Dutch Government attempting to ban Burkas, muslim face covering

[Spider-Bite]

Dutch government seeks to ban full-length veils

Cabinet cites security grounds; Netherlands has one million Muslims

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/061117/061117_burqa_hmed_9a.hmedium.jpg (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/)
THE HAGUE, Netherlands - The Dutch government announced plans Friday for legislation banning full-length veils in public places and other clothing that covers the face — putting the Netherlands at the forefront of a general European hardening toward Muslim minorities.
The Netherlands, once considered one of Europe’s most welcoming nations for immigrants and asylum seekers, is deeply divided over moves by the government to stem the tide of new arrivals and compel immigrants to assimilate into Dutch society.
“The Cabinet finds it undesirable that face-covering clothing — including the burqa — is worn in public places for reasons of public order, security and protection of citizens,” Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk said.

Basing the order on security concerns apparently was intended to respond to warnings that outlawing clothing like the all-enveloping burqa, worn by some Muslim women, could violate the constitutional guarantee against religious discrimination.
The main Dutch Muslim organization CMO has been critical of any possible ban. The idea was “an overreaction to a very marginal problem” because hardly any Dutch women wear burqas anyway, said Ayhan Tonca of the CMO. “It’s just ridiculous.”
Parliament vote uncertain
In the past, a majority of the Dutch parliament has said it would approve a ban on burqas, but opinion polls ahead of national elections Nov. 22 suggest a shift away from that position, and it is unclear if a majority in the new parliament would still back the government-proposed ban.
The issue has resonance throughout Europe. Former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw recently caused a stir by saying he wants Muslim women to abandon the full-face veil — a view endorsed by Prime Minister Tony Blair. In France, the center-right’s leading presidential candidate Nicolas Sarkozy has increasingly been adopting some of the rhetoric of the extreme-right.

Live Vote: Would you support a ban on burqas? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15766882/)

In Holland, policies associated with the nationalist fringe in 2002 have been co-opted by the center: holding asylum-seekers in detention centers, more muscle for the police and intelligence services, and visa examinations that require would-be immigrants to watch videos of homosexuals kissing and of topless women on the beach. Everyone must learn to speak Dutch, and Muslim clerics must mind what they say in their Friday sermons for fear of deportation.
Slaying triggered Dutch debate
The issue was given added urgency with the 2004 slaying of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh by a Muslim fanatic and the failed attempt to expel a Somali-born critic of Islam of her Dutch citizenship.
About 1 million Muslims live in the Netherlands, about 6 percent of the population of 16 million, but only a few hundred are believed to regularly wear a burqa.
After France banned the wearing of head scarves in public schools, the Dutch government decided to leave that question up to individual schools. Most allow head scarves.
The city of Utrecht has cut some welfare benefits to unemployed women who insist on wearing burqas to job interviews. The city claimed the women were using the burqa to avoid working, since they knew they would not be hired.

[SLVRSR4]

Burkas make all the girls look good! i personally wear burquas whenever a male guest comes over. Dutch are mad because they can't do anything important

[Spider-Bite]

for me it's just about freedom, and stopping them from practicing their religion will only convince them that Osama Bin Laden is right. That non muslims are engaged in a war against Islam.

[Darthphere]

I hope it doesnt go through, though I can see how it could be presented as a security measure, its obvious thats not the case here.

[tzarinna]

I hope it turns out for the right cause this is all wrong. :huh:

[Harlekin]

Wow, it's so odd for me to read that in English. I still don't know where I stand on this one.

[Mr Sparkle]

the dutch should ban those tight t-shirts that show of a women's bellybutton.
but only for fatties, it's a priviledge not a right ya beached whale ya!!!

[Tangled Web]

Who the hell voted yes?

[Mr Sparkle]

some woman in a burka

[Spider-Bite]

Well WarLord tends to be right winger, and he's just so generous that he's not willing to let muslims practice their religion now.

[War Lord]

Well WarLord tends to be right winger, and he's just so generous that he's not willing to let muslims practice their religion now.

I simply believe that proper discourse requires people to see each other's faces.

[Fenrir]

I simply believe that proper discourse requires people to see each other's faces.

Guess it's "buh-bye telephone, cell phone and Internet" for War Lord. :up:

[phoenix_force]

Burkas have nothing to do with islam religon
it is just some tradition in some arab countries
i live in egypt (which is a muslim country) and no one wears them here!

[blind_fury]

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/061117/061117_burqa_hmed_9a.hmedium.jpg[/URL]
.
How does a burkah liberate women? :huh:

[Bastila]

Well dont hate me for my opionion but i hope that happens here in the UK.

[Harlekin]

I hope it doesnt go through, though I can see how it could be presented as a security measure, its obvious thats not the case here.
Then what is the case here, according to you?

[Cаrter]

Where's the "I wouldn't vote" option?

[War Lord]

Burkas have nothing to do with islam religon
it is just some tradition in some arab countries
i live in egypt (which is a muslim country) and no one wears them here!

At least until the Islamicists try and impose their will.

[War Lord]

Guess it's "buh-bye telephone, cell phone and Internet" for War Lord. :up:

On the telephone, cell phone or internet, there isn't any need to see the person's face, but in person there is.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Wow good to know that that country practices freedom of religion.:up: Only a fool would agree that this idea is even remotely fair or right.

[Mr Sparkle]

War Lord thinks, and rightly I might add that religion has no place in civlized society. and that rules and regulations imposed upon us by religion also should be ignored for the broader and more thoroughly thought out laws that man himself creates.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Where does it stop? Would I soon be forced to wear tight T-shirts or jeans?

[I SEE SPIDEY]

War Lord thinks, and rightly I might add that religion has no place in civlized society. and that rules and regulations imposed upon us by religion also should be ignored for the broader and more thoroughly thought out laws that man himself creates.So people shouldn't be allowed to practice their religion. And his and your opinion isn't right, it's wrong IMHO.

[Guyverjay]

Its not required as part of their religion.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Its not required as part of their religion.I'm a muslim dude I know that, but does that mean that they shouldn't be able to wear it if they want to, I mean if women are allowed by the law to run around in thongs on the beach why can't these women wear burkas?

Covering up your body should be against the law and showing is a-okay? Sheesh makes me weep for the human race.

[Alexia Dark]

I think this is rather ridiculous. What could they possibly do? Rob banks? I'm pretty sure that everyone would be watching someone in a burqa more closely anyways. They might as well ban ski masks.

[Guyverjay]

I'm not opposed to people wearing what they wish but I think it is inappropriate in certain instances such as when you're a language teacher (People in the UK know what I'm talking about). Being asked to show your face by a judge in court for instance shouldn't be some big ass deal

[Mr Sparkle]

So people shouldn't be allowed to practice their religion. And his and your opinion isn't right, it's wrong IMHO.

is see that you, like USMC are inmune to the powers of the great........
http://www.theweaponshop.com/Thunder.JPG
sarcasmotron!!!!!

[Harlekin]

Wow good to know that that country practices freedom of religion.:up: Only a fool would agree that this idea is even remotely fair or right.
Please don't act like you know anything about the Dutch situation. Our prime minister is a highly religious man, and these kinds of discussions do in fact have precedense in other European countries (such as in France). Now, instead of looking like a fool yourself, you could also just research the subject a little more.

Now, lastly, this isn't banning freedom of religion. This is banning of clothing that could prove a security risk. It's the same reason that people don't actually get to walk around in ski masks (thank you for the example Alexia) when there are absolutely no grounds for it. You don't walk down the street wearing your ski mask, do you?

[Fenrir]

On the telephone, cell phone or internet, there isn't any need to see the person's face, but in person there is.

How and why exactly is there a need to see a person's face in person when on the cell and telephone there isn't? Please elaborate.

[Fenrir]

This is banning of clothing that could prove a security risk.

Yeah I mean, just LOOK at the totally insane number of women in burkas blowing themselves up, raping innocent children and robbing banks.

[Alexia Dark]

Please don't act like you know anything about the Dutch situation. Our prime minister is a highly religious man, and these kinds of discussions do in fact have precedense in other European countries (such as in France). Now, instead of looking like a fool yourself, you could also just research the subject a little more.

Now, lastly, this isn't banning freedom of religion. This is banning of clothing that could prove a security risk. It's the same reason that people don't actually get to walk around in ski masks (thank you for the example Alexia) when there are absolutely no grounds for it. You don't walk down the street wearing your ski mask, do you?
I don't think you understood my example. I'm saying that burqas shouldn't be banned because they pose no more of a threat to security than ski masks do.

[the_ultimate_evil]

i dont have a solid opinion on if there should be an entire ban or not, but i do agree that in certain areas they should be removed, such as the teacher kick up we had in the uk awhile back

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Please don't act like you know anything about the Dutch situation. Our prime minister is a highly religious man, and these kinds of discussions do in fact have precedense in other European countries (such as in France). Now, instead of looking like a fool yourself, you could also just research the subject a little more.

Screw your prime minister and screw the French goverment in particular, because they don't want women to cover their heads, something that is required in the religion. I'm sure your prime minister says that he is highly religous but so does Bush and Bin Laden, saying something doesn't make it true.

Now, lastly, this isn't banning freedom of religion. This is banning of clothing that could prove a security risk. It's the same reason that people don't actually get to walk around in ski masks (thank you for the example Alexia) when there are absolutely no grounds for it. You don't walk down the street wearing your ski mask, do you?Yes, it's the exact same thing as wearing a ski mask because I'm sure those ladies are gearing up to play hockey.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'm guessing the people who voted yes agree with France's head scarf bannings also? Honestly why don't the europian goverment just ban islam altogether or force women of the religion to dress like "everybody else?"

[Cobblepot]

Burca's are dangerous.
I always tarvel by bike through Rotterdam and esp. woman with burca's step in front of my bike all the time, because they can't see me.
And the blindspot when driving a car is just to dangerous, I've noticed that from upclose a couple off times aswell.

Burca's should be banned, but a head scarf is okay by me. (I actually find a headscarf a turn on!).

[Spider-Bite]

Please don't act like you know anything about the Dutch situation. Our prime minister is a highly religious man, and these kinds of discussions do in fact have precedense in other European countries (such as in France). Now, instead of looking like a fool yourself, you could also just research the subject a little more.

Now, lastly, this isn't banning freedom of religion. This is banning of clothing that could prove a security risk. It's the same reason that people don't actually get to walk around in ski masks (thank you for the example Alexia) when there are absolutely no grounds for it. You don't walk down the street wearing your ski mask, do you?

no i don't, but if I want to I will. you guys are bent on proving osama bin laden right aren't you? that the christain nations are trying to stop muslims from being muslims.

we don't need any more terrorists. there's enough already.

edit... actually I do wear ski masks in the winter. and it poses no more of a security risk than if a muslim were to wear a burka.

[Harlekin]

I don't think you understood my example. I'm saying that burqas shouldn't be banned because they pose no more of a threat to security than ski masks do.
Oh, I got it, I just used it for my own purposes. And ski masks do in fact form some sort of security risk since it highly reduces the amount of face shown through which somebody can be identified. It obscures hair, mouth in some cases and any other facial distinguishes.

Yeah I mean, just LOOK at the totally insane number of women in burkas blowing themselves up, raping innocent children and robbing banks.
That doesn't make that type of dress any less of a security risk. Heck, there's also the argument to be made about it simply being impolite towards others to obscure your face except the eyes. Lest we forget, these people are coming to us, not the other way around. If lots of people were to immigrate towards their point of origin, they would be expected to comply with certain dress codes. The same works both ways.

Screw your prime minister and screw the French goverment in particular, because they don't want women to cover their heads, something that is required in the religion. I'm sure your prime minister says that he is highly religous but so does Bush and Bin Laden, saying something doesn't make it true.
There we go with the ignorance again. Look, I don't agree with my prime minister, and chances are he'll be voted out in about a week (national elections and all that), but he's not like Bush or Bin Laden at all. See, in the Netherlands, we work by an actual party system. Therefore, we also have a Christian party (several in fact), and he's the leader of the biggest one. I'm really not going to question whether the guy has faith or not, ye dig? Really, like I said before, research Dutch politics and our immigration, you might actually see where this is coming from.

Now, secondly, burqa's are not required by religion, otherwise a lot more people would be wearing them wouldn't they? I'm not the only one who's telling you this by the way, heck it's funny, you just said it wasn't required yourself.

no i don't, but if I want to I will. you guys are bent on proving osama bin laden right aren't you? that the christain nations are trying to stop muslims from being muslims.
Do you even know how ridiculious that sounds? "Proving Bin Laden right"? Please, give me a break. It's both about it being a security risk and it being a matter of adapting to the culture you reside in.

edit... actually I do wear ski masks in the winter. and it poses no more of a security risk than if a muslim were to wear a burka.
Except that your face is obscured and you are not easily identifiable. No risk there.

Now before anyone gets me wrong, I'm not some fervent opposer of burqa's, although I certainly do not prefer them (I have nothing against head scarves though), but a case can actually be made for both sides, y'know?

[Fenrir]

That doesn't make that type of dress any less of a security risk.

