French Senate Approves a Ban on Burqas

[mheslep]

http://www.answering-christianity.com/no_murder.htm"

I just can't believe people do still argue that.

That 911 conspiracy site won't do Drizzle, though the phrase "slay the idolaters wherever ye find them" is an accurate and famous verse.

 

[Gokul43201]

http://www.answering-christianity.com/no_murder.htm"

I just can't believe people do still argue that.

The second quote there reads to me like a call to kill idolators after some sacred period has passed.

 

[Proton Soup]

No, you are conflating what some have done in the name of Christianity to gather power with what it is, according to the fundamental teachings of Jesus of Nazereth. Burning witches in 16th century Salem was not fundamental to Christianity. The Crusades were not fundamental to Christianity. The difference here is that sharia law, for instance, is fundamental to Islam, not just a tenet of it.

your opinion about what it should be is not relevant. the church of rome ruled by force for centuries. it's not simply a matter of a few ergot-inspired atrocities.

and we still do this today. here in the US, we forced the Mormon church to drop polygamy. yes, we used civil authority to do it, but that law is largely derived from mainstream christian values. islam would also allow polygamy, but because of our largely christian-based culture, they will not be able to practice that in america. we don't call it something like "sharia", and we claim a separation of church and state, but even though the law is officially secular, it is based on our cultural values that are originally not secular.

 

[mheslep]

your opinion about what it should be is not relevant. the church of rome ruled by force for centuries. it's not simply a matter of a few ergot-inspired atrocities.

Please stop attributing to me that which I did not say. It did not what say Christianity 'should be'. I laid out a bit of what it is, according to the original precepts of the New Testament. Humanity being what it is, the Roman Catholic church distorted Christianity for its own purposes for centuries, but because of the fundamentals, the Protestant Reformation began a cure for many of those ills. Islam has not undergone any such reformation to my knowledge, certainly not any major one.

and we still do this today. here in the US, we forced the Mormon church to drop polygamy. yes, we used civil authority to do it, but that law is largely derived from mainstream christian values. islam would also allow polygamy, but because of our largely christian-based culture, they will not be able to practice that in america. we don't call it something like "sharia", and we claim a separation of church and state, but even though the law is officially secular, it is based on our cultural values that are originally not secular.

Here's the equivocation again to which I was originally referring. Yes one could argue that Christianity imposes a culture to some degree, but to find sharia law similar, which demands religious tenets be implemented throughout civil code, is to completely misunderstand sharia.

 

[drizzle]

That 911 conspiracy site won't do Drizzle, though the phrase "slay the idolaters wherever ye find them" is an accurate and famous verse.

For one, I’m not entitled to defend Islam from charges that’s being accused with. [and that’s why most Muslims don’t speak, IMO, no one wants to be responsible for the views that would’ve build up against the religion based on her/his opinion, s/he’ll be questioned [by God] of whatever others might’ve misled the truth. Aside from that, Islam speaks for itself, one just needs to read]
But for this very verse, here’s the reason behind it:

It is easy to cut and paste without reading the whole surah to understand. A group of pagans made an agreement with the Muslims that they would be allowed to do Hajj. The Muslims did as the agreement asked but the Pagans repeatedly denyed them the right to do Hajj and blocked them even though they had furfilled there part of the bargan. So they were given a warning over a period of of time and then if they did not allow them to do Hajj than they were given permission to fight the pagens who had violated the agreement. But were clearly told not to harm those who had not violated the agreements. In Islam at the time Muslims were forbidden to fight without permission. This was permission to go to war.

A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances
Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him.
And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.
(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided anyone against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.
How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous. .

Two, Islam doesn’t contradict itself:

… if anyone slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.

Quran 5:32

Islam considers all life forms as sacred, and there are many MANY verses that show that clearly.

So please move on and stay on topic.

 

[Proton Soup]

Please stop attributing to me that which I did not say. It did not what say Christianity 'should be'. I laid out a bit of what it is, according to the original precepts of the New Testament. Humanity being what it is, the Roman Catholic church distorted Christianity for its own purposes for centuries, but because of the fundamentals, the Protestant Reformation began a cure for many of those ills. Islam has not undergone any such reformation to my knowledge, certainly not any major one.

