Woman In Black Burka Kicked Out Of Obama Campaign Event

reply to post by InfoKartel


We have freedom of religion here in the US, our Constitution does not extend past our own boarders to other sovereign nations.

Your right though, if it were up to religions, there would be no freedom of religion, thankfully we live in a republic, and not a theocracy. (even though certain elements within our own society would like that to change)

What people do to their own people in other countries sucks sometimes I'll admit, yep, some of those other nations do have a bad record as far as women's rights go. But they aren't America.

I can't say that I completely understand the Muslim faith, hell, I don't even completely understand the Christian faith, this is why I'm agnostic. As far as I'm concerned, a person can practice whatever religion they want to, as long as they don't force me to practice it along side them.

And as far as other countries go, I seriously don't care what they do, I really don't. I wish the US Government would take my attitude towards other nations. It's not MY problem what other people do to their own people. I really really REALLY don't care.

reply to post by poet1b

No, not allowing the wearing of a burqa is a reasonable law for security purposes.

There have been lots of underwear bomber cases, they should make a law not allowing underwear for security purposes.

reply to post by FlyersFan

All you knuckle-dragging men out there have to learn that you aren't entitled to run us women. You aren't our superiors or our keepers. Learn it! It will do you a lot of good.

I know being a woman of the Catholic faith must be empowering, having a super-holy female role model and all...

But have you read the Bible and the part that says, a man is the head and a woman is the body?(yes, the head is nowhere without the body but that's not the point of what is written) There are other places in the text that put a woman under a man.

Do you know why it was written like that in those days?

Men can make babies with every fertile women they come across, every day.

Women can become pregnant ONCE every 9 months by ONE man.

And so the worth of a man in a civilization where procreation meant everything(and still does to a certain degree) was more than the worth of a woman.

Simple math.

reply to post by Malynn

If she was removed soley due to the burka that's ridiculous, and yes infringing on her rights.

That makes as much sense as claiming that arresting someone exposing their private parts is infringing on their rights.

At least there is justification for banning the burqa because of security concerns.

reply to post by HauntWok

I can't say that I completely understand the Muslim faith, hell, I don't even completely understand the Christian faith, this is why I'm agnostic.

Well if you don't understand either one, then why defend one? Seems to defeat the point.

As far as I'm concerned, a person can practice whatever religion they want to, as long as they don't force me to practice it along side them.

What if they force someone else, not you, to practice their religion?

And as far as other countries go, I seriously don't care what they do, I really don't.

Well then you should step into a time machine and go back to a time where nobody cared about anything but procreation. That should do the trick for you. Other than that, if you don't care, fine. But don't marginalize or minimize the suffering of people in those countries simply because you don't care...that is one of the most unintelligent things I've ever read...but let me guess...you don't care because you simply want to fix the USA right? Tell me...ever heard about globalism?

reply to post by InfoKartel


By your logic, then should we bring back slavery, because they practiced it way back then?

Islam would love that.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by InfoKartel

 

By your logic, then should we bring back slavery, because they practiced it way back then?

Islam would love that.

What does that have to do with anything I said?

reply to post by poet1b


Really? You're comparing someone wearing a burqa to someone showing their wang?

ETA: Freedom isn't free, and liberty isn't safe. The liberty we are supposed to enjoy comes with consequences, and sometimes those consequences hurt. Banning everything for "safety" is not freedom.

reply to post by poet1b

No, not allowing the wearing of a burqa is a reasonable law for security purposes.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin

Demanding that wearing a burqa out of the claim that it is a religious belief would be using the law to force a religious belief onto others. Clearly this is not allowed in the first amendment.

Sorry, but it isn't. That would be akin to saying that every cross on a church violates the 1st Amendment, it doesn't.

There is more reason to allow people to walk around naked and have sex in public that there is justification for the wearing of a burqa. Yet we have laws against public nudity, and sexual acts in public, even though such acts could be called a part of a religious belief.

Hey, and that's a religion I could get behind "GIGGITY" But in all seriousness, if a person wants to wear a burka, hajib, or other religious article of clothing, it's not offensive, and if it offends you, too bad. Crosses don't offend me, burkas don't offend me. We would also have to ban the Amish and Mennonite communities from wearing their accustomed style of clothing if your brand of fascism were reality.

Kids that wear their pants down below their ass offend me. What do I want done about it? Nothing, because I know I don't have to wear my pants down below my ass. I don't think they should make a law telling us what clothing is acceptable and what is not. As long as the genitalia are covered, all is well.

reply to post by Malynn


Yin and Yang love, equal examples of extremism that should not be allowed.

How do you not see either as something that could be claimed as freedom of religion?

Originally posted by Malynn
reply to post by poet1b

 

Really? You're comparing someone wearing a burqa to someone showing their wang?

Maybe a little clumsily done but poet1b has a good point. A burqa is a security issue, PERIOD. If you cannot see that, then sorry princess, but you'll never be taken serious by anyone serious. And maybe this discussion is not for you.

The simple fact that she was allowed inside should tell you all there is no discrimination based on religious grounds involved.

reply to post by InfoKartel

Well if you don't understand either one, then why defend one? Seems to defeat the point.

But I defend them all because that's what freedom is all about.

What if they force someone else, not you, to practice their religion?

Don't care.

