Angela Merkel wants to ban the burka?

[whichphilosophy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kM4gPMAU4Bs

So apparantly this is now happening. Not sure what the purpose of this is!

It may play to a certain demographic but it wont solve your migrant problem born completely of your decision to invite them all in without any sort of plan or thought for how to handle them all. If anything this will just piss them off even more.

If she does intend a ban it serves no purpose. It's a fashion and was there before Islam. Banning veils and full face coverings should not be a problem. They are not Islamic but were introduced to Islam and this would be for security issues.

This could be anothe one of Merkel's idiocies.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The recent migrants are not citizens yet. That should make them easier to deport.

Also not that this applies to Germany but from a purely ideological perspective: Why is it acceptable to infringe upon someone's religious freedoms? You can argue that Islamists are bad but not all Muslims are automatically Islamists. Further, what sense does it make to punish Islamists by infringing upon the religious freedoms of Muslims who are otherwise fully integrated into your society, and have nothing to do with Islamism and just want to live and let live?

"Religious freedom" is a concept that needs to be done away with, and fast. You should have no special rights because you have an imaginary friend. If it makes sense for security or sanitary reasons to ban certain articles of clothing or lack thereof, then no special allowance should be made for "religious" people that isn't available to everybody else. If she is allowed to wear a burka, I should be allowed to wear a ski mask. If he is allowed to carry a Kirpan wherever he wants, I should be allowed to carry a knife wherever I want. If he is allowed to wear a turban in a court room, I should be allowed to wear a baseball cap there. If they are allowed to sing their nasally prayers in public whenever they want, then I should be allowed to sing whatever I want in public whenever I want, no matter how "offensive" or annoying the lyrics may be to them. If they can preach about sinners deserving hellfire, I can damn well draw a cartoon of their dead warlord leader and say what I like about him. And if they can violate the social norm and cover themselves head to toe including their faces, then why shouldn't I be allowed to violate the social norm and go naked in the street?

"Religious Freedom" will be the death of intelligent and free society if we are not careful. It needs to be destroyed, and it needs to be destroyed now.

 

[LordKiran]

Also not that this applies to Germany but from a purely ideological perspective: Why is it acceptable to infringe upon someone's religious freedoms? You can argue that Islamists are bad but not all Muslims are automatically Islamists. Further, what sense does it make to punish Islamists by infringing upon the religious freedoms of Muslims who are otherwise fully integrated into your society, and have nothing to do with Islamism and just want to live and let live?

"Religious freedom" is a concept that needs to be done away with, and fast. You should have no special rights because you have an imaginary friend. If it makes sense for security or sanitary reasons to ban certain articles of clothing or lack thereof, then no special allowance should be made for "religious" people that isn't available to everybody else.

Religious freedom isn't about granting special privileges to religious persons.

If she is allowed to wear a burka, I should be allowed to wear a ski mask.

But you can. And like the woman in a burka you run the same risk of getting funny looks, unwarranted suspicion and potentially getting shot by someone who doesn't like the look of you. Equality!

If he is allowed to carry a Kirpan wherever he wants, I should be allowed to carry a knife wherever I want.

The interesting thing about the Kirpan is that their religious doctrine doesn't require that the knife be sharpened or even capable of being pulled free of it's scabbard. In other words, you can mandate that Kirpans be unable to be used as a traditional weapon without violating a Sikh's religious freedom.

If he is allowed to wear a turban in a court room, I should be allowed to wear a baseball cap there.

This comes down to individual judges more than the exact rule of the law. To my knowledge there is no federal law that expressly forbids hatwear in a court room. But if a particular judge doesn't like you wearing your hat, he can ask that you remove it, and find you in contempt if you don't comply.

If they are allowed to sing their nasally prayers in public whenever they want, then I should be allowed to sing whatever I want in public whenever I want, no matter how "offensive" or annoying the lyrics may be to them.

But you are.