Pray tell, what is the BASIS for calling it a "security risk"? Was there a terrorist attack by women in burkas? Are they wanted for murder? Armed robbery? Do women in burkas have any kind of criminal record? Can anyone please explain to me the absurdity that is deeming women in burkas as security risks without any plausible reason or suggestive proof whatsoever?

Heck, there's also the argument to be made about it simply being impolite towards others to obscure your face except the eyes.

Give me a ****ing break. Someone hides their face, how is that supposed to affect me to even be an impolite gesture in the first place? It's their personal choice. Why would I, or anyone rational want to interfere with that?

Lest we forget, these people are coming to us, not the other way around.

And the hypocrisy of the choice for personal freedom in a Western nation rears it's ugly head yet again. "You're free to do what you want, as long as you do what we say."

:rolleyes:

I think it's high time that we do a critical re-evaluation of our own views before beating our chests for being a "civilized" nation and telling everyone else how to behave.

If lots of people were to immigrate towards their point of origin, they would be expected to comply with certain dress codes. The same works both ways.

So now you have the same standards as the people you deem a "security risk"? Carry on then. :up:

Oh and please don't take my stance in this argument as a bastion for the burka. It's not. But I don't expect any sane person to let his/her dislike for the veil to overcome his/her sense of justice and fair treatment.

[KingOfDreams]

While the burka and headscarf do seem to be a bit oppressive I don't think it's right to tell people they can't abide by whatever religious codes they choose to live by.

[Alexia Dark]

Another point I was trying to make is that both burqas and ski masks have uses. Who the heck are we to say what someone can and can't wear, as long as it's not physically dangerous? And the thing about how people should conform to the dress codes of the country they're in is ridiculous. Burqas aren't a clothing item of a certain country, or even of a certain continent; it is the traditional clothing of a religion. That's like telling Buddists they can't shave their heads because people might mistake them for Nazis, or nuns can't travel to any country without a Christian majority. They might be hiding bombs under their robes. Maybe the pope shouldn't wear the traditional hat. He could have a small nuke in there and no one would know.

[SuperFerret]

I'm against dress codes of all kinds. Wear what you want to wear, as long as it doesn't hurt people.

[Spider-Bite]

Do you even know how ridiculious that sounds? "Proving Bin Laden right"? Please, give me a break. It's both about it being a security risk and it being a matter of adapting to the culture you reside in.




no contradiction between that and my accusation. Why does a person's culture have to be determined by the side of the border they live on huh?

do I have to convert to christianity to adapt to the culutre I live in to? It's called freedom and I support freedom.

why do you have to force your culture on somebody else? what's wrong with diversity or a little tolerance and acceptance? just leave them alone.

[C.F. Kane]

How does a burkah liberate women? :huh:

Well, the word "freedom" has many definitions.

Westerners like us tend to focus on the "freedom to". We frown on the burka because it takes away from the freedom to express oneself, since it blocks facial expression and a lot of body language.

Defenders of the burka champion the "freedom from". It supposedly gives women the freedom from body image and makeup, and from unwanted male attention.

Personally, I think the "freedom from" is only a fascist's freedom.

[Addendum]

Burqas are a ***** for someone to wear while working. And with various muslim nations having different views on what women should wear, there isn't a universal standard in regard to the burqa.

A muslim woman who doesn't wear a burqa isn't any less of a woman than one who does

[The Overlord]

At least until the Islamicists try and impose their will.

Really now, I thought all Islamic fundamentalists want to do is fight secualrism and support traditional values. I thought you would be in favour of that. :woot:

[War Lord]

Really now, I thought all Islamic fundamentalists want to do is fight secualrism and support traditional values. I thought you would be in favour of that. :woot:

I am in support of Western traditional values 100%, not Islamic traditional values.

[The Overlord]

I am in support of Western traditional values 100%, not Islamic traditional values.

So what your saying in regards to Islamic fundamentalists is, right idea, wrong religion? Ironic that that you dislike Islamic conversatives when they use the same language and have similar goals, the goals and language are similar, the differences are superficial (both Christian and Muslim fundamentalists believe in one true creator god, they just give him different names). You have more in common with them than you think.

[blind_fury]

There are some great things about the Muslim culture. Burkahs are not one of them. :down

[zanos]

I can't believe the Dutch are doing this. Will ninjas be forced to sneak around without their masks as well? There is no justice in this world.

[Harlekin]

Pray tell, what is the BASIS for calling it a "security risk"? Was there a terrorist attack by women in burkas? Are they wanted for murder? Armed robbery? Do women in burkas have any kind of criminal record? Can anyone please explain to me the absurdity that is deeming women in burkas as security risks without any plausible reason or suggestive proof whatsoever?
You need to stop looking at it as: "People with burqa's are a security risk" but as "People who completely obscure their face are a security risk". It's not calling all muslim women wearing one a risk, it's calling the type of dress a risk, simply because it hinders identification. Identification is key in the apprehension of criminals.

Give me a ****ing break. Someone hides their face, how is that supposed to affect me to even be an impolite gesture in the first place? It's their personal choice. Why would I, or anyone rational want to interfere with that?
Well, not everybody feels that way. I certainly would feel uncomfortable speaking to someone while they are wearing a full burqa.

And the hypocrisy of the choice for personal freedom in a Western nation rears it's ugly head yet again. "You're free to do what you want, as long as you do what we say."
Total personal freedom never was and never will be a fact.

So now you have the same standards as the people you deem a "security risk"? Carry on then. :up:
Wow, back it up, I'm not calling muslim women a security risk. I'm calling the burqa a security risk. Anyone can wear them after all, but it's mostly muslim women, which is why we use that as a basis for this debate. And yes, if I were to immigrate to another country, I would adhere to their dresscode, so if the culture's regulations insist on me having to wear something, I will.

Another point I was trying to make is that both burqas and ski masks have uses. Who the heck are we to say what someone can and can't wear, as long as it's not physically dangerous? And the thing about how people should conform to the dress codes of the country they're in is ridiculous. Burqas aren't a clothing item of a certain country, or even of a certain continent; it is the traditional clothing of a religion. That's like telling Buddists they can't shave their heads because people might mistake them for Nazis, or nuns can't travel to any country without a Christian majority. They might be hiding bombs under their robes. Maybe the pope shouldn't wear the traditional hat. He could have a small nuke in there and no one would know.
Except they can prove somewhat of a security risk by obscuring identification. This is not some weird little idea, people. If you see a group of people walking down the street in a burqa, you won't be able to identify a single one. A wholesale ban of the clothing item might be a little over the top, but it is defendable.

I'm against dress codes of all kinds. Wear what you want to wear, as long as it doesn't hurt people.
Are you also in favour of not wearing anything?

no contradiction between that and my accusation. Why does a person's culture have to be determined by the side of the border they live on huh?
It does not define your culture at all, but it does define points where you might have to give up certain elements of it in order to properly adapt to your new surroundings. Heck, those things can simply exist of knowing something about the country you live in and speaking the language. It's not a wholesale dropping of your own culture for another, and you'll never hear me say that.

do I have to convert to christianity to adapt to the culutre I live in to? It's called freedom and I support freedom.
No, not all, but like I said before, complete and total freedom isn't possible, and there is a certain measure of adaptibility to be accepted. If you suddenly move to an Arab country, you will have to adhere to certain customs and the like. The same works the other way around. I don't see how people can just ignore this. I would hope you'd adapt to your new culture if you move.

why do you have to force your culture on somebody else? what's wrong with diversity or a little tolerance and acceptance? just leave them alone.
It's not forcing a culture on somebody. Heck, you'll find the Dutch have largely been considered the most tolerant nation in Europe, if not on Earth. We accept people all kinds, but like I've said a million times now, some sacrifice is to be accepted. Western cultures do not differ so greatly, so you could easily adapt if you move to Europe. It's a much bigger jump from Eastern culture to a Western culture, but is it that odd to expect people to adapt?

Your thinking suggests that people are forced in some fascist like manner to become completely Westernized or something. The complete opposite, but a certain connection with your new country should be expected. Otherwise, you never moved anywhere, you're just sitting there in your own little corner.

Answer me this, say, if you were to move to an Arab country, would you or would you not change certain things about your manners or dress in order to adapt to that country's culture? This is a question to all of you of here, and I'd like you to consider it before even replying.

[celldog]

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/061117/061117_burqa_hmed_9a.hmedium.jpg (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/)

Yep. she looks very "FREE" indeed! :whatever: :whatever:
Funny....she's not holding up that sign! LOL Looks like a man's hand! :whatever:
+

Look...it's their own fault. Terror plots going down everywhere and they are all Muslim! Now they are using women as suicide bombers! So since they can't seem to get a handle on their problem, we need to be able to see their faces. Period!!! End of story.

I recall a woman her in the U.S. that wanted to scream "religion" when she didn't want to take off that mask for a Driver's License photo!!! :cmad: Enuff already!!

They are smart enuff to know that they can use that against us. Even in Iraq, we couldn't bomb a Mosque while the terrorists were in there!! :cmad: What kinda crap is that. Using their religion to get around safety and security laws.

[celldog]

Heck...they make our women cover up when they go over there!! So they need to respect western culture to a degree as well.

[Sandman138]

THIS MAN WANTS TO KILL YOUR CHILDREN!!!!!!
http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m80/captainwilloughby/Dali-Lama.jpg
A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT FROM CELLDOG

:ninja:

[C.F. Kane]

That previous post made me LMAO. So many stupid libs out there have no idea just how entertaining celldog can be.

The stuff that I really want you to read is in bold. Heil.

[hippy fascist]

I'm a muslim dude I know that, but does that mean that they shouldn't be able to wear it if they want to, I mean if women are allowed by the law to run around in thongs on the beach why can't these women wear burkas?

Covering up your body should be against the law and showing is a-okay? Sheesh makes me weep for the human race.

actually the purpose of these veils is to oppress women in countries where the government is extremist muslim. These women have become so brainwashed that they finally arrive in a free country, they have been conditioned to the point where they still think they are obliged to wear it.

It's part of the reason islam gets a name for being mysogenistic. I think they should be banned and to call it religious oppression is ridiculous. The Quran (based on what I have discussed with muslim friends) never mentions these head scarfs. It simply says women should dress modestly

The sole purpose of these things is to delegate women to second class citizens and take away any element of self confidence they may have.

They SHOULD be banned and I can't wait for this to come to the UK. Women should be treated as equals no matter what religion they are.
I wonder how long these would last under a female led government...

[Nepenthes]

If you won't show your face well then don't be suprised if people don't feel comfortable around you. It's got nothing to do with islamophobia or security. It's basic humanity.

These women who believe they're protecting themselves...I don't think they they understand what kind of society they're living in. In Western countires it is the responsibility of the male to be respectful to women. Liberating themselves? From what. The need to wear make-up, follow fashion, avoid male eyes? You can do that without covering your face.

You basically can't become part of a modern society in a burka. When immigrants come to Western counties it is expected that they will accept certain values, and it's not like these values are harsh or cruel. If you don't like it you can return to your own country...but why did you leave in the first place? Is it because at home they actually DO treat women as second class citizens?

Please. The debate is ridiculous when you look at the type of societies where burkas are most common, and how those societies treat their women.

It's called brainwashing and if you need a law to overcome it then so be it.

[MSGohan]

actually the purpose of these veils is to oppress women in countries where the government is extremist muslim. These women have become so brainwashed that they finally arrive in a free country, they have been conditioned to the point where they still think they are obliged to wear it.

It's part of the reason islam gets a name for being mysogenistic. I think they should be banned and to call it religious oppression is ridiculous. The Quran (based on what I have discussed with muslim friends) never mentions these head scarfs. It simply says women should dress modestly
Women in islam may show their faces and hands, it is not a demand to cover the whole face, that's something some womens choose to do on their own free will, so that men won't look at them. It could also be a demand from their husbands if they are married (why should other men look at your wife).
Brainwashed? No, they're not forced to wear that, since the demand is only to cover everything but the face and hands.

The sole purpose of these things is to delegate women to second class citizens and take away any element of self confidence they may have.
As so many others you've gotten the impression of islam as being a religion that supresses women and gives them no rights and what so ever, like in Iran or Saudi-Arabia. Those countries are by many thought to be islamic countries. But that is not the case, they have ignorant extremists goverments. Some have stupid rules like, women are not allowed to drive cars, but yet they permit banks to bear interest (which isn't allowed in islam).
The religion of islam gives the women a higher status than men! But yet many stupid arabs just abuse their wifes and gives them no right and so, and some deny the women to even take an education. So most people think that this is the cause of the religion...

[hippy fascist]

Women in islam may show their faces and hands, it is not a demand to cover the whole face, that's something some womens choose to do on their own free will, so that men won't look at them. It could also be a demand from their husbands if they are married (why should other men look at your wife).
Brainwashed? No, they're not forced to wear that, since the demand is only to cover everything but the face and hands.


As so many others you've gotten the impression of islam as being a religion that supresses women and gives them no rights and what so ever, like in Iran or Saudi-Arabia. Those countries are by many thought to be islamic countries. But that is not the case, they have ignorant extremists goverments. Some have stupid rules like, women are not allowed to drive cars, but yet they permit banks to bear interest (which isn't allowed in islam).
The religion of islam gives the women a higher status than men! But yet many stupid arabs just abuse their wifes and gives them no right and so, and some deny the women to even take an education. So most people think that this is the cause of the religion...

