Burqa's

[whatsgoinon53]

There's a lot of talk recently in my country of Australia about women wearing burqa's in public. You see them around every now and then but I don't see the problem with it and I don't understand why the politicians are making such a big deal out of it!

Thoughts?

[Caldwell]

People can wear whatever they want. As long as it isn't actively forced upon them by government (cough cough) then who cares?

[Human]

If people want to wear Burqas then why not...

[Jess]

If a woman wants to wear a burqa, she should be allowed to.

[Stronk Serb]

Why not? I think it is not comfortable, but it is their choice.

[Capto]

There shouldn't even be people talking about it in the first place.

[Walter Powers]

What kind of country are you running down there?

As long as it isn't indecent, the government shouldn't tell you what you can and can't wear.

[britishboy]

What kind of country are you running down there?

As long as it isn't indecent, the government shouldn't tell you what you can and can't wear.

its a debate, I dont believe the government is considering the ban

[Walter Powers]

its a debate, I dont believe the government is considering the ban

He said politicians were "making a big deal about it."

[NeuroTiger]

Burqa is nice.
In this world, we should respect each other; and it includes each other's freedom of choice and religion.

[britishboy]

He said politicians were "making a big deal about it."

I think he is, sure a few maybe but the prime minister, i doubt has this high on her agenda as after all australia is one of the most multicultural countries

[Jean Poutine]

It should at the very least be removed from public places (public in the sense of State-owned). As I am an evil proponent of laïcité though, I would ban it in public altogether. Religion belongs in people's hearts, homes and places of worship, nowhere else.

[Walter Powers]

It should at the very least be removed from public places (public in the sense of State-owned). As I am an evil proponent of laïcité though, I would ban it in public altogether. Religion belongs in people's hearts, homes and places of worship, nowhere else.

What the hell? Ban people from wearing things about their faith? Why? Are you worried it will offend atheists or something? Something "offending" people is not grouds for taking away a basic human right! By that logic, while we are at it, we might as well take away freedom of speech, too! That's what your saying.

[FrostWraith]

I see no legitimate reason to make burqas illegal. The government has no right to control what people wear (with the exception of public nudity laws, of course).

[Jean Poutine]

What the hell? Ban people from wearing things about their faith? Why? Are you worried it will offend atheists or something? Something "offending" people is not grouds for taking away a basic human right! By that logic, while we are at it, we might as well take away freedom of speech, too! That's what your saying.

It's a question of social order, efficiency and equality, not offense. Religious signs decry the religious status of an individual, and religious requirements often allow the establishment to favor a group over another.

In this (unfortunate) landmark court decision (http://canlii.ca/t/1hddh), not only was religion allowed to supercede the civil obligations of an individual by the Supreme Court of Canada (the contract signed for the lease clearly stipulated that nothing was allowed to be built on the balcony of the condos for safety reasons), but the SCC even relaxed the definition of religion to a degree where the personal belief of an individual is paramount, regardless of what official doctrine or religious leaders say. For example, the requirement of women wearing a burqa outside is found nowhere in the Qur'an. It is not a religious but an ethnocultural imperative. However, Muslims can claim that they wear the burqa out of religious belief and that's that. Open or tolerant secularism encourages communities to not integrate in their host culture and walls them up, producing ghettos.

With regard to the case, the man wanted to build an outdoor shack called a "sukkah" on his balcony to celebrate a Jewish holiday where they go back to living in the desert inside their heads, clearly disregarding the terms of his contract (which he hadn't even read!) Even when the company owning the condos proposed that he could build a communal sukkah on the courtyard, the man would have none of it as he believed he should have his own and that it should be on the balcony, while there is nothing in Jewish doctrine regarding the ownership or position of the shack. Bastarache j.'s dissent would have been the logically sound (or outright sane) option.

The result of this decision was to catapult freedom of religion above all other human rights, such as the freedom to contract of the freedom of conscience. It lords over many other constitutionally protected rights against which it should have equal standing. Religion makes humans unequal before the law by sole virtue of its existence, and the separation of Church and State usually recognized in developed countries serves only to exacerbate the problem.

Now would have that happened in a fully laïc society where any public religious outburst is forbidden? Nope.

Freedom of religion is a made up "right" only beneficial for those who are still stuck in the 15th century. There is a very good book (in French) about the ridiculous power freedom of religion is allowed, as well as an excellent article on the subject, by a Constitutional law professor who happens to teach at my university. His thesis is that what he calls "prejudiciable religious convictions", ie. those that headbutt other basic human rights, invariably win out in court, and that freedom of religion doesn't discern between religious "rights" that are poisonous to society and those that aren't. I go farther than him, though.

