• Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

The Burqa

7 tyranitars

Well-Known Member
And don't even feed me a bunch of liberal crap about "Like, OMG it's not like EVERY MUSLIM is a terrorist, you are soooooo Islamophobic." Yeah okay, tell me something I don't know? Not every person is a theif, or a murderer, or an extortionist, etc. Yet, public places like banks etc still take precautions to prevent violence or other crime. What's your point? Sure, not every Muslim is a terrorist. Not even a majority of Muslims are terrorists. Awesome, I get that. Duh. There's no point being made there though.



You're point being? I bet the number of Muslims that blow themselves up is even lower than that outside of france.

Funny that you mention liberal crap, as it where the liberals who proposed that law in my country. Please keep in mind that what you mean with liberal in the Usa isn't the same in Europe.
 

Gergovia

Banned
I meant liberals here. But thankyou for the unecessary lesson.
 

Tyrant Tar

Well-Known Member
If there is a ban on all face-obscuring clothing (and there are certain situations where they should), then by all means the burqa should be included.
But I don't agree with banning just the burqa.
 

kaiser soze

Reading ADWD
Funny that you mention liberal crap, as it where the liberals who proposed that law in my country. Please keep in mind that what you mean with liberal in the Usa isn't the same in Europe.
A philosophy doesn't changed based on what country you're in. Any liberal who wants to ban wearing a Burqa isn't a true liberal.
 

ChedWick

Well-Known Member
If there is a ban on all face-obscuring clothing (and there are certain situations where they should), then by all means the burqa should be included.
But I don't agree with banning just the burqa.

This is my stance as well. I see the ban on identify obscuring clothing as justified but it has to be all or nothing; at least in terms of what the item is, not where one can wear it.

There are many places where ones identity should not be hidden. Banks, government buildings, schools, heck even places of business. Pretty much anywhere that deals with money and services I find it justified to require one to not hide their identity.
 

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
People bring up this point often (as well as that stupid quote by Ben Franklin) when ever they think the big bad gov'mint is just a tramp'lin over their freedom god dangit! It's about drawing a line though. People that think they have the religious right to wear a burka in an airport cannot see that line though. Can I blow myself up in a building? Why not? It's MY body, I can do what I want. It's MY religion, I believe it tells me to do so. They're MY explosives that I bought with MY money. Who are you to tell me I can't? It's a free country. Oh...wait. Liberty...freedom...doesn't actually mean you can do whatever the hell you want? Oh my God! There are exceptions...? Exceptions like... if it puts other people in danger or compromises security? No way! I guess this isn't really a free country after all, America's fascist, and if we aren't already we're just a head'n down that dangerous road.

Please.

Did you just imply that Muslims are told by their religion to blow themselves up? You also said that America is fascist because don't have the liberty to hurt others.

Please don't feed the troll.
 
I disagree with Islam for various reasons. But as a person who is part of a religious movement that happens to believe that God is somewhat concerned with what His people wear I can completely understand how important this issue would be to certain people.

I cannot think of a single instance where a Muslim woman would have to reveal her face if she didn't want to. No one identifies people by their faces alone. There are fingerprints, voice verification, documentation, plenty of other forms of identification. And if for some reason some official would need to see their face they could get a female security official and the woman would reveal her face in private. There is no security justification. This is religious intolerance plain and simple.

These people should be ashamed of themselves.

[edit 01-16-12]
Nah, not really. There was a woman with a burqa at the playground, but she was super nice and we talked a bit and she had the cutest little kids! She even helped my daughter up the slide.
 
Last edited:

ChedWick

Well-Known Member
I disagree with Islam for various reasons. But as a person who is part of a religious movement that happens to believe that God is somewhat concerned with what His people wear I can completely understand how important this issue would be to certain people.

I cannot think of a single instance where a Muslim woman would have to reveal her face if she didn't want to. No one identifies people by their faces alone. There are fingerprints, voice verification, documentation, plenty of other forms of identification. And if for some reason some official would need to see their face they could get a female security official and the woman would reveal her face in private. There is no security justification. This is religious intolerance plain and simple.

These people should be ashamed of themselves.

Respectable stance on accepting their values for their religion but are you delusion when it comes to security? What other "documentation" is there that is so conclusive? No country that I'm aware of has every citizen's voice or prints on file. Maybe 20 more years in the future but today we operate on picture identification for our day to day activities. I'll spare everyone the what if's and straw-man scenarios but the security justification is very valid.

