[karajorma]

Their piece of world, their rules.

Abide or get out of the way.
That's what rules are made for, right?... in all countries... in all kinds of governments.

Ummmmmm. Whose piece of the world exactly? Surely you're not claiming that people born in France who choose to wear a veil are somehow less French due to ethnic origin?

This basically racism, pure and simple. You've basically said that the majority can pass laws and if the minority don't like it, they should leave. Would you express such a view if it was white people being treated this way?

[Rodo]

Ummmmmm. Whose piece of the world exactly? Surely you're not claiming that people born in France who choose to wear a veil are somehow less French due to ethnic origin?

of course not, I couldn't care less about that.

This basically racism, pure and simple. You've basically said that the majority can pass laws and if the minority don't like it, they should leave. Would you express such a view if it was white people being treated this way?

THIS I said.

So life is fair for everyone, that's what you are saying?

We can start arguing about what's being racist, about who's got the right to impose stuff on other people but we would eventually hit the bottom.

I'll take the short road here, I'm with the majority... just because of simple plain numbers.

If I find myself on the other side sometime, then I'll reconsider.... if it's not between my capabilities/desires to abide to the community request, then I shall depart or find a way to adapt myself.

And I'm not saying this law is ok, I'm just saying that I'll not commit myself to a "change the world" campaign, nor I'll hate everyone for thinking different than me (I would probably do that at first), this is just knowing your rights end where mine start, and trying to adapt that to a way of thinking and reacting that will not cause more troubles than it solves.

[Bobboau]

Ummmmmm. Whose piece of the world exactly? Surely you're not claiming that people born in France who choose to wear a veil are somehow less French due to ethnic origin?

This basically racism, pure and simple. You've basically said that the majority can pass laws and if the minority don't like it, they should leave. Would you express such a view if it was white people being treated this way?

first off people using the word racism for any and all forms of discrimination is a bit of a peeve of mine "veil wearer" is not a race, it's a minority, not all minorities are races, throwing racist around like this is about as intellectually diligent as calling someone a Nazi. it just says to me "I am a group thinker, this is what I have been trained to think"

second, the people effected by this law may not be less French but we are, and I think this was the persons point.

[karajorma]

Fine. Bigoted.

Massively, Massively bigoted.



And I still don't believe this crap would be said if we were dealing with Christianity cause Christianity is a white religion. I find it very hard to believe Rodo or yourself would agree to a law discriminatory to you with a simple claim that you could leave the country if you didn't like it.

And I'm not saying this law is ok, I'm just saying that I'll not commit myself to a "change the world" campaign, nor I'll hate everyone for thinking different than me (I would probably do that at first), this is just knowing your rights end where mine start, and trying to adapt that to a way of thinking and reacting that will not cause more troubles than it solves.

Who's asking you to commit yourself to changing the world? You jumped into this thread and volunteered your opinion. If you had no opinion on the matter you could have simply kept your mouth shut

Incidentally I find it hilarious that you go on about rights while simultaneously claiming that the right of the minority is to put up or leave.

[iamzack]

In the US, you're not allowed to go into most places with your face covered. It's one of those "'fire' in a crowded theater" cases. The law isn't generally enforced on women in burqas, though, because we have this moronic "but it's their *religion!!*" mindset.

All these girls walk around campus in long pants, long-sleeved shirts, and scarves in 95 degree heat, and I wonder what kind of brain disease the women who "choose" to wear all the unnecessary clothing have. ****, if it's winter, whatever, but this stupid fad came around in the desert.

[Bobboau]

IIRC it stops the sun, so it is actually not that bad in the dry heat of a desert, IIRC (which I might not).

OK, so if we turn this around, it would be like an Islamic nation making it a law that all women had to ware a burka?
that doesn't seem like an accurate analogy. or new.

[Rodo]

Fine. Bigoted.

Massively, Massively bigoted.

not so far into that, I must admit I have my preferences though.

And I still don't believe this crap would be said if we were dealing with Christianity cause Christianity is a white religion. I find it very hard to believe Rodo or yourself would agree to a law discriminatory to you with a simple claim that you could leave the country if you didn't like it.

I'm not Christian, my mother is Jehova's wittiness and I was "forced" (not forced, but you know... she took me because she thought it was the best thing for me) to join her until I grew a brain (say... 12 years old) and realized religion was not the kind of thing that moves my will, so I left.
So far I've found all religions to be lacking something else, to get my interest drives back on line.

Who's asking you to commit yourself to changing the world? You jumped into this thread and volunteered your opinion. If you had no opinion on the matter you could have simply kept your mouth shut

That was just an example of the POV of someone in that position, I'm surely not committing to change the world.
Also note that my opinion on the matter is there, but now that I read it again, it seems somewhat.... over the top, sorry.

