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.
It seems you are under the impression that the only women who wear burqas are those whose husbands ask/require them to. That is not correct.
No, I know some women say they cover themselves by "choice", especially in the more liberal areas like the UAE. But that is irregardless; if something is ingrained in a person, they begin to believe that what they know is "how it should be", and that's that. That doesn't make it right. However, if it's just about draping a cloth around one's head and body, but still exposing the full face- whatever, I can easily see that as a "traditional" garment. Much like the women of India wear (and I find their garb quite beautiful! But their garment isn't about covering/hiding- heck, they usually have their tummies exposed ).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mommytotwo
Also, since when does a dress code in a religion have to require the same dress for men and women? Several religions require women to wear skirts or dresses and obviously don't require the men to wear skirts and dresses. Also, some religions require women to wear caps on their heads and not the men. I have seen orthodox Jewish women who cover their hair, the husbands don't.p.
Sorry, but a man wearing a tiny yarmulke, or a woman covering her hair can hardly be compared to a face covering where only the eyes are exposed (if that- as there are some cultures that require full cover, including the eyes even and even a small opening is forbidden unless there is lace or netting to filter so the wearer may look out somewhat, but others cannot look in). And in no way, no how is that an acceptable way for any human being to have to present themselves. It goes against every grain of living and experiencing a full life as a human if one cannot look another in the face, as doing so is means to communicate, to recognize, and to bond. So I don't really care whether or not someone says they 'choose' to do that; besides, I don't believe them if they say they do anyway, cos they're either afraid to say otherwise, or they've been beaten down so long they think that's OK because that's all they know. Just because something is "tradition" and it's familiar does NOT mean it's good, or even acceptable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mommytotwo
Same difference, I guess. If you want to call a driver's license a privilege, you may as well call the "right" to bear arms a privilege as well, since both require paperwork, applications, fees, terms, conditions, and both (whether called right or privilege) can be taken away if certain conditions are or are not met.
No, not the same difference. A right to bear arms is a born right, as it is a means to defend your body and your life, which is yours and only yours and thus you have an inherent right to seek external power to defend it as needed. Operating a motor vehicle is about making one's life easier and something of modern convenience- it absolutely does not fall under this category.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mommytotwo
Lady Ice, I am not that familiar with the whole burqa thing either, or how these burqa wearing women feel about lifting the veil for identification purposes. As far as I am concerned if they are asked by a police officer to lift their veil for identification purposes, they should comply. However, having them lift the veil would be pointless if they've got a driver's license like the one sanspeur posted.
Agreed- and I honestly can't even believe that is someone's identification card, and that there exists a place where such a photo ID was issued! Someone must've been napping on the job that day...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mommytotwo
As I said before, pilgrims going to Mecca cannot be veiled. As far as I know, it is not anywhere in the Quran or Sunnah (sayings of the prophet) that women should be veiled. So as far as I am concerned, it is so to speak, an extra step above and beyond what is necessary. So taking it off to enter a bank or identify oneself should not be a problem. I have known some very strict Muslims and have never met or known any that wear a burqa.
So can we agree that the wearing of full burqa (covering the face, not just the hair and neck and body) is a societal, man-made (and of course MALE designed) tool or persecution? And is most likely to keep women as second class citizens because, whether you agree thus far or not, the covering of one's face is removing an extremely important part of one's expression and personality, and as well their ability to share that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mommytotwo
And if the woman had to remove the veil for identification purposes, and she was embarrassed, that is all it would be, what other worse thing were you thinking might happen? She's not going to hell because a male police officer saw her face.
So she's just embarrassed, that's all? ALL?! There isn't ANYTHING worse than that! That, in and of itself is truly disturbing, that anyone might feel shame for showing, to another person, their face...which was designed for each of us, uniquely because it is MEANT TO BE SHOWN!!! And if in addition to being embarrassed, she also thinks she'll go to hell for showing her face then that just makes this issue even more reprehensible.
