French Senate Approves a Ban on Burqas

[Jack21222]

I believe it IS the prevailing Muslim attitude. At one end of the spectrum, we might have the more moderate (as per your last sentence, above), and at the other, the more militant, terrorist type.

Then it's your job to prove it. Or at the very least provide some supporting evidence a little stronger than anecdotes.

But 2,000 people were at this meeting, and I'll bet not one spoke in protest of it.

What's 2,000 divided by 1,000,000,000?

That being the case, why do you chastise me for it, but not the Muslim speaker ?

The Muslim speaker isn't in this thread.

 

[alt]

Then it's your job to prove it. Or at the very least provide some supporting evidence a little stronger than anecdotes.

My 'anecdote' was in response to the Muslin anecdote in the article linked, that ..

- Islamic values are superior to ''flawed'' Western secular values
- By turning their backs on this flawed way of life, it is testament of the superiority of Islamic values over Western values.''

Are you not questioning THOSE anecdotes, or don't you take them as anacdotes ?

What's 2,000 divided by 1,000,000,000?

Emmm .. that's just .. nonsense, and wrong at that, for world Muslim population is closer to 1.6B;

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Global-Muslim-population-hits-157-billion-Report/articleshow/5101282.cms

That's about one in four persons on this planet - and rising !

The Muslim speaker isn't in this thread.

Ah, OK - that makes sense (lol).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Jared, you use "indoctrinating women" as a reason to ban. To put things into perspective, it doesn't matter what religion you are, many out there are going to call you brainwashed because you're not their religion instead. Wouldn't that be playing favorites with religion?

To the indoctrination argument in general I would say that an aweful lot of people seem to be indoctrinated to believe that they ought to where clothes in general, that penises and vagina are "dirty", and sex is "naughty". Pointing to any cultural custom and decrying it as "indoctrination" is pretty well ridiculous.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm still wondering if there really is some prescription by the word of Allah, for women to dress in bags of black from head to toe. I thought it was merely along the lines of 'one should dress modestly' as indeed exists in the Judeo Christian (and I assume other) holy books. No doubt you'll point me to Allah's specific prescription in this regard, if such exists. In fact, now that I think of it, wasn't Islam devoid of the 'black bag' syndrome in it's first couple of centuries ? If so, it is hardly the word of one, omnific Allah !

There are the religious books and then the books of religious law (similar to Judaism) which are supposedly derived or inspired from the religious texts. These laws are interpreted differently by different people, of course. From what I have read the Burqa comes from a story (or fact) that Muhammad kept his wives veiled so that no other man might look upon them and lust after them. It is apparently seen as a matter of protection from the untoward advances of men. A woman wearing a Burqa is considered to be emulating the modesty of the wives of Muhammad. In some cultures it has become a standard interpretation of the modesty demanded by the Qur'an.

 

[alt]

There are the religious books and then the books of religious law (similar to Judaism) which are supposedly derived or inspired from the religious texts. These laws are interpreted differently by different people, of course. From what I have read the Burqa comes from a story (or fact) that Muhammad kept his wives veiled so that no other man might look upon them and lust after them. It is apparently seen as a matter of protection from the untoward advances of men. A woman wearing a Burqa is considered to be emulating the modesty of the wives of Muhammad. In some cultures it has become a standard interpretation of the modesty demanded by the Qur'an.

Thanks TSA - that was very clear. So like most religious things, it is mans interpretation, rather than the word of God / Allah.

 

[Jack21222]

My 'anecdote' was in response to the Muslin anecdote in the article linked, that ..

- Islamic values are superior to ''flawed'' Western secular values
- By turning their backs on this flawed way of life, it is testament of the superiority of Islamic values over Western values.''

Are you not questioning THOSE anecdotes, or don't you take them as anacdotes ?

Those aren't anecdotes, those are opinions. EVERYBODY believes their values are superior to everybody else's values. Otherwise, they would have different values, right?

Emmm .. that's just .. nonsense, and wrong at that, for world Muslim population is closer to 1.6B;

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Global-Muslim-population-hits-157-billion-Report/articleshow/5101282.cms

That's about one in four persons on this planet - and rising !

It was an order-of-magnitude estimate. There probably weren't exactly 2,000 people at that rally, either.

I guess those are my 2 main points.