You quote me as specifically saying that these veils are only demanded by extremist governments and are the reason a lot of people MISTAKE islam for a mysogenistic religion. Try reading the post rather than reacting to keywords you've personally designated as offensive. Learn how to read and listen to other people before launching attacks against people who are backing up your own point of view ****tard!

what a surprise, another person who gets offended the second they see a reference to islam without actually taking the time to see what has been said... :whatever:

[MSGohan]

"The sole purpose of these things is to delegate women to second class citizens and take away any element of self confidence they may have."

I tried to answer that... And you called it brainwashing, I also tried to reply to that. I never tried to offend you or something, and yet I got labeled as a retard!

[War Lord]

So what your saying in regards to Islamic fundamentalists is, right idea, wrong religion? Ironic that that you dislike Islamic conversatives when they use the same language and have similar goals, the goals and language are similar, the differences are superficial (both Christian and Muslim fundamentalists believe in one true creator god, they just give him different names). You have more in common with them than you think.

Similarities does not equate sameness.

For example, having women dress modestly in Christianity and Islam are clearly different to all but the least discerning eyes, yes this means you. In Christianity, it would mean, for most Christians, dressing in a way that doesn't unnecessarily exude sexuality, but within many Islamic corners it means that the woman should all but disappear.

[hippy fascist]

"The sole purpose of these things is to delegate women to second class citizens and take away any element of self confidence they may have."

I tried to answer that... And you called it brainwashing, I also tried to reply to that. I never tried to offend you or something, and yet I got labeled as a retard!

OK...I'LL...SPELL...IT...OUT...REALLY...SLOWLY...F OR...YOU.

I...SAID...THAT...I...THOUGHT...THAT...THE...REASO N...ISLAM...GETS...A...BAD ...NAME...IS...THAT...EXTREMIST...GOVERNMENTS...PO RTRAY...THESE...VEILS...AND ...THEIR...GENERAL...TREATMENT...OF...WOMEN...AS.. .REQUIRED...BY...ISLAM...

THIS...IS...RESPONSIBLE...FOR...ISLAM'S...NEGATIVE ...IMAGE

THESE...VEILS...HAVE...NOTHING...TO...DO...WITH... ISLAM (as i explicitly stated in my post)BUT...ARE...INSTEAD...A...MEANS...OF...CONTRO L.

If you'd like I can rewrite my original post in big letters with all the uses of the word islam/quran removed so you can read it without having a spaz due to your own ignorance.

And just because it's you I can do it in crayon if that would make it any easier for you...:up:

[Harlekin]

Let's try and keep it clean, Hippy. This debate has potential to be an insightful, and it doesn't need clouding with remarks such as "****tard". Beyond that, I mostly agree with what you're saying in this thread.

[MSGohan]

"THESE...VEILS...HAVE...NOTHING...TO...DO...WITH... ISLAM (as i explicitly stated in my post)BUT...ARE...INSTEAD...A...MEANS...OF...CONTRO L."

That's not completly correct, and that's what I tried to reply to. Why do you get so pissed off about this? I never offended you or anything.. :/

[hippy fascist]

As so many others you've gotten the impression of islam as being a religion that supresses women and gives them no rights and what so ever, like in Iran or Saudi-Arabia. Those countries are by many thought to be islamic countries. But that is not the case, they have ignorant extremists goverments.

I get annoyed when people tell my I'm wrong and that the justification for me being wrong is that I've failed to see a point that I have explicitly stated :huh:

actually the purpose of these veils is to oppress women in countries where the government is extremist muslim. These women have become so brainwashed that they finally arrive in a free country, they have been conditioned to the point where they still think they are obliged to wear it.

It's part of the reason islam gets a name for being mysogenistic. I think they should be banned and to call it religious oppression is ridiculous. The Quran (based on what I have discussed with muslim friends) never mentions these head scarfs. It simply says women should dress modestly


:huh: :huh: :huh:

[MSGohan]

I get annoyed when people tell my I'm wrong and that the justification for me being wrong is that I've failed to see a point that I have explicitly stated :huh:
The main reason for my reply was to this:

"The Quran (based on what I have discussed with muslim friends) never mentions these head scarfs. It simply says women should dress modestly

The sole purpose of these things is to delegate women to second class citizens and take away any element of self confidence they may have."

And that you considered the wearing of the cover was due to brainwash. So do you think that women only wear those because they are brainwashed?
That's what I mainly replied to!

[hippy fascist]

The main reason for my reply was to this:

"The Quran (based on what I have discussed with muslim friends) never mentions these head scarfs. It simply says women should dress modestly

The sole purpose of these things is to delegate women to second class citizens and take away any element of self confidence they may have."

And that you considered the wearing of the cover was due to brainwash. So do you think that women only wear those because they are brainwashed?
That's what I mainly replied to!

No, my point wasthey are brainwashed to view it as part of their religion which it HAS NEVER BEEN.

[the_joker]

There was a bit "debate" after a politician refused to have meetings with women wearing burkas in the United Kingdom. Basically, from what I am aware of it, burkas are personal choices and isn't actually a requirement of the Islamic religion. Having said that, I do believe that it is up to the individual to decide whether they wish to wear one or not, it really shouldn't be anything to do with the government. Because where does the intervention of the government end? Burkas today, shorts tomorrow. Maybe next week they will make it illegal to wear white sneakers.


Well dont hate me for my opionion but i hope that happens here in the UK.

Tut, Daily Mail reader. *hates* :p

[hippy fascist]

There was a bit "debate" after a politician refused to have meetings with women wearing burkas in the United Kingdom. Basically, from what I am aware of it, burkas are personal choices and isn't actually a requirement of the Islamic religion. Having said that, I do believe that it is up to the individual to decide whether they wish to wear one or not, it really shouldn't be anything to do with the government. Because where does the intervention of the government end? Burkas today, shorts tomorrow. Maybe next week they will make it illegal to wear white sneakers.




Tut, Daily Mail reader. *hates* :p

the only difference between this and banning hoodies from shopping malls is the religion of the wearers. It's ok to label white kids in hoodies suspicious but somehow if they're muslim they can cover up even more and that's fine and dandy. You can't pick and choose when to apply legislation. It has to apply to all people or it's worthless.

[Crowforge]

Too bad, don't move to a super decadent country if you're a prude, it's their country and you should have made yourselves more a part of it before now so you wouldn't have been blindsided by things like this. Or here's another idea, if you wanted to live like you did in the old country, stay in the old country.

[hippy fascist]

Too bad, don't move to a super decadent country if you're a prude, it's their country and you should have made yourselves more a part of it before now so you wouldn't have been blindsided by things like this. Or here's another idea, if you wanted to live like you did in the old country, stay in the old country.

exactly...sort of...

you have to embrace a countries customes if you're going to move their, otherwise you're only reason IS benefits etc. Look at the UK. The asian population (the majority of it at least) tends to flock to 4-5 towns and form extremely closed off communities. I have been told to "**** off out of our country white-boy" by asian lads before. What people need to come to terms with is that rascism etc cuts both ways.

If I moved to spain i wouldn't only associate with english people. Otherwise why not just stay in england :huh:

[Harlekin]

Too bad, don't move to a super decadent country if you're a prude, it's their country and you should have made yourselves more a part of it before now so you wouldn't have been blindsided by things like this. Or here's another idea, if you wanted to live like you did in the old country, stay in the old country.
Did you just call the Netherlands a super decadent country!? :confused:

[hippy fascist]

Did you just call the Netherlands a super decadent country!? :confused:

super-duper!!!!! :woot:

[Spider-Bite]

It's not forcing a culture on somebody. Heck, you'll find the Dutch have largely been considered the most tolerant nation in Europe, if not on Earth. We accept people all kinds, but like I've said a million times now, some sacrifice is to be accepted. Western cultures do not differ so greatly, so you could easily adapt if you move to Europe. It's a much bigger jump from Eastern culture to a Western culture, but is it that odd to expect people to adapt?



Answer me this, say, if you were to move to an Arab country, would you or would you not change certain things about your manners or dress in order to adapt to that country's culture? This is a question to all of you of here, and I'd like you to consider it before even replying.

My definition of adapt is not committing crimes, learning the language, not trying to force others to be a certain way, and accepting and tolerating the people that live there, and respecting others.

I like the way I dress, and I'm not chaning it for anybody no matter where I live. If I move to mexico I'm not putting on a sumbrara, and if I move to texas I'm not wearing cowboy boots. If I move to the middle east I'm not converting to Islam, and I'm not marrying 10 13 year old girls either.

[Harlekin]

My definition of adapt is not committing crimes, learning the language, not trying to force others to be a certain way, and accepting and tolerating the people that live there, and respecting others.
That goes both ways, muchacho. If people come here, they should also respect certain customs. One of those customs is being able to look someone in the face when you talk to them. We have rules that state you can't walk around naked, because it's indecent. That makes it similarly defendable to have a rule that you can't cover yourself up completely, because it's impolite. In your own house? Go for it. Outside, a modicum of respect for others is to be asked, and they'd like to see your face.

I like the way I dress, and I'm not chaning it for anybody no matter where I live. If I move to mexico I'm not putting on a sumbrara, and if I move to texas I'm not wearing cowboy boots. If I move to the middle east I'm not converting to Islam, and I'm not marrying 10 13 year old girls either.
Haha, wow, I love the rampant use of stereotypes here, but I'll give it a serious reply anyway. You're telling me that if you immigrated to a Middle Eastern country, a highly religious one, you'd have no problem, say, walking around in your shorts without your shorts on, because, hey, that's the way you like to dress? Do you get how riducilous that sounds?

[Fenrir]

You need to stop looking at it as: "People with burqa's are a security risk" but as "People who completely obscure their face are a security risk". It's not calling all muslim women wearing one a risk, it's calling the type of dress a risk, simply because it hinders identification. Identification is key in the apprehension of criminals.

Again, on WHAT BASIS are these women deemed a security risk or even criminals? Everyone knows whenever they see a veiled woman that it's a Muslim covering her face, and so far, statistically there is no proof that they pose any kind of threat.

You're saying that type of dress is a risk? OK, on what basis exactly are they deemed a risk? Have such similarly dressed women ever attempted any kind of crime before? Is there any plausible reason for anyone to suspect women in burkas or veils of any ill-intent? If there is, do you have any statistical evidence that backs such a view?

You're saying that it hinders indentification? Last I remember, those Muslim women never had any objections to other WOMEN inspecting them. It's only the men they cover their faces from. Besides, how many instances are there in which an average Muslim woman would have to identify herself for "security reasons" everyday?

This whole quagmire is just some insecure people expressing their irrational discomfort in watching a woman covering her face and then trying to justify it with shallow reasons...

Well, not everybody feels that way. I certainly would feel uncomfortable speaking to someone while they are wearing a full burqa.

*ding ding ding*...and there you have it. :up:

But seriously, you advocate robbing these women of their personal choice to cover their faces from men simply because YOU are feeling uncomfortable with it? I mean, I've seen many veiled women before and it doesn't bother me, especially when a lot of these women I've talked to said it's their own decision. And frankly, I just don't see how any sane person would be bothered by it.

Total personal freedom never was and never will be a fact.

So essentially you're agreeing with me? Thanks for clearing that up.

Wow, back it up, I'm not calling muslim women a security risk. I'm calling the burqa a security risk.

But isn't it only the Muslim WOMEN who wear them? What difference does it make then?

Anyone can wear them after all, but it's mostly muslim women, which is why we use that as a basis for this debate. And yes, if I were to immigrate to another country, I would adhere to their dresscode, so if the culture's regulations insist on me having to wear something, I will.

Hey, if only us "civilized" Western nations stopped beating our chests for being passionate bastions of freedom, liberty, all that crap and sending our collective forces to bring "democracy" to the helplessly deprived masses of the undeveloped world, I'd have no problem with the Dutch clowns banning the burqa. After all, it goes hand in hand with the "barbaric", "oppressive" institution of allowing only what you think is right.

[hippy fascist]

So it's ok for a native to feel uncomfortable but not an immigrant (? my spelling sucks :o). Let's put it another way. If people come round my house they take off their shoes when they enter as I like to keep the carpets clean. Ifyou refuse to take off your shoes and abide by my wishes while in MY house, you can **** off and go somewhere else.

Let's be honest, it's not a religious oppression issue since it's not part of the religion. It's ultimately just about people's desire to dress as ninjas ;)

[Fenrir]

So it's ok for a native to feel uncomfortable but not an immigrant (? my spelling sucks :o). Let's put it another way. If people come round my house they take off their shoes when they enter as I like to keep the carpets clean. Ifyou refuse to take off your shoes and abide by my wishes while in MY house, you can **** off and go somewhere else.

Of course, unless you brag about endlessly in the neighbourhood about how guests are "welcome", "free" and "entitled to their rights" in your house (kinda like how Western nations do), you're right. If you're the self-righteous freak who makes people play by his own rules and only allows people to indulge in what he thinks is right, no one would mind nor care of such behaviour of yours in your own backyard.