If they can preach about sinners deserving hellfire, I can damn well draw a cartoon of their dead warlord leader and say what I like about him.

But you can.

And if they can violate the social norm and cover themselves head to toe including their faces, then why shouldn't I be allowed to violate the social norm and go naked in the street?

Because won't someone think of the children?! The right to wear what you want isnt the same as the right to wear nothing at all.

"Religious Freedom" will be the death of intelligent and free society if we are not careful. It needs to be destroyed, and it needs to be destroyed now.

Religious freedom is a cornerstone to the country I live in that ensures civility by way of guaranteeing marginalized groups in our society the same rights as the predominant religious group. (Which by the by, includes something like 80% of our population who probably feel their religious freedoms are just as important.)

 

[Toni]

Can someone please explain to me why the obsession with telling women how to dress and what they can and cannot wear? I seriously don't get it.

Why not forbid men from wearing briefs? Beards? Man buns? Pornstaches? Kilts? At least two of these could be cited as pertaining to security but seriously, WTF???

 

[whichphilosophy]

Can someone please explain to me why the obsession with telling women how to dress and what they can and cannot wear? I seriously don't get it.

Why not forbid men from wearing briefs? Beards? Man buns? Pornstaches? Kilts? At least two of these could be cited as pertaining to security but seriously, WTF???

Banning the Burqa is of course barmy but banning substantial or full face coverings in pubic places would make sense unless there is a good case against it. The veil does not actually appear in the Koran itself or even close to.

Telling a woman not to wear a Burqa is effectively implying what she wears. There is no reason to wear the headscarf. At one time it was highly popular in Europe.

 

[Jayjay]

Merkel realized that elections are coming up and adjusted her positions accordingly.

Wrapping this debate around western notion of individualism and freedom to wear whatever one wants is a red herring. I don't believe that most women who say they "want" to wear a garbage bag every time they go out really want it, or would be impacted in any way if this "freedom" were to be taken away. They are being oppressed by their husbands and fathers and imams. If there was a law that bans it, it is actually good for the women because it forces their men to choose between forcing them to wear an unwieldy oppressive dress, or having them do shopping for them. Most will choose the latter, and it's a positive development.

 

[blastula]

She's not calling for a full ban. Muslims should stop compelling it anyway.

 

[Toni]

Can someone please explain to me why the obsession with telling women how to dress and what they can and cannot wear? I seriously don't get it.

Why not forbid men from wearing briefs? Beards? Man buns? Pornstaches? Kilts? At least two of these could be cited as pertaining to security but seriously, WTF???

Banning the Burqa is of course barmy but banning substantial or full face coverings in pubic places would make sense unless there is a good case against it. The veil does not actually appear in the Koran itself or even close to.

Telling a woman not to wear a Burqa is effectively implying what she wears. There is no reason to wear the headscarf. At one time it was highly popular in Europe.

There is no reason to ban head scarfs or any item of clothing. Period. If you are in favor of banning facial coverings, are you also in favor of banning facial hair for men? Long hair for either sex? Why not mandate that everyone bathe in depilatory and appear in public only in the nude? Seriously. Men conceal weapons in bulky clothing but no one is suggesting that they must appear nude or even dispense with oversized jackets.

 

[Toni]

Merkel realized that elections are coming up and adjusted her positions accordingly.

Wrapping this debate around western notion of individualism and freedom to wear whatever one wants is a red herring. I don't believe that most women who say they "want" to wear a garbage bag every time they go out really want it, or would be impacted in any way if this "freedom" were to be taken away. They are being oppressed by their husbands and fathers and imams. If there was a law that bans it, it is actually good for the women because it forces their men to choose between forcing them to wear an unwieldy oppressive dress, or having them do shopping for them. Most will choose the latter, and it's a positive development.

No. For women who are forced to wear burqas by the men in their family, such ban effectively renders them prisoner.

