Pages: 1 2 3

 

Poll

Should the berka (islamic head covering for women) be unlawful to wear

Yes, if a nation enforces such a law44%44% - 33
No, religious expression and clothing should prevail56%56% - 42
Total: 75
2006-10-17 18:08:01
dubbs
Member
+105|6888|Lexington, KY

jonsimon wrote:

dubbs wrote:

I think that there are certian situations that they should not be allowed, ie getting a drivers licenses.  This was an issue in the US not to long ago, because the women did not want to remove her head dress in order to take the photo.  Licenses are a previledge, and if you do not follow the laws you should not have one.  Also, teachers should not be allowed to wear them (at least in the US).  If Christian teachers can not pray at events like Fellowship of Christian Atheletes, or Pray at the Pole, then Islamic teachers should have to remove their head dress.
Veils haven't been a problem in the US. That's a british thing. Personally, I've never seen one burka in all my time living in dearborn. Plenty of scarves and robes, but nothing covering the face.
You are correct about it being in Britian.  I know that it was an issue, and I thought that it was in the US.  I personally have seen women working burkas where I live at.  I have also seen the scarves also. 

I still think that even if they are wearing scarves, they should have to remove them if they are government employees while they at work.  Again this is only in the US, since there are laws in the US that stated that other government officials can not deminstrate their faith while they are at work.
2006-10-17 18:17:21
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6661|North Carolina
We appear to be approaching a point in time where America and many other Western Nations may have to do what Islamic societies have already done to an extent --  restrict religious practices that don't conform to the logistics of certain societal requirements.

For example, some states allow Muslims to wear things like berkas that cover the face while being photographed for a driver's license, making it impossible to identify them.  I think that's bullshit.

Any religious practice that gets in the way of a societal system should be restricted.  We have to be practical about these things, and Muslims will just have to adapt.  Everyone else does.
2006-10-17 18:17:30
47man
Member
+46|6680|Cali

IRONCHEF wrote:

In France, it is already outlawed in the classroom.  England and Italy are also supporting such a law which would require muslim women who wear a 'berka' to remove it under certain conditions.
I would like to point out, that France has not just outlawed the berka, they outlawed all expressions of religion from being shown in public, including crosses, etc. It has been that way for a long time, Separation of church and state as it is known....
2006-10-17 18:18:54
Ikarti
Banned - for ever.
+231|6965|Wilmington, DE, US

G3|Genius wrote:

Ikarti wrote:

I bet a lot of the "no" votes are also the ones who get so pissy about people trying to take "under god" out of the Pledge, or prayer in classrooms, etc.
I'm a "no" vote.

I understand your cynicism...it's just like the people who want to save the whales but protect a woman's right to abortion.

The more sincere prayer this world has, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, whatever...if it's sincere, this world will be better off.

That having been said, I voted no out of principle.  Prayer is important, but a yes or no vote goes beyond one religious item.  Once we let them take away the berka, what's to stop them from taking away the yamika?  Would they outlaw wearing a cross?  Would they arrest priests or nuns for wearing their religious clothes?

It's a slippery slope, a slope we must avoid.

EDIT: for clarification
I feel like an ass, because I meant to say the people who voted "yes, it should be outlawed" get pissy. I voted no myself. My cynicism is about the hypocrites on the forum who don't see it like you do, that taking away the hijab is no different than taking away the cross or whatever religious symbol you may have and wear. I haven't slept in a long time. My bad.
2006-10-17 23:07:15
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6817

IRONCHEF wrote:

In France, it is already outlawed in the classroom.
Only for teachers IIRC, and the law actually prohibits any visible religious iconography.
2006-10-17 23:24:28
Deadman
Member
+34|6698|England
You should not be allowed to hide your identity in a modern society, why would you want to?
Of course in an Islamic country that would be fine, but in a western country were your identity is very important in certain situations, religion should never be used as an excuse to remain anonymous.

If i turned up for work wearing a ski mask, s.w.a.t/s.a.s style, I'd probably be arrested!

