Banning the Burqa

[radiojake]

How do you guys know that people are truly being seduced?

Both of you are assuming that people have no free will in such matters like deciding what clothes to buy, or which school to go to, or any activity that involves exchanging money for some good or service.

In western liberal societies, the individual as consumer and voter is subjected to a variety of allurements through appeals to greed, vanity, envy and revenge - in other circumstances these would be considered moral failings, however these are essential for the functioning for our economy and polity - Television, billboards, advertising all seek to shape the viewer's choice of commodities and candidates - To seduce is to incite someone to open up his or her innermost self to images, sounds, and words offered by the seducer and to lead the seduced, complicitly or unwittingly - to an end first conceived by the former.

[BigBallinStalin]

How do you guys know that people are truly being seduced?

Both of you are assuming that people have no free will in such matters like deciding what clothes to buy, or which school to go to, or any activity that involves exchanging money for some good or service.

In western liberal societies, the individual as consumer and voter is subjected to a variety of allurements through appeals to greed, vanity, envy and revenge - in other circumstances these would be considered moral failings, however these are essential for the functioning for our economy and polity - Television, billboards, advertising all seek to shape the viewer's choice of commodities and candidates - To seduce is to incite someone to open up his or her innermost self to images, sounds, and words offered by the seducer and to lead the seduced, complicitly or unwittingly - to an end first conceived by the former.

You do know that you, the customer, is not a mindless zombie?

It's not like companies have perfected mind control, nor are they immune from their customers simply not liking their products and favoring other ones... The influence goes both ways--not one-way (a.k.a. being seduced by the Big Bad Companies).

Besides, being "subjected to a variety of allurements through appeals to greed, vanity, envy and revenge," happens in non-western and/or non-liberal societies as well. Those negative qualities aren't a product of capitalism; it's just inherent within human behavior.

[radiojake]

You do know that you, the customer, is not a mindless zombie?

It's not like companies have perfected mind control, nor are they immune from their customers simply not liking their products and favoring other ones... The influence goes both ways--not one-way (a.k.a. being seduced by the Big Bad Companies).

Besides, being "subjected to a variety of allurements through appeals to greed, vanity, envy and revenge," happens in non-western and/or non-liberal societies as well. Those negative qualities aren't a product of capitalism; it's just inherent within human behavior.

I know that we are not all mindless zombies, but it doesn't change the premise that seduction is a massive part of our economic system.

My point about seduction is that it is this very reason why Islamic women are told to wear the burqa - Islam considered seduction a threat to society and the polity - The difference between Islam and the West is that the West decided to use seduction as a driving force behind it's economic system -

This is why we find the burqa so confronting - it bucks the trend, so to speak, of using seduction as an economic driving force.

[thegreekdog]

I'd be willing to bet that Muslim men find women seductive regardless of whether the women are wearing burqas or not.

Disregarding the idea that burqas are a sexist way of controlling women (as opposed to, you know, not letting women drive or having the right to kill women for cheating), I don't think burqas or any other head gear or clothing should be banned.

[Pirlo]

I'd be willing to bet that Muslim men find women seductive regardless of whether the women are wearing burqas or not.

this is very wrong

Disregarding the idea that burqas are a sexist way of controlling women (as opposed to, you know, not letting women drive or having the right to kill women for cheating), I don't think burqas or any other head gear or clothing should be banned.

and this is tradition-based... not religion at all.. btw, burqa or burka, whatever you call it in english, is not obligatory in religion. it is obligatory only in Saudi Arabia for Saudi women only which is state law/tradition-based not religion-based too.

[thegreekdog]

this is very wrong

Really? Then I retract my willingness to bet on it. Practically speaking, I saw a woman wearing a burqa the other day and she had a very nice ass.

and this is tradition-based... not religion at all.. btw, burqa or burka, whatever you call it in english, is not obligatory in religion. it is obligatory only in Saudi Arabia for Saudi women only which is state law/tradition-based not religion-based too.

I'm not suggesting these things are based on religion. And if the burqa is not based on religion (but is based on tradition) in the United States this would provide less protection (at least under the First Amendment).

