[PUG] French Parliamentary Committee Supports Burka Ban

[acd]

How is it not oppressive to tell a woman what she can and cannot wear if it doesn't cause harm to others? There is a massive grey area about how seeing a full face viel would impact others, I am sure it does have a negative impact. But this action is fairly contradictory to the reasoning given.


This is clearly a strong stance against the advancement of Islamic/cultural fundamentalism as they state. I believe there are people that truly don't see Islam as a violent or oppressive religion. They live in a different society that coexists with others. That is all subjective and open to interpretation, but I believe there are women who honestly desire to wear the burka, that they see it as a right, and that right is being taken away for a reason that does not apply to them.

I am still kind of processing the entire debate of Islam and whether it instills violence in its followers or if some violent followers instill violence in it.

Ironic to ban women, (oppress them in this way, as you said) from practicing their religion... when the religion itself is oppressive to women for censoring them so? Isn't it oppressive to say this:

"It is the obligation of the female to cover her head because women's hair exudes vibrations that arouse, mislead, and corrupt men." ---Rafsanjani (former president of Iran)

I am skeptical of women who say they choose to wear the chador or the hijab or the burka. Only because I think that their entire lives they have been trained to believe they are lower than men, told their very existence and appearance is sinful, and that they are the corruptors of man.

Or, do you believe that women are the corruptors of men? That our hair lures you to sin and crushes any self control over your own temptations? But I am sure that you are much more liberal in your regard and treatment of women. Complete veiling is oppressive and not even mandated by the Koran, it's a political ploy. Back in Mohammed's time, women were not treated as they are today in the name of religion.

 

[Raccoon Love]

I find this to be absurd, I am quite shocked France would pass such law yet such religious tensions are taking place more and more commonly, it really is sad to see humanity divided by subjects like religion, which is ironic in the sense that religion is supposed to bring unity among the people, instead it has been a source of disparity and hatred among the populations. I do not think it is right for the rench government to place such restriction on the Burka, it is mainly a religious/cultural aspect that the government has no right to take away, after all this woman are not committing any sort of crime for this to be justified, most Islamic woman don't have a problem with wearing a Burka, so why should it concern France, this woman don't feel oppressed and man actually take pride in wearing this, if they believe it is right for them, then they should have every right to be able to wear it, and if they do feel oppressed then I would imagine than in a considerably liberal country such as France and pretty much Europe in general then the woman has every right to refuse to wear such thing, banning something that has had great tradition and culture on a certain religious community is ludicrous, let them continue to do so as long as they do not engage in crimes.

 

[bamf]

In France, women are free to practice religion, therefor free to wear a Burka or not.

I think it will be ridiculous and restricting if this is passed.

 

[Shai Gar]

acdc, your hair leads me to corruption.

 

[acd]

Maybe France does not want to send the message that they condone the treatment of women in countries like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc.

Maybe France doesn't see women as needing to hide themselves in order to keep the menfolk from sinning. Full body veiling is a totally ridiculous concept, I can't fault France for wanting to usher in a new era of um... NOT religious fanaticism.

Call me a monster, I personally would like to see religion fade away. It doesn't bring unity. It brings hierarchies, self-rightous hypocrisy, violence, oppression, and dissention. Banning the burka won't solve it, though. Educating people will.



P.S
Shai Gar, I'd only break yerr heart..

 

[Shai Gar]

Maybe they'd like photo identification to mean something...

 

[bamf]

Call me a monster, I personally would like to see religion fade away. It doesn't bring unity. It brings hierarchies, self-rightous hypocrisy, and dissention. Banning the burka won't solve it, though. Educating people will.

I agree with this. My only difference is that until then I feel that in countries where religious practice is free (and isn't harmful, harmful being up for debate of course), the government shouldn't ban things such as Burka's seeing that the citizens are free to practice said religion, and free to chose to follow/not-follow said religious practices.

 

[NeverAmI]

Ironic to ban women, (oppress them in this way, as you said) from practicing their religion... when the religion itself is oppressive to women for censoring them so? Isn't it oppressive to say this:



I am skeptical of women who say they choose to wear the chador or the hijab or the burka. Only because I think that their entire lives they have been trained to believe they are lower than men, told their very existence and appearance is sinful, and that they are the corruptors of man.

Or, do you believe that women are the corruptors of men? That our hair lures you to sin and crushes any self control over your own temptations? But I am sure that you are much more liberal in your regard and treatment of women. Complete veiling is oppressive and not even mandated by the Koran, it's a political ploy. Back in Mohammed's time, women were not treated as they are today in the name of religion.

I have no opinion on the burqa. Perhaps the burqa is completely based on an oppressive scheme towards women. However, if a woman wishes to wear a burqa and it causes no harm to anyone else, then where does the problem lie?

The idea of it being oppressive is subjective in as much as the idea of it not being oppressive. I have never been to the Middle-East, I have not talked to every single woman that wears a burka to get her opinion. Perhaps their opinions are only warranted by a cultural demand, but it is still their opinion and desire.