I think the lack of manners and respect for our country from these people is disgraceful.
2006-10-18 01:12:53
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6749|Connecticut
We should outlaw the whole wardrobe EXCEPT for the head garment. That way all the ones with hot boddies we can mount without ever knowing if she was ugly or not. Hey someone had to say something stupid in here.....why not me?
Malloy must go
2006-10-18 02:18:06
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6837|SE London

Bubbalo wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

In France, it is already outlawed in the classroom.
Only for teachers IIRC, and the law actually prohibits any visible religious iconography.
That's a good law. Don't want kids getting any funny ideas off any sorts of religious nutters.
2006-10-18 02:35:07
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7028|PNW

I'm a yes vote, but I'm still pro-religion. No time to explain now. Maybe later.
2006-10-18 02:38:32
d3v1ldr1v3r13
Satan's disciple on Earth.
+160|6941|Hell's prison
The sad part about it is some of those women are actually pretty, and damn, being in the mid-east in DCU's it was hotter than hell, and it was a required uniform.  I dont see how they can wear black all over!
2006-10-18 02:46:09
|BFC|Icenflame
Member
+11|6733|Cape Town - South Africa
I'm going to have to go with no on this one, religion is a persons choice and should never be infringed upon.

thats like asking good ol GW not to mention his religious beliefs to the American people. keep it to your self GW :p
2006-10-18 02:54:12
JahManRed
wank
+646|6884|IRELAND

I voted no.
Because its up to the individual to choose what they want to wear. For example I would, if I could ban baseball caps. Why? Your in the UK, no one plays baseball ffs and what sun do you need to keep out of your eyes? Its always raining. Luckily I can't choose what ppl are allowed to wear and thats how it should stay.
2006-10-18 03:10:37
[JUK]semerkhet
Member
+3|6887
No. If people want to wear a symbol of thier religion they should be allowed so long as they are doing it because they want to, not because they feel as though they have got to.

On a slightly seperate note, one thing that pisses me off is people who wear crosses when they're blatently not Christian, but seem to wear them for fasion or popularity reasons.  If your gonna have a religious faith, you should dedicate yourself to it fully, and not just the bits that are convenient to you (for the record im not religious in the slightest and don't celebrate anyones religious events, i.e christmas, which is celebrated by millions of people ho probably haven't been near a christian church once in their life).

Anyway, back to the original point.  The only times that veils should be removed are for the same reason as anyone has to remove face covering, i.e in and bank, post office or offlicense for security reasons.
Other than that im not particulaly bothered, after all, half the kids in the UK are a bunch of pikeys that coverup their faces with hoodies/caps and scarves anyway, so im used to not seeing people faces.
2006-10-18 03:12:09
Choclot
Member
+21|6798

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Don't stop there, ban the whole damn religion.
2006-10-18 03:14:38
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|7024

IRONCHEF wrote:

In France, it is already outlawed in the classroom.
I thought all forms of religious expression were banned not just the Islamic head covering??
2006-10-18 03:18:21
Janysc
Member
+59|6939|Norway

Choclot wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Don't stop there, ban the whole damn religion.
2006-10-18 03:19:06
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|6998|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann
Voted NO - even though there has been a long and hard fought battle for equal rights for women in the UK from the Suffragettes through to femminism, if women choose to subjugate themselves that is their choice (even if it is a political statement).

second post for the Charlie Brown cartoon as it cracks me up every time I see it!!

https://www.sayagain.co.uk/b3tapix/images/work.jpg

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2006-10-18 03:20:30)

2006-10-18 03:31:22
BattlefieldMedic
Member
+25|6856|Sydney City, THE city.
I think, that people have to their relligeous beliefs. They are allowed to practice whatever they wish.

But I read some of your guys posts and it makes you think differently. Like in the example about the police officer pulling you over, or the one about the liquor store.