Incidentally I find it hilarious that you go on about rights while simultaneously claiming that the right of the minority is to put up or leave.

It is in their rights, they can react as they see fit (its their right, it's my right), but for everything they do there's a possible reaction and a responsibility for the result of said action.

So my point is, the sensitive thing to do in this case (where the majority seems to be clearly taking a power stand and a no back down resolution) is to either abide or leave.
There's is a third option, but the look for the "win-win" here is almost nullified because of the majority's power stand.

[iamzack]

IIRC it stops the sun, so it is actually not that bad in the dry heat of a desert, IIRC (which I might not).

OK, so if we turn this around, it would be like an Islamic nation making it a law that all women had to ware a burka?
that doesn't seem like an accurate analogy. or new.

Maybe if burqas were mostly white. They also hinder vitamin D absorption.

[mxlm]

In the US, you're not allowed to go into most places with your face covered.

Heh. I remember back in high school--this was a few years after Columbine--some kid walked through the quad at lunch with a ski mask on. Everyone eating and hanging out more or less kept doing what they were doing, but it was apparent their attention was on him and there was a palpable air of tension. It was a little weird.

Don't think he was reprimanded or anything, though.

[Herra Tohtori]

How does this sound:

All public use/display of clothing articles or accessories that are enforced/required by a religion or ideology and discriminate against sex, age or person otherwise are not to be used.


Now, to be fair this includes:

-outfits of the priests outside their work (should be indistinguishable from other clothing)

-traditional robes of muslims, in all forms (for both males and females)

-Hindu caste tattoos must be removed. Government will front the removal treatment costs.

-religious jewelry (crosses, crusifixes etc. are to be kept under other clothes and out of sight)

-full beards worn for religious reasons are to be shaven. Full beards worn for aesthetical reasons can be submitted to the board of aesthetics which judges if your mug will look better or worse with or without full beard; as a default they are not to be tolerated since they discriminate against women who in most cases can not grow one.

-Sikh turbans must not be worn and their hair must be shaven to a practical length (determined by the board of aesthetics to which you can appeal for permission to have longer than practical length hair

-Same applies to other traditional religious headgear.


The board of aesthetics has published a list of approved, secular, neutral clothing articles and accessories (includes acceptable jewels). Consult the list of generally acknowledged religious and ideological symbols and check that the canvas patterns do not have them and that your jewelry does not have them either. Unauthorized use of religious or ideological symbols will result in legal action and confiscation of the contraband goods. Appeal to Board of Aesthetics for a permission to use a religious or ideological symbol for non-religious, non-ideological reasons.

These rules are for your own good, and the Board of Aesthetics urges you to report any offending symbols or clothing you might see; it is for their good as much as yours. We wouldn't want all those silly symbols all over the place again, now would we?

[headdie]

How does this sound:

All public use/display of clothing articles or accessories that are enforced/required by a religion or ideology and discriminate against sex, age or person otherwise are not to be used.


Now, to be fair this includes:

-outfits of the priests outside their work (should be indistinguishable from other clothing)

-religious jewelry (crosses, crusifixes etc. are to be kept under other clothes and out of sight)

-full beards worn for religious reasons are to be shaven. Full beards worn for aesthetical reasons can be submitted to the board of aesthetics which judges if your mug will look better or worse with or without full beard.

-Sikh turbans must not be worn and their hair must be shaven to a practical length (determined by the board of aesthetics to which you can appeal for permission to have longer than practical length hair

-Same applies to other traditional religious headgear.


The board of aesthetics has published a list of approved, secular, neutral clothing articles and accessories (includes acceptable jewels). Consult the list of generally acknowledged religious and ideological symbols and check that the canvas patterns do not have them and that your jewelry does not have them either. Unauthorized use of religious or ideological symbols will result in legal action and confiscation of the contraband goods. Appeal to Board of Aesthetics for a permission to use a religious or ideological symbol for non-religious, non-ideological reasons.

These rules are for your own good, and the Board of Aesthetics urges you to report any offending symbols or clothing you might see; it is for their good as much as yours. We wouldn't want all those silly symbols all over the place again, now would we?

* headdie can hear that time bomb ticking from where he sits

[Herra Tohtori]

* headdie can hear that time bomb ticking from where he sits

Hey, I'm just trying to discriminate equally here.


Of course, the solution to the problem presented with traditional gender-specific garments required by the religion is not to ban the offending articles of clothing, but to create an adequately safe environment where anyone willing to abandon their tradition if they so want to do can do so without having to fear for their safety.