Here's the equivocation again to which I was originally referring. Yes one could argue that Christianity imposes a culture to some degree, but to find sharia law similar, which demands religious tenets be implemented throughout civil code, is to completely misunderstand sharia.

well... i think you're making a religious argument here that perhaps islam is not ever capable of integrating into westernized democracies, so I'm just going to withdraw from the discussion.

 

[Dennis_Murphy]

well... i think you're making a religious argument here that perhaps islam is not ever capable of integrating into westernized democracies, so I'm just going to withdraw from the discussion.

If that was his point then I would suggest he read up on Turkey and all the Islamic peoples that moved to the west and became citizens inside those nations.

 

[JaredJames]

If that was his point then I would suggest he read up on Turkey and all the Islamic peoples that moved to the west and became citizens inside those nations.

That doesn't mean they integrated with the general population.

(I'm not saying they did or didn't but the fact they migrated does not mean they integrated.)

 

[Dennis_Murphy]

That doesn't mean they integrated with the general population.

(I'm not saying they did or didn't but the fact they migrated does not mean they integrated.)

No it doesn't, but that's why I said to 'read about' them. When you read about them you may well be able to find out if they integrated, how well they integrated, or if they did not.

 

[JaredJames]

No it doesn't, but that's why I said to 'read about' them. When you read about them you may well be able to find out if they integrated, how well they integrated, or if they did not.

I read your initial quote as "he's wrong, they can and do integrate, he should read about them before making such claims".

If that is not how it was meant then either I'm wrong and apologise or it was poorly worded.

 

[Dennis_Murphy]

I read your initial quote as "he's wrong, they can and do integrate, he should read about them before making such claims".

If that is not how it was meant then either I'm wrong and apologise or it was poorly worded.

The meaning of the post was simply to start as a basis for the poster to read about Turkey, a Western Democracy that is heavily religious, and about Islamic peoples who went to countries and became citizens so that he may learn, if that was indeed his point. I did not mean to say that he is wrong, simply that he may formulate a different opinion should he read about Turkey. From that point he is free to argue semantics or to conclude anything that he wishes. I did not mean to spark tensions.

 

[nismaratwork]

Back to headgear... are nuns still allowed to wear a habit in France? Just curious...

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm sure they are (and I don't see a double standard in that), but possibly not inside a public school (not sure).

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm sure they are (and I don't see a double standard in that), but possibly not inside a public school (not sure).

This may be a gap in my knowledge; I know that there are number of Catholic schools in France, but I don't know if any receive state funding... or if that makes them subject to state law the way it would in the USA. Do you know by any chance?... I can't seem to find the info online yet. I'm afraid I made an assumption here, so forgive me for asking for assistance in proving or disproving it.

edit: the best I can find is this from wikipedia, which would seem to indicate that state subsidy does not subject a school to state law:

but publicly subsidized, Catholic schools (where the law does not apply, being restricted to the public education system).

 

[JaredJames]

In the UK, if a persons religion says they have to wear a turban, they do not have to wear a crash helmet for motorcycles or on construction sites. (After all, they are known for the impact protection they offer )

That's an example of a law in place to maintain religious freedom, but at the same time having potentially lethal consequences.

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Turban,_UK_Legislation_Regarding_its_use_by_Sikhs

The above link is to a sikh wiki page explaining the laws of the UK. I do like the clause:
"Where a turban-wearing Sikh is injured on a construction site liability for injuries is restricted to the injuries that would have been sustained if the Sikh had been wearing a safety helmet."

Wear it at your own peril in other words.

And then whilst aquiring that link I found this gem:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/07/police-sikhs-bulletproof-turbans

The UK seems to be going out of its way to accommodate religious beliefs. I have no problem with these laws on the grounds they have clearly built in clauses which limit liability. I'm not sure whether or not I'd consider the above to be damaging potential integration into society. In my books it isn't such a big issue in comparison to the burqa, where you are effectively cut off from the person due to the garments.

These examples seem to be the complete opposite of what France is doing. France is removing their head gear, we're adding to it.

Personally, I don't think anyone should be exempt from strict dress codes such as those with the police.

 

[mheslep]

If that was his point then I would suggest he read up on Turkey and all the Islamic peoples that moved to the west and became citizens inside those nations.

Turkey makes my point. After WWI Islamic code was not allowed to integrate with or even run Turkish government as it had been Ottoman times; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk" .

 

[humanino]

I'm sure they are (and I don't see a double standard in that), but possibly not inside a public school (not sure).

