It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Muslim Woman Asked to Remove Headscarf in NJ Mall

page: 18
16
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by redneck13
There is a separation of church and state here. The key factor in the modernization in the western world. In Islam there is not, since religion and law of the land are one, the only possible way out is make it easy for them to leave their religion if they choose. In other words, without being killed for offending the man’s honors. Most of these women are trapped


I agree with you 100%, that the integration of church and state in many Middle-East nations is antiquated and often barbaric. But this discussion isn't about the laws and customs in other countries; it's about an American Muslim who was treated with intolerance and disregard because she was wearing her customary religious garments. Also, we are not the saviors of the Earth, responsible for swooping in and saving the oppressed people of the world. That is called global interventionism and hegemony. Our government has the responsibility to protect its People, and the homeland; not act as the judge, jury, and executioner for other nations.




posted on May, 25 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by chuckMFd
post removed by staff


Such a sophist rebuttal. I'm not sure how cultivating testes is going to attack this problem assuming there even is a problem. Sharia law cannot stomp on the Constitution, because it is a Constitution. It trumps these things and thankfully there is a clear separation of church and state defined in said Constitution.
edit on Sat May 26 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orderamongchaos
Freedom of Religion must always bend to the safety of the general public.


Umm, no. The Supreme Court ruled that religious freedom is absolute, with the exception of practices that are illegal, or pose a probable risk of harm to a 3rd party. Wearing an article of clothing does not meet that burden.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by draco49

Originally posted by Orderamongchaos
Freedom of Religion must always bend to the safety of the general public.


Umm, no. The Supreme Court ruled that religious freedom is absolute, with the exception of practices that are illegal, or pose a probable risk of harm to a 3rd party. Wearing an article of clothing does not meet that burden.


Neutralized security deterrent. Offensive maneuver



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Some woman are forced to wear them, others wear them because they are a part of their culture, still more wear them only sometimes, and others despise them and will not wear them at all.

In the United States it can represent many ideas and provoke a diversity of opinions. For many, seeing veils covering the faces of women in their towns can be a reminder to some of the terror attacks that have claimed the lives of so many - even though the women wearing those masks probably had no connection at all to any attacks, anywhere.

This surely drives the formation of many unfavorable opinions about the veils.

The security guard involved with this situation may not be profiling or against the general customs, including the veil - though he could be. Training to identify characteristics of those responsible for many crimes related to the mall merchants may be what produced this type of action by the security gaurd.

Many crimes include criminals who attempt to cover their face with many different masks - former presidents, horror movie masks, opera masks, P.I. disguises, etc... and many of the criminals are not dumb.

Believing they may gain an advantage over the security and police, it is not beyond reason to think a thief would wear a mask/veil commonly used by individuals of certain religions. This could lead to a very fair request by shop owners and security guards alike to remove the veil, exposing their face, for identity and overall security purposes.

In most banks in the United States, you are no longer allowed to wear a hat of any kind or sunglasses inside. If the clerks do not recognize you and stop the security, you will be promptly approached and escorted outside, and asked to remove the hat and/or sunglasses before re-entering the business.

So I’m gonna tell you, you could be targeted by security for wearing an agal, kulah, sherherdess, volendam, bowler, macaroni, tasha#, wimple, atef, rough rider, fedora, kamelaukion, dormeuse, liripipe, tam o' shanter, petasos,

I’m gonna stand here and tell you if you don‘t want to be targeted then don‘t wear a straw hat, leghorn, beaver, kyrbasia, turban, ranelagh mob, copatain, escoffin, baigneuse, mortar board, top hat, tarboosh therese, pork pie, watteau, caul, balmoral, kepi, postilion, arctic cap, puggaree, witch hat, babet, fanchon, topi, mad hatter, chador, snood, night cap, quaker, bycocket, gaucho, cavalier, slouch, baby stuart cap, padre, fez, eton, bavolet, fontage, palla, zuchetto, claft, pith.

Even if you’re wearing berretino, phrygian, tyrolese, ferroniere, vagabond, tiara, optimo, barbe, tutulus, huke, coalheaver, montero, attifet, balaclava, yarmulke, bellhop, sailor, gibus, toongabbie, bandino, helmet, matador, lunardi, hennin, vulture, eugenie, bowler, whimsies, sombrero, balloon hat or even a propeller beanie hat inside a bank or other places where security guards have to stay alert for potential thieves, you‘ll still have to remove it before re-entry.

They may even give more attention to those who appear to dress and act the same way as criminals before them, even if they are not and never have been a criminal . It’s sucks to realize that it can limit the ways we choose to express ourselves through outward appearance and actions.

Without the training to see danger by through past experiences, the crime rate would probably be much higher. This may be because the criminals could grow a bigger ego without the fear of capture, making the robberies more frequent and brazen.