So while I respect that you're perhaps trying to be diplomatic and understanding, again, I just do not agree in any way, shape or form that the full covering of a human being's face in public is acceptable, by anyone, in any culture. Wrapping one's head/hair up- fine. That's no different than a hat, really. But that combined with a veil exposing only the eyes is quite different and a completely backwards and barbaric expectation to have of any person, for any reason. And any country that stands up and says NO to that- well I applaud them. We women need to have someone stand up for us whether we 'want' them to or not; our liberation really does depend on it. Forward thinking is contagious, and thus necessary...
Personally, I care far less about security and terrorism than I do basic human rights- and they're being violated in many places in the world. And I prioritize as I do because I believe that human persecution (especially towards women) is the true danger and the root of most all of these problems we're facing today, and once we can put an end to such persecution there will be no need for another country or splinter group/religion to act in a terrorist fashion, and we'll all be a lot safer. And happier.
It would seem to me that, as long as one is clad in public the state should have no say in the variety of the raiment. By in large, laws do not pertain to how people look, they are more interested in how people act. There are, of course, some exceptions. The Military, police, and some schools do require some manner of uniform clothing. There are some concerns as to public lewdness (flashers, et al), ergo, most areas have regulations that state that some manner of clothing MUST be worn, not all, but most.
This is exactly what I have been talking about, some people have said it's not religious attire, and strictly it isn't, but my concern was that it would be made an issue of religious persecution. The reason for this ban is because of the use of this garment as a disguise, we shouldn't forget that. The question remains, if a democratic country decides that they do not like a particular custom or practice, for whatever reason, should they not be able to forbid it within their own borders?
This is exactly what I have been talking about, some people have said it's not religious attire, and strictly it isn't, but my concern was that it would be made an issue of religious persecution. The reason for this ban is because of the use of this garment as a disguise, we shouldn't forget that. The question remains, if a democratic country decides that they do not like a particular custom or practice, for whatever reason, should they not be able to forbid it within their own borders?
It's a religious belief that disobedient children should be stone to death, would we allow that? NO. Barbaric laws and customs will always be outlawed.
It's a religious belief that disobedient children should be stone to death, would we allow that? NO. Barbaric laws and customs will always be outlawed.
It wouldn't be the first time that religious practices were trumped or criminalized. Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse blood transfusions for their children, and Christian Scientists who refuse all manner of medical interventions for their children, have seen the law of the land intervene for the well-being of the child.
IMO, if a country determines that religious clothing is either a security threat or a violation of inherent human rights and dignity and wish to forbid it, that is entirely their right to do so.
Sultaana Lakiana Myke Freeman...gained media attention when she sued the state of Florida in order to wear a face veil for her driver's license picture.
. . . It says that the French lower house has just passed a ban on wearing Burqas. . . . There is also a move to ban Burqas in Australia as well... I would be very interested to see what other people think about this. I think it's hard to get past the infringement on a person's basic rights to dress how they want to and practice whatever religion they please as long as it hurts nobody else. . . . Is there any such move in the USA? If there was, would you support it or would you be against it?
No such move that I know of in the U.S., and no, I would not support such a ban. If they can ban burqas, they can ban tallit, kippot (yarmulkes), tzitzit, saffron robes, your regular Sunday-go-to-meetin' clothes, and all other religious wear.
In the U.S., as soon as I take a freedom from you, my freedom is endangered.
Florida law required a full face picture for a drivers license to be issued. The fact that a veiled picture had been used does not change Florida law. Being that driving is not a constitutional right, it would seem to me to be a case of a) comply with the law, or b) don't drive.
This is a bit of a sticky question for me. It wasn't all that long ago (relatively speaking - remember, our memories are long) that the US government as well as Indian schools forbad Indians from wearing religious items to include eagle feathers (which are sacred to us), not to mention traditional clothing. Their reason for doing this was not only for assimilation purposes, but they feared that the wearing of such items would cause an "uprising".
I still don't know how I feel about this question. Part of me feels that banning such an item from these people would be akin to what Indians dealt with back then. On the other hand, having served in the military during Desert Storm and 9/11 and OIF/OEF, I understand why governments would want to do this for security reasons.
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.
).