Louis-Philippe LAMPRON, La hiérarchie des droits : convictions religieuses et autres droits fondamentaux au Canada, Bruxelles, P.I.E. Peter Lang, coll. Diversitas, 2012

Louis-Philippe LAMPRON, "À l’origine des crises des accommodements religieux au Québec : la trop large protection accordée à certaines convictions religieuses préjudiciables", dans Eugénie BROUILLET et Louis-Philippe LAMPRON (dir.), La mobilisation du droit et la protection des collectivités minoritaires, Québec, P.U.L., 2013, p. 173

By the way, your comprison to freedom of speech is inept as that right is well-delimited by laws, for example, doing away with hate speech or defamation. Currently nothing is forbidden to religious extremists because of the status of freedom of religion afforded here. I don't want religion to end. People can delude themselves with white Jesus all they want. What I am asking for is similar boundaries.

I see no legitimate reason to make burqas illegal. The government has no right to control what people wear (with the exception of public nudity laws, of course).

Why?

[saea97]

In my view, the burqa is a symbol of Muslim men oppressing Muslim women. My concern about them is that it's very difficult to know how many of the women who wear them actually want to or enjoy it.

I suppose if all the women actually wanted to wear it, then fine. But I don't for a second believe that they do.

[Walter Powers]

It's a question of social order, efficiency and equality, not offense. Religious signs decry the religious status of an individual, and religious requirements often allow the establishment to favor a group over another.

In this (unfortunate) landmark court decision (http://canlii.ca/t/1hddh), not only was religion allowed to supercede the civil obligations of an individual by the Supreme Court of Canada (the contract signed for the lease clearly stipulated that nothing was allowed to be built on the balcony of the condos for safety reasons), but the SCC even relaxed the definition of religion to a degree where the personal belief of an individual is paramount, regardless of what official doctrine or religious leaders say. For example, the requirement of women wearing a burqa outside is found nowhere in the Qur'an. It is not a religious but an ethnocultural imperative. However, Muslims can claim that they wear the burqa out of religious belief and that's that. Open or tolerant secularism encourages communities to not integrate in their host culture and walls them up, producing ghettos.

With regard to the case, the man wanted to build an outdoor shack called a "sukkah" on his balcony to celebrate a Jewish holiday where they go back to living in the desert inside their heads, clearly disregarding the terms of his contract (which he hadn't even read!) Even when the company owning the condos proposed that he could build a communal sukkah on the courtyard, the man would have none of it as he believed he should have his own and that it should be on the balcony, while there is nothing in Jewish doctrine regarding the ownership or position of the shack. Bastarache j.'s dissent would have been the logically sound (or outright sane) option.

The result of this decision was to catapult freedom of religion above all other human rights, such as the freedom to contract of the freedom of conscience. It lords over many other constitutionally protected rights against which it should have equal standing. Religion makes humans unequal before the law by sole virtue of its existence, and the separation of Church and State usually recognized in developed countries serves only to exacerbate the problem.

Now would have that happened in a fully laïc society where any public religious outburst is forbidden? Nope.

Freedom of religion is a made up "right" only beneficial for those who are still stuck in the 15th century. There is a very good book (in French) about the ridiculous power freedom of religion is allowed, as well as an excellent article on the subject, by a Constitutional law professor who happens to teach at my university. His thesis is that what he calls "prejudiciable religious convictions", ie. those that headbutt other basic human rights, invariably win out in court, and that freedom of religion doesn't discern between religious "rights" that are poisonous to society and those that aren't. I go farther than him, though.

Louis-Philippe LAMPRON, La hiérarchie des droits : convictions religieuses et autres droits fondamentaux au Canada, Bruxelles, P.I.E. Peter Lang, coll. Diversitas, 2012

Louis-Philippe LAMPRON, "À l’origine des crises des accommodements religieux au Québec : la trop large protection accordée à certaines convictions religieuses préjudiciables", dans Eugénie BROUILLET et Louis-Philippe LAMPRON (dir.), La mobilisation du droit et la protection des collectivités minoritaires, Québec, P.U.L., 2013, p. 173

By the way, your comprison to freedom of speech is inept as that right is well-delimited by laws, for example, doing away with hate speech or defamation. Currently nothing is forbidden to religious extremists because of the status of freedom of religion afforded here. I don't want religion to end. People can delude themselves with white Jesus all they want. What I am asking for is similar boundaries.