I do understand there is a desire by Muslim women, their husbands, and their culture to wear these veils. There is potential for them to become a potential safety & security threat to innocent citizens, through a malicious terror attack scenario. If they realize this before hand, then hey should not feel threatened or discriminated against when asked to lift the veil while inside the mall - for security and safety concerns in general



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by redneck13

Originally posted by draco49

Originally posted by Orderamongchaos
Freedom of Religion must always bend to the safety of the general public.


Umm, no. The Supreme Court ruled that religious freedom is absolute, with the exception of practices that are illegal, or pose a probable risk of harm to a 3rd party. Wearing an article of clothing does not meet that burden.


Neutralized security deterrent. Offensive maneuver


The answer then is to RFID tag each citizen for ease of identification. This will certainly guarantee security and public safety.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Missing the point, you are. A great many Americans are worried the next time they go shopping they may be forced to witness an atrocity. Soooo- they lash out at the *probable* perpetrators, i.e.; persons that show an obvious affiliation with a known bent for destruction, e.g. Muslims. Not to say all Muslims bad, just to say that the people that worry about these things are conditioned to see "obvious" Muslim adherents as a threat.
For those that are soooo liberal that your brains have oozed out of your ears, President Obama made a similar observation when he stated that his Gramma was a "typical white woman" when she would clutch her purse a little tighter when she was in the vicinity of young black males.
Face it, we are all products of our environment. To keep calling each other racist is a disservice to the truth, that is, there are certain people we have learned to distrust, some with cause, some without. Those folks we deem as "good" Muslims or blacks or whites, have probably seen the truth and laugh at the haters. It's called conditioning. We're all subject to it and we all fight it or accept it in our own way.
ETA: so as to address the topic directly, I don't want to see women wearing those outfits either, but for humanitarian reasons, I consider it oppression.
edit on 5/25/2012 by LAUGHING-CAT because: comply with thread



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by redneck13
Neutralized security deterrent. Offensive maneuver


I'm glad you're a redneck, and not in any position of power or influence. Your words paint you as a disgrace to this nation and the Constitution.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAUGHING-CAT
Missing the point, you are.

A great many Americans are worried the next time they go shopping they may be forced to witness an atrocity.



So terrorism has won. We can stop the war now, it has already been lost.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
she didnt feel safe ? is she for real ? i woulda ripped it off her head and beat her down with it.
if you move to a country, you leave your primitive religion behind, no1 gives a # about religion these days (normal people at least)



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by draco49

Originally posted by redneck13
Neutralized security deterrent. Offensive maneuver


I'm glad you're a redneck, and not in any position of power or influence. Your words paint you as a disgrace to this nation and the Constitution.

Its private property, not public. The owners of the property are also protected under the constitution and they have rights. Anyone that cannot get in with a burka has the option to shop some place else. The man does not have to change his business practices if he chooses not to. Would that be denying the storeowner his rights under the constitution? She has the right to start a store that you cannot get in the door without a burka if she chooses. Don’t force people to do things they don’t want to do, FREEDOM
edit on 25-5-2012 by redneck13 because: x



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManFromEurope

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
Good. If we went to her country, we would have to abide by their ways. Theyre here...so abide by ours.


BS! Your wife wouldn't have to wear a veil there, so why should that muslim woman remove hers in your mall?


If she were to steal something, the cameras wouldn't be able to identify her. Why do you think you're not allowed to wear a ski mask in the mall?



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   




I do not think islam sees anyone as equal anymore than christianity sees sinners and heretics as equals. The whole point of this topic is religious freedom, a constitutionally declared right. Plenty of religions are sexist, racist and generally ignorant. So be it, it is their right. Until the ignorance and pretentious dogma presents a clear and present danger to others then it is protected by law.

Thanks for the well wishes of fornication, I think I will take you up on that advice.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   

edit on 25-5-2012 by SanguineDenial because: no point fueling a derailed train



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by chuckMFd
post removed by staff


Oh please stop. You're just making yourself look worse and worse. Have a little respect for yourself, if nobody else. You don't know me very well if you think I'm afraid of Islam, terrorists, or anyone else in this world. I completely agree with you that some of the more fanatical aspects of Islam are barbaric and inhumane. But that's not a feature exclusive to Islam; it's present in every radical, fundamentalist religious faction in the world. The idea that Islam is the enemy is product of buying into the fear-mongering rhetoric and propaganda by those whose agendas are served by the demonization of the religion (i.e. the US-led military-industrial complex and Zionistic Fundamentalism).
edit on Sat May 26 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by draco49
 


Other religions do not promote dominance and death as the will of God and men of said religion to be more loved by god than others.
Dig deeper.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by chuckMFd
post removed by staff


Stereotyping Muslims into one category is as stupid as stereotyping every Christian or Judaic sect into one category. It's not a "one size fits all" situation. There are people who do good things, and people who do bad things. Your focus is on Islam because it's what you've been taught to perceive as "the enemy". For your own well-being, trying viewing the world from different perspectives and rid yourself of this irrational fear that the US war machine has imprinted onto you. You cannot protect the United States and the Constitution by obliterating it.
edit on Sat May 26 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join