What if a full body burka was adopted by a large US minority?

[SteveG1]

@Polerius

Assume a large US minority (religious or otherwise) decides to start wearing the equivalent of a full-body burka (which also covers the face)

[ul]
[li]Would you be OK with that?[/li][li]Would the law/government be OK with that?[/li][/ul]

I personally would be OK with it. Freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom to wear whatever they want to wear. Just don’t tell me I have to follow suit (so to speak).

I have no idea what the goverment/law would have to say on it.

[SteveG1]

@ralph124c

I was just in a local liquor store. They had a sign…“Please remove your hoods”.
I assume this is to deter robbers.

Oh please. It’s a liquor store, and they are known to carry the finest whiskies.
Removing the hood is a sign of respect and reverence, as is only fitting and proper
Just having a bit of fun here.

[magellan01]

@StusBlues

Wrong. With the exception of indecent exposure laws, people can dress however they like in the US. If you don’t like it, I bet you’ll love France.

Uh, we know they can. We’re talking about what policy should be. And we’re not talking about all dress, just that which obscures the face. So you were wrong in the first post of yours I responded to and you’re wrong here. You’re two for two! Unless you think, contrary to what I said, “it’s [not] open for discussion”. :rolleyes:

[StusBlues]

@magellan01

Uh, we know they can. We’re talking about what policy should be. And we’re not talking about all dress, just that which obscures the face. So you were wrong in the first post of yours I responded to and you’re wrong here. You’re two for two! Unless you think, contrary to what I said, “it’s [not] open for discussion”. :rolleyes:

Erm, I think you’re forgetting what you wrote.

Nope. Clothes are what we wear to keep us warm. You know: food, shelter, clothing. Anything that is an excess of that is open for discussion. When you don something for affectation, society has the right to judge it and put limits on it. And we have the right to have people walk around so that they can be recognized, and can easily be held accountable for their actions. That is the U.S., anyway. If you don’t like it, there’s always places like Saudi Arabia. Pack you stuff and good riddance.

Y’see, “affectation” sounds a whole lot like “free speech”, which is a pretty big deal in the US. Some limits may be “open for discussion”–crowded theaters and all that–but dictating modes of dress is generally out of bounds as near as I can tell, with some exceptions for fraud, hygene, and what not. If you’re looking for restrictons on dress, go to Saudi or France. I’m sure you’d love it there.

[SteveG1]

@El_Kabong

Nah. Oppressive and annoying, maybe, but nothing like a nightmare. Now, if 100% of the male population were to wear only Speedos everywhere; that’s a nightmare.

Oh, HELL no! If a man looks like an overweight Wookie, he better cover up. :eek:

[magellan01]

@StusBlues

Erm, I think you’re forgetting what you wrote.

Y’see, “affectation” sounds a whole lot like “free speech”, which is a pretty big deal in the US. Some limits may be “open for discussion”–crowded theaters and all that–but dictating modes of dress is generally out of bounds as near as I can tell, with some exceptions for fraud, hygene, and what not.

So, even if you make the free speech argument, you AGREE that it is NOT absolute. That means that it IS “open for discussion”. As I said.

In other words, you’ve shown yourself to be wrong. Well done.

Is there an auot-pilot switch on this thing?

[begbert2]

@magellan01

So, even if you make the free speech argument, you AGREE that it is NOT absolute. That means that it IS “open for discussion”. As I said.

In other words, you’ve shown yourself to be wrong. Well done.

What’s your point again? What’s your position?

Nobody’s argued that cops shouldn’t be able to make you show your face.

[StusBlues]

@magellan01

So, even if you make the free speech argument, you AGREE that it is NOT absolute. That means that it IS “open for discussion”. As I said.

In other words, you’ve shown yourself to be wrong. Well done.

Is there an auot-pilot switch on this thing?

Damned if I can understand that last part. That, and as Begbert2 points out, you’re deliberately misinterpreting what I said.

Again, if you want more restrictions on free speech, there are lots of places where you can get them. The US isn’t a great place to look, though. Good luck with the crepes.