Why?

Well, in America, freedom of speech and freedom of religion are actually in the same part of our Bill of Rights. And I still don't understand: What's wrong with somebody wearing a burqa or wearing a necklace with a cross on it? This is ridiculous. You'd should be allowed to wear what you want in public, as a basic human right! Ultimatly this rhetoric would lead to theocracy: an Atheist theocracy. And that is way out of line. You shouldn't essentially force people to abandon their deeply held faith because you disagree.

As for extremists, we keep a close eye on them here in America, as we've recently found out.

[Jean Poutine]

Well, in America, freedom of speech and freedom of religion are actually in the same part of our Bill of Rights. And I still don't understand: What's wrong with somebody wearing a burqa or wearing a necklace with a cross on it? This is ridiculous. You'd should be allowed to wear what you want in public, as a basic human right! Ultimatly this rhetoric would lead to theocracy: an Atheist theocracy. And that is way out of line. You shouldn't essentially force people to abandon their deeply held faith because you disagree.

As for extremists, we keep a close eye on them here in America, as we've recently found out.

First, it doesn't matter where the rights are placed in the Constitution. Freedom of speech is curtailed by the law whereas freedom of religion isn't. Fact, end of.

Second, read my post. I said public. Easy fix, keep your cross under your clothes if it's that important to you. As for the burqa, it symbolises the dominance of the man versus the woman. It also objectifies women by viewing them as objects of desire to be protected from the man. There's another right in every civilized country : equality between sexes. The burqa violates it, ergo the burqa should be banned altogether. Will doesn't even enter the equation as it is not clear at which point the woman chooses to wear the burqa. Religious brainwashing tends to do that to you. It's also a question of integration as Muslim beliefs wall up women and makes it near impossible for her to adapt to the host culture.

Third, an atheist theocracy is impossible as atheism isn't a religion. Nobody has talked about anybody abandoning their faith. It should simply be kept private where it belongs. What the Hell is it with religious people and displaying their faith? Isn't the whole point of Christianity (and the reason why it displaced earlier faiths like the Graeco-Roman pantheon) that there is a personal connection between the believer and God?

Fourth, religious extremists can't be kept in check exactly due to freedom of religion. Hateful beliefs are still beliefs and protected. Look at the Westboro Baptist Church.

[FrostWraith]

Why do so many non-Americans have such a problem with freedom?

First, it doesn't matter where the rights are placed in the Constitution. Freedom of speech is curtailed by the law whereas freedom of religion isn't. Fact, end of.

Freedom of religion is limited by the law. In a well-known case (I forget the name), individuals were banned from using poisonous snakes as part of a religious ceremony. The ACLU also continually bans various governments (usually local) from putting up religious holiday decoration, and even schools setting apart a couple of minutes for a voluntary, nondenominational prayer is unconstitutional. (Wallace v. Jaffree was the last one)

Second, read my post. I said public. Easy fix, keep your cross under your clothes if it's that important to you. As for the burqa, it symbolises the dominance of the man versus the woman. It also objectifies women by viewing them as objects of desire to be protected from the man. There's another right in every civilized country : equality between sexes. The burqa violates it, ergo the burqa should be banned altogether. Will doesn't even enter the equation as it is not clear at which point the woman chooses to wear the burqa. Religious brainwashing tends to do that to you. It's also a question of integration as Muslim beliefs wall up women and makes it near impossible for her to adapt to the host culture.

Third, an atheist theocracy is impossible as atheism isn't a religion. Nobody has talked about anybody abandoning their faith. It should simply be kept private where it belongs. What the Hell is it with religious people and displaying their faith? Isn't the whole point of Christianity (and the reason why it displaced earlier faiths like the Graeco-Roman pantheon) that there is a personal connection between the believer and God?

Stalin-led Russia was an atheist theocracy. Any system that bans religion and executes people for being religious is as dependent on atheism as any theocracy is dependent on religion. Also, why do I not have the right to display my religion in public? Does your displeasure override my freedom?

Fourth, religious extremists can't be kept in check exactly due to freedom of religion. Hateful beliefs are still beliefs and protected. Look at the Westboro Baptist Church.

For better or for worse, this is true.

[FrostWraith]

"I see no legitimate reason to make burqas illegal. The government has no right to control what people wear (with the exception of public nudity laws, of course).
Why?"
It's accepted as a common value that people wear clothes. I don't think it's such a universal value that people don't wear burqas.

