terrorist attack in Paris

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That's your interpretation. Women who cover their faces may very well believe that you aren't special enough to see them. The sight of their face is reserved only for special people, and you aren't one of them.

Absolutely. In my opinion, these complete coverings serve the purpose of isolating women from broader society and making them only interact with those of their own religious community of believers.

I can see you believe that no woman may actually choose to live like that. You say you want women to have freedom of choice, but in actuality, you only want them to have you-approved choices. If you disapprove of a particular lifestyle, it should not be offered as a choice. Got it.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

That's your interpretation. Women who cover their faces may very well believe that you aren't special enough to see them. The sight of their face is reserved only for special people, and you aren't one of them.

Absolutely. In my opinion, these complete coverings serve the purpose of isolating women from broader society and making them only interact with those of their own religious community of believers.

Your opinion is not based on facts or reality. The good thing about opinions is that they are just that. The niqab will remain, worn by women who feel liberated by it, and those who just love it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Different PP, but I'm sad for you. Being so brainwashed as to pretend niqabis are a free choice and not the result of enculturated oppression of women.

Typical white girl thinking that anyone who isn't like her is brainwashed. Go ahead, tell the brown natives what to do.

I'm not telling anyone what to do. I have an opinion about it, but I'm certainly not dictating it. And what "natives" are you talking about? Is it your belief that the Muslims in the U.S. are "natives"? No one's talking about traveling to majority muslim countries and telling them they can't wear niqabs. The debate is about whether they ought to be allowed to in countries where they are most certainly not natives.
And yes, I do think it's brainwashing. I think that in order to believe that the sight of your fact is sacrilegious, you must be convinced that you are to be controlled and minimized. Your power is diminished.

That's your interpretation. Women who cover their faces may very well believe that you aren't special enough to see them. The sight of their face is reserved only for special people, and you aren't one of them.

The "native" part is not about citizenship in any particular country. It's about you believing that people who believe different things from you must need enlightenment.

As you appear to believe as well.
Yes, there are areas in which I do think I know better than some other people do. And you obviously do as well. As long as I'm not interested in imposing it on them, I see no reason why you should care. You simply hold a different opinion, but you seem to think it's impermissible for me to have mine.
I see you backed off your "natives" silliness. This is not a "white/brown" issue. I'm not white, btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you tell a woman that she must wear a niqab or be subject to violence, that;'s a violation of her rights. Duh. And I do think I have a security interest in being able to see the face of a person I'm encountering in a public place. I could care less what people do in the private sphere (their homes, private schools, whatever), but in public places, yes, I think it's a security issue.

What makes you think women who cover their faces do it out of fear of violence? You know there's no requirement for it in religion or in the law. You are incapable of believing that a woman may choose to cover her face, and that makes you small-minded.

Well, I don't think you have a security interest in being able to see the face of a person in a public place. You may prefer it; it may make you uncomfortable to not have it, but your opinion or comfort level are not relevant to public policy. It's simply none of your business.

That's clearly untrue. Clearly, many people interpret Islam to require it, and there are women in Iran jailed for not doing it. You can call me names all you want, but your one-sided moral relativism doesn't convince me. Sure, SOME women may want to do it, but even those have been conditioned to do so. Even setting the conditioning aside, some women are certainly forced to do so.
The security issue is a separate one. You've offered no logical rebuttal. I have no issue with headscarves, because there's clearly no security issue there. But if we as a culture start to adapt to niqabs, then lots of people can take advantage of that. I don't want that to happen here, where it has never been part of the culture. That's one on which I think people ought to adapt. Again, I have no concern with people dressing however they want at home or in private spaces. Even if personally I think it is a sexist custom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's your interpretation. Women who cover their faces may very well believe that you aren't special enough to see them. The sight of their face is reserved only for special people, and you aren't one of them.

Absolutely. In my opinion, these complete coverings serve the purpose of isolating women from broader society and making them only interact with those of their own religious community of believers.