Islamic people, as I have learnt, expect us to accept them. They believe it is their right to be understood by society, their right to wear whatever they want while in someone elses country. But they dont learn the values of the country themselves. But, if you say walked into an Arab country, wearing a Kippah, you would not be accepted at all. Rather, you'd be shot, dead.
2006-10-18 03:36:50
<<<<ORAC>>>>UK
Member
+1|6659
I don't think one could reconcile the two ideas of freedom of expression and the wearing of the veil.....
Women that wear the veil are NOT ALLOWED to wear anything else....its forced on them. So....is that any kind of freedom of expression???
2006-10-18 03:39:21
.:XDR:.PureFodder
Member
+105|7085

JahManRed wrote:

I voted no.
Because its up to the individual to choose what they want to wear. For example I would, if I could ban baseball caps. Why? Your in the UK, no one plays baseball ffs and what sun do you need to keep out of your eyes? Its always raining. Luckily I can't choose what ppl are allowed to wear and thats how it should stay.
I wear a baseball cap to keep the rain out of my eyes , also (unlike 99.9% of Brits who wear baseball caps) I actually watch baseball.

There are unfortuantely many situations in which you need to show your face. The recent big issue in the UK was some woman who got a job as a teacher then showed up in a Burka. The fact that she didn't wear one to the interview made the whole thing look like a bit of a stunt, but the debate about it did bring up one important issue. How can deaf of partially deaf people lip read if you're covering your face? A large number of governmental and private sector require face to face communication as part of the job. If a deaf kid in a class can't understand the lesson because they can't see the teachers face it's a problem.
2006-10-18 11:40:50
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6747|Northern California

BattlefieldMedic wrote:

I think, that people have to their relligeous beliefs. They are allowed to practice whatever they wish.

But I read some of your guys posts and it makes you think differently. Like in the example about the police officer pulling you over, or the one about the liquor store.

Islamic people, as I have learnt, expect us to accept them. They believe it is their right to be understood by society, their right to wear whatever they want while in someone elses country. But they dont learn the values of the country themselves. But, if you say walked into an Arab country, wearing a Kippah, you would not be accepted at all. Rather, you'd be shot, dead.
One important aspect to this debate that I've considered, and based my YES vote on, is that these laws may not actually be limiting use or possession of religious expression (in the form of a hajib in this topic), as much as it's requiring facial identification or vocal unobstruction which is needed. 

Driving, for example, is a privilege, not a right.  It's also not required to survive.  So if you are pulled over for speeding, an officer has the right to identify you (local law).  You then have the choice to limit your freedom of expression and be a law abiding citizen, or you can refrain from removing your hajib and be taken to a police station where your identification can be done again, perhaps in a setting that allows you to remove your hajib.

And guess what, you can put your hajib back on as soon as you've been identified thus preserving your right to religious expression. 

If voting is a right in the USA, and can be suspended if you're a convicted felon, then so too should other things, to the lesser degree mentioned above, be considered.  This example should also be considered in the context of a case by case basis.  Teachers in school...that's a hard one.  If a teacher wears a hajib, and her kids can't hear her, then she should just be fired  if she doesn't wish to adjust her religious expression.  This is seperate from the other fact that she should not be teaching int he first place.

Maybe this is the time to start new legislation to better define things so intolerance wont skyrocket.
2006-10-18 11:58:34
jonsimon
Member
+224|6751

IRONCHEF wrote:

BattlefieldMedic wrote:

I think, that people have to their relligeous beliefs. They are allowed to practice whatever they wish.

But I read some of your guys posts and it makes you think differently. Like in the example about the police officer pulling you over, or the one about the liquor store.

Islamic people, as I have learnt, expect us to accept them. They believe it is their right to be understood by society, their right to wear whatever they want while in someone elses country. But they dont learn the values of the country themselves. But, if you say walked into an Arab country, wearing a Kippah, you would not be accepted at all. Rather, you'd be shot, dead.
One important aspect to this debate that I've considered, and based my YES vote on, is that these laws may not actually be limiting use or possession of religious expression (in the form of a hajib in this topic), as much as it's requiring facial identification or vocal unobstruction which is needed. 