1) Everybody believes their values are the best. I don't get offended when somebody admits it, just like I wouldn't expect them to get offended when I say my values are the best. It just seems weird to single out Islam.

2) Pointing at 2x10^3 people in a group consisting of 1.6x10^9 and claiming that the small subset is representative of the group as a whole is nonsense, especially when that subset was self-selected due to things they have in common.

Even if there were 1000 such rallies across the world, and there was no overlapping in between them, meaning TWO MILLION fundamentalist extremists, that is still THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE smaller than the whole group.

If you want to claim that there are ONE HUNDRED SIXTY MILLION Muslim whackjobs out there, that still leaves 90% that aren't crazy. Personally, I'd say that 10% figure holds for about any religion, but that's just a number I just made up completely out of thin air, and you should pay no attention to it.

That brings me back to my first point in that I don't believe Islam is inherently any crazier than any other culture or religion. Crazy Jews throw rocks at people using electronics on the Sabbath, crazy Christians refuse all medical treatment for their children, etc.

This goes beyond religion, too. Animal rights advocates are 90% normal people, but you have that crazy 10% that firebombs research labs.

Again, my 90/10 estimate is just a VERY rough ballpark, I wouldn't linger on that too much. But I do think it's roughly constant throughout any group.

 

[CRGreathouse]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Global-Muslim-population-hits-157-billion-Report/articleshow/5101282.cms

That's about one in four persons on this planet - and rising !

That blows my mind. It wasn't that many years ago that it was just one billion...!

 

[alt]

Those aren't anecdotes, those are opinions. EVERYBODY believes their values are superior to everybody else's values. Otherwise, they would have different values, right?



It was an order-of-magnitude estimate. There probably weren't exactly 2,000 people at that rally, either.

I guess those are my 2 main points.

1) Everybody believes their values are the best. I don't get offended when somebody admits it, just like I wouldn't expect them to get offended when I say my values are the best. It just seems weird to single out Islam.

2) Pointing at 2x10^3 people in a group consisting of 1.6x10^9 and claiming that the small subset is representative of the group as a whole is nonsense, especially when that subset was self-selected due to things they have in common.

Even if there were 1000 such rallies across the world, and there was no overlapping in between them, meaning TWO MILLION fundamentalist extremists, that is still THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE smaller than the whole group.

If you want to claim that there are ONE HUNDRED SIXTY MILLION Muslim whackjobs out there, that still leaves 90% that aren't crazy. Personally, I'd say that 10% figure holds for about any religion, but that's just a number I just made up completely out of thin air, and you should pay no attention to it.

That brings me back to my first point in that I don't believe Islam is inherently any crazier than any other culture or religion. Crazy Jews throw rocks at people using electronics on the Sabbath, crazy Christians refuse all medical treatment for their children, etc.

This goes beyond religion, too. Animal rights advocates are 90% normal people, but you have that crazy 10% that firebombs research labs.

Again, my 90/10 estimate is just a VERY rough ballpark, I wouldn't linger on that too much. But I do think it's roughly constant throughout any group.

OK, well, I don't think there's anything more that I can add that I haven't said already.

 

[alt]

That blows my mind. It wasn't that many years ago that it was just one billion...!

It's a surprising development. The Utube link I posted earlier extrapolates it into the near future.





spelling edit

 

[GTank7]

I'm probably going to sound emo in saying this, but it's what I feel.
That Burqa is straight up ugly, it is demeaning to women & just beyond hideous.
Now you can wear w.e you want in "Quran-based Arabia" and your backward ideologies, but you're not coming in the heart of Paris, the heart of Western culture & ideology & stain my city with your "moral" values & beliefs, and at the end of the day, believe that I will go to hell, and it's Ok for you to stain my culture, I'm sorry but there is limits.
This is 21st century, I'm all for tolerance, but take your Burqa back in the desert, where it belongs, maybe it'll be useful there & protect you from the sand..

 

[G037H3]

I'm probably going to sound emo in saying this, but it's what I feel.
That Burqa is straight up ugly, it is demeaning to women & just beyond hideous.
Now you can wear w.e you want in "Quran-based Arabia" and your backward ideologies, but you're not coming in the heart of Paris, the heart of Western culture & ideology & stain my city with your "moral" values & beliefs, and at the end of the day, believe that I will go to hell, and it's Ok for you to stain my culture, I'm sorry but there is limits.
This is 21st century, I'm all for tolerance, but take your Burqa back in the desert, where it belongs, maybe it'll be useful there & protect you from the sand..

