U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-28-2015, 06:13 PM
 
1,188 posts, read 1,051,939 times
Reputation: 2083

Advertisements

There is no national ban on KKK hoods.

There are mask laws in many states that were motivated by the KKK actions.
Their hoods were so they could commit crimes like lynchings and cross burnings and not be identified.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-28-2015, 06:22 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
2,267 posts, read 1,375,935 times
Reputation: 3731
...

Last edited by modernist1; 04-28-2015 at 06:23 PM.. Reason: double post
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2015, 06:23 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
2,267 posts, read 1,375,935 times
Reputation: 3731
Quote:
Originally Posted by logiclover View Post
My guess would be that they don't consider the KKK a religion and therefore it isn't protected under the First Amendment. I think all belief systems no matter how crazy should be tolerated not just religions.
Your libertarian principles are fine ... but what about yielding to or acquiescing to a belief system that if it had its way, would have done with them? The scrappy fight for equity and 'freedom' is rarely straightforward. Let's say (on the religious grounds you hold dear) a group wants to implement sharia law, or wants to ban men from a court (on the grounds of belief), or demands a separate entrance for men and women at the local library, or demands that women only doctors should be on call at the 'women only' emergency room? Should those demands be accommodated? If so, aren't they an infringement on freedom? Declaring 'freedom' as a tenet is one thing - but its management is often another.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2015, 06:54 PM
 
121 posts, read 75,657 times
Reputation: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by modernist1 View Post
Your libertarian principles are fine ... but what about yielding to or acquiescing to a belief system that if it had its way, would have done with them? The scrappy fight for equity and 'freedom' is rarely straightforward. Let's say (on the religious grounds you hold dear) a group wants to implement sharia law, or wants to ban men from a court (on the grounds of belief), or demands a separate entrance for men and women at the local library, or demands that women only doctors should be on call at the 'women only' emergency room? Should those demands be accommodated? If so, aren't they an infringement on freedom? Declaring 'freedom' as a tenet is one thing - but its management is often another.
Good question.

If a private group want to develop a community with any of the things you mention, where the residents of the community are free to come and go as they please, and what happens in that community doesn't violate laws already in place in the US, then I don't have a problem with it.

In terms of laws, real or hypothetical I try to apply a utilitarian calculus to the issue. I ask, what are the implications of this law? Does this law create victims or reduce victimization? If victims are created, are they victims by their own choosing and therefore not "true" victims?

In the case of the burka. If we made a law saying women couldn't wear burkas in public. Would there be a victim? I say yes. The victim would be the woman who wants to wear one due to her religion and now cannot. If we say that women can wear burkas in public. Would there be a victim? As has been argued in this thread a woman doesn't want to wear a burka but is told by her husband that she has to would be a victim. However, this women chooses to be a victim as she could leave her husband and do what she wants or she could disobey him. Therefore she isn't a true victim.

I have been in an abusive relationship before. I lived with an insane girlfriend. Some would say I was a victim. I claim I wasn't. I had the physical and legal option to leave her but I didn't take it as soon as I should have. What she did to me was awful but further mistreatment wouldn't have happened if I left.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2015, 07:00 PM
 
Location: Central Florida
2,063 posts, read 1,727,922 times
Reputation: 1901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amythyst View Post
I have seen a few woman who wear full Burkas in my area.

Not very common but with freedom of religion, they have a right to wear them.

I don't know how security at the airports would handle this since you must show ID at the gate and would they have to take the Burka offs to prove who they are?

Good point. Does anyone remember that court case years ago where a woman who wore a burka was demanding to be allowed to wear it for her driver's license picture? She lost .

USATODAY.com - Muslim woman cannot wear veil in driver's license photo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2015, 07:41 PM
 
11,538 posts, read 5,527,796 times
Reputation: 9888
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
Since when do all AMERICANS adhere to equal rights with no discrimination or prejudice against women? WTH world/country/city are YOU living in? Must be some utopia I'm not aware of....take the log out of your own eye before the splinter in your neighbor's.
Good grief!