Driving, for example, is a privilege, not a right.  It's also not required to survive.  So if you are pulled over for speeding, an officer has the right to identify you (local law).  You then have the choice to limit your freedom of expression and be a law abiding citizen, or you can refrain from removing your hajib and be taken to a police station where your identification can be done again, perhaps in a setting that allows you to remove your hajib.

And guess what, you can put your hajib back on as soon as you've been identified thus preserving your right to religious expression. 

If voting is a right in the USA, and can be suspended if you're a convicted felon, then so too should other things, to the lesser degree mentioned above, be considered.  This example should also be considered in the context of a case by case basis.  Teachers in school...that's a hard one.  If a teacher wears a hajib, and her kids can't hear her, then she should just be fired  if she doesn't wish to adjust her religious expression.  This is seperate from the other fact that she should not be teaching int he first place.

Maybe this is the time to start new legislation to better define things so intolerance wont skyrocket.
I think you should have voted No. As it is stated, a yes vote means that no one can ever wear a face covering, which is contradictory to your stated opinions. A yes vote is in favor of completely outlawing coverings.
2006-10-18 14:36:59
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6805|Southeastern USA
I don't necessarily believe they should be outlawed at any given time, conversely, I don't want to see a law that says they have protected status and don't have to take them off no matter what, a student in the classroom, sure they can wear it, but don't get pissed if the teacher asks you to remove it for a test to make sure your not cheating or substituting your smarter sister or something, courtroom, definitely not, place of business, if the owner operator wants a peek to make sure it's not a setup for a robbery, be prepared to comply or get booted, if i saw someone walking down the street with one i wouldn't think twice, cept maybe if the rest of her is as hot as her eyebrows, if I were a bank teller, I would have my knee ready on the silent alarm and ask for a peek with her ID, this last instance would be beneficial to the muslim woman as well, since it would help prevent id theft
2006-10-18 17:29:11
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6747|Northern California

jonsimon wrote:

I think you should have voted No. As it is stated, a yes vote means that no one can ever wear a face covering, which is contradictory to your stated opinions. A yes vote is in favor of completely outlawing coverings.
Actually, since i made the poll, i meant for a yes vote to support laws made in a country, and those laws were pertaining to the article, which included times and places where it would not be lawful to wear a hajib.  For that reason, and not the more thorough law outlawing ownership and use of a hajib anywhere, then obviously, NO, it would not get my support.

Also, I didn't read where france outlawed the hajib in public anwhwere, i only saw something saying that in france, you could not use one in state schools.  My bad if someone can say otherwise and support it.

Also,  you are wrong.  The hajib was an issue in the US long before this brittish reference came up with jack straw.  A woman was pulled over on the east coast and refused to remove her hajib and/or burka.  I'll see if i can find the article for a source.

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-10-18 17:31:19)

2006-10-18 18:16:17
jonsimon
Member
+224|6751

IRONCHEF wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

I think you should have voted No. As it is stated, a yes vote means that no one can ever wear a face covering, which is contradictory to your stated opinions. A yes vote is in favor of completely outlawing coverings.
Actually, since i made the poll, i meant for a yes vote to support laws made in a country, and those laws were pertaining to the article, which included times and places where it would not be lawful to wear a hajib.  For that reason, and not the more thorough law outlawing ownership and use of a hajib anywhere, then obviously, NO, it would not get my support.

Also, I didn't read where france outlawed the hajib in public anwhwere, i only saw something saying that in france, you could not use one in state schools.  My bad if someone can say otherwise and support it.

Also,  you are wrong.  The hajib was an issue in the US long before this brittish reference came up with jack straw.  A woman was pulled over on the east coast and refused to remove her hajib and/or burka.  I'll see if i can find the article for a source.
Ah, well, the poll is inadequate, then. It would appear to me that A yes vote would advocate the wholesale ban of face coverings, while a no vote seemed to advocate a freedom of expression, both options neglect the gray area of flexible law subject to exceptions.

Same, I've only heard of the ban in schools.

Well, all the hulabaloo has been in Europe. And I haven't seen any face coverings here, despite all the arabs. It's possible I just don't see enough of the adults.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard