Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

dutch voting to ban burqa in public

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
The Burkha, whilst it could be argued to be Hijaab, is not a religious requirement but rather a cultural item of clothing only found in certain areas of the Arab world.


Incorrect, the hijaab is a requirement that includes a complete covering of a woman to protect her modesty apart from other things. The hijab is a requirement in the Sharia and it has been prescribed by the prophet to all muslim women who are virtuous.

That is what it is to be a good moslem and that is the law in the land of the two holy mosques.

[edit on 20-11-2006 by IAF101]




posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
When a democratic state passes a law it's not through a monopoly of power. The elected representatives of the voting population pass laws based on what thier constituency tells them. Either through direct communication or by means of elections. We just witnessed a great example of that in this country.


Actually it is, whether you want to call it a monopoly of power invested in the state or a tyrrany of the majority, the consequences are the same. Might does not make right, so I'm not sure why you are applauding it unless you agree with the decision.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Originally posted by darkbluesky
When a democratic state passes a law it's not through a monopoly of power. The elected representatives of the voting population pass laws based on what thier constituency tells them. Either through direct communication or by means of elections. We just witnessed a great example of that in this country.


Actually it is, whether you want to call it a monopoly of power invested in the state or a tyrrany of the majority, the consequences are the same. Might does not make right, so I'm not sure why you are applauding it unless you agree with the decision.


"Tyranny of the majority" is a contradiction. Tyranny: "Govt in which a single ruler is vested w/ absolute power" - American Heritage Dictionary.

I do agree w/ the decision to ban burqas in public in the Netherlands because apparently the majority supports that decison, and the decison causes harm to no one.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   
I wonder if they will start enslaving Muslims like they did to blacks in Africa. How a womens dress can start violence is beyond me. True Muslims are some of the nicest people on the entire planet. Radicals and terrorists aren't Muslims but they try and claim they are to justify their disgusting behavior so they can sleep better at night. I don't bunch all Christians with terrorists who think they are really Christians or those idiots that go to soldiers funerals and call them fags and thank the lord for their deaths. Someone has an agenda and is trying to cause civil unrest for their own cause, hopefully people are smart enough to realize this and won't support these fools.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Actually it is, whether you want to call it a monopoly of power invested in the state or a tyrrany of the majority, the consequences are the same. Might does not make right, so I'm not sure why you are applauding it unless you agree with the decision.


"Tyranny of the majority" is a contradiction. Tyranny: "Govt in which a single ruler is vested w/ absolute power" - American Heritage Dictionary.


Oh, did you conveniently dismiss other definitions in the American Heritage Dictionary?

The American Heritage Dictionary also states:


Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly: “I have sworn... eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man” (Thomas Jefferson).


dictionary.reference.com...

Do you suppose the 30 Tyrants of Athens never existed either? A tyranny can extend beyond one person, and can even come to mean an institution or a majority in which absolute power is invested.


Tocqueville and the Tyranny of the Majority

Definition : A phenomenon characterised by a homogenity of public opinion, caused by the peculiar psychological dynamics of public democratic politics. Tocqueville argues that there is little toleration of difference of opinion in democratic societies. Unlike in aristocratic societies, public opinion is seen as authentic rather than ascribed, and therefore has a great deal more moral force.

www.revision-notes.co.uk...


I do agree w/ the decision to ban burqas in public in the Netherlands because apparently the majority supports that decison, and the decison causes harm to no one.


How can you say it causes harm to noone? Do you think noone is effected? Or you just don't care because they are not in the majority/muslim? People are being stripped of their religious rights here man. Your profile says you're from America where the consitution supports religious rights.

And if you think a majority is so harmless and is such a good thing, tell that to the families of the Jews, Gypsies or other dissidents persecuted by the the Nazi majority.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Actually it is, whether you want to call it a monopoly of power invested in the state or a tyrrany of the majority, the consequences are the same. Might does not make right, so I'm not sure why you are applauding it unless you agree with the decision.


"Tyranny of the majority" is a contradiction. Tyranny: "Govt in which a single ruler is vested w/ absolute power" - American Heritage Dictionary.


Oh, did you conveniently dismiss other definitions in the American Heritage Dictionary?

The American Heritage Dictionary also states:


Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly: “I have sworn... eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man” (Thomas Jefferson).


dictionary.reference.com...

Do you suppose the 30 Tyrants of Athens never existed either? A tyranny can extend beyond one person, and can even come to mean an institution or a majority in which absolute power is invested.


Tocqueville and the Tyranny of the Majority

Definition : A phenomenon characterised by a homogenity of public opinion, caused by the peculiar psychological dynamics of public democratic politics. Tocqueville argues that there is little toleration of difference of opinion in democratic societies. Unlike in aristocratic societies, public opinion is seen as authentic rather than ascribed, and therefore has a great deal more moral force.

www.revision-notes.co.uk...


I do agree w/ the decision to ban burqas in public in the Netherlands because apparently the majority supports that decison, and the decison causes harm to no one.



How can you say it causes harm to noone? Do you think noone is effected? Or you just don't care because they are not in the majority/muslim? People are being stripped of their religious rights here man. Your profile says you're from America where the consitution supports religious rights.


Very well....I'll accept you principal of tyranny of the majority as a real phenomena - Where is tyranny in requiring all members of a society to make their faces visible in public. No ones religious freedom is being denied. They need not practice their religion in secret. And as others have pointed out in this thread - The Burqa is not required by the Quran. Suppose My church decides that all memebr must carry concealed firearms at all times. Sould I be allowed to do this in the name of religious freedom?



And if you think a majority is so harmless and is such a good thing, tell that to the families of the Jews, Gypsies or other dissidents persecuted by the the Nazi majority.


I didnt say it's harmless, and yes I do think it generally is a good thing given the alternatives. The will of the majority also needs to be checked and tempered by judicial review and moral leadership.

The German Nazi Party in the 1930 an 40's had niether. There is a huge difference between baning burqas and trying to exterminate a race. Please spare me the slippery slope argument. The world does not function in the realm of absolutes. And please, I kindly ask you... do not associate my ideas with Naziism in any response you wish to make.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkblueskyThey need not practice their religion in secret. And as others have pointed out in this thread - The Burqa is not required by the Quran. Suppose My church decides that all memebr must carry concealed firearms at all times. Sould I be allowed to do this in the name of religious freedom?


In secret? That's exactly what the burqa ban is telling those that wear one to do. That they aren't allowed to show this specific symbol, and they have to do in private. Even though the burqa is not required by the Qur'an, it is obviously important to some religious sects. What is the relationship between wearing a burqa and carrying a firearm? Last I checked, you can't shoot people with a burqa....



The world does not function in the realm of absolutes.


Exactly, which is why my comments were trying to show the dangers of saying that the burqa ban is good just because the majority of the Dutch vote for it.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   
I'd like to change my earlier position.

As if it goes through it will be a democratic process, it does
at least show that people consider it something that needs
to be stopped.

However, I do think that the burqa(sp?) should not be allowed
in schools, security places and while driving, or in government
offices.

However, if some Muslim woman wants to go shopping in it,
than more power to her, but they should realize that shops can
deny them service.


So basically, yes in most circumstances they should have the
right to wear them, I think societal pressure should be put on
them to not wear them, is'nt necessarily a bad thing.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   
I know I can't go into a bank with a SKi Mask on, how is this any different? For all you know that person in a Burqa is a guy with a bomb strapped to his chest. These are the people who wanted a cartoonist killed for a cartoon. So, if you can't go around town with a ski mask on you can't go around with something else that completely hides who you are, what you are.

Sorry, to let people who would rather kill a woman then let her speak without being spoken to control what goes on in a European country they immigrated to is wrong. What's next, if you bend to the will this time why not bend again when they want to make all women wear Burqas? Well, its not that big a deal, it's just a Burqa. Then when they want to kill women for showing the ankles, well, just make sure the women don't show their ankles. Then when they call for the total enslavement of all women in the Netherlands well, bend again.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by HoorahUSMCFor all you know that person in a Burqa is a guy with a bomb strapped to his chest.