I can see you believe that no woman may actually choose to live like that. You say you want women to have freedom of choice, but in actuality, you only want them to have you-approved choices. If you disapprove of a particular lifestyle, it should not be offered as a choice. Got it.

Actually, s/he never said that. She said she disapproves of that choice, not that she thinks it ought not be allowed. Are there customs you disapprove of? I thought so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's your interpretation. Women who cover their faces may very well believe that you aren't special enough to see them. The sight of their face is reserved only for special people, and you aren't one of them.

Absolutely. In my opinion, these complete coverings serve the purpose of isolating women from broader society and making them only interact with those of their own religious community of believers.

I can see you believe that no woman may actually choose to live like that. You say you want women to have freedom of choice, but in actuality, you only want them to have you-approved choices. If you disapprove of a particular lifestyle, it should not be offered as a choice. Got it.

How far do you think freedom of choice should go? For example, do you feel the same about the women who chose to live on the Yearning for Zion ranch in head to toe garb? Most news articles indicated that the women and children were unduly influenced from a very young age. It's not hard to see why they were viewed by many as brainwashed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Different PP, but I'm sad for you. Being so brainwashed as to pretend niqabis are a free choice and not the result of enculturated oppression of women.

Typical white girl thinking that anyone who isn't like her is brainwashed. Go ahead, tell the brown natives what to do.

I'm not telling anyone what to do. I have an opinion about it, but I'm certainly not dictating it. And what "natives" are you talking about? Is it your belief that the Muslims in the U.S. are "natives"? No one's talking about traveling to majority muslim countries and telling them they can't wear niqabs. The debate is about whether they ought to be allowed to in countries where they are most certainly not natives.
And yes, I do think it's brainwashing. I think that in order to believe that the sight of your fact is sacrilegious, you must be convinced that you are to be controlled and minimized. Your power is diminished.

That's your interpretation. Women who cover their faces may very well believe that you aren't special enough to see them. The sight of their face is reserved only for special people, and you aren't one of them.

The "native" part is not about citizenship in any particular country. It's about you believing that people who believe different things from you must need enlightenment.

As you appear to believe as well.
Yes, there are areas in which I do think I know better than some other people do. And you obviously do as well. As long as I'm not interested in imposing it on them, I see no reason why you should care. You simply hold a different opinion, but you seem to think it's impermissible for me to have mine.
I see you backed off your "natives" silliness. This is not a "white/brown" issue. I'm not white, btw.

But you are, since you'd like to ban the niqab in public places. Therefore, you ARE interested in imposing your opinion on others. My opinion simply wants to preserve it as a choice, not deny it.

I didn't back off it, actually, I still think you have a Western person's arrogance about it, and it has nothing to do with your actual color.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's your interpretation. Women who cover their faces may very well believe that you aren't special enough to see them. The sight of their face is reserved only for special people, and you aren't one of them.

Absolutely. In my opinion, these complete coverings serve the purpose of isolating women from broader society and making them only interact with those of their own religious community of believers.

Your opinion is not based on facts or reality. The good thing about opinions is that they are just that. The niqab will remain, worn by women who feel liberated by it, and those who just love it.

Actually, no, that opinion is based on reality. There's no question that wearing a full niqab does serve to isolate those women from non-niqabi society. Whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing is a question, I suppose. I think your opinion is not based in reality at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you tell a woman that she must wear a niqab or be subject to violence, that;'s a violation of her rights. Duh. And I do think I have a security interest in being able to see the face of a person I'm encountering in a public place. I could care less what people do in the private sphere (their homes, private schools, whatever), but in public places, yes, I think it's a security issue.

What makes you think women who cover their faces do it out of fear of violence? You know there's no requirement for it in religion or in the law. You are incapable of believing that a woman may choose to cover her face, and that makes you small-minded.

Well, I don't think you have a security interest in being able to see the face of a person in a public place. You may prefer it; it may make you uncomfortable to not have it, but your opinion or comfort level are not relevant to public policy. It's simply none of your business.

