terrorist attack in Paris

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^but some women choose to wear it... are we going to tell them "we know what's good for you more than you know what's good for you"?

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you really comparing polygamy with wearing certa in type of dress? Wow.

And, does Italy have legislation banning the burka explicitly? One can debate the security issue, but the French law was aimed at wearing the burka under the grounds of "going against our values. Does Italy have laws banning certain types of dress because it violates its values?

I think that's an apt comparison. We outlaw polygamy in the US for safety (the girls are frequently very young and indoctrinated), rather than because of complications in tax and estate law. Arguably, it is fundamental to religion, it still is in FLDS. The mainstream LDS church has disavowed it. Sounds similar to a burka.

Many women choosing to wear a burka are French citizens -- and many are grown-up former non-Muslim who choose to convert to Islam. A ban is not for "their" safety. And that wasnt the reason the Italian PP brought it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^but some women choose to wear it... are we going to tell them "we know what's good for you more than you know what's good for you"?

Exactly.

Yes, we outlaw lots of things because they're bad for you. Trans fats, seat belt laws, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you really comparing polygamy with wearing certa in type of dress? Wow.

And, does Italy have legislation banning the burka explicitly? One can debate the security issue, but the French law was aimed at wearing the burka under the grounds of "going against our values. Does Italy have laws banning certain types of dress because it violates its values?

I think that's an apt comparison. We outlaw polygamy in the US for safety (the girls are frequently very young and indoctrinated), rather than because of complications in tax and estate law. Arguably, it is fundamental to religion, it still is in FLDS. The mainstream LDS church has disavowed it. Sounds similar to a burka.

Many women choosing to wear a burka are French citizens -- and many are grown-up former non-Muslim who choose to convert to Islam. A ban is not for "their" safety. And that wasnt the reason the Italian PP brought it up.

Dear Muslim poster who made the same grammatical mistake here that you usually make: Here's a tip. Every time you gloat about the supposed huge number of converts to Islam, it annoys people and subtly undermines your other, more valid points. I'd start leaving that stuff out.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslima, it is interesting that you cited the French law against the burka (if I understand the law prohibit the wearing in public of the full veil that totally covers the face). I am from Italy, and a law like that has been in existence for ever, well before that anybody could even think that Muslims could one day live in Italy. simply the government did not want to have people go around with faces totally covered to a point that they could not be recognized. as for the burka, I am not an expert but the Quran apparently does not say anywhere that women need to cover themselves like that. it simply says that they need to dress "modestly". "modesty" obviously changes with times and places. one hundred years ago my grandma told me that women in Italy would not weak pants because it would be considered scandalous, now they do. you can dress modestly in France as much as you want. however if you feel the need to put a blanket on your body and leave two holes for your eyes, maybe you should consider moving to Yemen, where your idea of modesty is more generally shared. decades ago women in Arab countries in North Africa (except for the Arab peninsula) did not weak the burka. now more women do it. this has nothing to do with modesty, but unfortunately with oil money that has allowed a strict interpretation of Islam by a few millions of backward uneducated desert dwellers to be shoveled down the throats of other Muslims

The issue is not whether the burqa is mandatory or not in Islam. The question is why are women, French citizens nonetheless who freely choose to wear a Burqa because they believe it is their religious right/freedom to dress that way, do not have the right under French Law to do so?And this, since 2010? So you have these Niqabis who were living in France prior to 2010 who suddenly have to change the way they dress or else be fined every single day? If we are talking about Freedom of Speech, then why aren't they allow to dress they way they choose fit? Why the double standard?

Women do NOT get to choose whether to wear a burqa or not. It is imposed on them by their family and social pressures. Just like affirmative action, gov needs to work to change society for the greater good.

You are delusional if you believe that ALL women who wear burqas do so because it is imposed on them by their family and social pressure . Also, Muslim women can NOT wear a hijab in public schools, universities, or government buildings. This has not just created a big divide in the community but also forced a lot of women to lose their jobs since they couldn't wear their scarves at work. You can not defend Freedom of Speech and then say hum no, doesn't apply to these women. These bans have also created socio-economic issues as well for the Muslim population in France. It is a fact that France prisons are disproportionally filled with Muslims. Muslims are about 8-10% in France but represent 60% -70% of Prisoners.

Muslim leaders, sociologists and human rights activists argue that more than in most other European countries, government social policies in France have served to isolate Muslims in impoverished suburbs that have high unemployment, inferior schools and substandard housing. This has helped create a generation of French-born children with little hope of social advancement and even less respect for French authority.

This really cracks me up. They show up dirt poor, with no skills, and a general unwillingness to assimilate; they have large families, and in spite of living off an exceedingly generous welfare state, they complain that they're poor. Schools have to implement a national curriculum that's the same everywhere. I have a friend who teaches in one of these tough schools that Muslim leaders bemoan--she has talked on more than one occasion about how little the kids are interested in learning and how disheartening that is. Poverty leads to crime--no wonder there are so many of them in prison. What an unusual concept.

