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 don't respect religion so I have no trouble with veil bans. It was a man made rule anyway and mankind is stupid so the more intelligent among us need to prevail. Sorry. People need to stop being obsessed with this "holy" crap.
Public safety trumps all else. Even religious people have to follow the laws.
Public safety only comes into question with the burqa'. Most forms of hijab do not cover the face and as a result are not an issue to public safety. Burqa'i women could compromise by allowing themselves to be identified by unveiling their face in private to a female bank employee/TSA member, etc.
@ SourD.. I understand the concern about safety BUT most of the excuses or reasons as you will are flawed.. and fear driven . I believe that if a woman wears the veil then yes if the police ask her to raise it fine she should but to deny her the right to follow her beliefs does concern me even more than the claim to safety.
I could technically use my blind cane as a weapon...should blind canes be banned in the name of public safety?
I think "public safety" is just an excuse for Islamophobia. Are there a lot of issues with Islam? Sure there are. But there are plenty of Muslims who practice Islam peacefully and those people should have every right to practice their religion. If that involves wearing hijab, then so be it.
Public safety only comes into question with the burqa'. Most forms of hijab do not cover the face and as a result are not an issue to public safety. Burqa'i women could compromise by allowing themselves to be identified by unveiling their face in private to a female bank employee/TSA member, etc.
thats a compromise? having to create a whole new area/train personnel to deal with women who wear burqas?
Separation of church and state. Not only is the government not to endorse any religion, I think the "church" is not to interfere or dictate to the gov. it duty to protect the general welfare of its people. If the gov. deems certain religious liberties to be harmful then it is within its right to take action for the welfare of others.
For example some religions do not believe in medical procedures to save lives or heal sickness.
Some religions support bigamy and sexual relations with children.
Some religions practice honor killings.
Some religions practice genital mutilation.
These are situations where the gov. steps in and overrides religious liberties.
The gov. can also override freedom of speech and freedom of expression. We have laws dictating dress on certain levels. Indecent exposure laws. Persons can not be about public nude. Women, in particular, in most states can not go about public topless, this country still has issues with women breastfeeding in public and abortion.
I fail to see how banning a religious dress in public that is concealing to the point of suspicion and possible danger to others a violation of women’s rights. Would you consider banning six underage sister wives going to the park in the buff to have their clitoris removed with a sharp rock violation of their civil/religious rights.
Public safety only comes into question with the burqa'. Most forms of hijab do not cover the face and as a result are not an issue to public safety. Burqa'i women could compromise by allowing themselves to be identified by unveiling their face in private to a female bank employee/TSA member, etc.
I guess you have no clue how this law came to fruition. I suggest you go read up about it.
Islam does not dictate that women cover their faces. To me this is a women's rights issue.
But many people choose to wear hijab for religious reasons. Most of the rules the Amish live by aren't actually written in their Old German Bible. But they choose to live by their Amish rules for religious reasons. Many followers choose to go above and beyond what their holy texts say as a means of showing devotion, and as long as they're not hurting anyone in the process, then it's about religion and not about women's rights or human rights in general. As soon as someone is being hurt or forced to do something against their will, then I agree with you--it becomes about human rights.
Yes, it is a compromise. You can't create laws to ban religious beliefs.
You most certainly can. Muslims believe in honor killings, are they allowed here in the US? Muslims believe in stoning homosexuals, is that allowed here? How about cutting off noses and other body parts of women, is that allowed here? Are you sure you are even on this planet?
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.
I could technically use my blind cane as a weapon...should blind canes be banned in the name of public safety? 
