terrorist attack in Paris

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

"Universals" are manmade, human constructions, and not inherent in nature. And they can change.

Are women going topless against American values? Why or why not? Why is it illegal almost everywhere, but men are free to go topless in public?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am aware that burka-wearing women are a tiny fraction of the population -- "many" doesn't mean "thousands." But if someone is forced to wear it (by, say, her husband), what do you think will happen with a ban? In all likelihood, their husbands will further restrict their ability to be in public. How is that "protecting them"?

The fact that it's a tiny number of women wearing it, and the fact that the French public spent months and months discussing it as a big deal -- with most people agreeing with a ban from the beginning -- reaffirms that this kind of law can be interpreted as an opportunity to express, willingly or not, rejection to "otherness."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

"Universals" are manmade, human constructions, and not inherent in nature. And they can change.

Are women going topless against American values? Why or why not? Why is it illegal almost everywhere, but men are free to go topless in public?

Ok, nitpicker: showing genitalia is universally rejected. Are we now going to talk about some Brazilian tribe where people show genitalia?

Can we go back to the reasons of the attack?

[Anonymous]

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?

it seems a perfectly good comparison since the burka is not presented as a style of clothing (today I wear my jeans, for the party tonight my new red burka), but as an expression of a religious statement. the fact that some French born and raised women, who dressed in a Western style all their lives, chose to wear the burka after they convert is perfect evidence that the burka has nothing to do with their own idea of modesty (otherwise they would have worn it since birth), but with part of embracing a religion.

as for Italy, as I said I know the law prohibit going around masked or with the face concealed. While there are now Muslims in Italy (mostly arrived in the past 20 years as immigrants from North Africa) I have never seen a burka. I would have no issues with such a law, I would actually welcome it like I think the majority of Italians. you can be catholic, atheist, jewish, muslim, whatever you want in Italy, and you can wear whatever you want within the limits of generally accepted decency (most beaches you can show your boobs, but you can't do it at the swimming pool, in city parks or in the street as an example) and cover yourself as much as you want, as long as your face is visible. if you feel the need to walk around under a table cloth with an opening so you do not hit light poles, then please go somewhere else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am aware that burka-wearing women are a tiny fraction of the population -- "many" doesn't mean "thousands." But if someone is forced to wear it (by, say, her husband), what do you think will happen with a ban? In all likelihood, their husbands will further restrict their ability to be in public. How is that "protecting them"?

The fact that it's a tiny number of women wearing it, and the fact that the French public spent months and months discussing it as a big deal -- with most people agreeing with a ban from the beginning -- reaffirms that this kind of law can be interpreted as an opportunity to express, willingly or not, rejection to "otherness."

But allowing these women to wear the burqa in public effectively protects the husband and his values. Whereas banning the burqa will force many of these husbands to relent, and allow their wives to go out in public to shop, attend school, or take a job. I don't know if anybody has numbers for how this plays out IRL. That's another side of this coin, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

"Universals" are manmade, human constructions, and not inherent in nature. And they can change.

Are women going topless against American values? Why or why not? Why is it illegal almost everywhere, but men are free to go topless in public?

Exactly, We used to think it was OK to enslave people , not we think its OK to kill babies. Hitler thought it was OK to kill Jews and many Muslims think its OK to slaughter infidels. Right and Wrong are manmade , in reality we have no souls, there is no God and humans are worth no more than a worm , universally .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am aware that burka-wearing women are a tiny fraction of the population -- "many" doesn't mean "thousands." But if someone is forced to wear it (by, say, her husband), what do you think will happen with a ban? In all likelihood, their husbands will further restrict their ability to be in public. How is that "protecting them"?

The fact that it's a tiny number of women wearing it, and the fact that the French public spent months and months discussing it as a big deal -- with most people agreeing with a ban from the beginning -- reaffirms that this kind of law can be interpreted as an opportunity to express, willingly or not, rejection to "otherness."

But allowing these women to wear the burqa in public effectively protects the husband and his values. Whereas banning the burqa will force many of these husbands to relent, and allow their wives to go out in public to shop, attend school, or take a job. I don't know if anybody has numbers for how this plays out IRL. That's another side of this coin, though.

I should add, "his values," which would be protected by lifting the burqa ban, are not universally accepted by Muslims as "Muslim" values. I posted earlier that the Quran does not require head-to-toe covering, or covering of the face, rather this is a part of Wahhabism and in places like Pakistan.

Rather, the "values" that would be protected by lifting the burqa ban are the Western values of being free to dress as you want. Or as your husband wants, in some but not all cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

"Universals" are manmade, human constructions, and not inherent in nature. And they can change.

Are women going topless against American values? Why or why not? Why is it illegal almost everywhere, but men are free to go topless in public?

Exactly, We used to think it was OK to enslave people , not we think its OK to kill babies. Hitler thought it was OK to kill Jews and many Muslims think its OK to slaughter infidels. Right and Wrong are manmade , in reality we have no souls, there is no God and humans are worth no more than a worm , universally .

Hot damn you would make an amazing yoga instructor, because you seriously love to stretch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But allowing these women to wear the burqa in public effectively protects the husband and his values. Whereas banning the burqa will force many of these husbands to relent, and allow their wives to go out in public to shop, attend school, or take a job. I don't know if anybody has numbers for how this plays out IRL. That's another side of this coin, though.

I'm sorry but I don't believe that a ban on the burka is going to get a man who forces his wife to wear one to suddenly become enlightened. Do you really think a woman who is forced to wear a burka is going to be allowed to get a job?

[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?

it seems a perfectly good comparison since the burka is not presented as a style of clothing (today I wear my jeans, for the party tonight my new red burka), but as an expression of a religious statement. the fact that some French born and raised women, who dressed in a Western style all their lives, chose to wear the burka after they convert is perfect evidence that the burka has nothing to do with their own idea of modesty (otherwise they would have worn it since birth), but with part of embracing a religion.

as for Italy, as I said I know the law prohibit going around masked or with the face concealed. While there are now Muslims in Italy (mostly arrived in the past 20 years as immigrants from North Africa) I have never seen a burka. I would have no issues with such a law, I would actually welcome it like I think the majority of Italians. you can be catholic, atheist, jewish, muslim, whatever you want in Italy, and you can wear whatever you want within the limits of generally accepted decency (most beaches you can show your boobs, but you can't do it at the swimming pool, in city parks or in the street as an example) and cover yourself as much as you want, as long as your face is visible. if you feel the need to walk around under a table cloth with an opening so you do not hit light poles, then please go somewhere else.

Wanting a ban because people should show their faces irrespective of their religion is different from wanting a ban because it goes against the countries values.

I am sure most Italians would welcome a ban -- as I am sure a majority of Americans wouldn't.

[Anonymous]

^country's

[Anonymous]

"The blog EU-logos about European affairs reflects (fr) on a recent poll by the Pew Research Center that shows a widespread support in European countries for a burqa ban whereas such proposal would be rejected by 65% of voters in the U.S"


http://globalvoicesonline.org/2010/07/13/europe-u-s-a-poll-on-burqa-ban-shows-opposite-viewpoints/

[Anonymous]

American execptionalism. Vive l'Amerique !

[Anonymous]

^^ Exceptionalism (silly autocorrect).

[Anonymous]

This puts it well. http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/blame-for-charlie-hebdo-murders

All this discussion of Muslims in French society is nice but off point.