France's burqa ban - justified or infringement of freedom?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I doubt that it will be proposed.  My objection is based more on principle than hypotheticals anyway: it singles out the Muslim faith.

[humblesmurph]

hahah, well-put.

It's not really funny though is it.
I've heard Moslem men laughing while explaining why woman wear black in some desert regions.
Well the superior gender wears white because it's hot, woman must be differentiated, let them suffer in black .

I'm not as religiously tolerant as many people here.
Years ago as a teenager I welcomed the idea that I was living in a secular society.
I'm not convinced a society with a history stained with blood from religious rivalry, should accept an influx of people practising a  militant religion.
I agree once someone becomes a resident of a country, they need to be treated fairly.
I don't have a problem with the French approach, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism and the rest should be challenged more often.

I am basically of the same mind as you Magic Pudding.  I'm quite intolerant of religion.  I don't think it should be offered any special protections or tax breaks under the law.  As you point out, we don't live in a secular world society, things are messed up around here.  However, I think it counterproductive to label Islam as "militant".  It implies that Christianity, the dominant Western religion, is not militant.  This gives Christians a sense that theirs is the superior religion, and makes Muslims dig their heels in to defy this obvious lie. If Islam is militant, so is Christianity.  It's all the same gobbly gook.  I think the underlined is quite correct.  All religions should be challenged, but at the same time, not one by one.

[The Magic Pudding]

I doubt that it will be proposed.  My objection is based more on principle than hypotheticals anyway: it singles out the Muslim faith.

Well I don't doubt the Muslim faith inspired it, but it can be applied to all evil fucks equally.
And why shouldn't a 21st century society say to newcomers from a 15th century society, hey we don't do that here?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Perhaps because it violates their freedom of conscience?  Perhaps because it is discriminatory?  Perhaps because it is a thinly-disguised stab at immigrants?

Tell me, do you protest nuns wearing their habits in public, or priests their frocks?  After all, the Catholic Church too has committed what can be defined legally as crimes against humanity.

[The Magic Pudding]

Perhaps because it violates their freedom of conscience?  Perhaps because it is discriminatory?  Perhaps because it is a thinly-disguised stab at immigrants?

Tell me, do you protest nuns wearing their habits in public, or priests their frocks?  After all, the Catholic Church too has committed what can be defined legally as crimes against humanity.

Do nuns still wear habits?
Do the priests wives tell them to wear the frocks?
"Perhaps because it is a thinly-disguised stab at immigrants?"
Yes I think that is it, but you don't want to disguise it to thinly or the voters won't pick up on it.

[pinkocommie]

"Confine women to the home."
This is a problematic sentence for me.
I say challenge any bastard who suggests such a thing.

I think as an outsider looking in who really won't suffer any repercussions from this stance, it's an easy position to hold.  It is a tough question though - how much should you tip toe around religion in order to protect the more subjugated from possible horrors?  Or do you skip the tip toeing completely and just reject the religion in general for being cruel and barbaric or otherwise unacceptable and hope those subjugated have the will and ability to get out?  I tend to lean toward the latter, but I don't think outright legally banning religious clothing is a positive step.  It seems like another equally unsavory form of control, just dressed in secular clothing.

[The Magic Pudding]

hahah, well-put.

It's not really funny though is it.
I've heard Moslem men laughing while explaining why woman wear black in some desert regions.
Well the superior gender wears white because it's hot, woman must be differentiated, let them suffer in black .

I'm not as religiously tolerant as many people here.
Years ago as a teenager I welcomed the idea that I was living in a secular society.
I'm not convinced a society with a history stained with blood from religious rivalry, should accept an influx of people practising a  militant religion.
I agree once someone becomes a resident of a country, they need to be treated fairly.
I don't have a problem with the French approach, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism and the rest should be challenged more often.

I am basically of the same mind as you Magic Pudding.  I'm quite intolerant of religion.  I don't think it should be offered any special protections or tax breaks under the law.  As you point out, we don't live in a secular world society, things are messed up around here.  However, I think it counterproductive to label Islam as "militant".  It implies that Christianity, the dominant Western religion, is not militant.  This gives Christians a sense that theirs is the superior religion, and makes Muslims dig their heels in to defy this obvious lie. If Islam is militant, so is Christianity.  It's all the same gobbly gook.  I think the underlined is quite correct.  All religions should be challenged, but at the same time, not one by one.

Militant, yes it is  a word, and so many religions seem bent in the direction of its definition.
Christianity has been sleepy, dozing off.  It may have tortured some astronomers some time back, but I don't think it's issued any fatwa's lately.
Challenge all religions at once if you want, but it may not be for the best strategically.

[humblesmurph]

Militant, yes it is  a word, and so many religions seem bent in the direction of its definition.
Christianity has been sleepy, dozing off.  It may have tortured some astronomers some time back, but I don't think it's issued any fatwa's lately.
Challenge all religions at once if you want, but it may not be for the best strategically.

Why not? What would be the best strategy?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Do nuns still wear habits?

Yes, they do, at least here in Southern California.

Do the priests wives tell them to wear the frocks?

Probably not, given that they're forbidden marriage, but that doesn't change the fact that this garb is religiously required.  

"Perhaps because it is a thinly-disguised stab at immigrants?"
Yes I think that is it, but you don't want to disguise it to thinly or the voters won't pick up on it.

I think you have it a bit backwards on this one.  The thinner the disguise, the easier it is to pierce.

[Tank]

Militant, yes it is  a word, and so many religions seem bent in the direction of its definition.
Christianity has been sleepy, dozing off.  It may have tortured some astronomers some time back, but I don't think it's issued any fatwa's lately.
Challenge all religions at once if you want, but it may not be for the best strategically.