I had to wear the hejab as a kid for a passport photo before I was naturalized because I had hit the magic age at which a little girl needs to show modesty in my native country, and I couldn't get a passport otherwise. I remember being completely mortified at having to put it on and so relieved when I was able to burn that passport. As for the niqab, women who want to wear it shouldn't have unrealistic expectations that they'll be assimilated, befriended, or hired for jobs. We are humans, and we like to relate to one another on the basis of personal relationships. Facial expressions are key in that. I find it very difficult, disturbing in fact, to try to relate to someone who won't show me her face, just as I'd react with someone who wears sunglasses all the time and won't show his/her eyes. It's just reality. You can't have your cake and it eat too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's dangerous to women because it negates a significant part of communication. It renders public expression by women invisible. A smile, a smirk, an eyebrow raise, a nose crinkle. These may sound small, but in fact most human communication is non-verbal. It removes a considerable part of female communication from society, and it renders that acceptable to daughters of women wearing niqab, and boys and men to think this is ok.

Face coverings are NOT just a piece of clothing. Our faces are a major part of human communication and interaction. Face coverings are a barrier and silencing mechanism to women. You may find that dramatic, but these are not insignificant things.

I understand that argument but I don't agree with it. If a person voluntarily chooses not to go outside and instead only uses the phone or computer for communication, that may be unfortunate and not ideal but it still that person's right. No one is forced to show their face in modern society unless they want to fly on a plane or get a driver's license. I think it's our job as parents to educate boys (and why only boys, why not girls as well?) that although we may not agree with that person's choice to wear a covering, we live in a free society and it's his/her choice to do so.

I did mention boys AND girls, but the approach is clearly different.

But ultimately I do not see face coverings as merely a clothing choice, any more than going completely naked in public is more than a clothing choice. All functioning societies need *some* laws and guidelines for general public/social good. I see a ban on permanent face coverings (not just a Halloween mask or bundling up on a cold winter day) as part of that societal good, just as banning walking down the street with all your genitals hanging out.

[Anonymous]

I think the burka debate is a bit distracting. I think that the point from the burka thing, the private day care thing, Muslima personal experience, etc is that quite a few French-born Muslims feel that French society doesn't welcome them. And some of the French public misuse their secular tradition to highlight, in a passive agressive way, their rejection of Islam.

As a non-Muslim, I would be curious to know whether US Muslim youth - particularly those born in the US in a low socioeconomic condition -- feel more welcome than French Muslim youth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslima, it is interesting that you cited the French law against the burka (if I understand the law prohibit the wearing in public of the full veil that totally covers the face). I am from Italy, and a law like that has been in existence for ever, well before that anybody could even think that Muslims could one day live in Italy. simply the government did not want to have people go around with faces totally covered to a point that they could not be recognized. as for the burka, I am not an expert but the Quran apparently does not say anywhere that women need to cover themselves like that. it simply says that they need to dress "modestly". "modesty" obviously changes with times and places. one hundred years ago my grandma told me that women in Italy would not weak pants because it would be considered scandalous, now they do. you can dress modestly in France as much as you want. however if you feel the need to put a blanket on your body and leave two holes for your eyes, maybe you should consider moving to Yemen, where your idea of modesty is more generally shared. decades ago women in Arab countries in North Africa (except for the Arab peninsula) did not weak the burka. now more women do it. this has nothing to do with modesty, but unfortunately with oil money that has allowed a strict interpretation of Islam by a few millions of backward uneducated desert dwellers to be shoveled down the throats of other Muslims

The issue is not whether the burqa is mandatory or not in Islam. The question is why are women, French citizens nonetheless who freely choose to wear a Burqa because they believe it is their religious right/freedom to dress that way, do not have the right under French Law to do so?And this, since 2010? So you have these Niqabis who were living in France prior to 2010 who suddenly have to change the way they dress or else be fined every single day? If we are talking about Freedom of Speech, then why aren't they allow to dress they way they choose fit? Why the double standard?

Women do NOT get to choose whether to wear a burqa or not. It is imposed on them by their family and social pressures. Just like affirmative action, gov needs to work to change society for the greater good.

You are delusional if you believe that ALL women who wear burqas do so because it is imposed on them by their family and social pressure . Also, Muslim women can NOT wear a hijab in public schools, universities, or government buildings. This has not just created a big divide in the community but also forced a lot of women to lose their jobs since they couldn't wear their scarves at work. You can not defend Freedom of Speech and then say hum no, doesn't apply to these women. These bans have also created socio-economic issues as well for the Muslim population in France. It is a fact that France prisons are disproportionally filled with Muslims. Muslims are about 8-10% in France but represent 60% -70% of Prisoners.

