in a girl's school isn't going to be pretty. Even if I'm not kicked out of the country, in fact, I'll be jailed and segregated away.
However, I can be naked in private or in segregated areas approved by the state. Same thing with the burka. Is the fact that because wearing the burka is a part of these women's religion make their case more onerous on them than someone whose so-called dictates of conscience aren't? I don't think so. They can choose to adapt, can't they?
If you say that they can't, then you recognize part of the logic that underlies a lot of the anti-burka feeling. If you look at the cultures that use the burka, it's often used as a way of segregating women away from men and making them pretty much slaves to men and the culture. The religious, legal, and cultural taboos against not wearing the burka give the women no choice at all. All this crap about it empowering women so, to paraphrase, people pay attention to what they say and do and not their bodies, is crap. Many, if not most, cultures that use the burka have strictly enforced gender roles that prohibit what women can and can't do. See Iran and the Taliban for examples.
Is this always true? No. In some Muslim societies, women do wear the burka as a strong sign of devotion, and are otherwise free to follow their heart's desire in terms of career, etc., but I think this is probably more the exception in the larger Muslim world than the norm.
This is why I find the whole support of burkas kind of amusing. While I think anyone should support women wearing burkas on principle--who knows that women aren't choosing to wear them--I think the reality should be acknowledged that they are often part of a pretty crappy deal for women and that no woman on this forum would probably want to be part of that culture.
quote: Murder laws are aimed at people who want to kill. Nudity laws are aimed at people who want to go outside naked. This law is aimed at Muslims.
quote:Good thing I'm not trying to rationalize that their law is right.
I didn't say you were. I did say you were rationalizing in an attempt to reduce the magnitude of the intrusion in this law in an attempt to equate it with the magnitude of the intrusion in public decency laws.
I would rather say that I am pointing out the beam in our own eyes, a beam that in many ways is just as bad, if not worse.
quote: Telling someone they are not allowed to walk around in public naked is NOT the same thing as telling someone they need to either stay in the house and be excluded from society or dress in a way they believe to be a sin.
I don't agree with this for reasons already given. As someone who doesn't really belong to an organized religion, I find it distasteful because it seems to confer special rights and privileges on religious types.
I understand that you believe laws should effect everyone equally, and not target any group specifically, and I agree. However, my solution to this is that we and others base laws more on observable harm and less on cultural norms that favor the moral elite of any country, that give room to everyone to live as they best see fit. I think the general feeling here is that laws should be made that de facto favor the moral elite norms, and effect everyone equally. I don't agree with this view.
Please understand that I use the term 'moral elite' not as a pejorative term, but strictly as a recognition of fact. In Canada and Sweden, the moral elite are, or are coming to be, social liberals. They are forcing their standards of 'decency' on social conservatves in the form of hate speech laws and the like. This is wrong, too, if my principle is used. Using the principle that people here are espousing where the mores of the most powerful in a culture are the ones that can and should be enforced, laws like the ones in the Netherlands, Canada, and Sweden are o.k..
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There is very little that people do that is instinctual. People choose to do things. This is what I think doing what your conscience tells you to do.
What people choose to do is often not what their conscience tells them to do. If it were, we wouldn't need the word "conscience."
quote:The punishment for, say, me being naked in a girl's school isn't going to be pretty.
There are many people who use exposure of their own nakedness as a way to sexually attack people. When you can demonstrate that burka-wearing induces measurable hormonal and other physiological effects, your comparison might have some merit.
quote:This is why I find the whole support of burkas kind of amusing. While I think anyone should support women wearing burkas on principle--who knows that women aren't choosing to wear them--I think the reality should be acknowledged that they are often part of a pretty crappy deal for women and that no woman on this forum would probably want to be part of that culture.
So you find our lack of hypocrisy in allowing people to do things that we wouldn't personally want to do amusing? OK, whatever floats your boat.
quote:I would rather say that I am pointing out the beam in our own eyes, a beam that in many ways is just as bad, if not worse.
Except that you are ignoring or minimizing to the point of ignoring the differences between the two situations. And you did it from the very first post, pre-dismissing us.
quote:I don't agree with this for reasons already given. As someone who doesn't really belong to an organized religion, I find it distasteful because it seems to confer special rights and privileges on religious types.
Then, in this country, you need to get the Constitution amended.
quote:However, my solution to this is that we and others base laws more on observable harm and less on cultural norms that favor the moral elite of any country, that give room to everyone to live as they best see fit. I think the general feeling here is that laws should be made that de facto favor the moral elite norms, and effect everyone equally.
I think people shouldn't walk around naked in front of people who are not choosing to see them naked. That's as far as it goes.
quote:This is wrong, too, if my principle is used. Using the principle that people here are espousing where the mores of the most powerful in a culture are the ones that can and should be enforced, laws like the ones in the Netherlands, Canada, and Sweden are o.k..
Perfect proof that you don't understand the principles being espoused. Speech is different than nudity.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I don't see that further dialogue is productive. I appreciate the exchange of ideas.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I ended up switching, and it was a good thing I did, because the guy presenting after me did the topic I was going to do, and my presentation followed perfectly from the person before me and segued nicely into the one after me.
Thank you Hatrack! Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Glad it worked out well. As I said, no sweat off of my hide. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The issue came up in Norway the other day, and the school had a take on it that I haven't seen before : They said that wearing a burka interferes with communication between teacher and student. They therefore banned burkas and other face-hiding clothes in class, though students will be allowed to wear them during break and other times.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
The communication argument is lame, in my opinion, unless one party needs to read lips.
I can understand, however, why a burka would be inappropriate for a picture ID. A policy should be devised that permits the observant Muslim woman to have appropriate ID and to retain her modesty.
And I do believe, that since it interferes with the range of vision, that a burka is inappropriate to wear while driving. So driver's licenses ought not to be an issue, but passports might.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its definitely lame unless they can demonstrate it. If there's no (significant) demonstrable effect, then its a reasonable accomodation to allow it.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)