Sure. The way that I am reading a lot of the posts in this thread is that we are saying that Western culture is inherently more free than (in this case) Islamic culture. If that is the case we should probably have as a desired outcome that Western culture changes Islamic to be more western rather than the other way around. In other words the frame of the debate should be “how do we change them to be more like us without compromising the very things that makes us like we are”.
I don’t for one moment think that you are not really understanding the points that I am making. Life is, as you say, tough. People that behave the way that you are behaving in this thread are part of the reason why.
Sure, but I don’t think we can change them to be more like us by changing ourselves to be more like them. The problem with the burqa is not the garment itself, but the idea that women have no say in whether they want to wear them or not. Flipping the toggle from “Must wear them” to “Can never wear them” isn’t an improvement. There’s no moral difference between the two. If we want to convince Muslims to respect the rights of women, the absolute worst way to go about it is to disrespect the rights of women ourselves.
I asked about one specific sentence, because what you wrote was straight up gibberish. You’re the one who got all weirdly defensive about it.
I’m not attempting to draw the parallel (but I’ll give you the commonly-exhibited parallel in a second as a sidebar)
My point is more to merely ask of all the people yammering on in this thread about how awful it must be to live in a society that practices rank discrimination against minorities for dubious reasons: do you support polygamy, gay marriage, bestiality, etc. because our society’s restrictions on these things are just as much intervening in the private lives of people who cause no harm to other individuals.
Now, the sidebar: the normal “paternalistic” argument made against polygamy laws is that is presupposes that women are too dumb, and too easy to be tricked, into a massively unfair relationship where they share their time with one man and the man gets x number of wives. the people that believe this is paternalistic would have you know that women are just as capable of analyzing their life-situation and making a fully informed decision as to their marital choices, without the help of father government.
I would invite you (if you are a chick; if you’re not, bring a lady friend) to attempt to stroll down the streets of Saudi Arabia as a female wearing shorts and see how far you get.
There are expectations of cultural norms in every society, everywhere. You aren’t free to walk around naked in Times Square, are you?
Sometimes majority rules and you’ve gotta deal with it.
You could say that you are not following me and ask for clarification in a way that fosters mutual respect. You choose to suggest in a snide way that I don’t have command of the language. Then, because I react to this, I am being “weirdly defensive”? For a follow up, when I point out that you are being a jerk, you restate this as me typing gibberish.
I get that you don’t really care what I think and I am also clear that you seem to disagree with my opinions. I am just glad that I am only having to deal with the output of your head rather than having to live in it.
I don’t think the West should try to change Islamic culture, that’s up to Islam. I do think however that the West has the absolute right to say that Islam cannot enforce its cultural laws on those Muslims who live in the West.
OTOH sometimes it has been necessary for a Western power to change the culture of another country by force. I’m thinking of the British when they ruled India. In some areas suttee or sati was common, “a funeral practice among some Hindu communities in which a recently widowed woman would either voluntarily or by use of force and coercion immolate herself on her husband’s funeral pyre.”
The British authorities promptly made it illegal and I think they were right to do so, and would be right even today by non-imperial standards.
Except that the reasons for outlawing gay marriage are not the same as the reasons for outlawing polygamy, which are not the same as the reasons for outlawing beastiality, which are not the same as the reasons for outlawing the burqa. There are reasons for and against all of these laws, and there’s very little overlap between them. There’s no particular reason why one cannot be in favor of some of these laws, and opposed to the rest.
Not a bad argument, but it’s worth pointing out that polygamy laws prevent women as well as men from having more than one spouse.
As a non-Muslim - and a guy, for the record - I’m not allowed to go to Saudi Arabia at all. This view might be outdated these days, but I think non-theocracies should try to be a bit more tolerant than insane theocracies.
Are laws against public nudity being applied disproportionately on one group? I mean, you could make the argument that they have an unfair impact on nudists and that Naked Cowboy jerk, but I don’t think I’m going to buy that as a group needing protection compared to, say, the second-largest of the world’s many crazy religions.
Ummm the exact statment I was refering to was specifically refering to people who VISIT other countries:
Not that it makes any difference, visitors to your country have as much right to freedom of religion as anyone else. Obviously it is polite to respect the traditions of a country you are visiting, and if you visit a country with oppressive laws you have to abide by them, but that doesn’t make those laws any less oppressive.
There is NO logical, legal or moral and other kind equivalence between the right to commit heinous child abuse, and the right to wear a peice of clothing in public to express your religious views.
Unless you’re Israeli, non-Muslim males can enter Saudi Arabia…
As for the rest:the point is not how we as a society define “discrimination” (i.e. the imposition of a disparate impact test, etc) but rather that there are cultural rules that, in aggregate, significantly curtail people’s abilities to do things in pretty much every society.
That wasn’t my understanding, but it if I’m wrong, it’s still not shooting to the top of places I gotta visit.
Of course there are. So the question is whether this intrusive proposed law makes any sense, and whether it can achieve the goal that is being stated. I’m saying it does not, that it contradicts religious freedoms that are supposed to be respected in Western societies, and that it cannot work as stated. “Our house, our rules” (the sovereignty argument) is not an adequate justification for a law.
the rule doesn’t ban just islamic things, you know?
and religious freedom in France takes on a different tenor than it does here. not better, not worse, just different. but that different is extremely germane to the debate on burkas:
“No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.”
Other than burqas, what does a ban on burqas ban? And how can a ban on ‘identifiable religious garments’ be equally applied when it bans Islamic headdress and makes an exception for crucifixes?
In what sort of repressive state does wearing a burqa disturb the public order?
It doesn’t make an exception for equally gaudy crucifixes, though.
No one’s going to restrict you carrying around a small crescent, but bling the size of flava-flav’s clock would.
I don’t know the last answer… France?
Is it really too hard to understand how some people actually don’t want to see religious shit when they go out to Mickey-Dees, and may actually be offended by having to look at it?
A plain black scarf is “gaudy?” If you’re going to ban religious clothing - a stupid idea in the first place - then the ban needs to be applied equally. “No religious clothing except small crosses” is plainly discriminatory. The proposed ban on burqas comes from the same place. That’s the problem.
Gee, and all this time I’d been hearing the French were less prudish than those silly Americans.
It’s easy to understand. The problem is that it still makes for a stupid law, and one that has obvious biases behind it. I’ve long since gotten over the idea that all of my opinions and dislikes should have the weight of the law behind them, but apparently, Nicolas Sarkozy hasn’t.
No at all, I can equally well understand that some people are offended by having to see non-white people (or catholics, or Jews, or Irish) when they go to Mickey-Dees. Should their delicate sensibilities also be protected by the full force of the law?
Article L141-5-1
Créé par Loi n°2004-228 du 15 mars 2004 - art. 1 JORF 17 mars 2004 en vigueur le 1er septembre 2004
Dans les écoles, les collèges et les lycées publics, le port de signes ou tenues par lesquels les élèves manifestent ostensiblement une appartenance religieuse est interdit.
there’s no mention of cross, christian, muslim, crescent, burka, etc.
you cannot carry a sign or wear clothing that conspicuously manifests religious affiliation. that’s it.