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.
I just read another story about France possibly banning the burqa. I understand the argument that an immigrant needs to 'assimilate' into the new society. But where is the line between personal freedom and assimilation?
Personally, I've gone two ways on this over the years for two different, but related issues--
First, with France. The way I see it is something like this: it would be like me complaining that I did not like stripes after allowing zebras into my heard of horses. I knew, before allowing the zebras in, that they had stripes. It's part of their being; they, by definition, have stripes. Yet, I let them into my heard of horses anyway. That is my fault, not the zebras' faults. I need to accommodate the zebras because they cannot change what they are. I see religion (and in this case, deeply rooted culture) in a similar way. I don't invite people into my country and expect them to change their very being. It's a matter of principle and modesty. That should not be dictated.
On the other hand, I recall a problem a few years back that a woman refused to take her veil off for a driver license photo. In my opinion, this is something totally different. Especially in this day and age. In the extreme, it could be a matter of national security.
I guess my stance, then, is that for ID purposes and various other situations, it is acceptable and reasonable to ask a woman to remove her veil (burqa). But, truthfully, I see no reason to insist a breach of modesty in a general public setting. It would be about like asking you to take off your clothing in public from now on. So, in general, where should we draw the line with this sort of thing. If the general population had tattoos on their foreheads, would we insist that EVERYONE had one? If the general population walked around in the nude, would we force someone who wished to remain clothed to undress? What is okay, and what is an infringement on personal rights (or freedom of religion)?
Personally, if the government told me I have to walk around all day every day without a shirt on (for instance), I would not do it; I'd damn sure become civilly disobedient and quite hostile.
Chris, it is all about security measures. I just found a couple news articles about it, and the anti-burqa law would be all about preventing a potential terrorist action.
BTW, it is on the table only, and it's quite possible, that it won't get through.
Chris, it is all about security measures. I just found a couple news articles about it, and the anti-burqa law would be all about preventing a potential terrorist action.
BTW, it is on the table only, and it's quite possible, that it won't get through.
yeah and it's easier to id people when you can see their face that why people wear ski masks when they rob banks so they can see their face which makes it hard investigate
[quote=ChrisC;12473330]I just read another story about France possibly banning the burqa. I understand the argument that an immigrant needs to 'assimilate' into the new society. But where is the line between personal freedom and assimilation?
Personally, I've gone two ways on this over the years for two different, but related issues--
First, with France. The way I see it is something like this: it would be like me complaining that I did not like stripes after allowing zebras into my heard of horses. I knew, before allowing the zebras in, that they had stripes. It's part of their being; they, by definition, have stripes. Yet, I let them into my heard of horses anyway. That is my fault, not the zebras' faults. I need to accommodate the zebras because they cannot change what they are. I see religion (and in this case, deeply rooted culture) in a similar way. I don't invite people into my country and expect them to change their very being. It's a matter of principle and modesty. That should not be dictated.
On the other hand, I recall a problem a few years back that a woman refused to take her veil off for a driver license photo. In my opinion, this is something totally different. Especially in this day and age. In the extreme, it could be a matter of national security.
I guess my stance, then, is that for ID purposes and various other situations, it is acceptable and reasonable to ask a woman to remove her veil (burqa). But, truthfully, I see no reason to insist a breach of modesty in a general public setting. It would be about like asking you to take off your clothing in public from now on. So, in general, where should we draw the line with this sort of thing. If the general population had tattoos on their foreheads, would we insist that EVERYONE had one? If the general population walked around in the nude, would we force someone who wished to remain clothed to undress? What is okay, and what is an infringement on personal rights (or freedom of religion)?
Personally, if the government told me I have to walk around all day every day without a shirt on (for instance), I would not do it; I'd damn sure become civilly disobedient and quite hostile.[/quote]
I would be cold but a shirt does not cover you head to toe and hide your indenity
I'm with you all on the ID issues. But what about beyond that? For example, I can see that a woman in a bank or a secured area with a concealed face would be an issue; but a woman walking down the street with her face covered? A problem? I dunno, is it? Or in an aisle at a grocery store? Driving down the freeway? Walking in a park?
As for terrorism: most suicide bombers do not wear burqas because they are more often men. I do see the potential problem, but is there a ulterior motive with the burqa thing? Is there a point that it becomes just 'we don't approve' rather than a legitimate problem?
In a truly free society, if you are doing nothing wrong, than your identity is of nobody else's concern. I don't carry id with me unless I'm driving for that reason. Because if I've done nothing, who I am is nobody's damn business.
There is no doubt that many Muslim women are forced to wear the burqa or other forms of veil and are unable to make decisions about the most fundamental aspects of their lives. But there is equally little doubt that many other Muslim women have made a free and informed decision to wear such coverings, and value the space to practice their religion in public. Banning the burqa fundamentally undermines their rights and perhaps most importantly does not provide any meaningful assistance to those women who are coerced and forced to cover their bodies and faces.
Banning the burqa will not make it go away; it will only force the women who wear it, whether by choice or under coercion, to drop out of sight.
France is treading a tricky trail. On one hand, France is a secular nation where, unlike the separation of church and state in the US, people are expected to keep their religion private in the public sphere. Students are not allowed to wear ostentatious displays of religion in schools--yarmulkes, large crosses, turbans, or veils. Parents who wish their children to be able to express their faith at school are free to enroll them in private schools, but they still follow the state curriculum.
On the other hand, France is also trying to assimilate large numbers of Muslims in a country where Christianity is the heritage, but is very sparsely practiced. Well over 12% of the population is now either Muslim or of Muslim heritage, and the numbers are growing. Now France has a national debate going on about having a French identity, despite the official line that race, religion, and national origin don't matter. To be French is an ideology--not an ethnicity.
It remains to be seen how this will all play out. From my perspective as the child of an immigrant to America, it is unrealistic to move to another country and expect that country to honor the customs you left behind. In my opinion, if a Muslim wants to live in a country that respects the tenets of Islam in the public sphere, it would be best not to move to a nation whose constitution rests solidly on secularism. For those children of immigrants who have rediscovered and embraced their religious heritage, which is the case for many of the women who choose the veil, it is more complicated. They must decide what comes first--their country or their faith. For those to whom faith is more important, it may be time to return to their family's homeland where they may practice it freely, rather than remaining in a country where they are literally expected to check their religion at the door on the way out of the house.
I believe people need to assimilate into the society they choose to live in as much as possible. If culture dictates no veils then it's rediculous to assume that would be an accepted practice. What you do privately, on your time, in your home, is entirely up to you....within the law of course....but publically there does need to be commonality among the population in order for things to work properly. The idea of everyone being able to "do their own thing" is a nice one, but not at all practical given that they can conflict.
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.
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.