That's clearly untrue. Clearly, many people interpret Islam to require it, and there are women in Iran jailed for not doing it. You can call me names all you want, but your one-sided moral relativism doesn't convince me. Sure, SOME women may want to do it, but even those have been conditioned to do so. Even setting the conditioning aside, some women are certainly forced to do so.
The security issue is a separate one. You've offered no logical rebuttal. I have no issue with headscarves, because there's clearly no security issue there. But if we as a culture start to adapt to niqabs, then lots of people can take advantage of that. I don't want that to happen here, where it has never been part of the culture. That's one on which I think people ought to adapt. Again, I have no concern with people dressing however they want at home or in private spaces. Even if personally I think it is a sexist custom.

That's a lie, and it tells me how little you know about Muslim-majority countries. Iran, of all places, has NEVER required a face cover. A head cover, yes. A face cover, no. You've made that up.

Separately, no Muslim-majority country except some parts of KSA requires a face cover legally.

Conditioned? Well, I think some women have been conditioned to wear miniskirts and show cleavage. Some women have been conditioned to dress modestly. So? Are we all not a product of our conditioning?

Niqabs are worn by a minority of Muslim women, a very small minority. The idea that it can somehow grow in the U.S. is inane on its face.

Do you have a problem with women being forced to wear anything? Or is it just the niqab that attracts your particular wrath?

I don't think you security comment warrants a "logical rebuttal." Women who wear niqabs do not object to removing them in front of persons charged with actual duties of security. You aren't that person. Separately from that, someone committed to crime will not care that face coverings are illegal, they will simply do that when it's a part of the plan, hence the masks on bank robbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Different PP, but I'm sad for you. Being so brainwashed as to pretend niqabis are a free choice and not the result of enculturated oppression of women.

Typical white girl thinking that anyone who isn't like her is brainwashed. Go ahead, tell the brown natives what to do.

I'm not telling anyone what to do. I have an opinion about it, but I'm certainly not dictating it. And what "natives" are you talking about? Is it your belief that the Muslims in the U.S. are "natives"? No one's talking about traveling to majority muslim countries and telling them they can't wear niqabs. The debate is about whether they ought to be allowed to in countries where they are most certainly not natives.
And yes, I do think it's brainwashing. I think that in order to believe that the sight of your fact is sacrilegious, you must be convinced that you are to be controlled and minimized. Your power is diminished.

That's your interpretation. Women who cover their faces may very well believe that you aren't special enough to see them. The sight of their face is reserved only for special people, and you aren't one of them.

The "native" part is not about citizenship in any particular country. It's about you believing that people who believe different things from you must need enlightenment.

As you appear to believe as well.
Yes, there are areas in which I do think I know better than some other people do. And you obviously do as well. As long as I'm not interested in imposing it on them, I see no reason why you should care. You simply hold a different opinion, but you seem to think it's impermissible for me to have mine.
I see you backed off your "natives" silliness. This is not a "white/brown" issue. I'm not white, btw.

But you are, since you'd like to ban the niqab in public places. Therefore, you ARE interested in imposing your opinion on others. My opinion simply wants to preserve it as a choice, not deny it.

I didn't back off it, actually, I still think you have a Western person's arrogance about it, and it has nothing to do with your actual color.

Ah, yes, I am a Western person. And I have a Western person's bias towards women's rights. (Actually, there are many Eastern cultures who have that view as well, just not yours.) So you dismiss my view because I am Western, though we are talking about this issue in the context of Western society. How very logical.
I do think it's a hard call whether niqabs should be prohibited in public spaces. I don't think it's a good thing if you can walk into a bank or a convenience store in a niqab. We have security cameras for a reason -- to deter crime because the take pictures of peoples' faces, thus increasing the likelihood they will be caught. If it becomes culturally acceptable to walk around with a covered face, then we might as well get rid of that. What idiot wouldn't wear a niqab to rob a store. But we, as a government, have never sought to limit peoples' clothing choices except in the context of nudity or obscenity. So it is a hard step to take. Nonetheless, I think the security risk outweighs whatever expressive value there is to it. And I'd say that if it were some Mormon faction covering their faces as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's your interpretation. Women who cover their faces may very well believe that you aren't special enough to see them. The sight of their face is reserved only for special people, and you aren't one of them.