I'll answer your question---far more non-Muslim Americans adhere to equal rights for women than do Muslims (No matter where in the world they live).

So, it's okay with you that there are Muslim men in this country who force their wives and daughters to cover up from head-to-toe?

Would you rather live in an Islamic theocracy or a first world democracy? If I had to guess, you would prefer the latter. Thus your rant makes no sense at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2015, 07:44 PM
 
121 posts, read 75,657 times
Reputation: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOS2IAD View Post
Good grief!

I'll answer your question---far more non-Muslim Americans adhere to equal rights for women than do Muslims (No matter where in the world they live).

So, it's okay with you that there are Muslim men in this country who force their wives and daughters to cover up from head-to-toe?

Would you rather live in an Islamic theocracy or a first world democracy? If I had to guess, you would prefer the latter. Thus your rant makes no sense at all.
If it were up to you, would you outlaw burkas? What about scarfs? What about religious headwear, kippah for example? Would you outlaw Jewish women from covering their heads? What about the Christian cross?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2015, 08:01 PM
 
Location: Bay Area, CA/Seattle, WA
830 posts, read 910,941 times
Reputation: 815
Quote:
Originally Posted by logiclover View Post
If it were up to you, would you outlaw burkas? What about scarfs? What about religious headwear, kippah for example? Would you outlaw Jewish women from covering their heads? What about the Christian cross?
When was the last time you noticed someone wearing a Christian cross? Lets just be real here....

I don't understand how Christians are ALWAYS brought up in muslim discussions. A good 99% of the time, you have no idea if a person is a Christian or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2015, 08:03 PM
 
Location: Elysium
5,820 posts, read 3,101,037 times
Reputation: 4046
Quote:
Originally Posted by logiclover View Post
If it were up to you, would you outlaw burkas? What about scarfs? What about religious headwear, kippah for example? Would you outlaw Jewish women from covering their heads? What about the Christian cross?
It is the covering of a face which is seen as dehumanizing. The culture is saying you have no need to interact with others so why do you need recognizable features?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2015, 08:05 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
2,267 posts, read 1,375,935 times
Reputation: 3731
Quote:
Originally Posted by logiclover View Post
Good question.

If a private group want to develop a community with any of the things you mention, where the residents of the community are free to come and go as they please, and what happens in that community doesn't violate laws already in place in the US, then I don't have a problem with it.

In terms of laws, real or hypothetical I try to apply a utilitarian calculus to the issue. I ask, what are the implications of this law? Does this law create victims or reduce victimization? If victims are created, are they victims by their own choosing and therefore not "true" victims?

In the case of the burka. If we made a law saying women couldn't wear burkas in public. Would there be a victim? I say yes. The victim would be the woman who wants to wear one due to her religion and now cannot. If we say that women can wear burkas in public. Would there be a victim? As has been argued in this thread a woman doesn't want to wear a burka but is told by her husband that she has to would be a victim. However, this women chooses to be a victim as she could leave her husband and do what she wants or she could disobey him. Therefore she isn't a true victim.

I have been in an abusive relationship before. I lived with an insane girlfriend. Some would say I was a victim. I claim I wasn't. I had the physical and legal option to leave her but I didn't take it as soon as I should have. What she did to me was awful but further mistreatment wouldn't have happened if I left.
Well, yes, but there we have a possible (and not necessarily uncommon) situation where because of language, subculture or economics it may in fact be hard for a woman to leave, so rather than being a willing subject, she's a victim. The problem with a laissez-faire approach is that it assumes certain foundations, such as a society being at a certain stage of development. I suggest that much of the tenets of Islam are at odds with the same. The private community situation you cite isn't so different from the French attitude to public education - i.e. if you want to send your child to a public school, then expect no place for religious references, decoration or clothes. If you're insistent that a child should have those things get them privately educated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top