French burkha ban

[VetSkinsFan]

Don't we already have a governing body? And our guilding documents aren't a religious text last I checked...so I don't think we're going to have to worry about Sharia law.

[Cappster]

Cultural acceptance? Maybe in America. The rest of the world does not operate under the same principles as we (Americans) do. Religion and cultures must adapt depending on where you are. If a muslim family wants to move to France they must adapt the French way of life period.

What will you say when these people want to legalize sharia law on US soil? Will you have issues with their cultures then? What about when you take your kids to the mall and you have to get patted down and walk through metal detectors like the Jews do in Jerusalem? This is a world wide issue. It's not just something on TV you flip through on your way to watching draft news on ESPN.

A society absent of cultural acceptance/tolerance leads to human atrocities and radical behavior by those who have the majority or have the oppressive mindset to attack others. I believe many other countries in the world do operate under the principles of cultural acceptance. And no one is trying to disrupt the French way of life (whatever that may be). They are, however, specifically targeting Burka wearers, because they are fear mongers and label all Muslims as a threat to their national security.

If someone wants to enact Sharia law here then go ahead and let them try. They are exercising their constitutional right, but we already have laws that are, in theory, separate from any kind of church law. Law is designed to be ethical and gets muddled when religion is injected into it. I fully believe in a separation of church and state and do not favor Sharia law or any other kind of religious based law that discriminates against those who do not have the same religious beliefs as you do.

I am also in favor of greater individual freedom in lieu of greater security. What is security if your freedoms are being violated? If the Jews and Arabs could learn to share the land they claim as holy they would get along much better. It is when we, as individual and collective societies, say "Hey! Your beliefs are wrong and mine are right so you are going to see it my way or else!" That is when we have all of these social issues that are spawned from ignorance and intolerance.

[Countertrey]

Capster:

Law is designed to be ethical

Why, then, do they, so often, seem mutually exclusive?

[1niksder]

How many raincoats, kimonos, and rucksacks have you encountered that prevented you from identifying the wearer?

None. But hoodies have, as have woolly hats, scarves, baseball caps and sunglasses, false noses and chicken outfits.

I have the imense pleasure, at least weekly, of telling young thug wannabes to lose the hoodie, or enjoy some privacy... That would be no skin off my nose.

Frankly, there is really no constituency of hoodie, sunglass or fake nose wearers who have voiced their intent to kill us all... not necessarily true of the radical factions of Islam that require their women to wear a burka...

Yeah but what about the Chicken Outfits

[Cappster]

Capster:

Law is designed to be ethical

Why, then, do they, so often, seem mutually exclusive?

because people insert religion into the context which skews how we deem what is and isn't ethical. Example: Some people believe one cannot be ethical without having a religious base to reference for guidance. I believe it to be the opposite (ethics is needed as a reference point for religion).

[Countertrey]

Capster:

Law is designed to be ethical

Why, then, do they, so often, seem mutually exclusive?

because people insert religion into the context which skews how we deem what is and isn't ethical. Example: Some people believe one cannot be ethical without having a religious base to reference for guidance. I believe it to be the opposite (ethics is needed as a reference point for religion).

Good thing you have no bias...

[Cappster]

Having an opinion on how religion needs to be left out of determining what is right and wrong for everyone's rights doesn't mean I am bias against religion. Religion can be a useful tool if used properly, but it can also be the main cause of destruction of the entire world when used improperly.

[Countertrey]

Of course you do. Everyone does. It's ironic that you can't see the bias in your very statement.

Those who are objective admit it. Those who are not... don't. My "bias" regarding this issue would be that I believe the vast majority of women who wear the burka, do so because they are ordered or bullied to. It is also true, that those who mandate the burka tend to be the most fundamentalist of the Muslims.

Additionally, it just happens that the most likely to see terrorism as a legitimate tool of jihad are those same fundamentalists. The burka is repressive, AND a means of hiding one's identity. France has every right to protect her society, as she sees fit, in a manner consistent with her constitutional foundation.

This is why France can limit some political speech, as can most European countries, while we cannot. If you don't like it... don't go there to live. If you make the choice to go there, you will do so under their rules... and, yes, sometimes the rules change. Cest la vie.

[KazooSkinsFan]

My "bias" regarding this issue would be that I believe the vast majority of women who wear the burka, do so because they are ordered or bullied to. It is also true, that those who mandate the burka tend to be the most fundamentalist of the Muslims.

