Burka Rage

[Thorne]

only your beliefs are valid in your eyes...

Not true. Any beliefs which are based in reality are valid, though it's hard to categorize them as beliefs if they are reality. Gravity doesn't require belief, does it? It works whether you choose to believe or not. Believing in things which are unreal, or irrational, or based solely on wishful thinking, whether religious or not, would qualify as invalid in my eyes, though.

Insulting; yet again, every single person who believes in or adheres to a belief in something that's religious in nature as usual...clearly makes one no better really than the other Islam-a-phoebes and would be discriminators.

I am not trying to insult anyone. I am merely stating that a belief in something which cannot be proven to exist, which cannot even be tested, and which has no explanatory value in the real world is, by its very nature, a superstition. If you disagree then you only need to show the evidence that the rabbit's foot in your pocket really does change your luck.

[denuseri]

Additionally the wearing or not of particular pieces of clothing has more to do with culture than religion.

As for beliefs in things that have no basis in reality...like atheism...which also has no way to prove itself any more than said rabbits foot....that's a topic best left for oh say any one of the other threads on that subject of which there are several don't you think? ...instead of using it to hijack yet another discussion just because it mentions the word religion.

[Thorne]

Additionally the wearing or not of particular pieces of clothing has more to do with culture than religion.

Doesn't matter. If the park rules forbid it, you either follow the rules or don't patronize the park.

As for beliefs in things that have no basis in reality...like atheism...which also has no way to prove itself any more than said rabbits foot....that's a topic best left for oh say any one of the other threads on that subject of which there are several don't you think? ...instead of using it to hijack yet another discussion just because it mentions the word religion.

Nice way to throw in your two cents worth and close the door at the same time. But yeah, I agree, this isn't the place. But then, I wasn't the one who hijacked the thread in the first place, was I?

[thirteen]

My point was that I doubted the clarity of the communication. Yet even if the rule was clearly communicated, the rule itself still seems to be discriminatory. I don't know of any other major amusement park that forbids hijab. It seems doubly unacceptable as this park is owned and funded by Westchester County. What I was trying to suggest with the mention of death at the park is that Rye Playland doesn't take safety policies seriously - except apparently in the case of women wearing hijab. Westchester County is in Long Island, many people in Long Island go to work in NYC. Many people in Long Island are also white, and patriotic Christians -- you know, proper Americans. Numerous women wearing hijab, in their all American amusement parks? Right before 9/11? There are a lot people, a lot of cops in Long Island who would feel frightened/threatened/angered by such an idea.

Certainly I personally agree that organized religion is silly but this "riot" still seems to me an extremely poorly handled clash of culture and religion. The whole affair and all of the debate it has sparked has so far only served to once again highlight the depth of Islamic fear and discrimination in this country. Instead of saying kudos to the police for beating and arresting them crazy Muslims before they did something terrible like wearing a scarf on an old rickety 1950s roller coaster there are other more positive and less violent ways to approach this situation. I sincerely hope that Westchester County takes this opportunity to bring the communities together instead of pushing them further apart.

[Thorne]

thirteen,

I understand what you're saying, and I agree that the whole incident was badly mishandled by all parties involved. And believe me, I have no sympathy for cops feeling "frightened/threatened/angered" by people because of their religious/cultural beliefs. But I also have no sympathy for those who cling to such irrational beliefs. "When in Rome" and all that. What I find ironic is that in some of the homelands of these Islamic people a woman without the hijab, whether Muslim or not, would be arrested and thrown into prison, and these same people who complain of discrimination would have no problem with such acts. The idea that "You must respect my idiotic beliefs, but don't expect me to respect your idiotic beliefs" just doesn't hold any water for me. What will bring communities together is to toss aside the old customs, for both sides, and establish new customs that all can live with.

And I still say that, based upon what I read in the article, the Muslim group was informed beforehand that the hajibs would not be permitted. They could have declined to spend their money at the park if such rules offended them. By going into the park anyway and then making a scene about it they were instigating the disruption.

[Lion]

What I find ironic is that in some of the homelands of these Islamic people a woman without the hijab, whether Muslim or not, would be arrested and thrown into prison, and these same people who complain of discrimination would have no problem with such acts.

For many "Islamic" people (Muslims), homeland is America. Where their families past is as close to them as a white American with an Irish background. They may celebrate a little more on St. Patty's, but that doesn't make them representatives of Ireland or in anyway linked to the current state of that country. As for Muslims who have no problem with arresting women who are hijab-less, has there been a major push to enact a mandatory hijab law by any Muslims here? Why do you think that just because it happens in their parent's land, or even in the country they lived in the past, that they condone it?

I have no idea what happened in that park, and I have faith in local law officials in their duty to serve and protect. Personally, I don't like burqa's in North America, but a woman wearing one is as much part of America then the girl wearing a string bikini on a beach that same day.