Agree, except for the pro-tolerance disclaimer.

 

[BobG]

I'm probably going to sound emo in saying this, but it's what I feel.
That Burqa is straight up ugly, it is demeaning to women & just beyond hideous.
Now you can wear w.e you want in "Quran-based Arabia" and your backward ideologies, but you're not coming in the heart of Paris, the heart of Western culture & ideology & stain my city with your "moral" values & beliefs, and at the end of the day, believe that I will go to hell, and it's Ok for you to stain my culture, I'm sorry but there is limits.
This is 21st century, I'm all for tolerance, but take your Burqa back in the desert, where it belongs, maybe it'll be useful there & protect you from the sand..

Obviously, a die hard fan of mini-skirts and hot pants.

Just a note about comments that Islam doesn't require burqas - it only requires that women dress modestly; therefore it must be cultural, etc. It's not even cultural. It's just human nature that a few will feel good if they outdo others in adhering to their religion - i.e. they dress more modestly than all their neighbors.

I'm sure many Christians believe in dressing modestly, as well. The standard "modestly" is left to individual interpretation. For some, a woman exposing her ankles might be immodest, or at least very risque. For others, modest might mean at least wearing underwear with their min-skirts just in case they have to bend over and pick something up.

The number of Muslim women that wear burqas is so small as to make this a completely insignificant issue in practice. Banning them only has symbolic value. The ban does France about as much good as a ban on buttoning the top button of your blouse or shirt.

 

[mugaliens]

The number of Muslim women that wear burqas is so small as to make this a completely insignificant issue in practice. Banning them only has symbolic value. The ban does France about as much good as a ban on buttoning the top button of your blouse or shirt.

Do you have any numbers? Is it 10? 10,000?

 

[BobG]

Do you have any numbers? Is it 10? 10,000?

Yes. In fact, I believe the numbers were mentioned earlier in the thread. In France, probably about 2,000 out of 6 million Muslims in France wear burqas.

Of course, someone else noted that that statistic might be misleading because some conservative Muslims don't like to have their wives seen in public, so there may be more unseen burqas. I was a little perplexed as to why women wearing burqas in their house would be offensive enough to be included in the debate, so I didn't comment on that post.

I guess to be fair, the comment about women wearing burqas that are unseen in public was following the line of banning burqas as a way to force Muslim women to be more liberated, at least in public (overlooking the fact that, if his comment was correct, it would probably have the effect of more Muslim women being held hostage in their own homes so the public couldn't see their wives less modestly attired). Presumably, if a Muslim woman was fined for wearing a burqa, her husband would wind up paying the fine and decide his wife should wear less modest attire - at which point his lack of fashion sense would cause him to give up completely and let his wife pick out her own clothes.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes. In fact, I believe the numbers were mentioned earlier in the thread. In France, probably about 2,000 out of 6 million Muslims in France wear burqas.

Of course, someone else noted that that statistic might be misleading because some conservative Muslims don't like to have their wives seen in public, so there may be more unseen burqas. I was a little perplexed as to why women wearing burqas in their house would be offensive enough to be included in the debate, so I didn't comment on that post.

I guess to be fair, the comment about women wearing burqas that are unseen in public was following the line of banning burqas to a way to force women to be more liberated, at least in public. Presumably, if a Muslim woman was fined for wearing a burqa, her husband would wind up paying the fine and decide his wife should wear less modest attire - at which point his lack of fashion sense would cause him to give up completely and let his wife pick out her own clothes.

.000333%... I don't care if you assume that represents 1 in ten women who actually wear a burqa, the result is still absurd justification for a law. I'm with Evo on this issue in general, but the solution isn't a law like this, it's cultural reform. For those cultural relativists out there, of which I am nearly one... the answer is: because.

 

[Monique]

What I find strange is that people in this thread argue that the burqa ban is an anti-Islamic reaction by the French, in order to stop immigration or to 'scare away' people of Islamic faith. At the same time it is mentioned that the number of Islamic women that wear a burqa is very low, even in the countries where the majority of the population is Islamic! Is this some kind of irrational anti-anti-Islamic argument? Clearly the burqa does not represent the majority of Islamic culture.