Let's be honest, it's not a religious oppression issue since it's not part of the religion. It's ultimately just about people's desire to dress as ninjas ;)

What's wrong about people dressing up as ninjas? I want to be a ninja. Ninjas are cool. :ninja: :(

[Fenrir]

THIS MAN WANTS TO KILL YOUR CHILDREN!!!!!!
http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m80/captainwilloughby/Dali-Lama.jpg
A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT FROM CELLDOG

:ninja:

:eek:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Buddhistswastika.jpg

Buddhist temple


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Flag_of_Germany_1933.svg/600px-Flag_of_Germany_1933.svg.png

Nazi flag


Hot damn celldog is right! I always knew those baldheaded jerks were upto no good. :cmad:

[The Overlord]

Similarities does not equate sameness.

For example, having women dress modestly in Christianity and Islam are clearly different to all but the least discerning eyes, yes this means you. In Christianity, it would mean, for most Christians, dressing in a way that doesn't unnecessarily exude sexuality, but within many Islamic corners it means that the woman should all but disappear.

Oh, I know that Islamic conservatives are far more conservative than Christian conservatives, that the fact remains language and some of the goals remain the same. When you express contempt towards secularism and need to return to traditional values, you are echoing the calls made by Islamic fundamentalists. When you bash secularism, what alternative are you proposing, a theocracy like Iran?

[celldog]

That previous post made me LMAO. So many stupid libs out there have no idea just how entertaining celldog can be.

The stuff that I really want you to read is in bold. Heil.


You still didn't address my points. All you did was side-step with snide remarks. :whatever:

[celldog]

Question: Should western Women be made to wear Burkas when visiting or living in the Middle East???

If so...why the double standard???

[Erundur]

Question: Should western Women be made to wear Burkas when visiting or living in the Middle East???

If so...why the double standard???

If you do not wish to wear one then do not when you visit a middle eastern nation.

[celldog]

If you do not wish to wear one then do not when you visit a middle eastern nation.


Oh please!!! Be for real!! They raise all kinds of hell if the woman doesn't do it!! She'll get threats and all of that. :whatever:

[Darthphere]

Oh please!!! Be for real!! They raise all kinds of hell if the woman doesn't do it!! She'll get threats and all of that. :whatever:


Why would a western woman want to go to the middle east in the first place?:huh:

[Erundur]

Oh please!!! Be for real!! They raise all kinds of hell if the woman doesn't do it!! She'll get threats and all of that. :whatever:

You've obviously never been to the middle east :o :rolleyes::rolleyes:


http://i15.tinypic.com/2wmi5at.jpg


http://i15.tinypic.com/43w5ks0.jpg


http://i7.tinypic.com/2mnpxme.jpg

[Erundur]

Why would a western woman want to go to the middle east in the first place?:huh:

Dubai and Lebanon is the Shiz :confused:

[Darthphere]

Dubai and Lebanon is the Shiz :confused:


True that, but I wouldnt call those countries extremist.:huh:

[Erundur]

True that, but I wouldnt call those countries extremist.:huh:

Not Lebanon but the leader of Dubai is a 6 based on a 7 point scale of muslim conservative nations. It was in a newspaper but I forgot which one :(

Pakistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Oman, Yemen, Turkey, Afghanistan, India, Bangladesh, Jordan, Israel or Palestine (whichever). Are places where I have seen women walking around not wearing a burqa. That are muslim.

[nocomics]

Sorry, I tend to think u should respect the values of the country u live in. It just seems now that all countries are bending over backward not to offend any muslims at the expense of their own countries heritage.
Does wearing burkas present any sercurity issues? maybe,maybe not. They should however respect the laws and requests of the country u live in... I think ppl/gov't get too touchy about offending other ppls religion,yet they screw over what their own countries religious foundation is. Its just not this case its other situations that have risen up thats just plain ludicris. Hey,lets ban Harry Potter books. Hey lets remove any signs of the ten commandments from any courthouse,though ours system was based from this...
Though I don't have an issue with the burkas, I do wish all countries/gov't would ban any fat person from wearing spandex....

[celldog]

Why would a western woman want to go to the middle east in the first place?:huh:

Why would anyone?? :whatever:

[celldog]

You've obviously never been to the middle east :o :rolleyes::rolleyes:


http://i15.tinypic.com/2wmi5at.jpg


http://i15.tinypic.com/43w5ks0.jpg


http://i7.tinypic.com/2mnpxme.jpg


Those heads look "covered" to me.

[Erundur]

Why would anyone?? :whatever:

You do not want to visit the place where jesus had preached for 3 years?

[Erundur]

Those heads look "covered" to me.

what a great observation :huh::up:

[C.F. Kane]

You still didn't address my points. All you did was side-step with snide remarks. :whatever:

Good. You're catching on.:whatever: :woot:

[Crowforge]

Did you just call the Netherlands a super decadent country!? :confused:I'm from the midwest

[Cobblepot]

The belgians are doing this now for over two years, I've never heard anything about that...

[celldog]

Good. You're catching on.:whatever: :woot:
Typical....

[zanos]

I'm sorry but people have to realize that this has nothing to do with religion but rather the Dutch's widely known intolerance and prejudices against ninjas.

[Sandman138]

Question: Should western Women be made to wear Burkas when visiting or living in the Middle East???

If so...why the double standard???

Because part of the reason that you keep saying we're better than they are is because we're not a theocracy as much of the Middle East is.

[Crowforge]

It's a fair question, just visiting there and you're expected to conform but they have a fit if the same is expected of them

[Mr Sparkle]

Heck...they make our women cover up when they go over there!! So they need to respect western culture to a degree as well.

I thought western culture was all about "freedom" (patent pending U.S. government) wouldn't "freedom" include going around covered up if you so please???????

[Sandman138]

It's a fair question, just visiting there and you're expected to conform but they have a fit if the same is expected of them

Conform to what exactly? Western culture is pretty diverse.

[hippy fascist]

I thought western culture was all about "freedom" (patent pending U.S. government) wouldn't "freedom" include going around covered up if you so please???????

THAT'S WHAT THE TERRORISTS WANT YOU TO THINK! :cmad:
























:cwink:

[I SEE SPIDEY]

actually the purpose of these veils is to oppress women in countries where the government is extremist muslim. These women have become so brainwashed that they finally arrive in a free country, they have been conditioned to the point where they still think they are obliged to wear it.

It's part of the reason islam gets a name for being mysogenistic. I think they should be banned and to call it religious oppression is ridiculous. The Quran (based on what I have discussed with muslim friends) never mentions these head scarfs. It simply says women should dress modestly

The sole purpose of these things is to delegate women to second class citizens and take away any element of self confidence they may have.

They SHOULD be banned and I can't wait for this to come to the UK. Women should be treated as equals no matter what religion they are.
I wonder how long these would last under a female led government...A scarf is required, I don't know what muslim friends you have been talking to.

[hippy fascist]

A scarf is required, I don't know what muslim friends you have been talking to.

but not the veil...:whatever:

[Mr Sparkle]

so dressing like a **** is a sign of self confidence?
I thought it was the other way around :confused:

[War Lord]

but not the veil...:whatever:

One man's burkha is another man's scarf.

[hippy fascist]

so dressing like a **** is a sign of self confidence?
I thought it was the other way around :confused:

not covering every millimetre of visible flesh does not make a person a ****. Jesus by you're definition lindsey lohan is a ****...oh wait :o

[hippy fascist]

look, proof positive that different faiths can integrate with other cultures. Half chav half sikh! :wow:

http://www.ratemyturban.com/files/photo/photo-64.jpg

[Mr Sparkle]

not covering every millimetre of visible flesh does not make a person a ****. Jesus by you're definition lindsey lohan is a ****...oh wait :o

no, don't get me wrong.
I think Burkas ARE opressive.
I also think that they have little to do with self confidence.
but there are many things about religions in the west that are also opressive.
so, western culture supossedly based on freedom and such, Banning burkas seems dumb.
I fail to see how one form of opression is better than another.

[hippy fascist]

no, don't get me wrong.
I think Burkas ARE opressive.
I also think that they have little to do with self confidence.
but there are many things about religions in the west that are also opressive.
so, western culture supossedly based on freedom and such, Banning burkas seems dumb.
I fail to see how one form of opression is better than another.

Ok a girl who works for british airways recently got told remove that cross you're wearing or find another job. Yet hindu's and sikh's are allowed to wear turbans/bangles. If this was about not wearing crucifixes in public there would be no issue but because it's muslim's suddenly it's a hate crime. We need to get away from this concept of "if you're in a minority any criticism is a hate-crime". No-one can deny that in the modern world (western at least) people in the majority have a HARDER time and LESS rights than minorities. If an asian lad get's beaten up by white kids it's automatically a race-related issue whereas if an asian lad kicks crap out a white kid it's just a fight.

We need to stop this concept of one rule for some and another for others and level the playing field a little. We had the right idea with the civil rights movement/promoting equality, but the reality is that thanks to douches like Michael Moore we've swung too far in the opposite direction. Martin Luther King spoke of all people as equals, not more rights for this group than that one...

[Darthphere]

look, proof positive that different faiths can integrate with other cultures. Half chav half sikh! :wow:

http://www.ratemyturban.com/files/photo/photo-64.jpg


Thats someone I want to hang out with.

[hippy fascist]

Thats someone I want to hang out with.

Indeed, check out the bling bling! :word:

[Mr Sparkle]

If this was about not wearing crucifixes in public there would be no issue but because it's muslim's suddenly it's a hate crime. We need to get away from this concept of "if you're in a minority any criticism is a hate-crime". No-one can deny that in the modern world (western at least) people in the majority have a HARDER time and LESS rights than minorities.


I can deny this, rather emphatically.
this mentality you mention, doesn't exist. what laws do not apply to minorities in the western world I might ask?
what criticisms have been branded hate crimes?
:confused:

[hippy fascist]

I can deny this, rather emphatically.
this mentality you mention, doesn't exist. what laws do not apply to minorities in the western world I might ask?
what criticisms have been branded hate crimes?
:confused:

Two words, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

[Darthphere]

Indeed, check out the bling bling! :word:


The cellphone around his neck seals the deal.

[Mr Sparkle]

Two words, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

do you really think that affirmative action has made easier to be a minority than it is to be white?
could I know of the criticisms that have been branded hate crimes?

[hippy fascist]

come to england, studies have shown that officers are affraid to report an asian/black person for a race-crime for fear of A) Not being taken seriously B) Getting it turned back round on them

Really, let's be honest here, two people come up to you and claim they're the victim of rascism, one white and one black, who will your first instincts pick...

[Mr Sparkle]

come to england, studies have shown that officers are affraid to report an asian/black person for a race-crime for fear of A) Not being taken seriously B) Getting it turned back round on them

Really, let's be honest here, two people come up to you and claim they're the victim of rascism, one white and one black, who will your first instincts pick...

dood, I'm Mexican and logical
so, either would seem believabe, as to who is more likely to face racism in everyday life?
I'm going to go ahead and say the black guy.

[celldog]

no, don't get me wrong.
I think Burkas ARE opressive.
I also think that they have little to do with self confidence.
but there are many things about religions in the west that are also opressive.
so, western culture supossedly based on freedom and such, Banning burkas seems dumb.
I fail to see how one form of opression is better than another.


No one is "totally" free, Sparkie!! My freedoms end where the the safety and security of others are involved!! No one can just do what ever they want all the the time!

A burka is something that a terrorist could "exploit" to a very diastrous end!! They don't have a problem doing that kind of thing or haven't you heard??? Since Islamic women are getting into the action nowadays, we need to see faces!!

[Mr Sparkle]

No one is "totally" free, Sparkie!! My freedoms end where the the safety and security of others are involved!! No one can just do what ever they want all the the time!

A burka is something that a terrorist could "exploit" to a very diastrous end!! They don't have a problem doing that kind of thing or haven't you heard??? Since Islamic women are getting into the action nowadays, we need to see faces!!

:whatever: anything is "exploitable" for terrorism, or haven't YOU heard?
do you really think that a suicide bomber cares if you see his face or not?
it's the last thing you'll see anyway.
for that matter hasidic jews are hard to tell apart because of their heavy bears and locks ( I don't know exactly what those are called) and distintinctive hats. be outraged about that.

http://www.concertsatmarymoor.com/images/matisyahu.jpg
matisyahu is up to something :shiftyeyes:

puh-leese.

[celldog]

:whatever: anything is "exploitable" for terrorism, or haven't YOU heard?
do you really think that a suicide bomber cares if you see his face or not?
it's the last thing you'll see anyway.
for that matter hasidic jews are hard to tell apart because of their heavy bears and locks ( I don't know exactly what those are called) and distintinctive hats. be outraged about that.

http://www.concertsatmarymoor.com/images/matisyahu.jpg
matisyahu is up to something :shiftyeyes:

puh-leese.


Not even a close comparison Sparkie.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/windows/images/vincentKabulwomen.jpg

A hat and beard versus a full Spiderman mask??????? Now you're just being silly.

[hippy fascist]

Not even a close comparison Sparkie.
http://www.hipocondria.org/images/burka_band.jpg

A hat and beard versus a full Spiderman mask??????? Now you're just being silly.