I still believe the act is contradictory.

I have known women that willingly take pride in wearing a hijab or a burqa. Perhaps they are lying to themselves or coerced into it by their society. But who are we to say that it needs to be controlled? You could also argue that tops/bras on women are oppressive, or that clothes are oppressive in general.

 

[acd]

Maybe they'd like photo identification to mean something...

Or something as simple as that yes.

 

[BenW]

Europe, LOL.

As we all know, the solution to any problem is to ban something tangentially related. : o

 

[NeverAmI]

Maybe they'd like photo identification to mean something...

I was going to make that argument and I was actually going to ask why they didn't just say that. Then I thought about motorcycle helmets.

 

[Raccoon Love]

Maybe France does not want to send the message that they condone the treatment of women in countries like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc.

Maybe France doesn't see women as needing to hide themselves in order to keep the menfolk from sinning. It is a totally ridiculous concept, I can't fault France for wanting to usher in a new era of um... NOT religious fanaticism.

Call me a monster, I personally would like to see religion fade away. It doesn't bring unity. It brings hierarchies, self-rightous hypocrisy, and dissention. Banning the burka won't solve it, though. Educating people will.

I also agree that religious fanaticism leads to much destruction and hatred, really I am very fond of educating the masses rather than promoting religious teachings who in the end their validity cannot be proven, of course I do believe in a supreme being, I just feel that in no way any individual has the right to impose a religion and make others follow it, I am a strong believer in free will, but then again this might be a discussion for a different topic.

My argument is, let people practice whatever they want as long as they are not hurting society or slowing advancements in human development( a lot of the beliefs certain religions hold are very outdated). I find it funny how most of this restrictions have been imposed on Islamic practices rather than on any other religious groups, this goes to show that some historical mistrust and hatred still remains, I feel as if we are still in a constant religious war, maybe no so violently as the crusades but there is still a deep sentiment between the different religions which I think is outdated and absurd.

 

[Shai Gar]

I was going to make that argument and I was actually going to ask why they didn't just say that. Then I thought about motorcycle helmets.

You don't wear motorcycle helmets into public places off a bike. Not allowed them in stores, or public buildings or schools. Because they can be used for crime.

 

[NeverAmI]

You don't wear motorcycle helmets into public places off a bike. Not allowed them in stores, or public buildings or schools. Because they can be used for crime.

IMO that would be perfectly OK as a justification for not allowing the burqa. But that isn't their justification so I see it as contradictory. They should probably get some new PR guys...

Unless of course that actually was their main point. I haven't read up on it.

 

[Shai Gar]

IMO that would be perfectly OK as a justification for not allowing the burqa. But that isn't their justification so I see it as contradictory. They should probably get some new PR guys...

Unless of course that actually was their main point. I haven't read up on it.

I should be their PR guys. I can make INFJs agree in Genocide, I could make France agree with Burkha Banning.

 

[NeverAmI]

I should be their PR guys. I can make INFJs agree in Genocide, I could make France agree with Burkha Banning.

How about you make INFPs agree with genocide. I would like to see that!

 

[TheLastMohican]

I should be their PR guys. I can make INFJs agree in Genocide, I could make France agree with Burkha Banning.

57% of the French public already support the ban.

 

[Shai Gar]

Democracy then.

 

[Peguy]

Why is separation of State, from an organised worship [...] based entities impossible?

Because God for all intents and purposes is the author of the order of being. So whatever the state's official stance on God(acknowledging his existence or not) is still in the end a theological statement with profound political implications.

Without the acknolwedgement of God, the state de facto becomes the final authority and has that authority through mere arbitrary will. By contrast by acknowledging God's existence and the fact the state derives its authority from God's grace, you have the duty to hold the state accountable for any wrong doing its done - because you have a higher authority to appeal to. One major implication of this can be seen in the concept of Civil Rights for example.

 

[Peguy]

What is the difference between separation and divorce in this context?

Because the institutional seperation of Church and state does not mean that the state is to indifferent to religious issues. As Richard Hooker noted(citing Aquinas) that human law and divine law cannot be seperated but rather are twins. However human law is best served through the state while divine law is best served through the Church.

A state heavily influenced by a church is not ensuring its own autonomy and integrity.

Yes actually it is. A good example of this was when St. Ambrose rebuked the Emperor Theodisius for the massacre at Thessalonica in 390 AD. St. Ambrose rebuked the Emperor for engaging in un-Christian behavior, and thus destroying the intregity of the state along with it. This was not possible under paganism, where religion and state were one in the emperor. This was also difficult in the Christian East, where the church was often under the control of the state.

Church and state can use each other, often to the advantage of both and at the expense of the citizens. Your opinion of the tendency shown in history doesn't really matter here; it has happened both ways, and both ways must be guarded against by separation of church and state.

It's not my opinion, one largely needs to study history to know this.