[Sugaree]

There's a lot of talk recently in my country of Australia about women wearing burqa's in public. You see them around every now and then but I don't see the problem with it and I don't understand why the politicians are making such a big deal out of it!

Thoughts?

It's a big deal because it's an Islamic thing. If it were a Jewish or Catholic thing, no one would care. But because it's a Muslim wearing it, it's all of a sudden something to wonder about. If a woman wants to wear a burqa, either for some weird fashion statement or because it's her religion, let her. It's not harming anybody else and it's easy enough to look away.

[Camazotz]

I don't know nearly enough about Islamic culture and the origins of the burqa. It sounds like those more educated than me say that the burqa is symbol of gender oppression in Islamic culture. So I have absolutely no idea whether or not this is true. If it is, then I would agree that their should be discussion, but I'm not sure which side I would take. However, if I had to assume that this is not the case, my argument would be this...

If a woman wants to wear a burqa, she should be allowed to.

[Walter Powers]

First, it doesn't matter where the rights are placed in the Constitution. Freedom of speech is curtailed by the law whereas freedom of religion isn't. Fact, end of.

Second, read my post. I said public. Easy fix, keep your cross under your clothes if it's that important to you. As for the burqa, it symbolises the dominance of the man versus the woman. It also objectifies women by viewing them as objects of desire to be protected from the man. There's another right in every civilized country : equality between sexes. The burqa violates it, ergo the burqa should be banned altogether. Will doesn't even enter the equation as it is not clear at which point the woman chooses to wear the burqa. Religious brainwashing tends to do that to you. It's also a question of integration as Muslim beliefs wall up women and makes it near impossible for her to adapt to the host culture.

Third, an atheist theocracy is impossible as atheism isn't a religion. Nobody has talked about anybody abandoning their faith. It should simply be kept private where it belongs. What the Hell is it with religious people and displaying their faith? Isn't the whole point of Christianity (and the reason why it displaced earlier faiths like the Graeco-Roman pantheon) that there is a personal connection between the believer and God?

Fourth, religious extremists can't be kept in check exactly due to freedom of religion. Hateful beliefs are still beliefs and protected. Look at the Westboro Baptist Church.

Freedom of speech is not curtailed by the law, nor is freedom of religion, and neither should be. They are your rights unless they interfere with the rights of others (for example, hijacking a jet and flying it into a skyscraper in the name of radical Islam isn't protected by the first amendment. )

I certainly agree women are repressed in many Muslim cultures. I'd be interested if there were any Muslims on here who'd like to comment on that? Anyhow, in America a man can't force a women to wear something she doesn't want to, we have this handy little solution called divorce. So I see no reason to prohibit her from wearing a burqa, as here it is her choice.

And I don't see why it should be illegal to show a cross in public. Like I said, freedom of expression! And it opens a bunch of other issues. Are we going to outlaw crosses on the outside of church buildings because they can be seen from public streets? Are we gonna outlaw you from talking about your faith in public? That is like what would be done in the Middle East toward Christians! It might as well be state endorsement of Atheism.

I know Christians often want to display their faith because they believe they are helping people. You don't want them to display their faith because you think they aren't. You both should be allowed to voice you opinion. The Christian can wear her cross, and you can wear your T-shirt with a cross and a slash through it. Freedom.

[whatsgoinon53]

Well, I've read through the conversation/discussion/debate, whatever you prefer to call it, and I think I am going to have to side with Walter Powers on this one. From what I've read online, what I've seen in our government discussions, 'down under', I agree that women should have the right to wear them in public if that's what they believe they should do. You made a strong point, Jean Poutine, about the women being forced to wear them according to their culture but when they are in Australia they are not under the control of the taliban they have their rights in our country. It's their choice to either wear them or to not and they should have that certified freedom.

[Jean Poutine]

Why do so many non-Americans have such a problem with freedom?

Ah, the F-word. Why do Americans love abusing it?

Because what you Americans haven't understood is that freedom breeds unequality. In a truly free world, the strong prosper while the weak die off. Freedom has to be balanced against public interest.

Especially seeing the rise in pluralism in Western countries, I think it's important to legislate regarding religion. Not doing so breeds the risk of having ghettos spawning, like the Jewish quarters of the Middle Ages, and just frustrates everyone as can be evidenced by the mid-2000 crisis on stupid bullshit to "accommodate" religious beliefs by exempting people from the full application of the law here in Canada.

