POLL: Ban the Burqa?

I agree, i dislike religious fanatics and think they are bad for their children regardless if Christian or Muslim.... I think "GodWarrior" type parents border on child abuse... but it's allowed in a free country as long as no physical abuse



.

 

Correct, my question is this. Hypothetically, if a religion prescribes the killing of American, do you think the same rules should apply even though it's only a religion?

For hundreds of years, we have lived in a society where the religion is separated from the state. In previous times, religion and the state were intertwined and laws were based on the national religion, and the religion dictated the powers of the state. So my question is, should those religions that combine both state and religion fall under the same category as religions?

 

are you saying if some Muslims and some Christians want to harm non-believers we should ban both religions completely?

and if any religion tries to mix with government, the religion is also banned?

not sure that would be constitutional ziggyfish

we can punish those that do those things, but not the entire religions

.

 

Nope, just asking a basic questions. I never mentioned Muslims, or Islam, or Budism, or <insert specific religion>.

I ask these question in a general sense.

 

I was just adding in some examples as those religions would be the ones effected by your question.....

I say no, it would be unconstitutional to ban a religion based on the actions of the few... like say the kkk as an example

.

 

I am asking the question, not saying anything. I just want to confirm I understand you correctly, you believe that if religion proscribed the killing of Americans. You would have no problems, just letting Americans die in the name of that religion because of freedom of religion?

 

ok, I gave you my opinion on the matter if you do not want to give yours.... fine

and no, that is not what I said, I said you can arrest the few that commit crimes, you can not ban Christianity or Musliminity entirely cause a few are bad apples, that would be unconstitutional, you support the constitution right?

.

 

My answer to my question is no religions that incorporate both government and religion should not be called a religion, and should be under that same rules as foreign governments.

I support the constitution, however, the term religion is not defined, and is open to interpretation.

 

A better question is why speculate? Do you believe that Islam as a religion and its 1.7 billion practicioners want to kill Americans?

I leave such distinctions to those who live in theocracies.

What does any of this have to do with women wearing the Burqa?

 

well, we don't really know for sure do we? The muslim world isn't exactly known to be a culture where women are given much respect and freedom. to expect that muslim migrants just abandon those values once they reach western countries.. is very naive.

If Jews and judaism were relevant, maybe I would talk about them. However, there is a very small number of jews in the west, there's no mass jewish immigration going on (on the contrary, they tend to emigrate these days), jews are well assimilated into society, there is no big clash of western and jewish values going on.. It's a completely different case. Jews are not a problem. Unless some nazi conspiracy theories are to be believed, jews are not the source of any problems in the west. They tend to be well-off and productive citizens.

Now contrast that with muslims in the west. Muslims are a problem. muslims are hard to assimilate, there is islamic terrorism, there's honour killings, there's plenty of other culture clashes.. And muslims are becomming more numerous, due to births and immigration. The reason why no one (except nazis) talk about jews is simply because no one cares about jews, because they are just quiet and mind their own business. unlike muslims, who're always in the news because of this or that. We don't have a problem with jewish immigrants holding backwards values and refusing to assimilate, so how jews dress is irrelevant.

ireland is ireland, and the 50's is not today. I mean, you could argue that christianity is bad because of the crusades.. but I don't care about what christianity can be, or what it was, I care what it IS. now, today, not x years ago. Islam can be many things too, but today it's mostly bad, and that's what matters. I of course wish for that to change, but it's pointless to compare religions by how they could be instead of how they actually are. anyone with their eyes open can see that christianity and christians are largely benign. Not so with muslims and islam, so implying they are in any way equal is just wrong. I mean honestly, do you seriously thinky christianity today is as big a problem as islam in terms of e.g. being a source of misogyny? seriously? Potentially yes, but not actually. crucial difference.

 

So you want to avoid the questions, mmm, interesting. You should become a politician, you would be good at it.

You said:

I am just interested in what you call a religion. And if a religion prescribes killing Americans, whether you would support that the free exercise of that religion.

 

Only a tiny minority of Muslims actually wear the full-face burqa. As long as Muslim headscarves are allowed, the ban will only affect hundreds of Muslims women in a particular country.