:wow:

I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH CELLDOG!:csad:

Seriously man walk down the street past some cops in a balaclava and see what happens :whatever:

Also if anything is acceptable for religious reasons why can rastas still get arrested for smoking weed :huh:

Soooooooooo many smilies :yay:

[Mr Sparkle]

Not even a close comparison Sparkie.
http://www.hipocondria.org/images/burka_band.jpg

A hat and beard versus a full Spiderman mask??????? Now you're just being silly.

no, celldog , it's a beard, a mustache, long locks on the side of your head, a hat, and in most cases glasses. I know you're not into hating jews (just yet) but no, it's not as simple as you thought.
I'm sorry if you can't see how easy it would be to "exploit" this.
nice try on the sidestep though (not really).

(lol, spiderman mask)

[Mr Sparkle]

:wow:I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH CELLDOG!:csad:

Seriously man walk down the street past some cops in a balaclava and see what happens :whatever:

Also if anything is acceptable for religious reasons why can rastas still get arrested for smoking weed :huh:

Soooooooooo many smilies :yay:

LOL again with the ski masks.
fine, you know... it's interesting that none of you adressed the reality of the hasidic Jew and how that could be exploited for terrorism :rolleyes: x infinity.
who exactly said "everything" was acceptable for religious reasons.
if anything, aren't most of you exalting the western society as the "tolerant" society as opossed to the "intolerance" of Islam.
your tolerance is confusing.

[Whirlysplat]

What's this thread about?

- Whirly

[celldog]

so dressing like a **** is a sign of self confidence?
I thought it was the other way around :confused:


It's always feast or famine in your mind, isn't it?? In those countries, a woman wearing a soccer uniform could be in violation.

[Whirlysplat]

It's always feast or famine in your mind, isn't it?? In those countries, a woman wearing a soccer uniform could be in violation.

That's right women play football in the USA and the men wear pads to play a soft version of Rugby. :up:

- Whirly

[hippy fascist]

It's always feast or famine in your mind, isn't it?? In those countries, a woman wearing a soccer uniform could be in violation.

http://images.usatoday.com/travel/_photos/2004/10/19/amish-inside.jpg

****S!:cmad::cmad::cmad::cmad::cmad::cmad:

[Mr Sparkle]

It's always feast or famine in your mind, isn't it?? In those countries, a woman wearing a soccer uniform could be in violation.

LOL, it's actually feast or famine in YOUR mind mr. poor reading comprehension.

[Addendum]

"The sins of technology" - Hammerin Heekin

The cool October night air snuck under the folds of Martha's traditional blue frock as she stole into the rows of corn next to the dark shuttered house where she had been only moments ago. The cobs of corn gently brushed her body, exciting her and making her ever more anxious to reach her destination; the phallic fruit had always had that effect on her.

The meeting was held in the house on the other side of the field where the forbidden desires of the secret society could be indulged until each member, panting and weak with pleasure, slowly returned to their homes, their prohibited hunger satiated. Martha climbed the steps to the darkened door and swiftly entered. Once inside she shed her frock to reveal the dress she was forced to hide from the light of day; calf-length and mixed fibers. The implications alone further excited her.

The gathering had already begun, the group twisting and moaning in the dimly lit room as the electronic orgy began. The left of the room found itself crammed with pleasure-seekers huddled in a groping, groaning, sweaty group of girls, each vying for the smooth, black object being passed around. Martha pushed her way into the group; hungry, wet, seeking release. She gripped the mighty tool with both hands, barely able to get her fingers around the monstrous object, and slowly lowered it to her waist.

Orgasmically she pressed the button, sending waves of ecstatic pleasure through every inch of her body; she pressed it again. Maniacally, in a trance, she pushed harder and harder, whimpering, sweating, losing her breath. Volume up, volume down, channel up, channel down, contrast, color, tone. The picture box followed her every command, fulfilled her every desire she punched into the remote control. With one final thrust of the volume she shuddered, screamed and collapsed euphorically onto the plush carpeting, only to be quickly swarmed by the eager group.

Her wool undergarments dampened, her face painted with a catatonic grin, Martha lay there for a moment before weakly standing up. Her mind still flooded with pleasure and her body throbbing, Martha knew she should return home, unable to deal with more arousal at this time. Stumbling toward the door Martha was run into by a girl driven mad by the indoor plumbing and was thrust into a table, unwittingly turning on the radio.

Surprised by the sudden electronic pornography flooding her ears her knees gave way and she was held down by weakness unable to fight off the radio rapist. Wave after wave rushed over her until finally, slowly, an intense climax overcame her as the ballad finished. Twice in one night, she mused, as she drifted off to dreams of motor buggies and cotton dresses.

[celldog]

no, celldog , it's a beard, a mustache, long locks on the side of your head, a hat, and in most cases glasses. I know you're not into hating jews (just yet) but no, it's not as simple as you thought.
I'm sorry if you can't see how easy it would be to "exploit" this.
nice try on the sidestep though (not really).

(lol, spiderman mask)

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/windows/images/vincentKabulwomen.jpg

Sparkie...are you blind??????? :whatever:

This woman might have a "beard" for all we know!! Heck...it might not even be a "WOMAN"!!! We can't see the face!!!!

[Whirlysplat]

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/windows/images/vincentKabulwomen.jpg

Sparkie...are you blind??????? :whatever:

This woman might have a "beard" for all we know!! Heck...it might not even be a "WOMAN"!!! We can't see the face!!!!

Is that a Tusken Raider?

- Whirly

[Addendum]

It's a trap!

[Mr Sparkle]

Sparkie...are you blind??????? :whatever:

This woman might have a "beard" for all we know!! Heck...it might not even be a "WOMAN"!!! We can't see the face!!!!


LOL, again, not adressing the point I made right.
:rolleyes: surprise surprise.

[celldog]

LOL, again, not adressing the point I made right.
:rolleyes: surprise surprise.


You're not making any points! You're avoiding the obvious!! Like you always do! You are trying to compare a beard, hat and glasses to a fully covered face!!!

You sound really silly right now.

[Whirlysplat]

LOL, again, not adressing the point I made right.
:rolleyes: surprise surprise.

You can see though how a veil is a good disguise. In many ways it is not unlike a full face mask Mr Sparkle.

:)

- Whirly

[Whirlysplat]

You're not making any points! You're avoiding the obvious!! Like you always do! You are trying to compare a beard, hat and glasses to a fully covered face!!!

You sound really silly right now.

I also use many of these items in my disguise kit.

- Whirly

[hippy fascist]

I'm willing to bet the majority of people wearing them only do so 'cause they have even more facial hair than that Jewish guy. Think about it, you're ugly but want to get a man...cover that face up :up:

[Whirlysplat]

I'm willing to bet the majority of people wearing them only do so 'cause they have even more facial hair than that Jewish guy. Think about it, you're ugly but want to get a man...cover that face up :up:

That is a very cruel racial stereotype.

:(

- Whirly

[hippy fascist]

That is a very cruel racial stereotype.

:(

- Whirly

:dry:

[Mr Sparkle]

You can see though how a veil is a good disguise. In many ways it is not unlike a full face mask Mr Sparkle.

:)

- Whirly

yes, I already said that, and might I add, I also think it's opressive.
I just don't see why they don't think it's an "outrage" or "dangerous" for hasidic jews to dress and look they way they do.
I frankly don't care either way. I'm just astonished by the "religious tolerance" of the self-righteous westerners.

[Mr Sparkle]

You're not making any points! You're avoiding the obvious!! Like you always do! You are trying to compare a beard, hat and glasses to a fully covered face!!!

You sound really silly right now.

LOL, do you know that's the way bank robbers usually (and successfully I might add) conceal their features.
I'll bet you didn't know that.

[Whirlysplat]

yes, I already said that, and might I add, I also think it's opressive.
I just don't see why they don't think it's an "outrage" or "dangerous" for hasidic jews to dress and look they way they do.
I frankly don't care either way. I'm just astonished by the "religious tolerance" of the self-righteous westerners.

As you know Sparkle I am "godless" and a heathen.

I find organised religion of all stripes difficult to tolerate.

- Whirly

[hippy fascist]

LOL, do you know that's the way bank robbers usually (and successfully I might add) conceal their features.
I'll bet you didn't know that.

but with most people the nose and eyes are the most distinctive features. Neither of which are concealed by traditional Jewish garb. The burqa however does cover these areas

[Whirlysplat]

LOL, do you know that's the way bank robbers usually (and successfully I might add) conceal their features.
I'll bet you didn't know that.

exactly

I also use many of these items in my disguise kit.

- Whirly



http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/52/61/22846152.jpg

- Whirly

[celldog]

but with most people the nose and eyes are the most distinctive features. Neither of which are concealed by traditional Jewish garb. The burqa however does cover these areas


Exactly. :whatever:

[Sandman138]

No-one can deny that in the modern world (western at least) people in the majority have a HARDER time and LESS rights than minorities. If an asian lad get's beaten up by white kids it's automatically a race-related issue whereas if an asian lad kicks crap out a white kid it's just a fight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g7zlJx9u2E

I can.

[celldog]

http://www.happyfunpundit.com/hfp/images/burkas.jpg



Now ....we "know" that these are women. But can't you see that a man could easy hide under one of these???

[Fenrir]

http://www.happyfunpundit.com/hfp/images/burkas.jpg



Now ....we "know" that these are women. But can't you see that a man could easy hide under one of these???

Yeah, and you can see SO MANY Muslim women wearing those in Europe. Posting pics of burkas from Afghanistan to make a case on banning them in Europe (where practically no one wears that kind of dress, the debate is primarily focused on the face veil) doesn't make you look very smart y'know. :o

[logansoldcigar]

http://www.happyfunpundit.com/hfp/images/burkas.jpg



Now ....we "know" that these are women. But can't you see that a man could easy hide under one of these???

wouldnt happen. Transvestites aint allowed in islam.

[logansoldcigar]

Guess it's "buh-bye telephone, cell phone and Internet" for War Lord. :up:

Nah. without thwe phone, how can he phone "0800-Fat-sweaty-girls" to get his little rocks off

[logansoldcigar]

At least until the Islamicists try and impose their will.

dont we all have laws imposed on us based on the morals (mainly faith based) of those passing the laws?

How many americans feel the government shopuld fund embryonic stemm cell research?
yet the president said it was beyond a line he would cross.

how many people want gay marriage? and the argument against? "it goes against god"

or are faith based laws only wrong if it isnt christianity?

[hippy fascist]

dont we all have laws imposed on us based on the morals (mainly faith based) of those passing the laws?

How many americans feel the government shopuld fund embryonic stemm cell research?
yet the president said it was beyond a line he would cross.

how many people want gay marriage? and the argument against? "it goes against god"

or are faith based laws only wrong if it isnt christianity?

actually all faith based laws are wrong, period. Religion is a CHOICE, law is mandatory. Law should be based on right and wrong not some religious mumbo jumbo.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I can't believe this is even a question.
Sure, go ahead and outlaw them, if you want to be evil, oppressive despots.
You can't force people to ignore their beliefs, they let American Indians ingest PEYOTE in PRISON for religious rituals for Hell's sake.

Although, I must say, that pic on the first post is some comedic Orwellian double-speak.:up:

[Erzengel]

http://www.happyfunpundit.com/hfp/images/burkas.jpg


http://www.gamesblog.it/uploads/pacman.jpg

[Morg]

Take a few days off Whirlysplat, I had it with you.

[LouFerignoDemon]

Screw your prime minister and screw the French goverment in particular, because they don't want women to cover their heads, something that is required in the religion. I'm sure your prime minister says that he is highly religous but so does Bush and Bin Laden, saying something doesn't make it true.

Yes, it's the exact same thing as wearing a ski mask because I'm sure those ladies are gearing up to play hockey.


See, when I saw this thread, I was perfectly fine with staying out until I saw this.

ONLY an ignorant man would say this. One proud, and uninformed.

Screw MY government? Last time I checked, MY government didn't bomb a country needlessly, and then used lies to justify it. So you can take your crap and shove it.

[celldog]

Yeah, and you can see SO MANY Muslim women wearing those in Europe. Posting pics of burkas from Afghanistan to make a case on banning them in Europe (where practically no one wears that kind of dress, the debate is primarily focused on the face veil) doesn't make you look very smart y'know. :o

What the freak does it matter??? Afgan or Europe?????? Good Greif!! You guys are really trying to poke holes in this!! It's laughable. How about this picture from Europe????
http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/061117/061117_burqa_hmed_9a.hmedium.jpg (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/)

This make you feel better?? You still can't see their faces!!

[Mr Sparkle]

What the freak does it matter??? Afgan or Europe?????? Good Greif!! You guys are really trying to poke holes in this!! It's laughable. How about this picture from Europe????\
http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/061117/061117_burqa_hmed_9a.hmedium.jpg (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/)

This make you feel better?? You still can't see their faces!!

and?

[hippy fascist]

and?

and 90% of human communication is through visual mediums. Facial expressions, the eyes, body language, etc... you lose al these when you put on a burqa resulting in distrust in others. Basic psychology, we fear that which we distrust, fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to the dark side...:csad:

how long before this...
http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/061117/061117_burqa_hmed_9a.hmedium.jpg

becomes this...

http://alt1040.com/uploads/darth_vader_mr_helmet.jpg

:wow:

[Mr Sparkle]

and 90% of human communication is through visual mediums. Facial expressions, the eyes, body language, etc... you lose al these when you put on a burqa resulting in distrust in others. Basic psychology, we fear that which we distrust, fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to the dark side...:csad:


ohhhhhhh. we must regulate and eliminate that which we fear , unfounded as this fear might be.

got it.