Freedom of religion is limited by the law. In a well-known case (I forget the name), individuals were banned from using poisonous snakes as part of a religious ceremony. The ACLU also continually bans various governments (usually local) from putting up religious holiday decoration, and even schools setting apart a couple of minutes for a voluntary, nondenominational prayer is unconstitutional. (Wallace v. Jaffree was the last one)

Not enough. There are no laws regarding the content of religious doctrine which is kind of the whole point, and that is barred by the Separation of Church and State.

I want a world where I don't have to worry about Christian radicals sneaking their Creationism in the classroom of my kid.


It's accepted as a common value that people wear clothes. I don't think it's such a universal value that people don't wear burqas.

It's also accepted that equality between the sexes is an universal right as decreed by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Point being?

Stalin-led Russia was an atheist theocracy. Any system that bans religion and executes people for being religious is as dependent on atheism as any theocracy is dependent on religion. Also, why do I not have the right to display my religion in public? Does your displeasure override my freedom?

No, it wasn't. The word theocracy has its roots in the Greek for "rule of God". It's hard to have a God rule when the State recognizes none.

It was an atheist state, not a theocracy.

You should not have the right to display your religion in public out of equality and fairness, and because it solves the trouble for the State to accommodate religious beliefs, which it should not do. It's not a question of displeasure. I couldn't care less about anybody's religious beliefs, or even the fact that it is displayed. It does not bother me as a person. However, French secularism keeps religion from affecting political (with a big P) and governmental processes. Americans have trouble understanding that because Christianity is still strong in the country, and effectively controls some part of the political process. For example, never had an Atheist president, have you?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/atheists-muslims-bias-presidential-candidates.aspx

If (when) you come under fire like the British and the French then you will understand.

Freedom of speech is not curtailed by the law, nor is freedom of religion, and neither should be. They are your rights unless they interfere with the rights of others (for example, hijacking a jet and flying it into a skyscraper in the name of radical Islam isn't protected by the first amendment. )

Of course freedom of speech is curtailed by law. You can't say everything : in many countries, Holocaust denial is prohibited, as is defamation in nearly all countries (some countries even going so far as to criminalize calling somebody dumb or ugly, such as Oman or the UK). Canada has a hate speech law.

Freedom of religion, on the other hand, is curtailed by few things, and then only in the public sector.

For the first part of my grand plan to bring about laïcité, I would uphold Lampron's distinction of "prejudiciable religious beliefs" and those that aren't. Anything that requires having the law of the land bent to accommodate should not be bent to. For example, Sikhs carrying knives in school or that above-mentioned moron who wanted to build a ramshackle shack on his balcony in a condo when his contract strictly forbade it would have lost in court had I been the judge.

Second part is where religion stays in the private sphere of life entirely.

For the paranoid, there is no third part where religion becomes outlawed and the only State religion is the atheist "cult of Reason" as was done in France for a spell.

I certainly agree women are repressed in many Muslim cultures. I'd be interested if there were any Muslims on here who'd like to comment on that? Anyhow, in America a man can't force a women to wear something she doesn't want to, we have this handy little solution called divorce. So I see no reason to prohibit her from wearing a burqa, as here it is her choice.

"Here" it is her choice. Where is here? In America it very well might be, but what about in her head? Culture transcends all borders, and we are talking about one where divorcees are reviled and run the risk of being honor killed.

Sometimes it takes a will greater than any person can muster to bring about progress. Such a thing is called law.

And I don't see why it should be illegal to show a cross in public. Like I said, freedom of expression! And it opens a bunch of other issues. Are we going to outlaw crosses on the outside of church buildings because they can be seen from public streets? Are we gonna outlaw you from talking about your faith in public? That is like what would be done in the Middle East toward Christians! It might as well be state endorsement of Atheism.

Simple issue of denomination and fairness.

As for the issues :

1) no as they are attached to the building and in many cases are part of the existing cultural patrimony;

2) yes, I'd very much like so. Proselytizing is a scourge. If people want to hear about a particular religion they can go to that particular religion's place of worship;

3) it becomes State endorsement of Atheism only when even the observance of religion is banned. This is simply the State enforcing an even playing field with no ready way to target anyone based on religious denomination.

I know Christians often want to display their faith because they believe they are helping people. You don't want them to display their faith because you think they aren't. You both should be allowed to voice you opinion. The Christian can wear her cross, and you can wear your T-shirt with a cross and a slash through it. Freedom.

No, I don't want them to display it because I believe that religion's place is in private, in your Church, living room and heart, not in public. Whether Christianity helps people or not does not enter the equation.

I could also wear an icon of Muhammad on my t-shirt, but I'd probably get shanked for it (as any image of the Prophet in Islam is a great blasphemy). As long as religion is what it is, I don't want to see it in public. It only brings trouble.

