Printable View
ANY law which limits the actions of a minority group, for whatever reasons, is going to be viewed as discriminatory, regardless of the validity (or not) of the reasons for such law. In this case, removing the chance for criminals to hide behind veils is a valid justification for this law. The fact that it steps on the toes of religious extremists is just a bonus.Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
And yet different religions are indeed and have always been key components to almost every government of the past and many of the present. And not just because they are being shy-locked or something silly....the majority because the people who practice those faiths wish for it to be that way where they live.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
If the French practice freedom of religion...they should perhaps also practice respect and tolerance of the various religions cultural preferences when it doesn't hurt anyone else.
Yeah, and just look how well THAT'S worked out!Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Why should religious cultures get special preference? And who says those preferences aren't hurting anyone? Do you believe that ALL Muslim women really WANT to wear the burka? How many of them, if given the choice without fear of repercussions, would choose to discard it in favor of something else? How many Muslims would denounce their religion if they didn't have to fear death, the "religious preference" for apostasy?Quote:
If the French practice freedom of religion...they should perhaps also practice respect and tolerance of the various religions cultural preferences when it doesn't hurt anyone else.
No, ANY religious culture which controls through fear and murder does not deserve any special treatment, other than ridicule and legal attacks. It certainly doesn't deserve respect OR tolerance.
"No, ANY religious culture which controls through fear and murder does not deserve any special treatment, other than ridicule and legal attacks. It certainly doesn't deserve respect OR tolerance. "
I understand the point that you are trying to make here. I understand the thought behind it. However, as I try to understand different religions across the human race, I wonder how many can we really find as such. Every religion requires the believers to follow certain traditions, certain norms, certain rules. This eventually, come from either the priests or the higher echelons of that religion. Spiritual blackmail is an integral part of most religions as I know it. 'Do good or you will go to hell' or 'Its a war and you must bomb and kill thousands, for you will have angels waiting for you in heaven' or ' Praise the lord and he will forgive all your sins ( even if you have murdered 14 children and women)' or ' You will go to hell, if you choose not to wear a burqa and disgrace god' - they all sound the same across all religions.
These are the two problems that I see:Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
1) What you wear should be optional for everybody, regardless.
But in some countries you are forced to wear for instance the burka, in others you are forced not to. Some women have claimed that they Will wear the burka as a statement of identity, but they are, I think, very few. I think the main problem is in the states where you Have to wear it, as part of the general rule set for women.
2) There is a security and cultural problem with the burka, overlooking that does not help.
The security problem is obvious - there are situtations where you might be asked to lift it for identification, or where you cannot wear it, as in places with high security. The other problem is situations where people want to see the faces on the persons they are dealing with. If we are talking dentists or doctors or the like anyone can choose, but if we are talking police, official clerks, judges, teachers, hospital staff etc then you have a right to see people's faces - that is what I think.
Quote Originally Posted by denuseri View Post
doesn't it make more sense to simply have no laws concerning what someone wears so long as it applies universally or regionally on some kind of decency scale and leave all the rest up to personal preference?...as opposed to making laws specifically designed to isolate and increase cultural tensions?
The problem is that there is no universal decency scale. You either regulate, according to whatever, or let people choose for themselves.
I'm not talking about 'spiritual blackmail', but real, mortal danger. The standard sentence for renouncing Islam is death. The standard punishment for offending Islam is death. Not hell, not Allah's displeasure, but real death. Execution, when they can get away with it, assassination if you are in a non-Islamic country. There have been other religions, including Christianity, which have practiced similar penalties in the past. The leaders of these religions are not concerned with any spiritual punishment, but with maintaining control, and in many cases the only way to do that is to kill those who do not agree with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroFly
As an atheist, I deny the existence of gods, I deny the existence of an afterlife. Therefore religious leaders no longer have and 'spiritual blackmail' with which to try to control me. In much of the modern world, of course, I am protected by the same laws which protect those who practice religion. But in some parts of this world, simply denying the existence of the local gods is punishable by death. Simply speaking against the religious leaders is punishable by death. Obviously these religious leaders have no faith in the 'spiritual' punishments of their deities, and resort to physical punishments as a means of maintaining control.
ANY law which helps to reduce that stranglehold is, in my opinion, a good law. It does nothing to harm the followers of any religious cult, but does weaken the power of the leaders of those cults. It is the leaders of the Muslims in France who are most threatened by this law, not the women who will be liberated by it.