Well then you should step into a time machine and go back to a time where nobody cared about anything but procreation. That should do the trick for you. Other than that, if you don't care, fine. But don't marginalize or minimize the suffering of people in those countries simply because you don't care...that is one of the most unintelligent things I've ever read...but let me guess...you don't care because you simply want to fix the USA right? Tell me...ever heard about globalism?

Ohh they have time machines now? Epic!

I marginalize because it's not my problem, do you know what is my problem? Me and my family, then my community, then my state, then my country. After that, it could all be Canada for all I care. If the rest of the world all died tomorrow, I seriously wouldn't shed one tear. Hell, if 99% of humanity died tomorrow, I wouldn't care at all.

reply to post by HauntWok


Not wearing a burqa in public does not violate anyone's liberty, anymore that not allowing people to run around naked, or drunk in public.

There are logical reasons for laws against these things.

There are no logical reasons for banning religious symbols on private property. They should not be allowed on public property, and this has been established numerous times, even against Christianity.

If you think defending Islam on the burqa is defending liberty, then you are very turned around.

reply to post by InfoKartel


I have more than enough brain cells to keep up with this thread, thanks. And I disagree that it is a security risk. However, let's say we're going to call it that. If you're going to be paranoid about who you allow around the president I'm sure a metal detector or other scanning devices would more than sufficiently reassure the secret service that covered muslim women are not smuggling in dirty bombs between their legs. But I guess that's too simple an explanation for those who would prefer muslims who practice this particular cultural custom not attend events such as this.

P.S. Maybe you should save your ridicule for someone who will get dizzy and fall down when you make easily refutable statements "Princess"

reply to post by HauntWok

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin

When that dude was alive America did not have over 300 million inhabitants, please keep relative to time and please try to keep quotes from dead people as much in the context of what they said. Oh and please don't get too sentimental about what I just said, because those people were just people. They couldn't look into the future, they didn't have magic crystal balls. They also weren't as bright as some other people in history, but it sure fits your argument.

But in all seriousness, if a person wants to wear a burka, hajib, or other religious article of clothing, it's not offensive, and if it offends you, too bad.

If a person wearing a burka does not offend you then you are not a free person nor do you understand what freedom is. Rationalize all you want, but there is NOTHING in the Quran that says anything about a burqa, so it is simply NOT a religious garment regardless of how much people claim so.

Beyond that...how can you not gather some sympathy for the women being forced to wear those things? Scorching sun and they are dressed in an all black robe...not healthy.

reply to post by The Sword

I would venture to say that Christians are lower than cockroaches on my list.

Hate us with all your heart all your soul, all your mind and all your strength. Persecute us until you choke on it. You store our treasures up in heaven by hating us .

reply to post by HauntWok

But I defend them all because that's what freedom is all about.

...
Nooooooooo...that's what being naive is all about.

Islam opposes freedom, INHERENTLY. So when you are supporting these burqas, you are, in fact, supporting a small group of Islamic extremists in power positions - oppressing women. That's not something a freedom loving person would defend. That's something an ignorant freedom loving person would defend.

Don't care.

If you don't care about them, how can you care about the same people, only within different borders?

I marginalize because it's not my problem, do you know what is my problem? Me and my family, then my community, then my state, then my country. After that, it could all be Canada for all I care. If the rest of the world all died tomorrow, I seriously wouldn't shed one tear. Hell, if 99% of humanity died tomorrow, I wouldn't care at all.

That statement makes no sense at all. Are you familiar with globalism? Do you know what marginalizing peoples suffering leads to in an ever-increasing connected world? Do you have ANY IDEA how connected and dependent on other countries YOUR country is? Then to go around and say, well I don't care for the people living in those borders...to hell with them and their 3 cent wages, to hell with their women who face degradation daily...I want my I-pods cheap and freedom only for those on my side of the border/argument/gender/ideology.

It seems like you don't really understand what you're talking about.

reply to post by Malynn

I have more than enough brain cells to keep up with this thread, thanks.

That's not what I implied, but if you feel that way, congratulations with the brain cells.

And I disagree that it is a security risk.

Well then you have no idea what you are talking about when you say security risk. Do you know what a security risk is?

If you're going to be paranoid about who you allow around the president I'm sure a metal detector or other scanning devices would more than sufficiently reassure the secret service that covered muslim women are not smuggling in dirty bombs between their legs.

Really? Next thing you know you're asking for the TSA to be present.

But I guess that's too simple an explanation for those who would prefer muslims who practice this particular cultural custom not attend events such as this.

Here's an idea: If you do not know where certain cultural traditions come from, nor if you know what ideologies they stem from, maybe it would be wise to not speak out in defense of these traditions. Maybe, just maybe, doing research instead of jumping on the whatever bandwagon it is this time, would be more beneficial for you and the women you pretend to be protecting the rights of.

reply to post by poet1b

Not wearing a burqa in public does not violate anyone's liberty, anymore that not allowing people to run around naked, or drunk in public.

It certainly violates the person's liberty that wants to wear the burka in public. And for your information, being drunk in public isn't against the law, it's when you start being a danger to others or start being an ass that it becomes a crime.

If you think defending Islam on the burqa is defending liberty, then you are very turned around.

We will have to agree to disagree then. Because I believe that a person should be able to wear whatever damn fool thing they want to as long as it makes them happy, and covers the required body parts.

She was removed for heckling, not for wearing a burka. Typical spin from partisan hacks.