So you are proposing people enter the bank shirtless?


These are the people who wanted a cartoonist killed for a cartoon.


Really, so you know the thoughts and feelings of all Dutch Muslims wearing burqas? I doubt that.


What's next, if you bend to the will this time why not bend again when they want to make all women wear Burqas?


Are you serious? Talk about paranoia and exagerration...

The entire point is that the government has no right telling people what they can and can't wear (with exceptions for ID/security).



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   
I was making fun of you. You say "If they ban Burqas then they will ban Islam, then they will ban religon!" So I made a counter point. "If you let them wear Burqas then why not bend when they want all women to wear Burqas? Then when they want to make all women slaves they should bend to them."



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by HoorahUSMC
I was making fun of you. You say "If they ban Burqas then they will ban Islam, then they will ban religon!"


Okay, but I don't believe I ever said that. Can you point out to me where I had said that?



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Originally posted by darkblueskyThey need not practice their religion in secret. And as others have pointed out in this thread - The Burqa is not required by the Quran. Suppose My church decides that all memebr must carry concealed firearms at all times. Sould I be allowed to do this in the name of religious freedom?


In secret? That's exactly what the burqa ban is telling those that wear one to do. That they aren't allowed to show this specific symbol, and they have to do in private. Even though the burqa is not required by the Qur'an, it is obviously important to some religious sects. What is the relationship between wearing a burqa and carrying a firearm? Last I checked, you can't shoot people with a burqa....


The relationship is they are both religous practices. One actual, one hypothetical. Who will be the arbiter of which religious rights/freedoms are acceptable and which are not? Since you don't like the allegorical comparison of burqa wearing and carrying firearms, how about this one? Some creep in Utah (or somewhere out west) right now is on trial for being an accessory to rape because he counseled one of his flock (a young girl) that she must have sex with her cousin to purify herself or some such nonsense. His claims this is what his religion calls for. Is this OK? How about forcing vaginal circumcision on girls? It's common in some African tribes, should we allow it here?

I see no problem with the Dutch deciding to require it's citizens and visitors to live by the standards and norms of their culture as long as it does not unreasonably restrict anyones religious freedom or civil liberties.




The world does not function in the realm of absolutes.


Exactly, which is why my comments were trying to show the dangers of saying that the burqa ban is good just because the majority of the Dutch vote for it.


My point was that restricting one relatively minor practice of an entire faith does not constitute religious persecution. You can still have Islam without burqas in Holland.

And on a side note.....since the husbands of these women think it's intollerable for their wives skin to be seen in public, would it be that far of a stretch for them to force thier wives to stay home and never go out in public? Don't you agree that this is incredibly mysoginistic? I suspect this has just as much to do with the Dutch vote as do the security concerns.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkblueskySince you don't like the allegorical comparison of burqa wearing and carrying firearms, how about this one? Some creep in Utah (or somewhere out west) right now is on trial for being an accessory to rape because he counseled one of his flock (a young girl) that she must have sex with her cousin to purify herself or some such nonsense. His claims this is what his religion calls for. Is this OK? How about forcing vaginal circumcision on girls? It's common in some African tribes, should we allow it here?


There is absolutely no parallel there between wearing a piece of clothing with sex or vaginal circumcision. Seriously, there is no parallel, they are both "religious" practices, but the comparison stops there. You are using examples of sexual acts on young people, and elders taking advantage of them. The burqa is worn by grown women and doesn't involve any kind of sexual act; it is actually designed to prevent it.


My point was that restricting one relatively minor practice of an entire faith does not constitute religious persecution. You can still have Islam without burqas in Holland.


And you can still have Christianity without churches, but I'm sure if they banned churches people would be all over that. The burqa is a small practice that only affects a small number of people, but it's the principle of banning a religious custom that I don't like.


And on a side note.....since the husbands of these women think it's intollerable for their wives skin to be seen in public, would it be that far of a stretch for them to force thier wives to stay home and never go out in public?