Why not? What would be the best strategy?

The best strategy if one wants to win a battle is to bring unbearable force on a small point, divide and conquer. One also has to be cohesive. One also has to learn how to win by starting small. Where I used to work we rolled up quite a lot of the competition not by taking on the biggest competitor  but by taking on our weakest competition. We targeted their business ruthlessly. Where ever we found they were active we undercut them but nobody else. It took about two years to get there share value down to the point where we could take them over. We then went on to the next biggest one. Over a decade we had soaked up most of our smaller competition and without taking on our main competitor at all we out grew them by acquisition. At which point we simply soaked the duopoly.

How could atheism do this? It can't as atheists are not cohesive!

[humblesmurph]

Militant, yes it is  a word, and so many religions seem bent in the direction of its definition.
Christianity has been sleepy, dozing off.  It may have tortured some astronomers some time back, but I don't think it's issued any fatwa's lately.
Challenge all religions at once if you want, but it may not be for the best strategically.

Why not? What would be the best strategy?

The best strategy if one wants to win a battle is to bring unbearable force on a small point, divide and conquer. One also has to be cohesive. One also has to learn how to win by starting small. Where I used to work we rolled up quite a lot of the competition not by taking on the biggest competitor  but by taking on our weakest competition. We targeted their business ruthlessly. Where ever we found they were active we undercut them but nobody else. It took about two years to get there share value down to the point where we could take them over. We then went on to the next biggest one. Over a decade we had soaked up most of our smaller competition and without taking on our main competitor at all we out grew them by acquisition. At which point we simply soaked the duopoly.

How could atheism do this? It can't as atheists are not cohesive!

Look at Tank channeling is inner Sun-tzu   .  Respectfully, it looks like this isn't analogous to business or war.  What I would like to see is the end of religion, or at least the end of religion as a socioeconomic force.  From what I can best guess, Magic Pudding would like something similar as well.  What you, Tank, are talking about above is having the best business, what I'm talking about is the end of commerce.  I don't want to have the best team, I want to stop playing the game.

These companies you took over had employees, many of whom I assume either found new jobs or continued to do the same work for their new boss, you.  If Islam is a company, their business is worshiping a god and following dogma.  If we were to do a hostile takeover, their followers (employees) would find a new God to worship and new dogma to follow, because we have neither to offer them.   Then we go down the line of all the other religions and the same happens. Then we get down to one religion or company, let's say Christianity, because they seem to be winning the race.  The world could be every bit as religious after these hostile takeovers, the religious would just all practicing the same religion.  They would be an even harder force to overcome because now they are all on the same team.

[Tank]

The eradication of religion may not be a war, maybe more like the defeat of a pathogen, and a good analogy would be Smallpox. And AFAIK a good religion free education is what is required to start that process off. You're quite right that there is bugger all point in replacing one dogma with another. The religions have been trying to do that for millennia and look at what we have, a few big interest driven cartels.

[humblesmurph]

The eradication of religion may not be a war, maybe more like the defeat of a pathogen, and a good analogy would be Smallpox. And AFAIK a good religion free education is what is required to start that process off. You're quite right that there is bugger all point in replacing one dogma with another. The religions have been trying to do that for millennia and look at what we have, a few big interest driven cartels.

Pathogen, I like that.  Education is the cure, or at least medicine that keeps symptoms in check.  Keeping religion out of schools seems to be the only way. It's slow, but it's effective.  The more we know, the smaller God gets.

 It may take a long time, but with education, I suspect these ladies won't have to be told to remove their burkas because eventually they will refuse to wear them in the first place.

[The Magic Pudding]

Perhaps because it is a thinly-disguised stab at immigrants?"
Yes I think that is it, but you don't want to disguise it to thinly or the voters won't pick up on it.

That was a weak attempt at irony.

I think you have it a bit backwards on this one.  The thinner the disguise, the easier it is to pierce.

I realise a racist could easily make the same arguments I am.
I would be suspicious of the motivation of the French government, or someone writing what I am for that matter.
Governments aren't above playing the race card.
In the recent Australian election the conservative party played it shamelessly, and they're likely to win because of it.
The Theo Van Gogh/Ayaan Hirsi Ali affair illustrates to me religion is just, plain, bad.
My view is likely to put me amongst some gruby company.  
I'm not comfortable with this, but I just can't accept being open to all manner of religious madness is a good thing.

[Sophus]

I cannot tell if my bitter feelings toward the burqa are justified morally speaking or if it is an ethnocentric instinct as a Westerner. How many of you remember this girl:



National Geographic wrote about the haunting quality of her eyes and how fierce the Afghan girl looked. While anthropologists countered saying she must have felt raped of her privacy by revealing to a complete stranger what she would only reveal to those closest to her.

I suppose the question comes down to how does each individual woman feel about wearing the veil? What do they think of it? Do they feel oppressed or is it no less oppressing from how we feel about having to cover our own body with clothes as Westerners? Some native born Americans feel the requirement of clothes is a cultural mistake that prevent them from being free. I'm sure there are some Afghan women who feel that way about the veil. On the other hand, I don't know and I can never know how they feel about it. Although regardless, they should never be punished for not wearing one, exactly as I think no one should be punished for wearing their birthday suit. [spoiler:8vwjhfc8]Does it strike anyone else as bizarre that there is a law against walking out in public the way you're born? I'm not a nudist and have no interest in such a lifestyle (quite contrary). But still, how weird is that law, when you really think about it?[/spoiler:8vwjhfc8]