Really? This is done all the time: mandatory schooling, mandatory health care, mandatory safety measures (car seats, helmets, seat-belts etc...), mandatory HOA codes, and whatnot. These things are done for the benefit of both the individual and the society as a whole. The French people have pretty overwhelmingly stated that they feel this is what is best for both their society and the individuals affected.
Really? Did they ban overcoats as well? Look ATW believes he knows more what's better for these people than they know themselves and feels so strongly that they should not only listen to him and people who feel the same as he does, but that they should be forced to abide by what he knows is better by a law. On an issue like this, no matter how firm I am in my opinion that these women shouldn't wear a burqa, I don't believe in forcing my ideas on them by law. It's a difference of opinion.
I did not write the law. I merely applauded the French parliament's near-unanimous decision to pass it. Yes, we can agree to disagree.
All this speculation about why they did it is bull****. We know exactly why they did it officially. All speculation is worthless. If they had said it's for security reasons, it would be very different. The official reason is the only one that matters. No need for assumptions.
Let me ask - I'd be interested in hearing if there is a correlation between views on rights of women to chose to wear the burka, and opinion on the right of women to chose to enter a Mormon polygamous marriage. I believe there will be but I could be wrong. To me there are some similarities to the arguments (excluding the religious arguments coming from the Muslims and Mormons) - on one hand, you talk about people's right to choose for themselves, even if you don't think those choices are the best ones. And on the other, you hear arguments about people's ability to choose being corrupted by the influence of more powerful people in their local society, and so on and so forth. You also can mix in the fact that both groups are and have been subject to bigotry. The principal difference - to me - seems to be the way the two groups (Muslims and Mormons) are perceived by liberals and conservatives respectively.
The America people once felt that it was in the best interests of themselves and of blacks to have them as slaves without rights too. It's one thing to require kids to have an education and wear seat belts. It's quite another to dictate culture to people and tell how to live culturally and how they should worship. If you agree with that sort of thinking, countries like China are happy to have you.
@slandballa I know three women who wear the niqab (only eyes visible) and one who wears the burqa (nothing visible). Article: Differences b/w various Muslim veils Woman #1 (only burqa-wearer) - Ignorant, narrow-minded, and backward. Loves to hate on America and Western countries, but turns a blind eye to the problems in the Islamic world (outside women's rights like employment, illiteracy). Never reads the Quran but takes what her ultra-conservative priest and family tell her to do at face-value; does not know the Quran says men and women are equal but with different roles. Doesn't believe in evolution. Never went to college, instead, she married when she was 17. The Uncle Tom of anti-feminists if you will. Woman #2 - Chunky but with gorgeous eyes. Wears niqab because she looks good wearing it (the black fabric hides her love handles and accentuates her green eyes). Looks corpulent when wearing jeans and a t-shirt, and she suffers from bad acne so that's another issue. Woman #3 - Hates going out in public with her boyfriend because her extended family and friends love to keep tabs on her. Says it affords her privacy. Only wears it for that reason. Woman #4 - Does it solely for the sake of her family and their 'honor'/respectability when she goes home to visit them. But when she's away from all that, she wears Western clothing. Incredibly gorgeous too. I think ATW denounces women like #1 (who deserves to be physically educated about true Islam rather than the cultural/subjective system it is today, like the Ludovico technique in Clockwork Orange, it's unfortunately necessary for her to force-fed because she won't be enlightened any other way). They should only be allowed to choose after being educated that the Quran only stresses modesty for BOTH men and women. Teachings written 300 years after Muhammad died, taught and interpreted by ignorant and male chauvinist priests don't count.
Let's ban Tea Partiers from voting. They are uneducated and unaware, and they are messing up society. They shouldn't be allowed to vote because their uninformed opinions are not in the best interests of the country or themselves.
John Stuart Mill, one of the big dogs of Liberalism, said on voluntary slavery, from On Liberty (1859): The reason for not interfering with a person's voluntary acts is consideration for his liberty. His voluntary choice is evidence that what he so chooses is desirable, or at the least endurable, to him, and his good is on the whole best provided for by allowing him to take his own means of pursuing it. But by selling himself for a slave, he abdicates his liberty; he forgoes any future use of it, beyond that single act. He therefore defeats, in his own case, the very purpose which is the justification of allowing him to dispose of himself. He is no longer free; but is thenceforth in a position which has no longer the presumption in its favor, that would be afforded by his voluntarily remaining in it. The principle of freedom cannot require that he should be free not to be free. It is not freedom, to be allowed to alienate his freedom. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Having read a great deal of philosophy in undergrad, I support the mechanism of the French law but not its underlying prejudice and xenophobia. However, the ends justifies the means, and if this forces women like #1 from my post 468 to think critically then it's ok by me.
That's a good question and I will restate what I have said in other marriage related threads. I personally would like to see marriage as a governmental institution done away with. My own opinion is that it should be handled under contract law and as such then even polygamist marriages would be allowed if one could structure a contract to address that. In regard to the Niqab and Burkha I understand that the reasons for banning them are because of their symbolic value but I think we need to consider that they in themselves are not themselves the repression of women anymore than the whipple that you see women of Warren Jeff's church wear what forcing them into polygamist marriages. Banning the Niqab and Burkha have symbolic value but they don't directly address why in some Islamic cultures women are oppressed and as such is really just a blunt instrument that alienates those in that culture.
Well first of all the Mormon church doesn't support Polygamy so I think that's off base. I don't really have a problem with legalized Polygamy as long we can make sure that all women are consenting adults.
Perhaps we should prohibit voting altogether and bow to the vast storehouse of your perfect political vision.
That's what's being asked of women in France who would wear the burqa. Because someone else made the decision for them that they shouldn't wear a burqa and forced them to abide by that decision. Anytime the govt. is telling someone that they can't make decisions for themselves, it should be viewed with great skepticism.
They did until the non-Mormons threatened to take away all their rights. Then, in an entirely unrelated occurrence, the elders of the LDS Church received a secret note under the table from Joseph Smith saying more than one wife was haraam. Very fortunate. But the non-LDS Mormon still practice the old ways. Like Warren Jeffs. He's sort of a Mormon takfiri. If you asked him, he would say the LDS Church has nothing to do with Mormonism anymore.
If you walk into a Houston convenience store wearing a ski mask, you may get an unintended reaction. The French may feel the same way about masked people. Personally, I would have no objection if they wore them at home as often as they wanted.
Actually, it is in many instances. For instance, anywhere in West Virginia, or DC, and with some limitations in several other states. http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/maskcodes.html
No, but I certainly wouldn't be opposed to it. Most stores won't allow you inside on Halloween, for instance, if your face is covered.