My understanding is that the french government would not see a double standard : if the question refers to catholic nuns, one should be reminded that catholic male professionals also have distinctive dress codes. Monks or priest wear them. You can not understand the issue if you forget that burqa is only for women.

 

[nismaratwork]

My understanding is that the french government would not see a double standard : if the question refers to catholic nuns, one should be reminded that catholic male professionals also have distinctive dress codes. Monks or priest wear them. You can not understand the issue if you forget that burqa is only for women.

There is a difference between a collar and black cloths and a fairly elaborate bit of headgear in my view. We're not just talking about a little skullcap either, but something that is in fact far more elaborate (in its formal presentation) than a hijab, but less than a burqa. As I understand it, this law unlike the 2004 version, applies specifically to headwear.

 

[JaredJames]

My understanding is that the french government would not see a double standard : if the question refers to catholic nuns, one should be reminded that catholic male professionals also have distinctive dress codes. Monks or priest wear them. You can not understand the issue if you forget that burqa is only for women.

I also think there is a difference between being faced with someone in nun's clothing and someone in a burqa. To be able to see the face is important in human communication. If you are completely cut off and cannot see any more than the eyes, you cannot 'read' a person and it can pose problems.

Someone was discussing Katie Price (Jordan) and her marriage problems. They said that due to the high levels of botox injections, she was not able to register emotions. And when speaking to her husband (Peter Andre at the time) if she made a comment which was meant to be taking lightly, due to the lack of facial expression, he could not read her and understand this. Making her comments seem more hateful than they really were. Something which could certainly be a potential problem for her.

I know it isn't a brilliant example, but the fact is we read body language and it helps us communicate. If you remove this, people will have trouble communicating.

I'd also say that a person completely covered would be deemed less approachable.

This link refers to the importance of non-verbal communication when moving to a foreign country:
http://www.expats-moving-and-relocation-guide.com/nonverbal-communication.html

http://psychology.about.com/od/nonverbalcommunication/a/nonverbaltypes.htm

 

[nismaratwork]

Turkey makes my point. After WWI Islamic code was not allowed to integrate with or even run Turkish government as it had been Ottoman times; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk" .

I was waiting for this, and wondered why no one has made that point that Turkey is on its way to what would seem to be a serious social schism. I don't know that such a brief legacy of one respected leader can be a model for the rest of the world, unless it's to show that opposite of what moderate muslims wish to claim. Turkey is not moving in a very tolerant direction...

 

[nismaratwork]

I also think there is a difference between being faced with someone in nun's clothing and someone in a burqa. To be able to see the face is important in human communication. If you are completely cut off and cannot see any more than the eyes, you cannot 'read' a person and it can pose problems.

Someone was discussing Katie Price (Jordan) and her marriage problems. They said that due to the high levels of botox injections, she was not able to register emotions. And when speaking to her husband (Peter Andre at the time) if she made a comment which was meant to be taking lightly, due to the lack of facial expression, he could not read her and understand this. Making her comments seem more hateful than they really were.

I know it isn't a brilliant example, but the fact is we read body language and it helps us communicate. If you remove this, people will have trouble communicating.

I'd also say that a person completely covered would be deemed less approachable.

This law also applies to the hijab, which does not cover the face in the slightest and can be as little as a head-scarf.

 

[JaredJames]

This law also applies to the hijab, which does not cover the face in the slightest and can be as little as a head-scarf.

I was under the impression there were two separate laws, one for the hijab and one for the burqa? So it is only the one law then?

 

[humanino]

This law also applies to the hijab, which does not cover the face in the slightest and can be as little as a head-scarf.

No, hijab is only forbidden in schools. It is not forbidden anywhere else, it is not forbidden in university for instance. Many women wear hijab in France, as I said earlier only very few wear burqa. The law about hijab was much less controversial (although it already was, to some extent).