However, that doesn't mean Frances banning is not religious intolerance.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that any government should need every single citizen's fingerprints for security purposes. I don't know how it is where you are, but here in Missouri at most banks, if you're going to make a large deposit or withdrawal, you're already required to provide a thumbprint. If identifying a person is so important for security reasons, why couldn't France's government institute an IAFIS system for travelers and banks instead of banning a religious garment? You'd think if they actually cared even slightly about religious freedom they'd have thought of that. You want to use the airport? Scan your thumb. You want to open a bank account? Scan your thumb.

And it wouldn't even have to be fingerprints necessarily. The point is there are other, and more importantly more reliable, ways to identify people. Had this not simply been a case of religious discrimination France would have taken a different route.
 
The thing I know is that for some religious nuts and opportunists any woman without a burqa, even when she isn't obviously a muslim, is considered a w---e to them and if they sexually assault them that is their excuse.
 
That isn't a problem with the burqa. That's a problem with a select sect of people raping women. Some men see short skirts as an excuse to rape women. You don't advocate banning all short skirts do you?
 
Last edited:

randomspot555

Well-Known Member
The ban isn't actually specifically targeting Islam, Women or any such group, but rather anyone who conceals their face in public.

The problem with these types of "bans" is that, even though the letter of the law might be written broadly, the ENFORCEMENT of the law could be COMPLETELY different.

Even if it is written broadly, we all know WHY it was banned and we aren't likely to see people dressed in full body costumes on Halloween to get a talking to by the police or anything like that.

Those Muslims who truly believe in wearing something like this are perfectly capable of wearing the less extreme Hijab, which covers only the hair, rather than the whole face.

I'm not an expert in Islam, but I figure there's a reason why both the Burqua and the Hijab exist. I doubt that they are for the same exact purpose.

As for the whole "Oh the burqua is repressive and DEM EFFIN MOSLIM MEN are REPRESSING THERIR WOMEN", in Islam, these types of garments are meant to dignify women. In the most traditional forms of Islam (note I say traditional, similar to traditional, Hasidic Judaism, NOT the crazy crap practiced in some parts of the Middle East), a woman dresses conservatively because sexuality is supposed to be very private and only for the husband and wife, not for random onlookers.

Now if YOU (most of you likely being white, middle class, European or American, and Christian) don't believe in it, I'm not surprised. You aren't Islamic.

But it is their belief system and we should respect that.

Obviously in cases where security is important, such as airports and government centers and so on, reasonable accommodations should be made to respect the Islamic religion (or any religion which might have a similar system) while still being able to inspect the person if need be, for security purposes)

But just in the public, walking down the street or going into places that are otherwise generally open to the public?

No way. Not supportive of that.

EDIT: In the original version of this post, I quoted MattJ and thought that since we agreed on something, it'd obviously mean 2012 is the End of Days.
 
Last edited:
Those Muslims who truly believe in wearing something like this are perfectly capable of wearing the less extreme Hijab, which covers only the hair, rather than the whole face.
Yeah, also, just to point this out, I think you may not understand just how important this really could be to these people. Obviously, I'm not a Muslim and I cannot say that I completely understand the basis that these particular people have for wanting to wear the burqa, but if its anything like my religion then no, in fact, they are not perfectly capable of wearing the less extreme Hijab.

In my particular flavor of Christianity (UPC), it is commonly taught that the God of the Bible is at least somewhat concerned with how men and women dress. There are certain clothes that women in our churches just absolutely are not comfortable wearing. There are certain clothes that men in our church just absolutely are not comfortable wearing. This is not a grey area to us. This is not up for debate, or compromise. We are who we are. We believe what we believe. No government could compel us to do otherwise.

You can feel free to disagree with what we teach. That's your choice. But how dare you or anyone else try to force us to break our spiritual laws.

Even though I disagree with these Muslims on the need to wear the burqua, I don't think you realize just how important an issue this could very well be to these people. Pardon the assumption, but as a non religious person yourself you probably don't understand the gravity of this issue.

No. They most definitely are not capable of wearing the less extreme Hijab.
 

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
After thinking about it for some time, I have realized that there are some security threats. What if someone underage wants to go into a nightclub? They can just use the ID of an older person who wears a burqa and also has a similar height, skin color, and eye color to them.
 
As for the whole "Oh the burqua is repressive and DEM EFFIN MOSLIM MEN are REPRESSING THERIR WOMEN", in Islam, these types of garments are meant to dignify women

Yeah patriarchal cultures are really big on granting their women rights and freedoms.

Cultural relativism is a very slippery slope.
 

Liberty Defender

Well-Known Member
If there is a ban on all face-obscuring clothing (and there are certain situations where they should), then by all means the burqa should be included.
But I don't agree with banning just the burqa.

I disagree. I believe that banning the burqa is unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment's guarantee of the right to free exercise of religion.
 
Top