Some women do embrace the burqa or hijab or a host of other culturally or religiously dictated articles of clothing. I actually see the utility: it is truly obnoxious to have men ogle you, cat call you, and much, much worse. Being anonymous has its charms.

I think a much better idea would be to force men to behave decently and respectfully in public so that women do not feel they need to hide themselves to try to avoid the abuse. And it is abuse. It's intended to objectify, to remind women that they are vulnerable, to control.

 

[blastula]

It's not either or. Men shouldn't harass women in public. But women should also be free (from law and religion) to wear what they want as much as anybody else.

 

[LordKiran]

It's not either or. Men shouldn't harass women in public. But women should also be free (from law and religion) to wear what they want as much as anybody else.

Religion in the western world is not compulsory. There is nothing to be 'freed from.'

I find it amusing that you're speaking of giving woman the freedom to wear what they want as a justification for taking away their freedom to wear what they want. (Because again, religion and the optional rules within are a choice.)

 

[whichphilosophy]

Banning the Burqa is of course barmy but banning substantial or full face coverings in pubic places would make sense unless there is a good case against it. The veil does not actually appear in the Koran itself or even close to.

Telling a woman not to wear a Burqa is effectively implying what she wears. There is no reason to wear the headscarf. At one time it was highly popular in Europe.

There is no reason to ban head scarfs or any item of clothing. Period. If you are in favor of banning facial coverings, are you also in favor of banning facial hair for men? Long hair for either sex? Why not mandate that everyone bathe in depilatory and appear in public only in the nude? Seriously. Men conceal weapons in bulky clothing but no one is suggesting that they must appear nude or even dispense with oversized jackets.

The only thing that is of concern is people wearing masks or full facial coverings and this is on the grounds of security in our current environment. There is a case that a woman may wish to cover her face completely which I would have agreed to before but I think security issues should prevail. It would apply really outdoors. In some societies appearing nude is normal. It won't work today as our societies have gotten sensitive about nudity. Besides in the modern environment men will get it caught in car doors or something. Also it's too cold to go around with nothing on in some countries as there could be a danger of frostbite or something.

Searching for weapons may increase; not just in airports but hotels malls and even some shops. This happens in countries like the Philippines

 

[LordKiran]

There is no reason to ban head scarfs or any item of clothing. Period. If you are in favor of banning facial coverings, are you also in favor of banning facial hair for men? Long hair for either sex? Why not mandate that everyone bathe in depilatory and appear in public only in the nude? Seriously. Men conceal weapons in bulky clothing but no one is suggesting that they must appear nude or even dispense with oversized jackets.

The only thing that is of concern is people wearing masks or full facial coverings and this is on the grounds of security in our current environment. There is a case that a woman may wish to cover her face completely which I would have agreed to before but I think security issues should prevail. It would apply really outdoors. In some societies appearing nude is normal. It won't work today as our societies have gotten sensitive about nudity. Besides in the modern environment men will get it caught in car doors or something. Also it's too cold to go around with nothing on in some countries as there could be a danger of frostbite or something.

Searching for weapons may increase; not just in airports but hotels malls and even some shops. This happens in countries like the Philippines

The prioritization of security over one's personal liberties is how democracies become autocracies. It is also the prioritization used to justify communist witch hunts and Japanese internment camps.

I'd quote Ben Franklin here but that's beneath me.

 

[blastula]

It's not either or. Men shouldn't harass women in public. But women should also be free (from law and religion) to wear what they want as much as anybody else.

Religion in the western world is not compulsory. There is nothing to be 'freed from.'

Notice I said law AND religion. Law is not the only compulsion. Islam in practice does compel women to cover up. And in some Muslim nations the law does as well.

I find it amusing that you're speaking of giving woman the freedom to wear what they want as a justification for taking away their freedom to wear what they want. (Because again, religion and the optional rules within are a choice.)

I am? I am saying they should have as much legal right as anyone else about what they wear. I am also saying their religion is wrong for forcing them to wear the coverings. Are you having difficulty over criticizing religion?