Really, you don't think the women choose to wear the burqa? Can you prove that they didn't? Because you'll be surprised how many women choose to wear it.

If there is domestic violence over the issue of the burqa, that is a different story that should be resolved by the police.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
There is absolutely no parallel there between wearing a piece of clothing with sex or vaginal circumcision. Seriously, there is no parallel, they are both "religious" practices, but the comparison stops there.


That's the parallel....they are both/all religious practices.


You are using examples of sexual acts on young people, and elders taking advantage of them. The burqa is worn by grown women and doesn't involve any kind of sexual act; it is actually designed to prevent it.


I think that your focusing too intently on my examples, these were merely the first that came to mind. I'm sure you see my point that society cannot just accept any practice or behaivior under the claim of religious freedom.

I am becoming confused now. At first, I thought your postion was that any restriction against practices or customs related to religion were unacceptable. i.e.:


People are being stripped of their religious rights here man. Your profile says you're from America where the consitution supports religious rights.


Then you seem willing to assign degrees of acceptbility to certain behaiviors.


You are using examples of sexual acts on young people, and elders taking advantage of them. The burqa is worn by grown women and doesn't involve any kind of sexual act


So sexual acts in the name of religious freedom are unacceptable but any non-sexual act must be protected? Or just non-violent non-sexual acts?

I don't mean to be sarcastic here. I'm trying to make my point that there are constantly moving thresholds of acceptable behaivior in any society, and that Holland is within its rights to determine whats acceptable in the current climate as long as it doesn't unreasonably persecute anyone for their religious beliefs.

Thats about as clearly as I can state my opinion on the matter, so I think I'm done.
I appreciate your point of view, but mine differs. Thanks for the good discussion.








[edit on 11/21/2006 by darkbluesky]

[edit on 11/21/2006 by darkbluesky]



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Can you prove that they didn't? Because you'll be surprised how many women choose to wear it.


The Women in Afghanistan (Taliban) were required to were them up until around 2001 they had no choice at all. Girls could not even go to schools either.


During the Taliban's reign, women were required to wear a burqa whenever they appeared in public
Source


And sorry I am not buying what you are selling when you say they choose to wear them, the fact is their husbands require that they wear them. they only wear them so they will not get beaten.


[edit on 11/21/2006 by shots]



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Well could see this coming a mile off, so anyone know when the uk is next???



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Sorry Jamuhn, everyone already beat me to it. You say if they ban Burqas it is forcing them to practice in secret for fear of persecution. So I again flipped it where in the end you say the Dutch should bend to the will of foreigners and make all women slaves like they are in the Middle East.

Also, I like how "Oh well yes they are both religous practices but they show how ridiculous my position is so I'm ignoring those evil disgraceful practices to continue saying if they ban Burqas what's next, Gas CHambers for Muslims? There is no absolute reality, blah blah blah."

You wig out and go to the extreme because of the Dutch banning Burqas so I go to the extreme where the Neatherlands become the next Iran, only to be invaded by USA for having WMDs, no for democracy, no to make it stable, no for the pot... Actually that would be Bush's excuse wouldn't it?



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Canada is looking to ban the Burkha too....and didnt the Netherlands already do it?

I wonder why all of these supposed "seperate" countries are introducing the exact same policies at the exact same time? Maybe its because THEY ARE CONTROLLED BY THE SAME FORCE?

And people say there is no Elite, oh boy!!

[edit on 21-11-2006 by LightWorker13]



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightWorker13
Canada is looking to ban the Burkha too....and didnt the Netherlands already do it?

I wonder why all of these supposed "seperate" countries are introducing the exact same policies at the exact same time? Maybe its because THEY ARE CONTROLLED BY THE SAME FORCE?

And people say there is no Elite, oh boy!!

[edit on 21-11-2006 by LightWorker13]


Or it might be that all western cultures share common values and concerns for security.

However I can almost garauntee the US will not make a move to ban Burqas. We are w/o a doubt the most timid and PC nation when it comes to this kind of activism.

[edit on 11/21/2006 by darkbluesky]





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join