It is a ban against being unrecognizable in public, I find that a most reasonable law. We all abide to laws of decency, if you don't follow them you will find yourself being fined really quickly.

 

[humanino]

It is a ban against being unrecognizable in public, I find that a most reasonable law. We all abide to laws of decency, if you don't follow them you will find yourself being fined really quickly.

I agree with you on a matter of reason. On a matter of emotion, this very thread confirms my feeling that the reason for the law is merely to distract the attention of the public for political purposes. It is not a very useful law (it concerns only very few women in France) but it triggers intense debates and noise.

 

[nismaratwork]

What I find strange is that people in this thread argue that the burqa ban is an anti-Islamic reaction by the French, in order to stop immigration or to 'scare away' people of Islamic faith. At the same time it is mentioned that the number of Islamic women that wear a burqa is very low, even in the countries where the majority of the population is Islamic! Is this some kind of irrational anti-anti-Islamic argument? Clearly the burqa does not represent the majority of Islamic culture.

It is a ban against being unrecognizable in public, I find that a most reasonable law. We all abide to laws of decency, if you don't follow them you will find yourself being fined really quickly.

While it would certainly raise my chances of being stopped by a police officer, this is specifically about religious headgear, so no, I don't believe it's a public safety issue. I think it's reactionary, because it is one of the few highly visible signs that someone is Muslim (of some flavor), much as peyos, a funny hat and such mark the Hasidim. A man with a beard could be Muslim, or he could just have a beard, and a skullcap/keppi/yarmulke... can't be touched because it is, in the end, a kind of hat. This comes down to, "What visible difference makes us uncomfortable that we can go after"... this is it.

 

[Office_Shredder]

What I find strange is that people in this thread argue that the burqa ban is an anti-Islamic reaction by the French, in order to stop immigration or to 'scare away' people of Islamic faith. At the same time it is mentioned that the number of Islamic women that wear a burqa is very low, even in the countries where the majority of the population is Islamic! Is this some kind of irrational anti-anti-Islamic argument? Clearly the burqa does not represent the majority of Islamic culture.

It is a ban against being unrecognizable in public, I find that a most reasonable law. We all abide to laws of decency, if you don't follow them you will find yourself being fined really quickly.

Let's say a non-binding resolution is passed which just says "Muslims are retarded". It doesn't actually do anything at all, and by the letter of the law affects nobody, but you would be hard pressed to say that this would not affect Muslims in any way.

If a law is passed for the purpose of attacking Islam, regardless of how effective it is at doing so, then yes, it's an anti-Islamic reaction. Questions of its physical effectiveness when examining the issue are secondary to questions of its intent

 

[Monique]

I agree with you on a matter of reason. On a matter of emotion, this very thread confirms my feeling that the reason for the law is merely to distract the attention of the public for political purposes. It is not a very useful law (it concerns only very few women in France) but it triggers intense debates and noise.

The attention that it is getting in the media may be disproportionate, but I still think that the basis of the law is valid.

While it would certainly raise my chances of being stopped by a police officer, this is specifically about religious headgear, so no, I don't believe it's a public safety issue. I think it's reactionary, because it is one of the few highly visible signs that someone is Muslim (of some flavor), much as peyos, a funny hat and such mark the Hasidim. A man with a beard could be Muslim, or he could just have a beard, and a skullcap/keppi/yarmulke... can't be touched because it is, in the end, a kind of hat. This comes down to, "What visible difference makes us uncomfortable that we can go after"... this is it.

According to the CNN article: "The French Senate approved Tuesday a law banning any veils that cover the face". It doesn't state anything about religious headgear. I'm fine with people wearing headscarves or any other headgear, covering your face is something entirely different and you cannot ignore that.

 

[BobG]

It is a ban against being unrecognizable in public, I find that a most reasonable law. We all abide to laws of decency, if you don't follow them you will find yourself being fined really quickly.

It would never pass in the US. Out of the 435 Congressmen in the House of Representatives, there would surely have to be at least one that would add a rider to this bill - a rider that would ban bras, seeing as how men only look at one thing and bras tend to make one breast look just like another.

At least I would, anyway, but I'd probably never get elected in the first place, let alone re-elected.