This would ideally include ban on brainwashing children to simply adopt their parents' religious views, but let's not drop too many fire bombs at one go...

[The E]

How does this sound:

All public use/display of clothing articles or accessories that are enforced/required by a religion or ideology and discriminate against sex, age or person otherwise are not to be used.


Now, to be fair this includes:

-outfits of the priests outside their work (should be indistinguishable from other clothing)

-traditional robes of muslims, in all forms (for both males and females)

-Hindu caste tattoos must be removed. Government will front the removal treatment costs.

-religious jewelry (crosses, crusifixes etc. are to be kept under other clothes and out of sight)

-full beards worn for religious reasons are to be shaven. Full beards worn for aesthetical reasons can be submitted to the board of aesthetics which judges if your mug will look better or worse with or without full beard; as a default they are not to be tolerated since they discriminate against women who in most cases can not grow one.

-Sikh turbans must not be worn and their hair must be shaven to a practical length (determined by the board of aesthetics to which you can appeal for permission to have longer than practical length hair

-Same applies to other traditional religious headgear.


The board of aesthetics has published a list of approved, secular, neutral clothing articles and accessories (includes acceptable jewels). Consult the list of generally acknowledged religious and ideological symbols and check that the canvas patterns do not have them and that your jewelry does not have them either. Unauthorized use of religious or ideological symbols will result in legal action and confiscation of the contraband goods. Appeal to Board of Aesthetics for a permission to use a religious or ideological symbol for non-religious, non-ideological reasons.

These rules are for your own good, and the Board of Aesthetics urges you to report any offending symbols or clothing you might see; it is for their good as much as yours. We wouldn't want all those silly symbols all over the place again, now would we?

This legislation has now been added to the Constitution of Happy Fun Land. Have a good day, Citizen.

[headdie]

yer I know what you mean, we have a situation where religious and social freedom is causing social unrest which is prompting the desire to clamp down on the elements representing a focal point for that unrest, which in tern is an unjust and unequal system which denies freedom of expression of which both are fundamentally against the "principles" most of the western world is supposed to hold to their core so for equality all symbols must be abolished which hits right at the histories and traditions of all peoples of the planet.

Idealistic answer eliminate ignorance from the human race.  hmmmmm........ for give me for being sceptical about that in my lifetime.

* headdie apologises if his ramblings are completely wide of the mark, i should really have gone to bed a couple of hours ago

[Herra Tohtori]

No, you're pretty much on the mark.


The crux of the question is, should a discriminating religion be allowed to stay discriminating in the name of tolerance and religious freedom?

If answer is no (as the predecent set by burqa ban would seem to suggest) then I eagerly expect to see the first female catholic priests in France in near future. And, same actually with female imams. Because, hell, if a religion can't be allowed to discriminate on things like clothing on public areas, why should they be allowed to discriminate on big things like career selection?

[Bobboau]

I think the answer should be now, but it should not be legislated against either, if a minority has unpopular views then, so long as they do not translate into destructive action, their is nothing the majority can do other than say as loudly as possible "we don't like you" and they are completely in their right to do so in the same respect that the minority is allowed to continue to do what ever it is that they are doing. no one has the right to never be offended, which means if you are offended you can offend right back.

[Herra Tohtori]

I think the answer should be now, but it should not be legislated against either, if a minority has unpopular views then, so long as they do not translate into destructive action, their is nothing the majority can do other than say as loudly as possible "we don't like you" and they are completely in their right to do so in the same respect that the minority is allowed to continue to do what ever it is that they are doing. no one has the right to never be offended, which means if you are offended you can offend right back.

Exactly. Do your thing as long as it doesn't infringe on other peoples rights to do their thing as well.

I still maintain my point that adequate safety should be provided that people who wish to abandon their family's views on religion or ideology could do so without fear of being hurt, maimed or killed by said family as a matter of family's "honour".

The problem, of course, is that you can't really detect if someone is coerced into wearing these things or if they do it voluntarily, but that is not grounds to banning the clothing object - it's a good reason to try to prevent and stop the possible coercion from happening in the first place.


In other ways, burqa ban is treatment of a perceived symptom, not the illness (patriarchal discriminatory ideology).

[Sushi]

Of course, the solution to the problem presented with traditional gender-specific garments required by the religion is not to ban the offending articles of clothing, but to create an adequately safe environment where anyone willing to abandon their tradition if they so want to do can do so without having to fear for their safety.

Bingo. Now, how do you create such an "adequately safe environment?"

[iamzack]

Squashing religion entirely would be easier than taking out all the bits that don't jive with modern society.

[Rodo]

Yes it might, but you can't force ateism on someone.