[DigitalC]

@Polerius

I agree that this scenario is almost impossible to occur, so I don’t worry that it will. I just wanted to see how people would feel if it came to pass, just to see if there is a threshold beyond which they would say “enough”. Since people so far in this thread seem to not care if 100% of the population is doing this, it’s pretty clear that they have no such threshold, and it’s also pretty clear that they won’t care if a small percentage of the country does it. The 100% scenario, while extremely unlikely, was meant to set a baseline for people’s attitudes on this issue.

I think a bigger nightmare would be living in a place were people told you what you could wear because they had “enough” of you having choices.

[Polerius]

@DigitalC

I think a bigger nightmare would be living in a place were people told you what you could wear because they had “enough” of you having choices.

For all of you who are horrified that the government might tell you what you can or cannot wear:

1. How do you feel about the anti-mask laws mentioned in post #29?
2. How do you feel about public decency laws that restrict the amount of nudity you can exhibit?

Are these laws a nightmare for you? They are, after all, restricting your right to wear whatever you want.

[begbert2]

@Polerius

For all of you who are horrified that the government might tell you what you can or cannot wear:

1. How do you feel about the anti-mask laws mentioned in post #29?
2. How do you feel about public decency laws that restrict the amount of nudity you can exhibit?

Are these laws a nightmare for you? They are, after all, restricting your right to wear whatever you want.

The requirement that masks be removed in certain locales and circumstances serves a greater good. I’m totally cool with restrictions pursuant of a greater good.

The public decency laws are dodgy, but have too much popular support to fight outright. (Not to mention I’m not personally motivated to fight them.) They are gradually eroding away though, so it’s really only a matter of time. (Okay, decades.)

[DigitalC]

@Polerius

For all of you who are horrified that the government might tell you what you can or cannot wear:

1. How do you feel about the anti-mask laws mentioned in post #29?
2. How do you feel about public decency laws that restrict the amount of nudity you can exhibit?

Are these laws a nightmare for you? They are, after all, restricting your right to wear whatever you want.

I would be perfectly fine with people being asked to remove their burqas for identification and security purposes, not because some random person doesn’t like it. The fact that you think you should have a say in other peoples clothing choices for the simple reason that you personally don’t like them IS scary as fuck.

[Polerius]

@DigitalC

I would be perfectly fine with people being asked to remove their burqas for identification and security purposes, not because some random person doesn’t like it.

The anti-mask laws don’t say that you can wear a mask in public at all times but have to remove it for identification and security purposes. The ones I read said you can’t wear one period (I’ll get you a cite when I’m back at my computer)
Are those laws scary as fuck?

The fact that you think you should have a say in other peoples clothing choices for the simple reason that you personally don’t like them IS scary as fuck.

First of all, you are exaggerating that it’s because “I don’t personally like them”. It’s because, among other things, about the sort of society that would result if everyone hid their face in public.

Second, what about anti-nudity laws? What about the fact that the law prohibits women from being topless in public just because someone prefers not to see titties in public? Is that scary as fuck?

[begbert2]

@Polerius

The anti-mask laws don’t say that you can wear a mask in public at all times but have to remove it for identification and security purposes. The ones I read said you can’t wear one period (I’ll get you a cite when I’m back at my computer)
Are those laws scary as fuck?

Are these laws actually being enforced? Has Halloween been canceled somewhere?

@Polerius

First of all, you are exaggerating that it’s because “I don’t personally like them”. It’s because, among other things, about the sort of society that would result if everyone hid their face in public.

What society might that me? Seriously.

Let’s not mix up cause and effect here; you’re not talking about societies overrun with muslims or mormons or whichever. You’re talking about, and I quote, “the sort of society that would result if everyone hid their face in public”. What horrible society-spanning consequences would be caused if everyone suddently started wearing hockey masks for no apparent reason?

[Rodgers01]

@Monty

You mean like wearing blue jeans, outdoors jackets, and ballcaps?

Well, to my mind blue jeans, outdoors jackets, and ballcaps are the kinds of clothes people in Rocky Mountain states wear. I’ve never heard that they’re particularly violent/repressive. So…no.

@phi2dao

In that case though, isn’t your problem with the extremism and not the dress?

Would you have a problem with millions of people wearing a particular tie if that tie was associated with a nasty brand of extremism?

Yes. I don’t care what people wear, unless what they wear is a symbol of something larger that worries me. So if skinheads, for example, all started wearing a certain tie, I would be concerned. (Note, though, that I wouldn’t support banning the tie - I’d just be concerned.)