[AeroFly]

Most attire worn by men and women around the world has had a scientific reason attached to it. We wear Jeans because its the most convenient fabric, though it started off as a tough cloth for the miners. Burqa started off as means to protect the eyes and face of women as they traveled through the sandy deserts. Burqa, started off in the second century as a means to show class and status as well, since only those with riches could afford to cover their women with so much cloth. That too, only the urban women were veiled. Several rulers from Iran and Egypt have tried to get rid of it, without much success. Men, with their low life confidence, insecurity and maturity decided to keep the tradition on. Personally, I feel the Burqa represents oppression of one's freedom of speech, freedom of movement and every other. It, to me, is demeaning for any women and none should be forced to go through it. One can argue that wearing is a Burqa is religious and to impose a ban on the Burqa is imposing the freedom of practicing religion. But that comment is flawed. Consider this scenario: A new religion is born that professes wearing no clothes ever. Would that be acceptable to the society as a whole? Would you stand next to a naked man shopping for tomatoes in a super market? I'm sure I would be uncomfortable. As uncomfortable as it makes me standing next to a women wearing a Burqa. It represents oppression, slavery without a choice, and is nothing short of humiliation to women all over the world.

[Thorne]

Most attire worn by men and women around the world has had a scientific reason attached to it.

Not necessarily scientific, but at least a rational reason. There have been many such rational reasons for many different practices which, over the centuries, have become entrenched in dogma. The real reasons for doing those things have been forgotten, and they are done only because it's the way they've always been done. Even though there is now no rational reason for doing so.

We wear Jeans because its the most convenient fabric, though it started off as a tough cloth for the miners.

The reasons for wearing jeans are almost as numerous as the different brands, but none of them are considered to be requirements (except by those enslaved to the fashion dictates of designers). And they are certainly not FORCED upon half of the population by the other half of the population.

Several rulers from Iran and Egypt have tried to get rid of it, without much success.

That's because the clerics have made it an integral part of the religion, with disobedience resulting in death. Remove the stranglehold of religion and the problem disappears. Not as simple as it sounds, I know.

[denuseri]

It's not just the clerics or any one group propagating the wearing of traditional clothing.

[Thorne]

It's not just the clerics or any one group propagating the wearing of traditional clothing.

I didn't mean to imply that it was. It's both a cultural and a religious dogma. It's a tossup as to whether the religious dogma is descended from the cultural mores or vice versa, but when the only choice is to submit to the dogma or die, you'll find few who will fight it.

[denuseri]

Even if they (religion and culture) sometimes seem as if they are hopelessly tangled together, at least in so far as certain traditional practices are concerned...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?

Removing religion isn't a feasible solution to this cultural issue imho.

[Thorne]

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?

And who's concept of "decency" should we use? The group that claims it's indecent for a woman to show any skin below the neck? Or the group that thinks it's okay for anyone to walk around naked if they so choose? WHO gets to define what's "decent"? And while I agree that the French law is aimed at Muslim women in particular, isn't it true that it applies to ALL people in France?

Removing religion isn't a feasible solution to this cultural issue imho.

Removing religion may not be feasible, but eliminating the power of religion to rule those who are not subscribed to that religion is not only feasible but mandatory. We have to put religion back in the box where it belongs. Keep it in the churches, and in your home if you wish. It does not belong in public or government.

[denuseri]

And who's concept of "decency" should we use? The group that claims it's indecent for a woman to show any skin below the neck? Or the group that thinks it's okay for anyone to walk around naked if they so choose? WHO gets to define what's "decent"?

The people of each effected cultural group or community should get some say in the matter at the very least.

And while I agree that the French law is aimed at Muslim women in particular, isn't it true that it applies to ALL people in France?

So what if it applies to all people in the world when it only "effects" certain groups of Muslim women; targets them in fact, putting even more pressure on those same women so many in the west liken to being oppressed..now from two fronts thanks to the French and others.


Removing religion may not be feasible, but eliminating the power of religion to rule those who are not subscribed to that religion is not only feasible but mandatory. We have to put religion back in the box where it belongs. Keep it in the churches, and in your home if you wish. It does not belong in public or government.

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.

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.

[Thorne]

And yet different religions are indeed and have always been key components to almost every government of the past and many of the present

Yeah, and just look how well THAT'S worked out!

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.

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?

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.

[thir]

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.

[thir]

Even if they (religion and culture) sometimes seem as if they are hopelessly tangled together, at least in so far as certain traditional practices are concerned...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?

Removing religion isn't a feasible solution to this cultural issue imho.

These are the two problems that I see:

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.

[MMI]

To my mind, the French law is discriminatory on racist, religious and gender grounds and is deliberately provocative. It attacks the weakest members of the section of society it wishes to marginalise, knowing that the radical leaders (male) will respond to that provocation, while the moderates will have no option but to submit.

[Thorne]

To my mind, the French law is discriminatory on racist, religious and gender grounds and is deliberately provocative. It attacks the weakest members of the section of society it wishes to marginalise, knowing that the radical leaders (male) will respond to that provocation, while the moderates will have no option but to submit.

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.

[AeroFly]

"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.

[Thorne]

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.

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.

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.