Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 9:46 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Banning face coverings
#21
RE: Banning face coverings
Whereabouts around Birmingham? I only ask as a native of the area.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist.  This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair.  Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second.  That means there's a situation vacant.'
Reply
#22
RE: Banning face coverings
I shall ask my wife if she has more info. She is real.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#23
RE: Banning face coverings
(August 17, 2018 at 7:36 pm)Aegon Wrote: You know, back when women were protesting their right to vote, a significant number of women polled claimed that they did not want that right. It's something called internalized oppression. I would agree that a similar phenomenon is present with those who say they want to wear  headdresses and the like.

But is it fair to ban them outright? It would certainly seem to go against freedom of religion and expression that US protects under the First Amendment. On that basis alone I wouldn't agree with a ban.

I don't see how it's a first amendment thing. There's no compulsion to wear the burqa in the qu'ran, only for both sexes to dress modestly and cover their hair (but notice how men in the most muslim countries are never held to that rule). That is because the burqa didn't come from Arabia or Iran but places like Afghanistan where thinking of women as proerty rather than people long predated conversion.
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli

Home
Reply
#24
RE: Banning face coverings
We had penguins around for a long time in europe. I guess in Japan, they wouldn't be sirprised as we are of seeing ninjas.
Reply
#25
RE: Banning face coverings
(August 18, 2018 at 7:44 am)Wololo Wrote:
(August 17, 2018 at 7:36 pm)Aegon Wrote: You know, back when women were protesting their right to vote, a significant number of women polled claimed that they did not want that right. It's something called internalized oppression. I would agree that a similar phenomenon is present with those who say they want to wear  headdresses and the like.

But is it fair to ban them outright? It would certainly seem to go against freedom of religion and expression that US protects under the First Amendment. On that basis alone I wouldn't agree with a ban.

I don't see how it's a first amendment thing.  There's no compulsion to wear the burqa in the qu'ran, only for both sexes to dress modestly and cover their hair (but notice how men in the most muslim countries are never held to that rule).  That is because the burqa didn't come from Arabia or Iran but places like Afghanistan where thinking of women as proerty rather than people long predated conversion.

So what if the Quran doesn't explicitly say it? Wearing them is still obviously an expression of their faith, it is still religious in nature, and it is still something that these people believe to be crucial to practicing their faith. It certainly falls under the umbrella of the First Amendment. Hell, take away the religious aspect, there'd still probably be a case for general freedom of speech/expression. And even if it doesn't fall under any of those categories, the left-libertarian in me naturally pushes back against the government telling people what they can and can't wear.
[Image: nL4L1haz_Qo04rZMFtdpyd1OZgZf9NSnR9-7hAWT...dc2a24480e]
Reply
#26
RE: Banning face coverings
(August 18, 2018 at 11:13 am)Aegon Wrote: And even if it doesn't fall under any of those categories, the left-libertarian in me naturally pushes back against the government telling people what they can and can't wear.

Especially when the climate's such that there can actually be a legitimate reason to cover as much of one's face as possible, like, say, when it's winter in Chicago, you need to get somewhere, and spending as much time as possible in a well-heated vehicle isn't an option.

Also, Pussy Riot.
Comparing the Universal Oneness of All Life to Yo Mama since 2010.

[Image: harmlesskitchen.png]

I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad.
Reply
#27
RE: Banning face coverings
Religious beliefs certainly don't have to make sense, or be grounded in anything, even books that are supposedly part of the religion. In fact, since a religious belief can be literally anything, I don't know what the word "religious" really adds to it. It's just telling someone that it's a belief that you're never willing to change, or that you think you've been instructed to follow by some grand judge.

I don't see why a religious belief and any regular belief should be treated any differently under the law, in that sense. If I believe wearing a potato sack with holes cut into it is a good way to protect myself from Russian spies, the law should protect me just as much as someone wearing a "religious" face veil; or protect neither.

I struggle to understand the relevance of religion in the law at all, to this end. If I'm allowed to do whatever crazy religious ritual I want as long as I'm not inconveniencing anyone else, then I should be able to do it just because I feel like it, as well.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#28
RE: Banning face coverings
(August 18, 2018 at 11:43 am)robvalue Wrote: Religious beliefs certainly don't have to make sense, or be grounded in anything, even books that are supposedly part of the religion. In fact, since a religious belief can be literally anything, I don't know what the word "religious" really adds to it. It's just telling someone that it's a belief that you're never willing to change, or that you think you've been instructed to follow by some grand judge.

I don't see why a religious belief and any regular belief should be treated any differently under the law, in that sense. If I believe wearing a potato sack with holes cut into it is a good way to protect myself from Russian spies, the law should protect me just as much as someone wearing a "religious" face veil; or protect neither.

I struggle to understand the relevance of religion in the law at all, to this end. If I'm allowed to do whatever crazy religious ritual I want as long as I'm not inconveniencing anyone else, then I should be able to do it just because I feel like it, as well.

[notes many potato sacks] You making vodka, Comrade? Tongue

As for your post, well said!
If you get to thinking you’re a person of some influence, try ordering somebody else’s dog around.
Reply
#29
RE: Banning face coverings
Maybe only ugly women should cover their faces?
Why limit a ban to face coverings, why not ban covering breasts as well? makes as much sense
The meek shall inherit the Earth, the rest of us will fly to the stars.

Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud ..... after a while you realise that the pig likes it!

Reply
#30
RE: Banning face coverings
(August 18, 2018 at 2:08 pm)Fireball Wrote:
(August 18, 2018 at 11:43 am)robvalue Wrote: Religious beliefs certainly don't have to make sense, or be grounded in anything, even books that are supposedly part of the religion. In fact, since a religious belief can be literally anything, I don't know what the word "religious" really adds to it. It's just telling someone that it's a belief that you're never willing to change, or that you think you've been instructed to follow by some grand judge.

I don't see why a religious belief and any regular belief should be treated any differently under the law, in that sense. If I believe wearing a potato sack with holes cut into it is a good way to protect myself from Russian spies, the law should protect me just as much as someone wearing a "religious" face veil; or protect neither.

I struggle to understand the relevance of religion in the law at all, to this end. If I'm allowed to do whatever crazy religious ritual I want as long as I'm not inconveniencing anyone else, then I should be able to do it just because I feel like it, as well.

[notes many potato sacks] You making vodka, Comrade? Tongue

As for your post, well said!

Thanks Big Grin

I'm trying to think of some sort of example where it matters, from a legal point of view, that I'm exercising my religious freedom rather than just my freedom in general. Any ideas?
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Banning religious teachings for minors Dystopia 15 2300 July 5, 2014 at 8:36 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  Alleged Contradictions - Seeing God's Face Daystar 15 10258 November 9, 2008 at 10:24 am
Last Post: Kyuuketsuki



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)