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.
Where is this right at? I do not see it listed as a right.
Are you wishing for laws to support a police state or something? As far as I am concerned, police do not need to interact with me at all unless their is probable cause to do so.
Well, I trust the gun nuts, survivalists, and anti-government paranoids far less than I trust the police.
It has been proven that anonymity gives people a stronger urge to commit crimes or to simply be a putz because they think they can get away with it.
This comes from the old "peek-a-boo" game where children think that if they close their eyes or hide their faces, no one can see them. Put a mask on and watch good behavior take a nose dive.
I'm not saying that putting on a mask turns you into a criminal, but the safety of anonymity plays a significant factor in what sorts of behavior we're willing to indulge in.
After all, just look at internet forums! A lot of what's said on here would never be said to each others' faces. But anonymity - not knowing our real names, where we live, what we look like, and all of the things we use as identifiers being missing - it emboldens people, lowers inhibitions just like alcohol.
In addition, our Western culture has told us that anyone wearing a mask or covering their faces are up to no good. It is the hallmark of the bandit, the thief, the criminal. That is how we see things, and we do have the right to defend our culture and maintain it - and to NOT modify it to suit foreign customs. If we chip away at it long enough, we won't have our own culture. We'll be adrift, riding the waves of everyone ELSE's culture but having none of our own.
A few states show wearing one is illegal when engaged in an illegal act. However, a few states have absolutely ridiculous laws regarding masks, to the point I think they are either outdated, or never been challenged because they never been used.
The ones that really get me are the hoods, like it is illegal to wear a hood. Really? cannot throw my hood on or someone wrap a scarf around when it is cold? I think some of these laws were crafted for specific reasons, like anti-KKK activity, or to give police probable cause reasons to stop someone.
My opinion is the gov has no business telling someone they can wear a mask (any face covering) or not.
Well, I trust the gun nuts, survivalists, and anti-government paranoids far less than I trust the police.
It has been proven that anonymity gives people a stronger urge to commit crimes or to simply be a putz because they think they can get away with it.
This comes from the old "peek-a-boo" game where children think that if they close their eyes or hide their faces, no one can see them. Put a mask on and watch good behavior take a nose dive.
I'm not saying that putting on a mask turns you into a criminal, but the safety of anonymity plays a significant factor in what sorts of behavior we're willing to indulge in.
After all, just look at internet forums! A lot of what's said on here would never be said to each others' faces. But anonymity - not knowing our real names, where we live, what we look like, and all of the things we use as identifiers being missing - it emboldens people, lowers inhibitions just like alcohol.
In addition, our Western culture has told us that anyone wearing a mask or covering their faces are up to no good. It is the hallmark of the bandit, the thief, the criminal. That is how we see things, and we do have the right to defend our culture and maintain it - and to NOT modify it to suit foreign customs. If we chip away at it long enough, we won't have our own culture. We'll be adrift, riding the waves of everyone ELSE's culture but having none of our own.
You cannot be serious. You think denying people their religious rights, or just denying the average citizen the right to wear something covering their face, like a scarf or something when it is cold, should be allowed because in our grand culture, covering the face is associated with crime? So criminals now are the influence which dictates what people can and cannot do? Why would you even allow criminals this much influence over people who have done nothing wrong?
You cannot be serious. You think denying people their religious rights, or just denying the average citizen the right to wear something covering their face, like a scarf or something when it is cold, should be allowed because in our grand culture, covering the face is associated with crime? So criminals now are the influence which dictates what people can and cannot do? Why would you even allow criminals this much influence over people who have done nothing wrong?
Ridiculous logic.
I can think of a number of situations where wearing a mask or veil could be a problem. Teachers for instance get major feedback from facial expressions. Masked or veiled faces would prevent that. There are also places where a mask would be inappropriate. Anywhere you are identifying yourself for instance. Driving a car if stopped would certainly be one. And any item that interferes or might interfere with vision while driving would be another.
Do we claim some Constitutional right to cover our face? An illegal search? I don't think so. The Constitution is generally read pragmatically. So a major deviation from the norm to prevent normal surveilance by the authority and others probably is not protected.
Movements to ban kosher, halal slaughter, hijab and circumcision: A sign of rising religious intolerance?
Religious tolerance does not create an unlimited right to do whatever is desired under the excuse it is religious. There are basic human rights and protections that the state is supposed to protect . . . especially involving the more dependent and helpless among us.Children fit that category. Genital mutilation in the name of religion is NOT acceptable, period. Wearing masks or coverings that prevent identification is not acceptable. Wanting to have your face covered for an identification picture for a driver's license is not acceptable. Wherever there is a compelling societal interest that is violated by a supposed religious practice . . . it is not acceptable, period.
You are trying to say that Jews are into female circumcision?
I would think the argument about male circumcision is whether or not it is a good thing to do.
I gather the latest data suggests it is not.
If however it is not clear whether it is or is not a good thing to do I suggest leaving it as it is.
Female circumcision appears to be a bad thing pretty clearly. So we should not allow it.
A Cologne court banned male circumcision, France has laws banning religious clothing and Poland banned kosher slaughter. These are the bans I'm talking about. I don't like using the word "circumcision" for female genital mutilation, as it's not an even remotely comparable thing.
Religious tolerance does not create an unlimited right to do whatever is desired under the excuse it is religious. There are basic human rights and protections that the state is supposed to protect . . . especially involving the more dependent and helpless among us.Children fit that category. Genital mutilation in the name of religion is NOT acceptable, period. Wearing masks or coverings that prevent identification is not acceptable. Wanting to have your face covered for an identification picture for a driver's license is not acceptable. Wherever there is a compelling societal interest that is violated by a supposed religious practice . . . it is not acceptable, period.
Everyone should be allowed to wear whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want. That's human rights. Female genital mutilation is not circumcision. Circumcision is not mutilation.
No. A Cologne court banned male circumcision, France has laws banning religious clothing and Poland banned kosher slaughter. I don't like using the word "circumcision" for female genital mutilation, as it's not an even remotely comparable thing.
So what?
There are regulations in the US banning certain clothing in places like schools. In some schools only a particular uniform is approved. Various public servants are restricted in what they can wear.
And I see little reason why various slaughter techniques cannot be regulated.
There are regulations in the US banning certain clothing in places like schools. In some schools only a particular uniform is approved. Various public servants are restricted in what they can wear.
And I see little reason why various slaughter techniques cannot be regulated.
People can't properly practise their religion if these things are banned.
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.
Movements to ban kosher, halal slaughter, hijab and circumcision: A sign of rising religious intolerance?