Well, I've read through the conversation/discussion/debate, whatever you prefer to call it, and I think I am going to have to side with Walter Powers on this one. From what I've read online, what I've seen in our government discussions, 'down under', I agree that women should have the right to wear them in public if that's what they believe they should do. You made a strong point, Jean Poutine, about the women being forced to wear them according to their culture but when they are in Australia they are not under the control of the taliban they have their rights in our country. It's their choice to either wear them or to not and they should have that certified freedom.

As I said, it isn't their choice. They're brainwashed and controlled by their relatives. Rights exist, but you do have to use them to be able to say that you have them.

What's going to happen next if we do nothing to stop this bullshit, shari'a courts popping up like in the UK? In a world where pluralism and multiculturalism is rampant, society has to adapt, lest we lose it.

[tovaris]

Its their cjoice what to wear.

[Walter Powers]

Ah, the F-word. Why do Americans love abusing it?

Because what you Americans haven't understood is that freedom breeds unequality. In a truly free world, the strong prosper while the weak die off. Freedom has to be balanced against public interest.

Especially seeing the rise in pluralism in Western countries, I think it's important to legislate regarding religion. Not doing so breeds the risk of having ghettos spawning, like the Jewish quarters of the Middle Ages, and just frustrates everyone as can be evidenced by the mid-2000 crisis on stupid bullshit to "accommodate" religious beliefs by exempting people from the full application of the law here in Canada.



Not enough. There are no laws regarding the content of religious doctrine which is kind of the whole point, and that is barred by the Separation of Church and State.

I want a world where I don't have to worry about Christian radicals sneaking their Creationism in the classroom of my kid.



It's also accepted that equality between the sexes is an universal right as decreed by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Point being?



No, it wasn't. The word theocracy has its roots in the Greek for "rule of God". It's hard to have a God rule when the State recognizes none.

It was an atheist state, not a theocracy.

You should not have the right to display your religion in public out of equality and fairness, and because it solves the trouble for the State to accommodate religious beliefs, which it should not do. It's not a question of displeasure. I couldn't care less about anybody's religious beliefs, or even the fact that it is displayed. It does not bother me as a person. However, French secularism keeps religion from affecting political (with a big P) and governmental processes. Americans have trouble understanding that because Christianity is still strong in the country, and effectively controls some part of the political process. For example, never had an Atheist president, have you?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/atheists-muslims-bias-presidential-candidates.aspx

If (when) you come under fire like the British and the French then you will understand.



Of course freedom of speech is curtailed by law. You can't say everything : in many countries, Holocaust denial is prohibited, as is defamation in nearly all countries (some countries even going so far as to criminalize calling somebody dumb or ugly, such as Oman or the UK). Canada has a hate speech law.

Freedom of religion, on the other hand, is curtailed by few things, and then only in the public sector.

For the first part of my grand plan to bring about laïcité, I would uphold Lampron's distinction of "prejudiciable religious beliefs" and those that aren't. Anything that requires having the law of the land bent to accommodate should not be bent to. For example, Sikhs carrying knives in school or that above-mentioned moron who wanted to build a ramshackle shack on his balcony in a condo when his contract strictly forbade it would have lost in court had I been the judge.

Second part is where religion stays in the private sphere of life entirely.

For the paranoid, there is no third part where religion becomes outlawed and the only State religion is the atheist "cult of Reason" as was done in France for a spell.



"Here" it is her choice. Where is here? In America it very well might be, but what about in her head? Culture transcends all borders, and we are talking about one where divorcees are reviled and run the risk of being honor killed.

Sometimes it takes a will greater than any person can muster to bring about progress. Such a thing is called law.



Simple issue of denomination and fairness.

As for the issues :

1) no as they are attached to the building and in many cases are part of the existing cultural patrimony;

2) yes, I'd very much like so. Proselytizing is a scourge. If people want to hear about a particular religion they can go to that particular religion's place of worship;

3) it becomes State endorsement of Atheism only when even the observance of religion is banned. This is simply the State enforcing an even playing field with no ready way to target anyone based on religious denomination.



No, I don't want them to display it because I believe that religion's place is in private, in your Church, living room and heart, not in public. Whether Christianity helps people or not does not enter the equation.

I could also wear an icon of Muhammad on my t-shirt, but I'd probably get shanked for it (as any image of the Prophet in Islam is a great blasphemy). As long as religion is what it is, I don't want to see it in public. It only brings trouble.