[Pirlo]

Practically speaking, I saw a woman wearing a burqa the other day and she had a very nice ass.

this is a good proof of the fact that it is tradition not religion-based. the function of the islamic costume is to prevent any seductive look. the example you gave about that kind of costume doesn't do its islamic function.

I'm not suggesting these things are based on religion. And if the burqa is not based on religion (but is based on tradition) in the United States this would provide less protection (at least under the First Amendment).

not sure if I understand less protection of what. but to be fair, I have no idea on which base they wear it over there in USA

[thegreekdog]

this is a good proof of the fact that it is tradition not religion-based. the function of the islamic costume is to prevent any seductive look. the example you gave about that kind of costume doesn't do its islamic function.

So Islam is both a culture and a religion?

not sure if I understand less protection of what. but to be fair, I have no idea on which base they wear it over there in USA

In the United States, religion is protected under the First Amendment. Tradition is not protected under any amendment. Therefore, if a state passed a law indicating that burqas were illegal, I would suspect the offended party would bring a First Amendment claim indicating that the ban on burqas violated the First Amendment's protection of religion (not tradition). In fact, I would be surprised if there wasn't already a case on this in the US.

[BigBallinStalin]

You do know that you, the customer, is not a mindless zombie?

It's not like companies have perfected mind control, nor are they immune from their customers simply not liking their products and favoring other ones... The influence goes both ways--not one-way (a.k.a. being seduced by the Big Bad Companies).

Besides, being "subjected to a variety of allurements through appeals to greed, vanity, envy and revenge," happens in non-western and/or non-liberal societies as well. Those negative qualities aren't a product of capitalism; it's just inherent within human behavior.

I know that we are not all mindless zombies, but it doesn't change the premise that seduction is a massive part of our economic system.

My point about seduction is that it is this very reason why Islamic women are told to wear the burqa - Islam considered seduction a threat to society and the polity - The difference between Islam and the West is that the West decided to use seduction as a driving force behind it's economic system -

This is why we find the burqa so confronting - it bucks the trend, so to speak, of using seduction as an economic driving force.

So we've shifted from seduction of "business to consumers" to seduction of "wearing burqas"...

How is the burqa and "seduction as an economic driving force" related?

[Pirlo]

So Islam is both a culture and a religion?

if I your question as I understand it, then I'd say yes

In the United States, religion is protected under the First Amendment. Tradition is not protected under any amendment. Therefore, if a state passed a law indicating that burqas were illegal, I would suspect the offended party would bring a First Amendment claim indicating that the ban on burqas violated the First Amendment's protection of religion (not tradition). In fact, I would be surprised if there wasn't already a case on this in the US.

yeah man. Burka itself is not obligatory. however, as we said once in another thread, Islam is decentralized. which means that a scholar may deem it necessary in particular cases or environments. though many scholars now are saying bullshit if they were bribed enough or in some cases threatened by a dictator in a third world country like when both Muslim and Christian higher clergies supported the dictator Mubarakola for their own interests rather than telling the truth. this world became really awful, man. we are all deceived by our governments all over the world

[thegreekdog]

we are all deceived by our governments all over the world

I'm down with that. The rest? Practically speaking, in order to maintain the right to wear a burqa in public (in the face of a law prohibiting it), they'd better come up with a religious justification (at least here in the US).

[Symmetry]

we are all deceived by our governments all over the world

I'm down with that. The rest? Practically speaking, in order to maintain the right to wear a burqa in public (in the face of a law prohibiting it), they'd better come up with a religious justification (at least here in the US).

The burqa is not necessarily mandated by Islam, sure, but wearing it is for many women a symbol of their beliefs. It is a religious statement. I doubt they'd have trouble coming up with an argument that it's a matter of religion. Banning wearing a crucifix would face similar problems.

[Pirlo]

we are all deceived by our governments all over the world

I'm down with that. The rest? Practically speaking, in order to maintain the right to wear a burqa in public (in the face of a law prohibiting it), they'd better come up with a religious justification (at least here in the US).

not sure if they would even do so. it will eventually depend on their morals, maybe they come up with some convincing point. I can't judge them in advance.

