[QUOTE=Sattua]
And as to anyone in this thread who thinks that prohibiting the burqa ought to be law because it represents repression, sexism, medieval religiosity, etc–fascist much?
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Oakminster]
You can’t just stroll into Court and say “My religion requires X, respect it”. You’ll have a stronger case if you can show that your religion exists, and that some percentage of practitioners believe that religion requires X.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Dead Badger]
Maybe, but first define “the faith”, or for that matter “require”. Your implication is clearly that if the burqa is more of a traditional phenomenon that has grown up within Islam, then we can define it as being not really Islamic, and thus declare it fair game for legislation. But then you’re making the rather dubious assumption that a religion consists only of what is explicitly written down, or even more dubiously that only subsets of the texts are valid (I’ve seen someone on the board make this argument; I think it was tagos FWIW). This puts us in the even more dubious territory of actually endorsing (say) the Qur’an over the hadith, which rather implies that the government is then making value judgements on individual holy texts.
[/QUOTE]
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.
*
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Dutch to ban wearing of Muslim burqa in public
The article says this won’t affect many people, but I have a bad feeling about this. Frankly, it seems like pretty stupid legislation, especially coming form what has historically been the most tolerant country in the world. How long until we hear the word “outrage” bandied about in the press? Will it be justified this time?
Thoughts? I put this in the pit since I expect it to get nasty.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Sattua]
And as to anyone in this thread who thinks that prohibiting the burqa ought to be law because it represents repression, sexism, medieval religiosity, etc–fascist much? I can agree that I wouldn’t want my own daughter to be raised to think she has to wear one, but the rest of the world isn’t me. Freedom of religion was invented so that people could carry on with their little voodoo and raindances in peace.
[/QUOTE]
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”.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
And I support a law that says if a piece of identification requires a picture, the picture has to be of an individual, not an article of clothing.
But to say that that same woman can’t stroll down the street is quite different. Being in public doesn’t require that you be identifiable. People should be allowed to wear disguises or dress atypically.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Scoundrel Swanswater]
Everybody has to be identifiable at all times when asked by a police officer.
[/QUOTE]
“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?
[QUOTE=Oakminster]
Yes, it can, in a sense. The Courts are a branch of government. If legislation is passed, it will likely be up to the Courts to determine whether the legislation is constitutional. To do that, the Court will first have to decide what sort of scrutiny is appropriate. To decide what sort of scrutiny to apply, the Court will have to determine what rights are implicated. There’s a lotta stuff in the Constitution, and various “tests” that are applied to different situations. You can’t just stroll into Court and say “My religion requires X, respect it”. You’ll have a stronger case if you can show that your religion exists, and that some percentage of practitioners believe that religion requires X.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Oakminster]
I haven’t taken a position one way or another on whether burqa’s can, or should be, banned consistent with the US Constitution. It’s been a long time since I studied Con Law, and it’s been a helluva week, so I’m not going to look up the applicable standards tonight. The case can be argued either way.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
“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?
[/QUOTE]
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).
[QUOTE=Ghanima]
I think these laws are complete and utter bullshit and actually exemplify what makes the US so great (No, I’m not kidding). A woman should be able to wear whatever she goddamn well pleases. (However, the US loses points on the ban on toplessness. That should be allowed too. Who’s with me?)
A government should not have the right to govern our fucking wardrobes. This is outright religious discrimination.
[/QUOTE]
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).
[QUOTE=tagos]
…
… and AFAIK Mohammed said only the face and hands of a woman need covering to meet his ‘modesty’ strictures and the hijab does that.
…
[/QUOTE]
Citation, please?
w.
[QUOTE=BwanaBob]
Anything (or law) that makes it difficult or impossible to express a form of sexism is to be lauded.
[/QUOTE]
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?
[QUOTE=Maastricht]
A few years ago, research showed that most Moroccan mothers of children in elementary-school age, when asked to point in the direction of their kids’ elementary school, *did not know. * :eek:
That’s how much they were integrated in society and in their kid’s lives. 
[/QUOTE]
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?
[QUOTE=spoke-]
See any problems with walking into a bank wearing a ski mask, for example?
[/QUOTE]
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).
[QUOTE=alphaboi867]
Hypothetical scenario what if there was a country where it was considered normal for women to never cover their breasts or for men to go completely naked.
[/QUOTE]
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‘…”
[QUOTE=Johanna]
Ancient Greek dancing girls were all wrapped up too.
[/QUOTE]
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?