As to anyone in this thread who thinks that anti-burqa laws are fascist-- exagerate much? I think such laws are bad policy, but it’s a far cry from fascism, and I think it would be absurd to claim that The Netherlands will be a fascist country once this law passes.
You shouldn’t be allowed to stroll into court and bring up silly beliefs in the first place without proof that they actually do exist. eg. Have the prophet or the god who first promoted the practice swear himself in on the stand and make the point himself.
You can’t seperate the koran and the Hadiths. The Koran is the word of god on how to live revealed directly to his last messenger. M is the only one who can interpret the koran perfectly. The Koran is self-admittedly (there’s a sura that says it) ambigious, M by definition led a perfect life therefore the record of his life, his actions and non prophetic words as recorded and interpreted in the various hadiths are considered inseperable from the Koran. Of course the trouble starts when you disagree about which hadith is valid. IMHO this makes Islam extremely resistant to the sort of re-imagining Christianity underwent and Wahhibism would be the variant Mohammed would be most in tune with.
And yes I believe in Occams Razor approach to interpreting religious texts. In the absence of any reason to believe otherwise (and ‘times change’ or ‘it’s inconvenient to believe this’ don’t cut it) the words mean what they most plainly say. You don’t stitch a bit from this gospel, insert something from the old testament and ice with a bit of historical context to twist plain words.
The veil developed from pre-existing traditions in the Arabian peninsula and AFAIK Mohammed said only the face and hands of a woman need covering to meet his ‘modesty’ strictures and the hijab does that. The burka arose later and few muslim scholars believe it is a requirement.
But in the end religions are what religions do. And at the moment one particular religion is the source of terrorism. And these terrorists don’t have much trouble finding justifications for their actions in Islam. Once you accept Islam is under global attack by another culture the Koran is full of justifications. Which is why IMHO etc humanity should throw out all its mumbo jumbo. It’s hard to reason with people acting on God’s direct instruction, be they OBL or GWB.
*
I don’t see the problem with it.
We have an obligation to identify ourselves.
Therefor people should have their face visible.
I am not allowed to wear a balaclava either.
People are allowed to wear headscarves or the one form-filling dress with the open face, just not burqas.
Bullshit.
The burqa is more an expression of fascism.
This has nothing to do with freedom of religion.
No reasonable muslim woman in the Netherlands will ever wear a burqa.
In fact most Dutch muslims dissaprove of it.
The ones that are wearing the burqa are either suppressed women, who aren’t allowed to interact with the world or militant muslims (mostly white women) who are interested in terrorism.
The burqa has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the muslim religion but everything with what Bush would call “hate of freedom”.
Well, it does in the Netherlands.
Everybody has to be identifiable at all times when asked by a police officer.
I seriously am amazed that people are defending the right to wear something that completely makes you anonimous and limits your vision.
This has nothing to do with religion, but everything with security.
“At all times” and “when asked by a police officer” are not interchangeable.
I have no problem with someone having to show her face to a police officer (if that police officer has a reasonable reason for asking). But she shouldn’t have to show her face to me just to be on the same sidewalk.
Every place of business should be able to choose for themselves if they object to someone coming in to their store “in disguise”.
And just out of curiosity, is drag illegal in the Netherlands?
This is particularly the case when it comes to prisoner litigation - my old Con Law/Admin Law professor worked at the DoJ dealing with these sort of suits. Prisoners often have little to do all day but dream up creative lawsuits. She would tell us stories of new prisoner religions that would demand protection under Free Exercise, such as the Church of the Filet Mignon that claimed it was a religious sacrament to eat prime steak every meal. As far as I remember, there is no one test that has been applied to determine what is and what is not a religion, but instead more of a ‘smell test’ is used.
From what I remember, the burqa could nto be banned, as that would be directly aimed at an individual religion. Under Smith v Employment Division, however, I think it likely that a law could be drafted that banned all head to ground clothing that covered the face. It would just have to make sure that it applied to all such clothing.
Actually they are interchangable in the Netherlands, that is why this piece of legislation is being discussed.
Drag is legal in the Netherlands, but you can still see the face of someone in drag, can’t you.
If I decide my particular religion needs me to wear a balaclava, will you think it is a good idea if I walk into a jewelry store? (I know : a bit of a strawman).
There are several places in the US where it is legal to go topless so long as it is not done in a sexual manner, New York City for one. Yes, that means that women can walk around New York with boobs open to the air.
It depends on the country in this case. If their Constitution enshrines their customs more than certain freedoms than it would be perfectly legitimate. The problem is that in the US and the Netherlands the Constitutions do more to enshrine freedoms than customs (open-ended protection of religion).
Citation, please?
w.
Should it be illegal to tell sexist jokes?
Should sexist stand-up comedy acts (e.g. 98% of them) be illegal?
Should churches be forced by law to accept women clergy?
My wife would probably fail this test too, even though we live exactly one block Northwest of the local elementary school. She has a terrible sense of direction and if you asked her to point towards the school she’d probably point in every direction but Southeast.
Enjoy,
Steven
For those who think public anonymity should be acceptable, are there any limits?
See any problems with walking into a bank wearing a ski mask, for example?
If the bank doesn’t care, I don’t.
For your comfort and safety, the wearing of burqas is not permitted.
–The Government
Wearing a balaclava in public in the UK is also illegal (although I believe the law refers to a specific type of balaclava with only eye holes cut out - terrorist stylee).
I read in an anthropology book once an explanation by someone from a naked tribe somewhere: “When people go naked we feel we can trust them. But if someone puts on clothes we wonder what are they trying to hide and we feel suspicious.”
According to Genesis 38:14-15, there was a time in the ancient Middle East when wearing a burqa‘ was considered a sign of whoredom. The KJV says Tamar “wrapped” herself with the veil, which brings to mind the large sheets of cloth used for chadors and burqa‘s. Ancient Greek dancing girls were all wrapped up too. Well, as anyone who has bellydanced will tell you, even if I started a dance like that, it would come off before long.
After I posted the link to that Bible verse page with a big smorgasbord of translations, I went back and looked at it some more. When I read the Arabic translation of the verse, of course what word do you suppose it used?
فخلعت عنها ثياب ترملها وتغطت ببرقع وتلفّفت وجلست في مدخل عينايم التي على طريق تمنة. لانها رأت ان شيلة قد كبر وهي لم تعط له زوجة
Those who can read Arabic will see this for themselves: it literally says “burqa‘.” Translating back from the Arabic version, it reads “And she took off the garments of her widowhood and covered herself with a burqa‘…”
Can you tell me a bit more about that? Was the fun of the dance the " unwrapping of the present" a sort of striptease? Or would they be wrapped up like that all the time, and if so, how did they dance? Did they show enticing glimpses of nose, arm, feet?