[Kyalesyin]

and 90% of human communication is through visual mediums. Facial expressions, the eyes, body language, etc... you lose al these when you put on a burqa resulting in distrust in others. Basic psychology, we fear that which we distrust, fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to the dark side...

you cannot resist the power of the dark side

[celldog]

and 90% of human communication is through visual mediums. Facial expressions, the eyes, body language, etc... you lose al these when you put on a burqa resulting in distrust in others. Basic psychology, we fear that which we distrust, fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to the dark side...:csad:

how long before this...
http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/061117/061117_burqa_hmed_9a.hmedium.jpg

becomes this...

http://alt1040.com/uploads/darth_vader_mr_helmet.jpg

:wow:

We fear not being able to identify potential terror suspects AND THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH THEM...THAT INCLUDES WOMEN!!
http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/terrorismsi.htm

Faces Dude,,,, FACES!!!!

[Fenrir]

What the freak does it matter??? Afgan or Europe?????? Good Greif!! You guys are really trying to poke holes in this!! It's laughable. How about this picture from Europe????
http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/061117/061117_burqa_hmed_9a.hmedium.jpg (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/)

This make you feel better?? You still can't see their faces!!

Yes and the difference is that in that picture one can make out it is a woman without even looking at her looking at her bare face. The face veil is not the same as a burkha (which covers the entire body with a single garment). And no, men can't run around wearing face veils and not hope to be discovered. One of my Arab friends once showed me a news article about some guy in Saudi Arabia wearing an abaya (long black garment worn by Muslim women) and niqab (face veil) to enter the restricted area in a women's lingerie store but was quickly caught by the guard. There are many, many visible differences between the physical appearance and habits of the two sexes even after obscuring their faces and unless there are some really feminine terrorists out there (unlikely), I doubt we'd have to worry about jihadists carrying tools of destruction clad in women's clothing anytime soon.

So cut the paranoia, drop the hypersensitive attitude and start acting like a grown-up for a change. :up:

[Fenrir]

We fear not being able to identify potential terror suspects AND THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH THEM...THAT INCLUDES WOMEN!!
http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/terrorismsi.htm

Faces Dude,,,, FACES!!!!

As far as I know, Muslim women don't object female officers from inspecting them. It's only the males they cover themselves from. Instead of chopping the entire leg for a small bruise on the foot by banning face veils altogether, why not recruit enough female officers to go with every unit so that identification of veiled women is not a problem?

[LouFerignoDemon]

ohhhhhhh. we must regulate and eliminate that which we fear , unfounded as this fear might be.

got it.

That somehow reminds me of a similar event. I can't remember it... Everybody used to do it. Geez. What is it? Oh yeah, racism against black people, biased towards homosexuals, and of course, Hitler's hatred of the Jewish people. They put a wrench into his plan, and he feared not having a perfect race...so he eliminated them. Or tried.

Either way, that's what it reminds me of.

Oh yeah, and Stalin.

[The Overlord]

The thing is freedom is not an absolute, because nothing is an absolute. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire is a crime and is not covered by freedom of speech and is a crime. Likewise there circumstrances hwere the burka can pose a threat to public safety. For example if a woman in a burka is driving, how do know that the burka won't impair her vision and make her more likely to cause a car crash? Also doesn't taking photo ID with a burka defeats the purpose, no one identify you if are masked in the picture, so the photo ID is useless. A total may be too extreme, but there may be stituations where the burka could come into conflict with public safety, public safety should be considered more important. I think Sikhs shouldn't be allowed to wear their daggers in public for the very same reason.

[hippy fascist]

not only that but IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM. It's a tool of over zealous governments used to oppress women. Headscarf no problem, you wear that for religious reasons. The burkha is an unecessary tool of various FASCIST middle eastern "governments". So to claim religious freedom is bull****. As it has nothing to do with religious freedom it is about intolerance and OPPRESSION of women.

on top of that I cannot see a good reason why hoodies get banned in many places yet these do not.

[LouFerignoDemon]

You could also say that about sunglasses. Or the idiocy of the driver itself. They aren't deliberately blinding themselves.

But if such is the case, we can just instruct everybody to drive perfectly as instructed in driving school, and bust every single person we see slumping, or using one hand, or not looking at the road for only a second.

Point standing, if the burqa falls in their face, I doubt they're like turkeys, and would leave it that way. Like if your sunglasses fell, or if a newspaper flipped up out of your seat due to the wind of an open window, you'd fix it.

[LouFerignoDemon]

not only that but IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM. It's a tool of over zealous governments used to oppress women. Headscarf no problem, you wear that for religious reasons. The burkha is an unecessary tool of various FASCIST middle eastern "governments".

And it's also their individual style now. And I would never try to remove that from someone who actually wanted it.

[hippy fascist]

And it's also their individual style now. And I would never try to remove that from someone who actually wanted it.

Brainwashing and conditioning are not personal style

[Fenrir]

For example if a woman in a burka is driving, how do know that the burka won't impair her vision and make her more likely to cause a car crash?

Jeez, you guys are acting as if these women have only recently adopted the trend of wearing face veils (burkhas are practically non-existent outside of Pakistan and Afghanistan, I believe). It's been what, like more than half a decade since September 11 and only now are these people speaking of difficulty in identifying suspects and potential car crashes? Give me a ****ing break. It's obvious this is one of the negative outcomes towards the Muslim community in light of the cartoon controversy a year ago and people are trying to justify it with shallow and poorly concieved reasons.

I have no problem with the Dutch banning the veil on fair grounds, but so far their rationale is not convincing and appears to be a pretext to disguise the deteriorating relations between the Danish and the immigrant Muslims.

[LouFerignoDemon]

Brainwashing and conditioning are not personal style

And they have the choice now. And we're telling them they don't. THAT is conditioning.

And then there's all these reasons why, telling people this and that, and THAT is brainwashing.

[The Overlord]

Jeez, you guys are acting as if these women have only recently adopted the trend of wearing face veils (burkhas are practically non-existent outside of Pakistan and Afghanistan, I believe). It's been what, like more than half a decade since September 11 and only now are these people speaking of difficulty in identifying suspects and potential car crashes? Give me a ****ing break. It's obvious this is one of the negative outcomes towards the Muslim community in light of the cartoon controversy a year ago and people are trying to justify it with shallow and poorly concieved reasons.

I have no problem with the Dutch banning the veil on fair grounds, but so far their rationale is not convincing and appears to be a pretext to disguise the deteriorating relations between the Danish and the immigrant Muslims.

How do you know the burkhas doesn't cause car crashs, do you have a study to prove otherwise?
Women in Pakistan and Afghanistan weren't allowed to drive cars so that wasn't issue, about how do you that in the west where anyone can drive a car, that burkhas don't cause car crashes?

[LouFerignoDemon]

How do you know the burkhas doesn't cause car crashs, do you have a study to prove otherwise.

How do you know they do? You can't ask for a study, or any sort of proof, without at least going through a logical argument first.

[Fenrir]

How do you know the burkhas doesn't cause car crashs, do you have a study to prove otherwise.

You are the one who's been making the claim of burkhas being a hazard to driving and a potential cause of car crashes. The burden of proof rests solely upon you.

[hippy fascist]

How do you know the burkhas doesn't cause car crashs, do you have a study to prove otherwise.

Dude, try to provide valid points not made up crap, you're just grasping at straws to try and get in an argument that's out of your depth

[Fenrir]

Women in Pakistan and Afghanistan weren't allowed to drive cars so that wasn't issue, about how do you that in the west where anyone can drive a car, that burkhas don't cause car crashes?

Umm, women can drive cars in Pakistan. And in Bahrain. And the UAE. And in Egypt. And in Lebanon. And in many other Arab countries as well where women observe the tradition of the face veil. :dry:

[celldog]

Yes and the difference is that in that picture one can make out it is a woman without even looking at her looking at her bare face.

You know it's a woman only because the picture says so and there are obviously some Muslim men in the background teling that she's "FREE"! :whatever: Otherwise the eyes are not enuff!! There are lots of people that look similar in that area.



The face veil is not the same as a burkha (which covers the entire body with a single garment).

Who cares!! The effect is the same!! HIDDEN FACES!!! What part of that do you not get?? Security dude!! Photo I.D.'s ...check verification....voting.

And no, men can't run around wearing face veils and not hope to be discovered. One of my Arab friends once showed me a news article about some guy in Saudi Arabia wearing an abaya (long black garment worn by Muslim women) and niqab (face veil) to enter the restricted area in a women's lingerie store but was quickly caught by the guard.

And you base this off of "ONE" incident you "heard" about??????? What about the ones he didn't hear about that "DID" get thru??? All this does is comfirm to me that what I said is true!! It's a disguise to some men who could exploit it to an evil end!!



There are many, many visible differences between the physical appearance and habits of the two sexes even after obscuring their faces and unless there are some really feminine terrorists out there (unlikely), I doubt we'd have to worry about jihadists carrying tools of destruction clad in women's clothing anytime soon.


And we didn't think airplanes would used as missles either did we??????? They think outta the box. If it's possible, we need to be alert and proactive! I applaud the Dutch for have some spine. OPh let's not forget last year when they got death threats over that Muhammad cartoon.




So cut the paranoia, drop the hypersensitive attitude and start acting like a grown-up for a change. :up:

Why don't you ditch the rose-colored shades and grow a pair.

[Fenrir]

You know it's a woman only because the picture says so and there are obviously some Muslim men in the background teling that she's "FREE"! Otherwise the eyes are not enuff!! There are lots of people that look similar in that area.

Only to an unexperienced jackass maybe. The hands, the eyes, the voice, the habits and the overall physical appearance is enough for anyone to discern whether it is a man or a woman even if the face is hidden.

Who cares!! The effect is the same!! HIDDEN FACES!!! What part of that do you not get?? Security dude!! Photo I.D.'s ...check verification....voting.

Umm, are you like dumb or something? Identification of veiled females has never been a problem at airports and many other places. I've seen veiled women inspected separately by female officers. And I'm sure many don't mind lifting their veil for a couple of seconds for the purpose of identification when demanded by the immigration officer since he has seen their photo already. Security is not even an issue here.

And you base this off of "ONE" incident you "heard" about???????What about the ones he didn't hear about that "DID" get thru??? All this does is comfirm to me that what I said is true!! It's a disguise to some men who could exploit it to an evil end!!

Just bring me one single instance of a terrorist that got away with dressing as a woman in a burkha or a veil and I'll concede the argument. Simple. This is not a personal issue for me and hence, serves little purpose for me to prolong this point of the debate even after proven wrong.

And we didn't think airplanes would used as missles either did we??????? They think outta the box. If it's possible, we need to be alert and proactive! I applaud the Dutch for have some spine.

I think in more than a decade of bloodshedding by these terrorists, if anyone could've exploited the idea they would have already. Especially when peeping toms have already tried it.

A man can cover his face, but he can't walk like a woman, talk like a woman and behave like a woman. And I doubt there are any terrorists who are feminine enough to pull such an effective disguise.

OPh let's not forget last year when they got death threats over that Muhammad cartoon.

And that is exactly what all this is about. There is bad blood between the Danish and the Muslim immigrant community and this whole debate is an example of that. Tell me, after more than 5 years of the mess that is the "War on Terror", only now are they facing difficulties identifying veiled women? Suddenly they've become security threats? Traffic hazards? Oh and what a coincidence! The only ones who've proposed this idea are the ones who were at the center of a global controversy with the Muslims? Say it ain't so...

Why don't you ditch the rose-colored shades and grow a pair.

So says the one who can't even tell the difference between man and woman without looking at their faces. :whatever:

[Mr Sparkle]

Brainwashing and conditioning are not personal style

you realize thousands upon thousands of people think the same about christians.

[Spider-Bite]

children in the U.S. are brainwashed into being christain all the time. What do you think it is when a 5 year old is brought into church and exposed to guys screaming, talking in tongues, and pretending to faint all over the place?

Then they are broght home to watch animated bible stories, where their parents tell how the non christains are all infidels?

[hippy fascist]

you realize thousands upon thousands of people think the same about christians.

so do I :huh:

[Mr Sparkle]

so do I :huh:

I know, what should we ban christians from doing?

[hippy fascist]

I know, what should we ban christians from doing?

BUT BURKHAS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM! Don't try to make this about religious oppression, it's not. Since they have nothing to do with religion I return to my ski mask argument.

Do some reasearch then come back.

B'bye!

[The Overlord]

You are the one who's been making the claim of burkhas being a hazard to driving and a potential cause of car crashes. The burden of proof rests solely upon you.

Okay fine, I'm just saying it could be a problem and sometimes public safety can trump perosnal expression in certain cases.

[Mr Sparkle]

BUT BURKHAS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM! Don't try to make this about religious oppression, it's not. Since they have nothing to do with religion I return to my ski mask argument.

Do some reasearch then come back.

B'bye!

I'm not "trying" it is about religious opression.
sorry if you're not getting that.
"do some research" LMAO. maybe you should do some research yourself.