 

actually it is. To be very frank, I actually don't care what she thinks or wants. I care about why she make that choice. I tell you why: It is because of her culture and values, of course. This isn't about freedom, it's about values. The values which makes you want to wear a burka are the same values as those found in afghanistan, pakistan, iraq... I.e. islamic, traditionalist, medieval, tribal.. also obviously non-western, and also importantly anti-western. Needless to say, these values are not the values upon which western societies rest. Instead, these values are the ones upon which e.g. afghanistan rests.. and as anyone can see, afghanistan and similar countries aren't exactly countries we want to emulate.

so.. I said this isn't about freedom. actually it is, because we have freedom in the west because of western institutions, which are upheld by western culture. This is a very obvious thing to say but: people will not vote to support a system they oppose. Just imagine, if everyone in the US suddenly got hardcore islamic values, would they not vote to make it a theocracy? Of course they would, who'd stop them? similarily, if everyone in Iran became libertarians, wouldn't Iran change? The values of the people ultimately shape the society, that's the point.

I do not want islamic values in western societies. Why? Because I want to keep western societies western, and that means keeping the values of the people overwhelmingly western. When you have people who wear burkas, you can be very sure they don't hold western values. Banning the burka sends a strong signal that such values are not welcome here. People who think there's a conflict between freedom and values don't get it: You can't have freedom unless you also have the values which support freedom. If you really care about people's freedom, you should be very concerned with making sure people in your society actually appriciate freedom, and part of that is to actively work against illiberal cultures and values, such as islamic values.

 

Quite frankly I'd support a ban on headscarves as well. It's just a burqa-lite. It serves the exact same purpose. It symbolises: hi, i'm a muslim and I don't hold western values and I am not assimilated. Countries like Turkey banned headscarves because they realised it was a symbol of backwardness. They realised that in order for Turkey to progress into the future they would have to leave behind certain islamic primitive traditions. I think it's ridiculous that we in the west should now allow muslims to fall back into the backwardness Turkey once tried to pull itself up from.

 

Actually here in America, freedom of speech and religion is the #1 freedom. You are free to peacefully practice your religion here until your heart is content. You are also free to spout hate speech until you've had your fill. Freedom isn't free.
If muslims decide they do not want to follow our laws, then we will have a problem, until then if they want to sit inside a black tarp at the beach that's their decision.

 

you are aware of that freedoms can be voted away, right? It's not as if the constitution can't be amended. They don't have to break any laws, they can just vote them away. The USA can transition into an islamic theocracy by fully legal means. I'm not saying that is gonna happen of course.

 

Nice red herring, what I prefer is to stay on topic which is a discussion on a Burqa ban.

I allow religion and the religious to "call" aka label themselves.

Murder is a violation of the law which trumps religious freedom, yet none of this is germane in a discussion on whether the Burqa should be banned or not.

 

You start with a lie... Islam doesn't prescribe the killing of Americans or Christians..

 

Although this is irrelevent to the question I am asking. Let me quote some Koran verses:

 

Your the one who is arguing that the Burqa should not be banned, because of religious freedom. I am asking you to define what a religion is and whether you would support a religion that prescribes the killing of Americans.

 

The burqa is not an Islamic dress code it was adopted by local tribe people as part of treating females as second class people. The burqa has been around long before Islam was founded, the burqa has to do with the climatic condition of the desert regions to protect from the sand storms, cold nights and hot sunny day time not only women wear burqa but men too "thawb" all in relation to the climatic condition of the Middle East.

 

I hope you're aware that this is entirely cultural? There are non-Muslim societies who think the same way, and Muslim societies who don't think like that AT ALL.

 

I said recent history from the 1950's, there are women who are nuns now who were forced into it, and yes I think Christianity and most other religions are a source of misogyny, show me a female catholic priest! But what you seem to be suggesting is one set of standards required for one religion and another for another religion. Seams to me you are not particularly worried about misogyny

 

Let me again clarify some things which are very important.

What WAS and what IS, are two different things. IF we were speaking of what christianity and islam could potentially be, it would be relevant to bring up historical examples. However, we are speaking of actualities, rather that potentialities, and thus only actual, ie current, examples are relevant. Currently, Islam is a much greater problem in terms of misogyny than christianity. No female catholic priests? yeah, sure, but atleast they still have their genitals intact! You see, the scale of the problem also matters. Is there misogyny in christendom? yes, obviously, but no sane person would suggest it is anywhere near as much as in islam.

edit: Seems I have different standards? No, not at all. I judge them the same, but it just so happens that one is a problem and the other barely even registers on the scale. Any problem we might have from christianity is so very minor compared to that from islam.

also, sure some nuns from the 50's may be alive.. ans so might a holocaust survivor, but that doesn't mean we still have as big as problem with nazism as we did in the 40's...

 

Sure, that's why its important to vote.