As I said, it isn't their choice. They're brainwashed and controlled by their relatives. Rights exist, but you do have to use them to be able to say that you have them.

What's going to happen next if we do nothing to stop this bullshit, shari'a courts popping up like in the UK? In a world where pluralism and multiculturalism is rampant, society has to adapt, lest we lose it.


So you think Muslim-American women are stupid because there culture tells them they have to, and they do it? NO! And regardless of what you do, changing the laws about self-expression will only suppress the problem, not change it. If you fell so strongly about this issue, start a privately funded campaign about it, don't waste the polices time arresting people for wearing too much clothing! Talk about a war on women!

3) it becomes State endorsement of Atheism only when even the observance of religion is banned. This is simply the State enforcing an even playing field with no ready way to target anyone based on religious denomination.

This is a ridiculous statement. So the fact that the Iranian constitution give you freedom of religion means that the state isn't endorsing Islam? Come on. There are plenty of places where a religion isn't banned but other religions are endorsed by the state. I don't see how atheism would be any different.

No, I don't want them to display it because I believe that religion's place is in private, in your Church, living room and heart, not in public. Whether Christianity helps people or not does not enter the equation.

I could also wear an icon of Muhammad on my t-shirt, but I'd probably get shanked for it (as any image of the Prophet in Islam is a great blasphemy). As long as religion is what it is, I don't want to see it in public. It only brings trouble.

Come on, religion doesn't "only bring trouble". My experinece with friends of faith tells me they are mostly some of the most well behaved, responsible, and successful people out there. Let's look at Christianity, for example. Look at the Bible. An argument can be made against some stuff in there, most of it is indisputably good advice. I've attended Sunday School classes with friends; the teacher has never taught anything that I thought wasn't a good idea. Look at what's included in the Ten Commandments:

Give honor to your father and mother by treating them with respect and obedience.
Do not deliberately kill a fellow human being.
Do not have sexual relations with anyone other than your spouse.
Do not steal or take anything that doesn't belong to you, unless you have been given permission to do so.
Do not tell a lie about someone or bring a false accusation against another person.

Is this not good advice?

As for your opinion that religions place is private, do you seriously think that it should be against the law to talk about what you believe in public? Seriously? If we're gonna do that, it could also lead to banning of political discussion and protest in public, which is downright tyranny. That is giving the government WAY too much power.

And religion only brews physical conflict if you have a person who is unaccepting of another person's beliefs, like you appear to be.

[Harry Smith]

And religion only brews physical conflict if you have a person who is unaccepting of another person's beliefs, like you appear to be.

So by your theory I should accept a religion's belief even if that religion is oppressing my rights? I should just roll over and accept them?

[Walter Powers]

So by your theory I should accept a religion's belief even if that religion is oppressing my rights? I should just roll over and accept them?

No. Unaccepting in the sense of intolerance.

[Adam17]

So you think Muslim-American women are stupid because there culture tells them they have to, and they do it? NO! And regardless of what you do, changing the laws about self-expression will only suppress the problem, not change it. If you fell so strongly about this issue, start a privately funded campaign about it, don't waste the polices time arresting people for wearing too much clothing! Talk about a war on women!



This is a ridiculous statement. So the fact that the Iranian constitution give you freedom of religion means that the state isn't endorsing Islam? Come on. There are plenty of places where a religion isn't banned but other religions are endorsed by the state. I don't see how atheism would be any different.



Come on, religion doesn't "only bring trouble". My experinece with friends of faith tells me they are mostly some of the most well behaved, responsible, and successful people out there. Let's look at Christianity, for example. Look at the Bible. An argument can be made against some stuff in there, most of it is indisputably good advice. I've attended Sunday School classes with friends; the teacher has never taught anything that I thought wasn't a good idea. Look at what's included in the Ten Commandments:

Give honor to your father and mother by treating them with respect and obedience.
Do not deliberately kill a fellow human being.
Do not have sexual relations with anyone other than your spouse.
Do not steal or take anything that doesn't belong to you, unless you have been given permission to do so.
Do not tell a lie about someone or bring a false accusation against another person.

Is this not good advice?

As for your opinion that religions place is private, do you seriously think that it should be against the law to talk about what you believe in public? Seriously? If we're gonna do that, it could also lead to banning of political discussion and protest in public, which is downright tyranny. That is giving the government WAY too much power.

And religion only brews physical conflict if you have a person who is unaccepting of another person's beliefs, like you appear to be.
so your saying that wearing a shirt with a cross or other religious symbol is unfair to others, how? And apparently in your mind its ok to oppress others beliefs and force them to hide it just because someone who they pass on the sidewalk who doesnt feel the same way doesnt have to see it.