[hippy fascist]

Okay fine, I'm just saying it could be a problem and sometimes public safety can trump perosnal expression in certain cases.

I think the fact that the driving test is so easy a monkey could pass it is far more of a threat than a one in a billion tiny possibilty. :o

[hippy fascist]

I'm not "trying" it is about religious opression.
sorry if you're not getting that.
"do some research" LMAO. maybe you should do some research yourself.

and why exactly?

If I walk around in a ski mask I will be told to remove it arrested. I cannot defend this on religious grounds as it has nothing to do with religion

which funnily enough neither does the burkha.

So what your saying is that what any non-muslim is not allowed to do muslims should be

dude, is that...yes...I think it is...what's the word...oh yes, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

DUDE! You won the michael moore prize for retarded brainfarts

If you're going to reply to this post at least cite the issue and some evidence rather than ignoring the point and pretending you're right in order to perpetuate the illusion that you are not, once again, massively out of your depth.

cue post with no relevance and sparkle saying I'm wrong because I am :whatever:

[The Overlord]

I think the fact that the driving test is so easy a monkey could pass it is far more of a threat than a one in a billion tiny possibilty. :o

This is why I don't drive, its needlessly expensive, I prefer public transportation its far more cost effective. I think there should be stricter guidelines in order to get a drivers licenses.

[Danger Mouse]

Burkhas are not required by Islam. Head scarf, yes, but not burkhas.

That being said, one should be given the freedom to wear it if one wishes so. Same argument as one should be given the freedom not to wear an article of clothing.

However, given the inherent security risks, wearers of burkhas must comply when directed by the authorities to temporarily remove the burkhas for identification purposes such as going through immigration checkpoints or court appearances. Seeing how burkhas are not a requirement in Islam, I do not see how this is a problem.

[hippy fascist]

Burkhas are not required by Islam. Head scarf, yes, but not burkhas.

That being said, one should be given the freedom to wear it if one wishes so. Same argument as one should be given the freedom not to wear an article of clothing.

However, given the inherent security risks, wearers of burkhas must comply when directed by the authorities to temporarily remove the burkhas for identification purposes such as going through immigration checkpoints or court appearances. Seeing how burkhas are not a requirement in Islam, I do not see how this is a problem.

exactly, finally someone who actually knows what they're talking about! :yay:

[Darthphere]

exactly, finally someone who actually agrees with my viewpoint :yay:


Fixed.:up:

[Fenrir]

However, given the inherent security risks, wearers of burkhas must comply when directed by the authorities to temporarily remove the burkhas for identification purposes such as going through immigration checkpoints or court appearances. Seeing how burkhas are not a requirement in Islam, I do not see how this is a problem.

I was under the impression that some ultra-conservative sects of Islam demand it, hence why it is so popular in Saudi Arabia and can be seen in many other Arab countries and even in non-Arab countries that have Muslim populations.

[Darthphere]

I was under the impression that some ultra-conservative sects of Islam demand it, hence why it is so popular in Saudi Arabia and even in non-Arab countries that have Muslim populations.


Pretty much what I was lead to believe, like certain sects within Christianity dont allow for celebrations of birthdays and other holidays.:huh:

[Danger Mouse]

exactly, finally someone who actually knows what they're talking about! :yay:
:)

Fixed.:up:
It's not a viewpoint. It's fact. Burkhas are not a requirement in Islam. And governments have absolute right to impose and execute laws for the aversion of security risks. And this particular law DOES NOT infringe Islam at all because, as I have said time and again, burkhas are not a requirement in Islam. Even the strictest of sects instructs the covering of the entire body EXCEPT the face and hands for the obvious purpose of identification.

Not a viewpoint.
I was under the impression that some ultra-conservative sects of Islam demand it, hence why it is so popular in Saudi Arabia and can be seen in many other Arab countries and even in non-Arab countries that have Muslim populations.
As I have mentioned above, the strictest of sects in Islam demands only the covering of the entire body except the face and hands. The wearing of burkhas is a CULTURAL thing, not a religious thing.

In Saudi Arabia, the heart of Islam, millions and millions of people go there annually for pilgrimage. Yet a large percentage of female pilgrims do not wear burkhas. Why? Because it is not required of Islam. Admittedly, there are some female pilgrims who wear them, but not because it was imposed upon them by religion.

Non-Arab nations with sizeable Muslim population such as China, Indonesia, Malaysia, and some Eastern European nations do not impose the wearing of burkhas upon the ladies.

The wearers of burkhas who are under the impression that Islam imposes it upon them are mistaken, I dare say.

[Darthphere]

It's not a viewpoint. It's fact. Burkhas are not a requirement in Islam. And governments have absolute right to impose and execute laws for the aversion of security risks. And this particular law DOES NOT infringe Islam at all because, as I have said time and again, burkhas are not a requirement in Islam. Even the strictest of sects instructs the covering of the entire body EXCEPT the face and hands for the obvious purpose of identification.

Not a viewpoint.


Not really, since different sects operate under different rules. Pentacostal, Baptist, Jehova's Witness, Catholics, all christians, yet, they operate under different set of rules.

[Danger Mouse]

Not really, since different sects operate under different rules. Pentacostal, Baptist, Jehova's Witness, Catholics, all christians, yet, they operate under different set of rules.
I agree. But in Islam, even the strictest of sects require the covering of the entire body EXCEPT the face and the hands. There is no burkha requirement.

So, which sect in Islam, pray tell, does the law infringe upon?

[Darthphere]

I agree. But in Islam, even the strictest of sects require the covering of the entire body EXCEPT the face and the hands. There is no burkha requirement.

So, which sect in Islam, pray tell, does the law infringe upon?


I cant name one, im not up to date with the many sects of Islam as I should be, im just saying, its a possibility.

[Danger Mouse]

I cant name one, im not up to date with the many sects of Islam as I should be, im just saying, its a possibility.
Let me help you then - NONE. As I've said, the strictest Islamic sect only demands the covering of the entire body except the face and the hands.

Oh, and how do I know this? I'm a Muslim.

[Crowforge]

are you dutch?

[Danger Mouse]

are you dutch?
No. But I can fairly assure you that there's no such thing as a Dutch sect in Islam. The Muslims in Denmark most certainly belong to one of the established sects in Islam and this I can say for certain as well: no sect in Islam demands the wearing of burkhas, regardless where on this planet you are.

[Mr Sparkle]

and why exactly?

If I walk around in a ski mask I will be told to remove it arrested. I cannot defend this on religious grounds as it has nothing to do with religion

which funnily enough neither does the burkha.

So what your saying is that what any non-muslim is not allowed to do muslims should be

dude, is that...yes...I think it is...what's the word...oh yes, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

DUDE! You won the michael moore prize for retarded brainfarts

If you're going to reply to this post at least cite the issue and some evidence rather than ignoring the point and pretending you're right in order to perpetuate the illusion that you are not, once again, massively out of your depth.

cue post with no relevance and sparkle saying I'm wrong because I am :whatever:


okay, first of all, you're a ****ing idiot. let's just say it.

a burqa IS required under religious beliefs because of INTERPRETATION douchebag.
are you that much of a
moron that you do not understand the importance of interpretation in religion?
when you try and be high and mighty be sure to get your facts straight lest you look like a poorly educated buffoon that's just trying too hard.

you're the one trying to prepetuate an illusion.
do you realize that absolutely no part of your post adress the fact that it is not religious?
only this:

"which funnily enough neither does the burkha."

tell me which part of this is the incontrovertible proof that I'm looking for?
the fact that you are saying it? where is YOUR PROOF?
not good enough, and the fact you're a simpleton trying to pass his ill-conceived contempt for a specific section of religion is not good enough.
try again idiot, this time try harder.
I have made my research it is quite obvious you have not.
I have a real soft spot in my heart for someone so bombastically retarded that requires proof for an opossing viewpoint while providing NONE themselves.
next time you try to pick a fight try and pick a fight with an equal you intellectual midget.
you'll get nothing but contempt from me and your pathetic posturing is showing the little and rather fragile grasp you have on these issues on which you so eagerly make your ignorance known.
do yourself a favor, go research this yourself , then shut the **** up.

[Mr Sparkle]

Let me help you then - NONE. As I've said, the strictest Islamic sect only demands the covering of the entire body except the face and the hands.

Oh, and how do I know this? I'm a Muslim.

isn't this an interpretation of the Muslim "modesty" or "propriety" law, or something like that, by fundamentalist islamic groups?
edit: I looked for it, and it is infact and interpretation of Islamic law, "sartorial Hijab" it's called, and like this interpretation, there are also interpretations that speak of NO head covering or covering of the body, and say that these laws where strictly for the wives of the prophet himself.
it seems that there are many interpretations of the "law"or "requirement"of Hijab.
nonetheless, they exist. proving that it does indeed have to do with religion, regardless of wether you agree with it or not.

[Danger Mouse]

isn't this an interpretation of the Muslim "modesty" or "propriety" law, or something like that, by fundamentalist islamic groups?
No, it's not an interpretation of the law. It is, in fact, clear and unambiguous law. Not subject to personal interpretation.

And it is definitely not the product of fundamentalist Islamic group. It's the decree of the Council of Fatwa of the Islamic Sects. Please do not try to make it as though it's something Bin Laden or the Iranian President thought up.

[Danger Mouse]

edit: I looked for it, and it is infact and interpretation of Islamic law, "sartorial Hijab" it's called, and like this interpretation, there are also interpretations that speak of NO head covering or covering of the body, and say that these laws where strictly for the wives of the prophet himself.
it seems that there are many interpretations of the "law"or "requirement"of Hijab.
nonetheless, they exist. proving that it does indeed have to do with religion, regardless of wether you agree with it or not.
Yes, there are indeed sects that speak of NO head covering or covering of the body. I never proclaimed otherwise. In fact, surely you understood that when I said the strictest of the Islamic sects imposes the covering of the body except the face and hands, it would suggest that there are sects with lesser requirement.

And there aren't many 'interpretations'. Just four. FOUR. And of the four, the strictest demands the covering of entire body except the face and the hands.

[Mr Sparkle]

No, it's not an interpretation of the law. It is, in fact, clear and unambiguous law. Not subject to personal interpretation.

And it is definitely not the product of fundamentalist Islamic group. It's the decree of the Council of Fatwa of the Islamic Sects. Please do not try to make it as though it's something Bin Laden or the Iranian President thought up.

:huh: which part of my post said that.
fundamental islam to me does not equal terrorism, that's Muslim radicals, infact what little information I could gather in the short time, said that Burqas where used in afghanistan BEFORE the taliban came into power. I haven't looked at what year the Burqa came to be, but It could be really old.
and interpretation in religion, happens DM, even if we don't agree with it.
it can be used and corrupted by men, but no less that Falwell asking for money on televison, or anything similar. there are many things that catholics do for instance, that are NOWHERE in the bible, and some beliefs held by them vary from other similar religions based solely on interpretation.
again, why interpretation is important.

[Danger Mouse]

:huh: which part of my post said that.
fundamental islam to me does not equal terrorism, that's Muslim radicals, infact what little information I could gather in the short time, said that Burqas where used in afghanistan BEFORE the taliban came into power. I haven't looked at what year the Burqa came to be, but It could be really old.
and interpretation in religion, happens DM, even if we don't agree with it.
it can be used and corrupted by men, but no less that Falwell asking for money on televison, or anything similar. there are many things that catholics do for instance, that are NOWHERE in the bible, and some beliefs held by them vary from other similar religions based solely on interpretation.
again, why interpretation is important.
To understand how Islam works, you need to study the principles of Islamic Jurisprudence. Unlike other religions, Christianity especially, Islam is NOT open to personal interpretations. The duty of such interpretations lie only upon the Council of the four Sunni sects in Islam which convenes regularly to discuss grey matters.

That being said, it is an established FACT that NONE of the Muslim sects demands the covering of the face. If a Muslim lady decides to dorn one, then it is her personal choice, not one dictated by religion.

[Mr Sparkle]

Yes, there are indeed sects that speak of NO head covering or covering of the body. I never proclaimed otherwise. In fact, surely you understood that when I said the strictest of the Islamic sects imposes the covering of the body except the face and hands, it would suggest that there are sects with lesser requirement.

And there aren't many 'interpretations'. Just four. FOUR. And of the four, the strictest demands the covering of entire body except the face and the hands.


dude, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you don't know your Islam, being muslim you should know it better than me, I'm speaking solely about interpretations, regional things.
the Burqa or whatever it's called ( I heard it refer to by another name before, the one with the slit instead of the grid has a different name I just haven't found it) seems to have it's roots in religion, and wether we agree with it or not, or wether it's true islam or not, those who wear it and those who think that their womefolk (chuckle I always wanted to use "womenfolk"in conversation) should wear it are convinced it is.
and that's their "belief" I think it's opressive, look back on the thread, but so is denying people their belief.
NBC is going to edit around madonna being cruficied, yet that's how they killed Jesus.
catholics worship saints (even though god speaks against that) and it's all a matter of interpretation.
In mexico, there's a holy mother, who appeared to a Mexican indian, a mulato version of Mary if you will, and pope john Paul once kissed a representation of it.
again....I don't dig religion, I don't agree with burqas and in some cases, removing the face convering should be required, but banning it, again, seems the hypocritical thing to do, and trying to do so, by denying it's religious validity seems odd to me.