Additionally, it just happens that the most likely to see terrorism as a legitimate tool of jihad are those same fundamentalists. The burka is repressive, AND a means of hiding one's identity. France has every right to protect her society, as she sees fit, in a manner consistent with her constitutional foundation

You don't think the law limiting burka's in our country should be designed to help women you feel are being oppressed but rather should only be to adhere to our laws on security, correct? Should a woman wearing a burka have any more or less legal right or restriction then a man in a chicken suit with his face hidden?

I largely agree with your opinion from a personal standpoint, but I don't think it should have a bearing on the law. I only think legally that for example you can't have a drivers license without a woman's face on the license as would apply to anyone else, including a man in a chicken suit.

[Cappster]

Actually, when I look at the world with my objective eyes, I see two things that stand out that as being the cause of most of mankind's problems: Greed and Religion

We fight over economics and we fight over different religious ideologies. The latter can be cured by accepting religious and cultural differences. And as far as the Burka being repressive, there is a good chance that it is, but cultural changes come from within a community not forced down from the government. Also, you act like Muslims are the only terrorists that threaten our existence. Terrorist perceptions lie within the minds of those who are being targeted.

I actually like Kazoo's example regarding the driver's license and think the legal aspect of wearing a Burka is really the issue at large here.

[Countertrey]

My "bias" regarding this issue would be that I believe the vast majority of women who wear the burka, do so because they are ordered or bullied to. It is also true, that those who mandate the burka tend to be the most fundamentalist of the Muslims.

Additionally, it just happens that the most likely to see terrorism as a legitimate tool of jihad are those same fundamentalists. The burka is repressive, AND a means of hiding one's identity. France has every right to protect her society, as she sees fit, in a manner consistent with her constitutional foundation

You don't think the law limiting burka's in our country should be designed to help women you feel are being oppressed but rather should only be to adhere to our laws on security, correct? Should a woman wearing a burka have any more or less legal right or restriction then a man in a chicken suit with his face hidden?

I largely agree with your opinion from a personal standpoint, but I don't think it should have a bearing on the law. I only think legally that for example you can't have a drivers license without a woman's face on the license as would apply to anyone else, including a man in a chicken suit.

You miss my point entirely. This thread judges the French decision to ban burkas... not America's. There is a concept called sovereignty... which, if I read you correctly, is very important to you. I do not have to believe that it's legally or ethically appropriate to do this in the US in order to believe that the French are, not only correct to do so in their country, but every bit within their rights to do so... We have no more right to impose our concept of rights on the French, than they to us. I can only imagine your reaction if there were Frenchmen making similar hostile judgements of us.

Any attempt to suggest that I feel a burka ban is appropriate in the US is pure obfuscation... and is complete crap. Any attempt to impose Americentric concepts of free expression on the French... or any other legitimate democratic republic... is equally crap.

Capster... your remarkably narrow concept of the etiology of the problems of mankind simply strengthen my perception of your unacknowledged personal biases...

[KazooSkinsFan]

Actually, when I look at the world with my objective eyes, I see two things that stand out that as being the cause of most of mankind's problems: Greed and Religion

Far more damage is done in the name of fighting "greed' then is caused by "greed." Greed is powerless as long as you have consumers with a choice and only government in the quest to fight "greed" can remove choice and enable "greed." And they endlessly do. The irony.

As for religion, I have to agree with you. Though again religious intolerance is also a major issue as well. You seem in both cases to be blaming one side and not seeing that it's not just the one side but the opposition to the side who exacerbate rather then solve issues.

[KazooSkinsFan]

My "bias" regarding this issue would be that I believe the vast majority of women who wear the burka, do so because they are ordered or bullied to. It is also true, that those who mandate the burka tend to be the most fundamentalist of the Muslims.

Additionally, it just happens that the most likely to see terrorism as a legitimate tool of jihad are those same fundamentalists. The burka is repressive, AND a means of hiding one's identity. France has every right to protect her society, as she sees fit, in a manner consistent with her constitutional foundation

You don't think the law limiting burka's in our country should be designed to help women you feel are being oppressed but rather should only be to adhere to our laws on security, correct? Should a woman wearing a burka have any more or less legal right or restriction then a man in a chicken suit with his face hidden?

I largely agree with your opinion from a personal standpoint, but I don't think it should have a bearing on the law. I only think legally that for example you can't have a drivers license without a woman's face on the license as would apply to anyone else, including a man in a chicken suit.

You miss my point entirely. This thread judges the French decision to ban burkas... not America's. There is a concept called sovereignty... which, if I read you correctly, is very important to you. I do not have to believe that it's legally or ethically appropriate to do this in the US in order to believe that the French are, not only correct to do so in their country, but every bit within their rights to do so... We have no more right to impose our concept of rights on the French, than they to us. I can only imagine your reaction if there were Frenchmen making similar hostile judgements of us.