 

[mheslep]

The how-did-it-happen on Turkey's shift back towards an Islamic state, per columnist/author M. Steyn

Since he [ Atatürk ] founded post-Ottoman Turkey in his own image nearly nine decades ago, the population has increased from 14 million to over 70 million. But that five-fold increase is not evenly distributed. The short version of Turkish demographics in the 20th century is that Rumelian Turkey — i.e., western, European, secular, Kemalist Turkey — has been outbred by Anatolian Turkey — i.e., eastern, rural, traditionalist, Islamic Turkey. Ataturk and most of his supporters were from Rumelia, and they imposed the modern Turkish republic on a reluctant Anatolia, where Ataturk’s distinction between the state and Islam was never accepted. Now they don’t have to accept it. The swelling population has spilled out of its rural hinterland and into the once solidly Kemalist cities. [...]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229901/israel-turkey-and-end-stability/mark-steyn

 

[humanino]

Many analysts interpret the law, as well as the french government current behavior, as preparing the far right electorate for the 2012 elections. Supposedly they should catch back with the center later. We will see.

Whatever one thinks about the law itself, one should at least recognize : if there is an immigration issue in France (which I am not convinced at all), then repression does not address the issue. It only pleases the electorate sensible to the (putative) issue.

 

[nismaratwork]

Many analysts interpret the law, as well as the french government current behavior, as preparing the far right electorate for the 2012 elections. Supposedly they should catch back with the center later. We will see.

Whatever one thinks about the law itself, one should at least recognize : if there is an immigration issue in France (which I am not convinced at all), then repression does not address the issue. It only pleases the electorate sensible to the (putative) issue.

Well said.

 

[nismaratwork]

The how-did-it-happen on Turkey's shift back towards an Islamic state, per columnist/author M. Steyn


http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229901/israel-turkey-and-end-stability/mark-steyn

That's as lucid as it is disturbing in its implications for the future of a formerly reliable western ally.

 

[alt]

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/its-unaustralian--rally-condemns-push-to-ban-burqa-20100919-15hy0.html

one snippet ..

''By turning their backs on this flawed way of life, it is testament of the superiority of Islamic values over Western values.''

.. and ensure you have a good look at the photo second down.

This is NOT good !

 

[Jack21222]

This is NOT good !

Can you elaborate?

 

[nismaratwork]

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/its-unaustralian--rally-condemns-push-to-ban-burqa-20100919-15hy0.html

one snippet ..

''By turning their backs on this flawed way of life, it is testament of the superiority of Islamic values over Western values.''

.. and ensure you have a good look at the photo second down.

This is NOT good !

It's not good that AU is continuing its miserable record in regards to immigration, or it isn't good that some Arab women wear a truly horrendous outfit, or it isn't good that one culture feels superior to another... or it isn't good that as usual, everything other than acceptance of cultural norms in Muslim societies is seen as some kind of attack? Personally, I'll take all of the above, but it isn't clear from your post... I'm just sorry that AU is getting on board, and thrilled that at least nothing is being burned in effigy by the "other side"... yet. This whole thing is no way to resolve differences, or realistically do anyone any good. These issues reflect a division, they don't create or mend it.

 

[alt]

Nismar and jack - thanks for your responses. I got to go at the 'mo, but back tommorrow. One quick one though nismar - what's miserable about Aus immigration ?

 

[nismaratwork]

Nismar and jack - thanks for your responses. I got to go at the 'mo, but back tommorrow. One quick one though nismar - what's miserable about Aus immigration ?

Go at the mo... heh.

As for AU immigration, that's a fair question: First out of fairness I'll link to the official AU history of immigration. http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/sp/settlement.htm

Now to the bad side... there is a history of wrongful detentions (they had a nasty scandal back in 2004-05), and keeping potential refugees in camps for prolonged periods. There are views such as these: http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/heartlessness-at-the-centre-of-an-immigration-scandal/

I mean, cash for visas (Howard govt) is a pretty unfortunate state of affairs.

Afghanis going home...
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Australia/other/DTel010202.html

General issues around seeking asylum: http://www.asiapacificforum.net/news/australia-ongoing-problems-in-immigration-detention.html

I would say that unlike the USA system, which is a terrible mess in the sense that it has little control... AU attempts to control far too much. It's obviously my view, and I'm not saying that AU is some horrible place to live in, far from it. If you're a western European, or American wanting to move to AU, it's a process, but hardly out of reach. If you're trying to get to AU for help or refuge however... it's pretty bad.

 

[alt]

This is NOT good ..

Just about every comment of the Muslim speakers in the article is offensive. Now you can say that that's freedom of speech, and I agree with you - providing it works both ways - which it doesn't - but anyway ..

What's NOT good however, is that this, the exact attitude you read in the article, is the prevailing one when Muslims form politically active groups, in the process of coming into another culture. Read the article - don't shoot the messenger. I didn't say these things, nor did I organise the meeting. Intelligent, educated and cultured Muslims did.