[Mr Sparkle]

That being said, it is an established FACT that NONE of the Muslim sects demands the covering of the face. If a Muslim lady decides to dorn one, then it is her personal choice, not one dictated by religion.


I'm not disputing this and arguing with a lawyer is useless.
if there's no religious root for the Burqa though, where does it come from?

[Danger Mouse]

dude, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you don't know your Islam, being muslim you should know it better than me, I'm speaking solely about interpretations, regional things.
the Burqa or whatever it's called ( I heard it refer to by another name before, the one with the slit instead of the grid has a different name I just haven't found it) seems to have it's roots in religion, and wether we agree with it or not, or wether it's true islam or not, those who wear it and those who think that their womefolk (chuckle I always wanted to use "womenfolk"in conversation) should wear it are convinced it is.
and that's their "belief" I think it's opressive, look back on the thread, but so is denying people their belief.
NBC is going to edit around madonna being cruficied, yet that's how they killed Jesus.
catholics worship saints (even though god speaks against that) and it's all a matter of interpretation.
I mexico, there's a wholy mother, who appeared to a Mexican indian, a mulato version of Mary if you will, and pope john Paul once kissed a representation of it.
again....I don't dig religion, I don't agree with burqas and in some cases, removing the face convering should be required, but banning it, again, seems the hypocritical thing to do, and trying to do so, by denying it's religious validity seems odd to me.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. The wearing of the face coverings (call it what you may) have NO roots in Islam. Nowhere since the time of Muhammad has there ever been a ruling against the exposure of the face. If some group believes it to be so, then I dare say that they have been mistaken. It was a misinterpretation of sorts.

Currently, the sects in Islam do not prohibit the exposure of the face.

But like I said, if the ladies do decide to wear them, then that's their right. But they MUST comply if the authorities demand that the face coverings be temporarily removed for identification purposes.

'Temporarily removed'. I totally disagree the total ban that the Dutch government is proposing.

[Mr Sparkle]

'Temporarily removed'. I totally disagree the total ban that the Dutch government is proposing.

yay we agree.

[Danger Mouse]

I'm not disputing this and arguing with a lawyer is useless.
if there's no religious root for the Burqa though, where does it come from?
It is a cultural thing. In Saudi Arabia, even back in the pagan days, everyone wore face coverings. Even the men.

But I'm no anthropological expert, so I wouldn't pretend to know. But what I do know is that it has no religious roots.

[Mr Sparkle]

It is a cultural thing. In Saudi Arabia, even back in the pagan days, everyone wore face coverings. Even the men.

But I'm no anthropological expert, so I wouldn't pretend to know. But what I do know is that it has no religious roots.

could it be called a religious thing now?

[Danger Mouse]

could it be called a religious thing now?
I wouldn't. They could, but they'd be wrong.

[Mr Sparkle]

I wouldn't. They could, but they'd be wrong.

i guess, again, we sort of agree.
oh btw, I wanted to be a lawyer once:csad:

[Danger Mouse]

i guess, again, we sort of agree.
oh btw, I wanted to be a lawyer once:csad:
And you would've made a fine one, too. :up:

[War Lord]

dont we all have laws imposed on us based on the morals (mainly faith based) of those passing the laws?

How many americans feel the government shopuld fund embryonic stemm cell research?
yet the president said it was beyond a line he would cross.

how many people want gay marriage? and the argument against? "it goes against god"

or are faith based laws only wrong if it isnt christianity?

I guess that depends on which morality you'd rather be under.

[hippy fascist]

okay, first of all, you're a ****ing idiot. let's just say it.

a burqa IS required under religious beliefs because of INTERPRETATION douchebag.
are you that much of a
moron that you do not understand the importance of interpretation in religion?
when you try and be high and mighty be sure to get your facts straight lest you look like a poorly educated buffoon that's just trying too hard.

you're the one trying to prepetuate an illusion.
do you realize that absolutely no part of your post adress the fact that it is not religious?
only this:

"which funnily enough neither does the burkha."

tell me which part of this is the incontrovertible proof that I'm looking for?
the fact that you are saying it? where is YOUR PROOF?
not good enough, and the fact you're a simpleton trying to pass his ill-conceived contempt for a specific section of religion is not good enough.
try again idiot, this time try harder.
I have made my research it is quite obvious you have not.
I have a real soft spot in my heart for someone so bombastically retarded that requires proof for an opossing viewpoint while providing NONE themselves.
next time you try to pick a fight try and pick a fight with an equal you intellectual midget.
you'll get nothing but contempt from me and your pathetic posturing is showing the little and rather fragile grasp you have on these issues on which you so eagerly make your ignorance known.
do yourself a favor, go research this yourself , then shut the **** up.

The fact that what I've said is directly followed by a statment from a muslim backing up what I said. :whatever:

No interpretation requires it. Only mysogenistic governments that want to keep women down

Game.Set.Match.

[hippy fascist]

could it be called a religious thing now?

dude now you're really grasping at straws.

Sparkle: "Mr dangermouse, do you think that maybe there's a 1 in a million chance that the crap I've been spouting thus far might actually have some slight basis in reality. Please say it is, I so sick of getting into arguments where I don't know what I'm talking about and looking like a moron." :csad:

DangerMouse: "no" :D

[hippy fascist]

No. But I can fairly assure you that there's no such thing as a Dutch sect in Islam. The Muslims in Denmark most certainly belong to one of the established sects in Islam and this I can say for certain as well: no sect in Islam demands the wearing of burkhas, regardless where on this planet you are.

I love how this post comes right before sparkle ranting about how wrong I am.

Now who looks like the "intellectual midget". Really man, if you can't even form a coherant metaphor give up trying to be an intelectual. Face it, you're not smart enough for these kind of conversations.:whatever:

[Erundur]

Jeez, (burkhas are practically non-existent outside of Pakistan and Afghanistan, I believe).

Afghan women up to the late '70's pre-soviet invasion did not wear burkhas a hijab/headscarf yes, the burkha was not adopted until the rise of the Taliban in the '90's.

How do you know the burkhas doesn't cause car crashs, do you have a study to prove otherwise? Women in Pakistan and Afghanistan weren't allowed to drive cars so that wasn't issue, about how do you that in the west where anyone can drive a car, that burkhas don't cause car crashes?

Women in both Pakistan and Afghanistan are allowed to drive cars, again, women were not allowed to drive during the era of the Taliban but pre-Talib and soviet invasion they were. I have seen women drive with a niqab (pic with the muslim women in front) and with the burkha no but in instances many of whom live in Afghanistan during the talib era, many who still wear'em is either those who wish to wear them, or because of the psychological effects the Talibs had put on them.

I was under the impression that some ultra-conservative sects of Islam demand it

Certain sects of Wahhabism does require it (I have spoken to them and they say in Islam... and so on...), they use a very strict interpretation of the Qur'an to justify there means.:dry:


And the article itself is talking about the Niqab and NOT the burkha, the burkha is mainly in afghanistan. :confused:

[LouFerignoDemon]

Why don't you ditch the rose-colored shades and grow a pair.

You know, that's really funny to say.


Here's a few reasons why.

One, to do this would be to buckle under heavy government control (funny coming from a democrat, but whatever). So you're not really making decisions for yourself anymore with this one, you are literally regulated.

Two, to do this would be to say that your life is so unbelievably dangerous, that you HAVE to do this to protect yourself. (Which could be taken as cowardice)

Three, by doing this, you will basically just be living in your little false security by trying to push some unfair thing on someone else, and literally not be safer.

So, in the end, YOU grow a pair. You're so afraid of them, apparently.

And four, if you can argue why these woman shouldn't be able to wear face veils, should I be able to argue why you should shut up?

[Mr Sparkle]

The fact that what I've said is directly followed by a statment from a muslim backing up what I said.

No interpretation requires it. Only mysogenistic governments that want to keep women down

Game.Set.Match.

the fact that AFTER your post someone posted in agreement?
are you insane? what, you knew a muslim was going to present your evidence for you? you coward you didn't know and as always don't know what you're talking about and now resort to cite dangermouse as if you for one second understood the coversation we had.
the burqa is based on Hijab, therefore based on religion, you mistake a sane conversation with an oposing viewpoint with agreement.
we DIDN'T agree.
he said Islam is not open to interpretation like catholicism.
but that's what his belief IS, like Christians believe catholics are wrong and viceversa.
idiot.
like I said, do your research adn then shut the **** up.


dude now you're really grasping at straws.

Sparkle: "Mr dangermouse, do you think that maybe there's a 1 in a million chance that the crap I've been spouting thus far might actually have some slight basis in reality. Please say it is, I so sick of getting into arguments where I don't know what I'm talking about and looking like a moron." :csad:

DangerMouse: "no" :D


LOL, I like how you never adress points, just do a little story to hide the fact that you know nothing and are just trying (and failing) to look as if you do.
I also love how you completely missed the point of our conversation.
the Burqa is deemed religious by those who wear it.
as Dangermouse put it HE wouldn't deem it religious but the people who use it do.
as I have shown, unlike you , there's research to back up my statement (law of Hijab and such) and now, like a moron you're trying to use my conversation with dangermouse as foundation for your non-argument.

but see:

I wouldn't. They could, but they'd be wrong.


sorry if you missed this, and sorry of you failed to understand the conversation douchebag, but again, you're out of your depth here.

[Darthphere]

Let me help you then - NONE. As I've said, the strictest Islamic sect only demands the covering of the entire body except the face and the hands.

Oh, and how do I know this? I'm a Muslim.


Oh really? Good for you, but that still doesnt remove the fact that there are hundreds, thousands of religious sects out there, and im sorry, you dont nkow all of them. Same way im Christian and cant name every single christian sect out there, so sorry with all due respect being muslim doesnt necessarily make you an expert on every single muslim sect out there.

[Mr Sparkle]

Oh really? Good for you, but that still doesnt remove the fact that there are hundreds, thousands of religious sects out there, and im sorry, you dont nkow all of them. Same way im Christian and cant name every single christian sect out there, so sorry with all due respect being muslim doesnt necessarily make you an expert on every single muslim sect out there.


Like I said yesterday and I'll say it again.
it's all about interpretation. Burqas are based on a muslim law, wether some Muslims consider that "true to islam" or not is inmaterial, the BELIEF of the people who DO is the matter at hand here.
I guess since the bible only speaks about guy on guy sex Lesbians are A ok.

[Darthphere]

Like I said yesterday and I'll say it again.
it's all about interpretation. Burqas are based on a muslim law, wether some Muslims consider that "true to islam" or not is inmaterial, the BELIEF of the people who DO is the matter at hand here.
I guess since the bible only speaks about guy on guy sex Lesbians are A ok.


Pretty much, I have an aunt who is Jehova's Witness, somehow they read the bible and said celebrating birthdays are evil.

[LouFerignoDemon]

Pretty much, I have an aunt who is Jehova's Witness, somehow they read the bible and said celebrating birthdays are evil.

Celebrating ANYTHING is evil to them.

So when they come up to my estate, I say that I'm setting up for Christmas, and am far too busy to talk.

[Darthphere]

Celebrating ANYTHING is evil to them.

So when they come up to my estate, I say that I'm setting up for Christmas, and am far too busy to talk.


I used to torture my cousin and be like "Hey, look at all my brithday and christmas presents" *evil grin*

[LouFerignoDemon]

I used to torture my cousin and be like "Hey, look at all my brithday and christmas presents" *evil grin*

I tend to make sure that I support or start Christmas, or whatever functions across the street from their churches.

[Danger Mouse]

Hippy fascist and Mr. Sparkle, please try to have a more civilised discussion without the personal attacks.

This goes to everyone else as well.

[Danger Mouse]

Oh really? Good for you, but that still doesnt remove the fact that there are hundreds, thousands of religious sects out there, and im sorry, you dont nkow all of them. Same way im Christian and cant name every single christian sect out there, so sorry with all due respect being muslim doesnt necessarily make you an expert on every single muslim sect out there.
Are you saying with absolute certainty that there are hundreds of Muslim sects out there?

There are only 2 divisions in Islam: Sunni and Shi'a. Within Sunni, there are only four sects: Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki and Shafie. Within Shi'a, only one.

For the record, the Sunnis have always regarded the Shi'ites as a deviationist group. Nevertheless, not discounting them for the purpose of this discussion, there are only five.

FIVE.

Other than those stated above, they are not a faction/sect of Islam though they may proclaim to be as their beliefs have diverted significantly from the 5 tenets of Islam and Islam's 6 pillars of faith.

So, of the five above, yes, I can say with certainty that none of them prohibit the exposure of the face.

[Edenbeast]

Burkas have nothing to do with islam religon
it is just some tradition in some arab countries
i live in egypt (which is a muslim country) and no one wears them here!

Yep, I agree with you to some extent, cuz I do live in Egypt too (well am Egyptian!). Actually its quite diverse you could see a woman in very tight clothes walking side by side to a veiled woman down the streets, or a veiled mom walking up the street along with her daughter which is dressed in kinda revealing clothes, I think this reflects how divided the Egyptian society is they don't have uniformity or a true identity; a torn apart community.