Any attempt to suggest that I feel a burka ban is appropriate in the US is pure obfuscation... and is complete crap. Any attempt to impose Americentric concepts of free expression on the French... or any other legitimate democratic republic... is equally crap.

Capster... your remarkably narrow concept of the etiology of the problems of mankind simply strengthen my perception of your unacknowledged personal biases...

Fair enough. Regarding sovereignty, I respect France's right to make their own laws and when I'm in France I follow them. So I agree with you on that. I had no sympathy for the guy who got caned in Singapore for selling drugs in the 90s (if I remember right) for that reason.

Regarding my view of law though, I think libertarianism, which is simply the right of the individual to make their own choice without infringing on other's right to the same is the way to go. I don't think France "should" have different laws then I think we should, but I'm not interested in fighting their right to do so.

[Cappster]

My "bias" regarding this issue would be that I believe the vast majority of women who wear the burka, do so because they are ordered or bullied to. It is also true, that those who mandate the burka tend to be the most fundamentalist of the Muslims.

Additionally, it just happens that the most likely to see terrorism as a legitimate tool of jihad are those same fundamentalists. The burka is repressive, AND a means of hiding one's identity. France has every right to protect her society, as she sees fit, in a manner consistent with her constitutional foundation

You don't think the law limiting burka's in our country should be designed to help women you feel are being oppressed but rather should only be to adhere to our laws on security, correct? Should a woman wearing a burka have any more or less legal right or restriction then a man in a chicken suit with his face hidden?

I largely agree with your opinion from a personal standpoint, but I don't think it should have a bearing on the law. I only think legally that for example you can't have a drivers license without a woman's face on the license as would apply to anyone else, including a man in a chicken suit.

You miss my point entirely. This thread judges the French decision to ban burkas... not America's. There is a concept called sovereignty... which, if I read you correctly, is very important to you. I do not have to believe that it's legally or ethically appropriate to do this in the US in order to believe that the French are, not only correct to do so in their country, but every bit within their rights to do so... We have no more right to impose our concept of rights on the French, than they to us. I can only imagine your reaction if there were Frenchmen making similar hostile judgements of us.

Any attempt to suggest that I feel a burka ban is appropriate in the US is pure obfuscation... and is complete crap. Any attempt to impose Americentric concepts of free expression on the French... or any other legitimate democratic republic... is equally crap.

Capster... your remarkably narrow concept of the etiology of the problems of mankind simply strengthen my perception of your unacknowledged personal biases...

Okay, I see your point You are correct in that they can do what they want in their country, but to me I see it as being unethical and unjust. I do, however, always try to look at issues through a universal ethical concept more than just an American one. And since laws are supposed to be ethical in nature, I see the French Burka ban being in direct conflict with the very principle of law.

[Cappster]

Actually, when I look at the world with my objective eyes, I see two things that stand out that as being the cause of most of mankind's problems: Greed and Religion

Far more damage is done in the name of fighting "greed' then is caused by "greed." Greed is powerless as long as you have consumers with a choice and only government in the quest to fight "greed" can remove choice and enable "greed." And they endlessly do. The irony.

As for religion, I have to agree with you. Though again religious intolerance is also a major issue as well. You seem in both cases to be blaming one side and not seeing that it's not just the one side but the opposition to the side who exacerbate rather then solve issues.

Greed and religion's all encompassing branches that extend from the root of those concepts are some of mankind's biggest downfalls.

[Redskin in Canada]

Looks like Europe has taken a step in the right direction. Let's hope others follow accordingly.

France has every right to enact this law. The same right that other democratic States have to compel some citizens to wear it. I uphold and support the laws in both circumstances.

I could care less whether the motivation in either case is religious, cultural or security-related. Countries have every right to define their national identity.

[Countertrey]

I do, however, always try to look at issues through a universal ethical concept more than just an American one.

Who, exactly, has defined this "universal" ethical concept? I remain astonished that you do not see the egocentric nature of views such as this.

This insistence upon making this value judgement, skewed as it is by YOUR interpretation of a "universal ethical concept" is more easily defined as the result of... wait for it...

a bias.

I do not dispute your right to hold this viewpoint... nor do I necessarily dispute that is it "wrong" (though I can't agree with it).... but it simply isn't objective...



Next question... who's ethic wins when two exclusive values collide? Is your self-described "universal ethic" of greater value than my ethic of respect for national sovereignty?