Absolutely. In my opinion, these complete coverings serve the purpose of isolating women from broader society and making them only interact with those of their own religious community of believers.

I can see you believe that no woman may actually choose to live like that. You say you want women to have freedom of choice, but in actuality, you only want them to have you-approved choices. If you disapprove of a particular lifestyle, it should not be offered as a choice. Got it.

How far do you think freedom of choice should go? For example, do you feel the same about the women who chose to live on the Yearning for Zion ranch in head to toe garb? Most news articles indicated that the women and children were unduly influenced from a very young age. It's not hard to see why they were viewed by many as brainwashed.

We are all influenced by something from a very young age. If someone chooses to wear something voluntarily when all restrictions mandating it are removed, then that's their choice.

When I look at teenage girls with every inch of their butt and cleavage showing, I too think they've been brainwashed to think it is cool, rather than disgusting.

And I certainly wouldn't force anyone to interact with me if that's not what they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Ah, yes, I am a Western person. And I have a Western person's bias towards women's rights. (Actually, there are many Eastern cultures who have that view as well, just not yours.) So you dismiss my view because I am Western, though we are talking about this issue in the context of Western society. How very logical.
I do think it's a hard call whether niqabs should be prohibited in public spaces. I don't think it's a good thing if you can walk into a bank or a convenience store in a niqab. We have security cameras for a reason -- to deter crime because the take pictures of peoples' faces, thus increasing the likelihood they will be caught. If it becomes culturally acceptable to walk around with a covered face, then we might as well get rid of that. What idiot wouldn't wear a niqab to rob a store. But we, as a government, have never sought to limit peoples' clothing choices except in the context of nudity or obscenity. So it is a hard step to take. Nonetheless, I think the security risk outweighs whatever expressive value there is to it. And I'd say that if it were some Mormon faction covering their faces as well.

I don't dismiss your view because you're Western. I dismiss your view because you seem to seek to impose it on all others. I would feel the same about a niqabi person who wants everyone to cover their face. And you have no idea what culture I am from, so let's not even go there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Ah, yes, I am a Western person. And I have a Western person's bias towards women's rights. (Actually, there are many Eastern cultures who have that view as well, just not yours.) So you dismiss my view because I am Western, though we are talking about this issue in the context of Western society. How very logical.
I do think it's a hard call whether niqabs should be prohibited in public spaces. I don't think it's a good thing if you can walk into a bank or a convenience store in a niqab. We have security cameras for a reason -- to deter crime because the take pictures of peoples' faces, thus increasing the likelihood they will be caught. If it becomes culturally acceptable to walk around with a covered face, then we might as well get rid of that. What idiot wouldn't wear a niqab to rob a store. But we, as a government, have never sought to limit peoples' clothing choices except in the context of nudity or obscenity. So it is a hard step to take. Nonetheless, I think the security risk outweighs whatever expressive value there is to it. And I'd say that if it were some Mormon faction covering their faces as well.

Bank and store robbers already cover their faces and that has nothing to do with niqabs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you tell a woman that she must wear a niqab or be subject to violence, that;'s a violation of her rights. Duh. And I do think I have a security interest in being able to see the face of a person I'm encountering in a public place. I could care less what people do in the private sphere (their homes, private schools, whatever), but in public places, yes, I think it's a security issue.

What makes you think women who cover their faces do it out of fear of violence? You know there's no requirement for it in religion or in the law. You are incapable of believing that a woman may choose to cover her face, and that makes you small-minded.

Well, I don't think you have a security interest in being able to see the face of a person in a public place. You may prefer it; it may make you uncomfortable to not have it, but your opinion or comfort level are not relevant to public policy. It's simply none of your business.