 

[LordKiran]

Religion in the western world is not compulsory. There is nothing to be 'freed from.'

Notice I said law AND religion. Law is not the only compulsion. Islam in practice does compel women to cover up. And in some Muslim nations the law does as well.

I find it amusing that you're speaking of giving woman the freedom to wear what they want as a justification for taking away their freedom to wear what they want. (Because again, religion and the optional rules within are a choice.)

I am? I am saying they should have as much legal right as anyone else about what they wear. I am also saying their religion is wrong for forcing them to wear the coverings. Are you having difficulty in criticizing religion?

A book doesn't force anyone to do anything, and as others have pointed out, doesn't mandate that women wear the full regalia.

If your problem is with a family pushing their beliefs on one of their children then that's a completely separate issue and shouldn't be conflated with the faith such as it is.

That aside, I misunderstood your position and apologize for that. I also apologize for being overly flippant in my response.

 

[Toni]

There is no reason to ban head scarfs or any item of clothing. Period. If you are in favor of banning facial coverings, are you also in favor of banning facial hair for men? Long hair for either sex? Why not mandate that everyone bathe in depilatory and appear in public only in the nude? Seriously. Men conceal weapons in bulky clothing but no one is suggesting that they must appear nude or even dispense with oversized jackets.

The only thing that is of concern is people wearing masks or full facial coverings and this is on the grounds of security in our current environment. There is a case that a woman may wish to cover her face completely which I would have agreed to before but I think security issues should prevail. It would apply really outdoors. In some societies appearing nude is normal. It won't work today as our societies have gotten sensitive about nudity. Besides in the modern environment men will get it caught in car doors or something. Also it's too cold to go around with nothing on in some countries as there could be a danger of frostbite or something.

Searching for weapons may increase; not just in airports but hotels malls and even some shops. This happens in countries like the Philippines

That's pretty inconsistent. Men can and do change their looks quite dramatically depending on whether or not they wear full beards and can easily serve as a disguise by either shaving one off or growing one. Also, hair cuts and styles can dramatically change appearance, as can hair dye, etc.

Is there really a credible concern that people actually are disguising themselves to conceal their identity in order to commit terroristic attacks? Almost every attack carried out that I am aware of was carried out by men. The woman who carried out an attack in California (along with her husband) was wearing a mask, as was her husband. Not a burqa.

Truly, this is about bullying a group of people---Muslim women--who already are marginalized and controlled--by men. There is zero--absolutely zero--evidence that I am aware of that banning burqas (or crucifixes or whatever) does a damn thing to reduce terrorism.

And who the hell wants to follow the example of the Phillippines?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Can someone please explain to me why the obsession with telling women how to dress and what they can and cannot wear? I seriously don't get it.

Why not forbid men from wearing briefs? Beards? Man buns? Pornstaches? Kilts? At least two of these could be cited as pertaining to security but seriously, WTF???

Because the burqa is a symbol of Islamic oppression. Furthermore, it's basically a statement that Muslim men are animals, not humans.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Religious freedom isn't about granting special privileges to religious persons.

Yes it is.

If she is allowed to wear a burka, I should be allowed to wear a ski mask.

But you can. And like the woman in a burka you run the same risk of getting funny looks, unwarranted suspicion and potentially getting shot by someone who doesn't like the look of you. Equality!

Try wearing a ski mask in places she is allowed to wear a burka. Try wearing one walking into a bank, or just generally on the street in the middle of the summer. You are likely to be arrested. She isn't.

If he is allowed to carry a Kirpan wherever he wants, I should be allowed to carry a knife wherever I want.

The interesting thing about the Kirpan is that their religious doctrine doesn't require that the knife be sharpened or even capable of being pulled free of it's scabbard. In other words, you can mandate that Kirpans be unable to be used as a traditional weapon without violating a Sikh's religious freedom.