[saxitoxin]

disappointed that the slaver states of Dutchland and Frengland have managed to duck out of this entire thread even thought they're the culprits of the hate-laws; this is par for the course for them, though, sitting high in their towers of poop, lecturing the world on how to behave then goose-stepping to Prussian police marches through their own cities

[PLAYER57832]

this is a good proof of the fact that it is tradition not religion-based. the function of the islamic costume is to prevent any seductive look. the example you gave about that kind of costume doesn't do its islamic function.

So Islam is both a culture and a religion?

not sure if I understand less protection of what. but to be fair, I have no idea on which base they wear it over there in USA

In the United States, religion is protected under the First Amendment. Tradition is not protected under any amendment. Therefore, if a state passed a law indicating that burqas were illegal, I would suspect the offended party would bring a First Amendment claim indicating that the ban on burqas violated the First Amendment's protection of religion (not tradition). In fact, I would be surprised if there wasn't already a case on this in the US.

The problem is that while it is not required by the K'ran, etc., many adherants consider it to be part of their religion.

It would sort of be like telling an Amish person they could not wear their "plain" clothes. You won't find that requirement in the Bible, but it is still part of their religion.

[thegreekdog]

The problem is that while it is not required by the K'ran, etc., many adherants consider it to be part of their religion.

It would sort of be like telling an Amish person they could not wear their "plain" clothes. You won't find that requirement in the Bible, but it is still part of their religion.

I'm not sure Pirlo would agree (based on Pirlo's initial response to my post).

[Pirlo]

The problem is that while it is not required by the K'ran, etc., many adherants consider it to be part of their religion.

It would sort of be like telling an Amish person they could not wear their "plain" clothes. You won't find that requirement in the Bible, but it is still part of their religion.

I'm not sure Pirlo would agree (based on Pirlo's initial response to my post).

for me, I'd act according to the situation itself. for example, here in Jordan, burka (or the face coverage) has to be removed upon entering any college or high school examinations.

if banning burka really helps getting better security, I'd agree banning it because it protects me as well. however, it is not really helping now. it's just unjustifiable phobia. in france for example, they ban the veil itself which covers her only. they have their own reasons. they say we want to protect france secularism, but they may just want to give french muslims hard life. i find Europe just can't tolerate minorities. jews suffered a lot of shit since the middle ages.

i also can't see how minorities can affect the secularism of a nation. middle east countries (except Arabian countries like saudi arabia, kuwait, qata, bahrain..etc) are 95% secular nations, which means secularism is almost done here but still undeclared. egypt for example suggested to declare it in February after overthrowing the dictator because as a I said, it has been proved that religion is used by the dictators to keep people following. however, Muslim Brotherhood Party strongly rejected the suggestion. unfortunately, that party is the strongest in egypt now. egyptians voted last month. it was about either the old constitution is completely thrown and replaced by a brand new one, or to be maintained and partially amended. the said party could trick and convince the simple and ignorant people in egypt (which are massive majority there) by driving them to vote for maintaining and amending the old shit in order to avoid the secularism declaration. the final result was a joke . 77.3%

i say it was their own choice, and they have to suffer a bit more until they find out more truth. i can't even judge Muslim Brotherhood parties before trying them.

sorry for going off topic.

[saxitoxin]

i find Europe just can't tolerate minorities. jews suffered a lot of shit since the middle ages.

true

[PLAYER57832]

The problem is that while it is not required by the K'ran, etc., many adherants consider it to be part of their religion.

It would sort of be like telling an Amish person they could not wear their "plain" clothes. You won't find that requirement in the Bible, but it is still part of their religion.

I'm not sure Pirlo would agree (based on Pirlo's initial response to my post).

I agreed with your (I think it was you, not woodruff) initial answer.. that it should be allowed unless there are security considerations.

My point is just that religion is largely defined by the adherants, not outsiders. So, it doesn't really matter much if experts say it is not required for the religion. If people feel it is part of their religion, then it becomes a part.

[thegreekdog]

The problem is that while it is not required by the K'ran, etc., many adherants consider it to be part of their religion.

It would sort of be like telling an Amish person they could not wear their "plain" clothes. You won't find that requirement in the Bible, but it is still part of their religion.

I'm not sure Pirlo would agree (based on Pirlo's initial response to my post).

I agreed with your (I think it was you, not woodruff) initial answer.. that it should be allowed unless there are security considerations.