Muslim leaders, sociologists and human rights activists argue that more than in most other European countries, government social policies in France have served to isolate Muslims in impoverished suburbs that have high unemployment, inferior schools and substandard housing. This has helped create a generation of French-born children with little hope of social advancement and even less respect for French authority.

This really cracks me up. They show up dirt poor, with no skills, and a general unwillingness to assimilate; they have large families, and in spite of living off an exceedingly generous welfare state, they complain that they're poor. Schools have to implement a national curriculum that's the same everywhere. I have a friend who teaches in one of these tough schools that Muslim leaders bemoan--she has talked on more than one occasion about how little the kids are interested in learning and how disheartening that is. Poverty leads to crime--no wonder there are so many of them in prison. What an unusual concept.

I had to wear the hejab as a kid for a passport photo before I was naturalized because I had hit the magic age at which a little girl needs to show modesty in my native country, and I couldn't get a passport otherwise. I remember being completely mortified at having to put it on and so relieved when I was able to burn that passport. As for the niqab, women who want to wear it shouldn't have unrealistic expectations that they'll be assimilated, befriended, or hired for jobs. We are humans, and we like to relate to one another on the basis of personal relationships. Facial expressions are key in that. I find it very difficult, disturbing in fact, to try to relate to someone who won't show me her face, just as I'd react with someone who wears sunglasses all the time and won't show his/her eyes. It's just reality. You can't have your cake and it eat too.

+1 [raised Muslim, now atheist poster]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^but some women choose to wear it... are we going to tell them "we know what's good for you more than you know what's good for you"?

Exactly.

Yes, we outlaw lots of things because they're bad for you. Trans fats, seat belt laws, etc.

We don't outlaw certain types of dress (other than nudity or the like) in the street because "it offends our values"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^but some women choose to wear it... are we going to tell them "we know what's good for you more than you know what's good for you"?

Exactly.

Yes, we outlaw lots of things because they're bad for you. Trans fats, seat belt laws, etc.

We don't outlaw certain types of dress (other than nudity or the like) in the street because "it offends our values"

Other than nudity? Why is that outlawed? Because of societal mores.

What was your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you really comparing polygamy with wearing certa in type of dress? Wow.

And, does Italy have legislation banning the burka explicitly? One can debate the security issue, but the French law was aimed at wearing the burka under the grounds of "going against our values. Does Italy have laws banning certain types of dress because it violates its values?

I think that's an apt comparison. We outlaw polygamy in the US for safety (the girls are frequently very young and indoctrinated), rather than because of complications in tax and estate law. Arguably, it is fundamental to religion, it still is in FLDS. The mainstream LDS church has disavowed it. Sounds similar to a burka.

Many women choosing to wear a burka are French citizens -- and many are grown-up former non-Muslim who choose to convert to Islam. A ban is not for "their" safety. And that wasnt the reason the Italian PP brought it up.

France estimated that 2000 women who wear the burqa would be affected.

The critical issue here is how to separate the willing burqa-wearers from the women who are forced to wear the burqa. I don't think anybody has a good way to distinguish between the two groups, or even knows what their relative numbers are.

France erred on the side of protecting those who are forced to wear it. I am really on the fence about whether that's the right solution, and I see valid points on both sides being made here.

P.S. Even if all of 200 of these burqa-wearing women are western converts (which they're not), this is not exactly a huge number of converts.

[Anonymous]

As far as I know, there aren't any countries/societies where full nudity is accepted in public.

[Anonymous]

The ban on nudity is pretty much universal. I was saying that we in the US don't ban something like the burka because it's again American values, so the comparison with trans fat is not appropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not to turn this into a discussion of the niqab ban, but I have never understood how France could claim they are a democratic, enlightened society where all are welcomed and then impose such a law. The argument that 'if you don't like, then move' is all well and good, but I thought of France as more progressive than Saudi Arabia and the like where women are forced to wear certain items of clothes.

I think the poster who pointed out that the burqa is a barrier to the basic requirement of civilty( being able to see the face of those to whom you are addressing) was well put.

Also, it is a fact that there is nothing in the Quoran or the Sunnah which explicitly states that women must cover their face. Like Mohammed worship , the pressure to cover a woman's face grew out of the misogyny inherent in the desert nomad culture of that part of the world. Lets remember that Mohammed also found it necessary to " reveal" that one should stop burying the female infant in the sand at birth.

So, the French and European stance in general is : you are free to practice your faith, but your myspgiby will not be given quarter in our society.
Don't line it, don't come to our country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^but some women choose to wear it... are we going to tell them "we know what's good for you more than you know what's good for you"?

Exactly.

Yes, we outlaw lots of things because they're bad for you. Trans fats, seat belt laws, etc.

We don't outlaw certain types of dress (other than nudity or the like) in the street because "it offends our values"

Other than nudity? Why is that outlawed? Because of societal mores.

What was your point?

I posted earlier to say that my office doesn't allow bare midriffs or jeggings. Mores again.