[KazooSkinsFan]

Looks like Europe has taken a step in the right direction. Let's hope others follow accordingly.

France has every right to enact this law. The same right that other democratic States have to compel some citizens to wear it. I uphold and support the laws in both circumstances.

I could care less whether the motivation in either case is religious, cultural or security-related. Countries have every right to define their national identity.

You believe in majority and I believe in the individual. In the end, oppression is oppression. The only advantage of your system over despotism is fewer are oppressed, but it can still be 50% less one.

[chiefhog44]

Looks like Europe has taken a step in the right direction. Let's hope others follow accordingly.

This is THE most ignorant statement I have ever read.

[Redskin in Canada]

You believe in majority and I believe in the individual. In the end, oppression is oppression. The only advantage of your system over despotism is fewer are oppressed, but it can still be 50% less one.

Democracy is the less imperfect form of government.

The true debate in this thread is not posed between democracy v. despotism. The true balance that democratic governments aim to achieve is to follow the will of the majority while respecting the rights of the individual.

Wearing a veil MAY be considered an individual right and even an obligation in one country, while it MAY NOT be considered a right in another.

AGAIN: Each democratic country has the right to define its national identity based on cultural, religious, social, political and economic principles.

My argument is more subtle than the simplification made in your post.

[langleyparkjoe]

Telling people what to wear and what not to wear, isn't that like communism? Castro comes to mind quick here for some reason.

[langleyparkjoe]

.. but I agree with someone who said "they aren't America" or something like that.

That's what makes America so great, we don't tell people what they can't wear.. though sometimes I feel we should because of stupid things like pants hanging off your butts... not cool, not cool atall. (Really gonna have to talk my young black men about that, not cool, not cool atall)

[Cappster]

I do, however, always try to look at issues through a universal ethical concept more than just an American one.

Who, exactly, has defined this "universal" ethical concept? I remain astonished that you do not see the egocentric nature of views such as this.

This insistence upon making this value judgement, skewed as it is by YOUR interpretation of a "universal ethical concept" is more easily defined as the result of... wait for it...

a bias.

I do not dispute your right to hold this viewpoint... nor do I necessarily dispute that is it "wrong" (though I can't agree with it).... but it simply isn't objective...



Next question... who's ethic wins when two exclusive values collide? Is your self-described "universal ethic" of greater value than my ethic of respect for national sovereignty?

Example: I have a bias against apple products, because I flat out do not like them. So if someone asks me, like they did this morning, "Would you go for an iPhone or a droid?" I said, "I am anti-apple so I am not the best person to ask the question to."

I will concede that while we can strive to be totally objective, we are humans and some subjectivity will influence our decisions (just like judges deciding on a case). Which two exclusive values collide? Prejudice and terrorism?

I will say the rights of all people is greater than any national sovereignty. The majority doesn't override the rights of the minority (at least socially speaking).

Also, I will add, that being a complete nationalist leads to the downfall of societies.

[Countertrey]

The majority doesn't override the rights of the minority (at least socially speaking).

Does the majority have the right to protect itself from the minority?

Does an individual have the right to subordinate a right? If the answer is no, then are there actually any rights?

Who can tell me what I may... and may NOT do with my property?

If another can tell me what I may do with my property, do I really own it?

Does Germany have the right to ban Nazi gatherings?

Who decides?

[KazooSkinsFan]

You believe in majority and I believe in the individual. In the end, oppression is oppression. The only advantage of your system over despotism is fewer are oppressed, but it can still be 50% less one.

Democracy is the less imperfect form of government.

The true debate in this thread is not posed between democracy v. despotism. The true balance that democratic governments aim to achieve is to follow the will of the majority while respecting the rights of the individual.

Wearing a veil MAY be considered an individual right and even an obligation in one country, while it MAY NOT be considered a right in another.

AGAIN: Each democratic country has the right to define its national identity based on cultural, religious, social, political and economic principles.

My argument is more subtle than the simplification made in your post.

If by subtle you mean arbitrary, then yes, your argument is more subtle.

Why does any majority in order to have a "right to define its national identity based on cultural, religious, social, political and economic principles" ever need to use government to force the minority to acquiesce? It doesn't, it's oppression.

They are the majority and we agree they do have the right to define all those things you listed for themselves, we separate in that you are supporting the right for them to force their choices on their minorities.

And I've agreed completely regarding those things that are required to actually protect the majority. For example, it's dangerous to drive with a burka and wearning a burka in a drivers license photo doesn't show you are licensed to drive. But the need for the majority to force the minority to accept their "cultural, religious, social, political and economic principles" is not subtle, it's oppression.