I don't care what the Sikh's religion says. That is and should be irrelevant. If there is a valid safety concern about carrying knives to the point that I am told I may not, then he also may not. This is very simple. No special rules because people have imaginary friends.

If he is allowed to wear a turban in a court room, I should be allowed to wear a baseball cap there.

This comes down to individual judges more than the exact rule of the law. To my knowledge there is no federal law that expressly forbids hatwear in a court room. But if a particular judge doesn't like you wearing your hat, he can ask that you remove it, and find you in contempt if you don't comply.

In the court rooms I work in there are signs outside that clearly state no headwear allowed except for religious headwear. That is a special right granted because of imaginary friends. That is "freedom" of religion, and it needs to stop.

If they are allowed to sing their nasally prayers in public whenever they want, then I should be allowed to sing whatever I want in public whenever I want, no matter how "offensive" or annoying the lyrics may be to them.

But you are.

Can I hold up traffic and get in people's way because I want to sing a song0? Hold up official meetings because I insist on reciting a poem before every sitting that explicitly excludes those who don't believe what I do?

And if they can violate the social norm and cover themselves head to toe including their faces, then why shouldn't I be allowed to violate the social norm and go naked in the street?

Because won't someone think of the children?! The right to wear what you want isnt the same as the right to wear nothing at all.

Why not? They are both deviations from a social norm. There is nothing inherently wrong with being naked, just as there is nothing inherently wrong with being fully covered.

"Religious Freedom" will be the death of intelligent and free society if we are not careful. It needs to be destroyed, and it needs to be destroyed now.

Religious freedom is a cornerstone to the country I live in that ensures civility by way of guaranteeing marginalized groups in our society the same rights as the predominant religious group. (Which by the by, includes something like 80% of our population who probably feel their religious freedoms are just as important.)

It does no such thing. What it does do is create special rights for different groups of people because of the imaginary friends they have. And the examples go on and on and on. Why should a jew in prison have a right to a kosher meal or a muslim a right to a halal meal? Do the rest of us get to have special meals just because we want them or are deluded into thinking we need them when we don't? Why shouldn't churches pay property taxes like everybody else? Why should televangelists asking gullible seniors for money so easily escape fraud charges?

 

[LordKiran]

Can someone please explain to me why the obsession with telling women how to dress and what they can and cannot wear? I seriously don't get it.

Why not forbid men from wearing briefs? Beards? Man buns? Pornstaches? Kilts? At least two of these could be cited as pertaining to security but seriously, WTF???

Because the burqa is a symbol of Islamic oppression. Furthermore, it's basically a statement that Muslim men are animals, not humans.

Even though I can follow the line of reasoning that lead you to this conclusion....Wow. Exaggeration much?

 

[Jayjay]

Merkel realized that elections are coming up and adjusted her positions accordingly.

Wrapping this debate around western notion of individualism and freedom to wear whatever one wants is a red herring. I don't believe that most women who say they "want" to wear a garbage bag every time they go out really want it, or would be impacted in any way if this "freedom" were to be taken away. They are being oppressed by their husbands and fathers and imams. If there was a law that bans it, it is actually good for the women because it forces their men to choose between forcing them to wear an unwieldy oppressive dress, or having them do shopping for them. Most will choose the latter, and it's a positive development.

No. For women who are forced to wear burqas by the men in their family, such ban effectively renders them prisoner.

My point was, that most such men would raher let them go out without a burqa to buy groceries and such, than do it themselves. And the women married to men who wouldn't let them go out anyway are already effectively prisoners.

Some women do embrace the burqa or hijab or a host of other culturally or religiously dictated articles of clothing. I actually see the utility: it is truly obnoxious to have men ogle you, cat call you, and much, much worse. Being anonymous has its charms.

I think a much better idea would be to force men to behave decently and respectfully in public so that women do not feel they need to hide themselves to try to avoid the abuse. And it is abuse. It's intended to objectify, to remind women that they are vulnerable, to control.

I would support that.