My point is just that religion is largely defined by the adherants, not outsiders. So, it doesn't really matter much if experts say it is not required for the religion. If people feel it is part of their religion, then it becomes a part.

And I'm saying that Pirlo does not think the burqa is part of the Muslim religion. Someone mentioned the Amish, which is a good example (although I think they would argue that not using electricity is part of their religion). Conservatives have tried to argue the opposite - that the posting of the Ten Commandments at court houses is not religion, but is instead tradition, but have failed. I don't mean the next example to denigrate wearing burqas, but is it a tradition to wear green on Saint Patrick's Day or is it a religious thing? I'm sure there are better examples, but I did not get much sleep last night.

[Pirlo]

The problem is that while it is not required by the K'ran, etc., many adherants consider it to be part of their religion.

It would sort of be like telling an Amish person they could not wear their "plain" clothes. You won't find that requirement in the Bible, but it is still part of their religion.

I'm not sure Pirlo would agree (based on Pirlo's initial response to my post).

I agreed with your (I think it was you, not woodruff) initial answer.. that it should be allowed unless there are security considerations.

My point is just that religion is largely defined by the adherants, not outsiders. So, it doesn't really matter much if experts say it is not required for the religion. If people feel it is part of their religion, then it becomes a part.

And I'm saying that Pirlo does not think the burqa is part of the Muslim religion. Someone mentioned the Amish, which is a good example (although I think they would argue that not using electricity is part of their religion). Conservatives have tried to argue the opposite - that the posting of the Ten Commandments at court houses is not religion, but is instead tradition, but have failed. I don't mean the next example to denigrate wearing burqas, but is it a tradition to wear green on Saint Patrick's Day or is it a religious thing? I'm sure there are better examples, but I did not get much sleep last night.

the face cover (of which burqa is a type) is a part of religion, but it is not an obligatory part. that what i meant.

[BigBallinStalin]

burqa burqa Mohammed Jihad?

[Pirlo]

burqa burqa Mohammed Jihad?

wut?

Burqa >>>> http://s.alriyadh.com/2006/03/17/img/2000.jpg

Khimar >>>> http://kholkhal.files.wordpress.com/200 ... rshaf1.jpg

Niqab >>>> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_yl7LtXyI3Io/T ... /niqab.jpg

not sure what they call this one >>>> http://images.alwatanvoice.com/news/lar ... 503956.jpg

[pimpdave]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vOCnZOcr8w

[PLAYER57832]

The problem is that while it is not required by the K'ran, etc., many adherants consider it to be part of their religion.

It would sort of be like telling an Amish person they could not wear their "plain" clothes. You won't find that requirement in the Bible, but it is still part of their religion.

I'm not sure Pirlo would agree (based on Pirlo's initial response to my post).

I agreed with your (I think it was you, not woodruff) initial answer.. that it should be allowed unless there are security considerations.

My point is just that religion is largely defined by the adherants, not outsiders. So, it doesn't really matter much if experts say it is not required for the religion. If people feel it is part of their religion, then it becomes a part.

And I'm saying that Pirlo does not think the burqa is part of the Muslim religion. Someone mentioned the Amish, which is a good example (although I think they would argue that not using electricity is part of their religion). Conservatives have tried to argue the opposite - that the posting of the Ten Commandments at court houses is not religion, but is instead tradition, but have failed. I don't mean the next example to denigrate wearing burqas, but is it a tradition to wear green on Saint Patrick's Day or is it a religious thing? I'm sure there are better examples, but I did not get much sleep last night.

I agree that the burqa is not part of the religion, (according to many Islamic scholars). However, as with the Amish, you get into the question of who gets to decide. That is why I brought them up. Even the Amish will acknowledge that the Bible does not specifically say they need to wear straw hats and pants without zippers. They do feel it is part of their religion (interestingly, the Amish actually do not follow some of the old Testament rules that do exist, regarding tassles and so forth). Similarly, many Muslim women do feel it is part of their religion, either through ignorance of just strong traditional belief, and will strongly object to being forced to wear other clothing.

As to what is true and not... it comes down to attorneys to decide. Basically, people are free to do as they wish unless they are causing harm to others. Right now, not submitting to full security screenings is considered potentially causing harm.