Charlie Wilson would have, I'll bet.

 

[Monique]

Let's say a non-binding resolution is passed which just says "Muslims are retarded". It doesn't actually do anything at all, and by the letter of the law affects nobody, but you would be hard pressed to say that this would not affect Muslims in any way.

If a law is passed for the purpose of attacking Islam, regardless of how effective it is at doing so, then yes, it's an anti-Islamic reaction. Questions of its physical effectiveness when examining the issue are secondary to questions of its intent

I don't see how this has anything to do with it. It is your idea that "a law is passed for the purpose of attacking Islam". Do you feel shaken to your core, because it is against the law to walk around in the public naked?

It would never pass in the US. Out of the 435 Congressmen in the House of Representatives, there would surely have to be at least one that would add a rider to this bill - a rider that would ban bras, seeing as how men only look at one thing and bras tend to make one breast look just like another.

Right, I'm sure you are aware that you are already bound legally to a dress code: no public exposure of genitals and/or breasts. Should we get rid of those laws as well?

 

[nismaratwork]

The attention that it is getting in the media may be disproportionate, but I still think that the basis of the law is valid.

According to the CNN article: "The French Senate approved Tuesday a law banning any veils that cover the face". It doesn't state anything about religious headgear. I'm fine with people wearing headscarves or any other headgear, covering your face is something entirely different and you cannot ignore that.

You're right about the letter of the law, but it doesn't match the reasons given by its architects. I'd add that as long as someone is willing to remove a mask, veil, scarf, etc upon demand by a law officer, there should be no threat.

“We cannot allow that, in our country, there are captive women behind bars who are shut out from social life and robbed of any identity."

Nothing to do with security.

The full veil is not a piece of clothing but a mask worn permanently that constitutes a threat to our society. We cannot let the full veil cover the face of our Republic

Again, not security, and compare with the penalty for failure to comply with this law:

"The new legislation would see violators fined a maximum of $190. Offenders would also be required to take a “citizenship” course on republican values."

I think the burqa is an absurd outfit, and the concept behind it is, in my view, demeaning to women. That doesn't mean I can accept your personal spin on the law however... it has nothing to do with public safety: it is purely cultural.

 

[Monique]

If you want to play it that way: how do other laws not have anything to do with culture? A law against public nudity is cultural. If you go to an Islamic country, do you expect to be treated like a king when you wear slippers, shorts and no shirt? How about trying to wear that outfit to church? This is not something that is exclusive for burqas: it is all around you.

 

[nismaratwork]

If you want to play it that way: how do other laws not have anything to do with culture? A law against public nudity is cultural. If you go to an Islamic country, do you expect to be treated like a king when you wear slippers, shorts and no shirt? How about trying to wear that outfit to church? This is not something that is exclusive for burqas: it is all around you.

I never said that this was the only law based on culture; I disagreed with your assertion that it was a law based on public safety. I have no need or desire to enter into a debate about other laws that aren't being discussed here.

 

[JaredJames]

A law against public nudity is cultural. If you go to an Islamic country, do you expect to be treated like a king when you wear slippers, shorts and no shirt? How about trying to wear that outfit to church?

http://www.wvec.com/news/local/INSIDE-A-NAKED-CHURCH-85062392.html

Had to be done!

 

[Monique]

I never said that this was the only law based on culture; I disagreed with your assertion that it was a law based on public safety. I have no need or desire to enter into a debate about other laws that aren't being discussed here.

Too bad, because they are related.

http://www.wvec.com/news/local/INSIDE-A-NAKED-CHURCH-85062392.html

Had to be done!

As long as they don't do it in public!

 

[nismaratwork]

http://www.wvec.com/news/local/INSIDE-A-NAKED-CHURCH-85062392.html

Had to be done!

MY EYES! THEY BURN!

I'm telling you, nudists are NEVER the people you want to see naked.

 

[nismaratwork]

Too bad, because they are related.

Yes, they are, and if you make a thread about the validity of laws meant to enforce specific cultural norms, count me in, but that's not this thread. I like to deal with one issue at a time in these situations, otherwise the debate tends to go nowhere.

 

[BobG]

http://www.wvec.com/news/local/INSIDE-A-NAKED-CHURCH-85062392.html

Had to be done!

Why didn't they have a nude Jesus?