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.
Seeing someone dressed in a Niqab is a religious act because you think "There but for the grace of God, go I" -- they serve a purpose in that regard.
Kind of the way people used to think of nuns. And isn't it ironic how many of the same people who used to mock nuns' habits as repressive and medieval are so solemn and respectful of the penchant of Muslim women to similarly and ostentatiously cloak their sexuality?
Ok this is a legitimate question for a hearty discussion. My wife, as part of her job creates ID badges for her facility. Today a Muslim woman walked in in a full faced Niqab. Her organization has instructed her to take a badge ID photo of the woman with the Niqab on. Now they have a badge ID of a pair of eyes. This is a HUGE security risk and a controls risk across the spectrum. Anyone can now impersonate her. The face is used in Western Civilization and Eastern as well as a form of identification. Now we have a group of people who refuse to submit themselves for identification based upon their religion. How is it a religious right to not identify yourself?
Religion is full of stupid absurd things and so we have yet another example that is all.
Not really. We have freedom of religion here while "their country" does not.
No, no. Freedom of religion means every citizen is free from a state church, there is, on effect, a wall between church and state and by law, we do not have to recognize any religion. It is baloney the notion that the USA is a Christian nation because on its foundation, it does not recognize one religion and did not so much recon the notion of god before the time of war between the states.
It is freedom from religion, not freedom to practice any religion. This section is interpretative to mean the individual is free to privately practice their religious beliefs as long as other citizen are not harmed by the practice.
This means the private person may dress up in silly garb, and believe in odd things as long as they are not out to persuade anyone, or that their garb is not contrary to civil standards. The Muslim garb is contrary to civil standards as much as the KKK robes and odd head dress. They are both symbols of hate and should not be tolerated here. One may be allowed to dress up like a Clan member, but shall not be hired to any duty, so dressed, the same for Muslim garb.
These odd dressing Muslims are not within normal standards. They are as bizarre to the majority of people as the KKK costumes. Their image to most of us is hatred and intolerance. We do not need these oppressively dressed women bringing back memories when women were thought to be second class citizens, as they are held to be in their own lands.
Look around, will you, Do you have the mind to look around? See the men of those places do not dress in a shadowy oppressive manner, only the women, who are regarded as inferior and are forced, brainwashed by their female debasing standard, to dress like shadow figures because men wish to control them. You go along with that, you oppress all women and reinforce the old patriarchy!
You are either for equality of all women, or you side with the oppressors. You cannot say you side with equal rights for women , then desire equal standards for Muslims and the religion, you have to stand for something! You cannot be on the good side of everything! You stand tall with the equal rights of all women, or choose darkness, make your choice!
I think the garb annoys many people. Pure and simple.
As a Protestant kid in the 60s, I thought Catholic nuns were pretty frightening. So. did all of the anti-Catholic "no nothings" who resented the influx of Catholics in the 1800s.
Now nuns don't dress so severely, but it's always that same crowd.
The "Know Nothings" were not afraid of these oddly dressed women, they hated Catholics, they did not want them here. They were so honest, in ways one can hardly imagine today, yet they were also openly intolerant of the Catholics who were peaceful, not an aggressive opposer to old American standards. This is why the "native' parties were thought to be too intolerant, they did not want even the private practice of another belief.
I know what you mean by the nuns being scary. One, a Dominican nun scarred my son. I was very young back them and when he told me about it, I went to see that nun and told her, in so many words, " you never bother my child or you have me to deal with". Anyway, the nun was so scared she seemed to be in a spell. This was when I became aware the nun was not a symbol of threat, as she had for me, she was the opposite I presumed. They are really timid persons, who look scary to most of us who do not understand their reasons to be nuns.
One thought about nuns some years later, 'they are nuns who get none', make any sense. it did to me.
Ok this is a legitimate question for a hearty discussion. My wife, as part of her job creates ID badges for her facility. Today a Muslim woman walked in in a full faced Niqab. Her organization has instructed her to take a badge ID photo of the woman with the Niqab on. Now they have a badge ID of a pair of eyes. This is a HUGE security risk and a controls risk across the spectrum. Anyone can now impersonate her. The face is used in Western Civilization and Eastern as well as a form of identification. Now we have a group of people who refuse to submit themselves for identification based upon their religion. How is it a religious right to not identify yourself?
Sincerely held is the legal standard. Whether a requested accommodation is reasonable or not is a fact-specific question. Clearly, this particular employer thought that this particular accommodation was reasonable--i.e., the need for a visible face on the ID was not necessary.
Islam, like Protestant Christianity, does not have an authoritative hierarchy of religious thought/interpretation. Thus, consulting an imam would not ensure that any particular Muslim employee's sincerely held beliefs are/are not doctrine.
I think a request needs to be fact-specific, many people of many faiths/beliefs sort of morph customs and habits into their faith as they observe it even though there is not a historic president for it. The FLDS communities of Warren Jeffs are a good example, they live in his vision which has many elements that are against established laws as well as the rules of the LDS Church. Are all elements of their practice bad, probably not but much seems to be as the ongoing legal issues show.
Islam may not have a clearly defined "authoritative hierarchy" as some faiths but it is not a Heinz 57 pick & choose like Protestant Christianity is either. The covering of the face is a cultural custom not a religious one and I think an Imam would be one of the best references to check with.
The First Amendment guarantees the exercise of religion without interference from the government, but that right is subject to reasonable regulation, like all other civil rights.
Funny,
people usually freak out when anybody says "Second amendment" and "regulation" in the same sentence.
We are the greatest country in the world. The people we allow to immigrate to this country should serve as tremendous assets to our already established country.
Can anyone share some benefits of bringing people here that are covered head to toe and likely don't communicate outside of their non-secular circle, while also likely holding views in direct contrast to our countries values?
No, no. Freedom of religion means every citizen is free from a state church, there is, on effect, a wall between church and state and by law, we do not have to recognize any religion. It is baloney the notion that the USA is a Christian nation because on its foundation, it does not recognize one religion and did not so much recon the notion of god before the time of war between the states.
It is freedom from religion, not freedom to practice any religion. This section is interpretative to mean the individual is free to privately practice their religious beliefs as long as other citizen are not harmed by the practice.
This means the private person may dress up in silly garb, and believe in odd things as long as they are not out to persuade anyone, or that their garb is not contrary to civil standards. The Muslim garb is contrary to civil standards as much as the KKK robes and odd head dress. They are both symbols of hate and should not be tolerated here. One may be allowed to dress up like a Clan member, but shall not be hired to any duty, so dressed, the same for Muslim garb.
These odd dressing Muslims are not within normal standards. They are as bizarre to the majority of people as the KKK costumes. Their image to most of us is hatred and intolerance. We do not need these oppressively dressed women bringing back memories when women were thought to be second class citizens, as they are held to be in their own lands.
Look around, will you, Do you have the mind to look around? See the men of those places do not dress in a shadowy oppressive manner, only the women, who are regarded as inferior and are forced, brainwashed by their female debasing standard, to dress like shadow figures because men wish to control them. You go along with that, you oppress all women and reinforce the old patriarchy!
You are either for equality of all women, or you side with the oppressors. You cannot say you side with equal rights for women , then desire equal standards for Muslims and the religion, you have to stand for something! You cannot be on the good side of everything! You stand tall with the equal rights of all women, or choose darkness, make your choice!
Do I have the "mind" to look around? Listen, the First Amendment specifically says "freedom OF religion," not "from." It's very difficult to legally oppose that, no matter how much you or I may personally dislike another person's religion. You get to exercise your freedom to assemble, to protest, to write and speak your concerns.
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.