That's clearly untrue. Clearly, many people interpret Islam to require it, and there are women in Iran jailed for not doing it. You can call me names all you want, but your one-sided moral relativism doesn't convince me. Sure, SOME women may want to do it, but even those have been conditioned to do so. Even setting the conditioning aside, some women are certainly forced to do so.
The security issue is a separate one. You've offered no logical rebuttal. I have no issue with headscarves, because there's clearly no security issue there. But if we as a culture start to adapt to niqabs, then lots of people can take advantage of that. I don't want that to happen here, where it has never been part of the culture. That's one on which I think people ought to adapt. Again, I have no concern with people dressing however they want at home or in private spaces. Even if personally I think it is a sexist custom.

That's a lie, and it tells me how little you know about Muslim-majority countries. Iran, of all places, has NEVER required a face cover. A head cover, yes. A face cover, no. You've made that up.



Separately, no Muslim-majority country except some parts of KSA requires a face cover legally.

Conditioned? Well, I think some women have been conditioned to wear miniskirts and show cleavage. Some women have been conditioned to dress modestly. So? Are we all not a product of our conditioning?

Niqabs are worn by a minority of Muslim women, a very small minority. The idea that it can somehow grow in the U.S. is inane on its face.

Do you have a problem with women being forced to wear anything? Or is it just the niqab that attracts your particular wrath?

I don't think you security comment warrants a "logical rebuttal." Women who wear niqabs do not object to removing them in front of persons charged with actual duties of security. You aren't that person. Separately from that, someone committed to crime will not care that face coverings are illegal, they will simply do that when it's a part of the plan, hence the masks on bank robbers.

Ah yes, you're right. It's the hijab that women are jailed for not wearing in Iran. I can see how these "cover yourself" issues aren't forced on women at all. Good point.
Separately, if you are honestly saying that you think that no significant portion of niqabis are forced to wear that by their fathers or husbands, then your head is so far in the sand that you are pointless.
I have a problem with women being forced to wear anything other than what men are forced to wear. And yes, that includes shirtlessness. (Though I much prefer public spaces where men have to wear shirts, too.)
Not sure where you got "wrath". I have no wrath or anger toward women wearing niqabs. I do feel sorry for them, honestly, though I'm sure that offends you.
Unfortunately, I don't think the idea that the niqab custom can grow in the U.S. (or other Western countries) is so far-fetched. We are seeing extremist Islam growing, why not the niqab?
Your point that robbers will wear one even if it's illegal is silly. The point is that if it were illegal, they could be stopped before they rob the bank. Duh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Ah, yes, I am a Western person. And I have a Western person's bias towards women's rights. (Actually, there are many Eastern cultures who have that view as well, just not yours.) So you dismiss my view because I am Western, though we are talking about this issue in the context of Western society. How very logical.
I do think it's a hard call whether niqabs should be prohibited in public spaces. I don't think it's a good thing if you can walk into a bank or a convenience store in a niqab. We have security cameras for a reason -- to deter crime because the take pictures of peoples' faces, thus increasing the likelihood they will be caught. If it becomes culturally acceptable to walk around with a covered face, then we might as well get rid of that. What idiot wouldn't wear a niqab to rob a store. But we, as a government, have never sought to limit peoples' clothing choices except in the context of nudity or obscenity. So it is a hard step to take. Nonetheless, I think the security risk outweighs whatever expressive value there is to it. And I'd say that if it were some Mormon faction covering their faces as well.

I don't dismiss your view because you're Western. I dismiss your view because you seem to seek to impose it on all others. I would feel the same about a niqabi person who wants everyone to cover their face. And you have no idea what culture I am from, so let's not even go there.

Well you felt comfortable assuming not only my culture, but my color. And you dismissed me as "typical Western". So I think I get it.
There are views that people should impose on others. I also seek to impose my "don't beat your wife" view on others. And my "girls should be allowed to go to school" view on others. I'm okay with that.