Women had two options, she said. ''The Western secular way of life, which robs a woman of her dignity, honour and respect, where she is considered little more than a commodity to be bought and sold, or the option of Islam, where a woman's dignity, respect and honour are priceless.''
Later she cited high rates of rape and domestic violence

I showed my wife and my daughter this article, and they were both sickened and horrified. Do you guys not have wives and daughters ? Then know that according to the prevailing Muslim attitude, Christian, Jewish, atheist women et al, (so long as they aren't Muslim) are a commodity to be bought and sold, have little or no dignity, respect and honour, and are highly prone to rape and domestic violence.

How is it that you see nothing wrong here, and nothing to remonstrate about ? You spoke up to critique my comment yet you did not lift a finger to even question the banal, obnoxious and highly offensive prevailing Muslim attitude, as typified in the comments by the Muslim speakers in the article.

 

[alt]

Go at the mo... heh.

As for AU immigration, that's a fair question: First out of fairness I'll link to the official AU history of immigration. http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/sp/settlement.htm

Now to the bad side... there is a history of wrongful detentions (they had a nasty scandal back in 2004-05), and keeping potential refugees in camps for prolonged periods. There are views such as these: http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/heartlessness-at-the-centre-of-an-immigration-scandal/

I mean, cash for visas (Howard govt) is a pretty unfortunate state of affairs.

Afghanis going home...
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Australia/other/DTel010202.html

General issues around seeking asylum: http://www.asiapacificforum.net/news/australia-ongoing-problems-in-immigration-detention.html

I would say that unlike the USA system, which is a terrible mess in the sense that it has little control... AU attempts to control far too much. It's obviously my view, and I'm not saying that AU is some horrible place to live in, far from it. If you're a western European, or American wanting to move to AU, it's a process, but hardly out of reach. If you're trying to get to AU for help or refuge however... it's pretty bad.

It's obviously my view,

Yes, and as an outsider, I suppose you get read reports in the global press which favour a particular viewpoint. I don't think Australias policies have been miserable at all - generous more than anything. But I'm sorry, I really don't have the breath to go into a looong debate with you on this issue. Such debates tend to rage on and on and on, and drag everything else into them, and resolve little.

 

[Jack21222]

This is NOT good ..

Just about every comment of the Muslim speakers in the article is offensive.

I disagree. Some comments were off the mark, but I found few outright offensive.

What's NOT good however, is that this, the exact attitude you read in the article, is the prevailing one when Muslims form politically active groups, in the process of coming into another culture.

Just like every other group? Almost every religion, ideology, and economic doctrine I can think of forms a politically active group in whatever culture they find themselves in. I, for one, am comfortable with this.

I showed my wife and my daughter this article, and they were both sickened and horrified. Do you guys not have wives and daughters ?

No, I don't.

Then know that according to the prevailing Muslim attitude, Christian, Jewish, atheist women et al, (so long as they aren't Muslim) are a commodity to be bought and sold, have little or no dignity, respect and honour, and are highly prone to rape and domestic violence.

I agree with you that the quote is over-the-top. I disagree that it's the prevailing Muslim attitude. I disagree that it's unique to Islam, or even representative of most Muslims. I've seen Christians say the SAME THING as what you quoted. I recently saw an example over at PZ Myers' blog which I'm too lazy to dig up at the moment. I've also seen Muslim women embrace Western culture.

You're making the same mistake that the Muslim speaker you quoted is making. You're setting up a false dichotomy between Islam and the West. Just because this one Muslim says something doesn't mean you have to buy into it.

How is it that you see nothing wrong here, and nothing to remonstrate about ? You spoke up to critique my comment yet you did not lift a finger to even question the banal, obnoxious and highly offensive prevailing Muslim attitude, as typified in the comments by the Muslim speakers in the article.

It's up to you to demonstrate that the speakers in the article reflect the "prevailing Muslim attitude." I personally know and have known a good number Muslims that certainly do not agree with what you call the "prevailing attitude."

If you want to play the "quote a fundamentalist" game, I'll bet I can match you Christian for Muslim all night. But, I don't think this is the thread for that. I'll even bet I can find crazy Jewish fundamentalists to match you with quote for quote. If you want to step outside of religion, I can quote extreme right-wingers or left-wingers all night, too.