[Walter Powers]

so your saying that wearing a shirt with a cross or other religious symbol is unfair to others, how? And apparently in your mind its ok to oppress others beliefs and force them to hide it just because someone who they pass on the sidewalk who doesnt feel the same way doesnt have to see it.

No! My opinion is preciously the opposite. i'm an adamant defender of the first amednment. I think you may have intended to reply to Jean Poutine...that's what he wants! Did you?

[Magus]

There's a lot of talk recently in my country of Australia about women wearing burqa's in public. You see them around every now and then but I don't see the problem with it and I don't understand why the politicians are making such a big deal out of it!

Thoughts?

Islam is on the rise. When Islam is on the rise, ethnic minorities is on the rise, specifically South-Asians.

It's funny how those people act all so religous, when they are hardly are in their country.

So by your theory I should accept a religion's belief even if that religion is oppressing my rights? I should just roll over and accept them?

What if it's not oppressing your right? Still don't want to accept people of other faiths.

[Harry Smith]

Islam is on the rise. When Islam is on the rise, ethnic minorities is on the rise, specifically South-Asians.

It's funny how those people act all so religous, when they are hardly are in their country.



What if it's not oppressing your right? Still don't want to accept people of other faiths.

I accept people of other faiths, even though I disagree with their faith I don't use that as a reason to remove their civil liberties

[Adam17]

No! My opinion is preciously the opposite. i'm an adamant defender of the first amednment. I think you may have intended to reply to Jean Poutine...that's what he wants! Did you?

Ya sorry I saw were you quoted him and accidentally quoted you.

[Walter Powers]

Ya sorry I saw were you quoted him and accidentally quoted you.

You should re post that quoting him this time so he'll know to respond.

[Peta]

Regarding Australia banning this I've gone into a fair bit of research on this and it goes into a fair bit of detail that goes much further then just the banning of Burqa's. I didn't agree with it at the start, but I understand now.

Firstly people were using Burqa's in Australia to rob stores and there was a big media cry over it. This is not the main reason however.

There's a few leaders that are trying to stamp out Muslim influence and Multiculturism in general and the banning of Burqua's is just the start. Why? There's fear's Australia could fall into the same Multiculturism traps of Europe nations like France, Germany and England. Don't get me wrong they are not saying you can't practice your religion. They are trying to put laws in place to say, hey this is our culture, our nation and you need to obey our laws. If you don't like it then see ya later.

For example the French President said this "We have been too concerned about the identity of the person who was arriving and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him," Sarkozy said. And this is exactly what's starting to happen in Australia right now. The laws in place are making it too easy for other people to come over and they are having an influence in our nation. The birth rate of Muslims is 4 times more then that of Australian's at the moment so it's only going to get worse.

And when a nation becomes a Multicultural nation with a Muslim influence the nation is compelled to introduce a law called Sharia law. I won't go into heaps of detail over this law as I'm kind of getting side tracked, but women are particularly discriminated against and it goes into much more then that.

Anyway I hope you get the gist of what I'm saying and you understand why Australia is doing what it's doing.

[Harry Smith]

Regarding Australia banning this I've gone into a fair bit of research on this and it goes into a fair bit of detail that goes much further then just the banning of Burqa's. I didn't agree with it at the start, but I understand now.

Firstly people were using Burqa's in Australia to rob stores and there was a big media cry over it. This is not the main reason however.

There's a few leaders that are trying to stamp out Muslim influence and Multiculturism in general and the banning of Burqua's is just the start. Why? There's fear's Australia could fall into the same Multiculturism traps of Europe nations like France, Germany and England. Don't get me wrong they are not saying you can't practice your religion. They are trying to put laws in place to say, hey this is our culture, our nation and you need to obey our laws. If you don't like it then see ya later.

For example the French President said this "We have been too concerned about the identity of the person who was arriving and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him," Sarkozy said. And this is exactly what's starting to happen in Australia right now. The laws in place are making it too easy for other people to come over and they are having an influence in our nation. The birth rate of Muslims is 4 times more then that of Australian's at the moment so it's only going to get worse.

And when a nation becomes a Multicultural nation with a Muslim influence the nation is compelled to introduce a law called Sharia law. I won't go into heaps of detail over this law as I'm kind of getting side tracked, but women are particularly discriminated against and it goes into much more then that.

Anyway I hope you get the gist of what I'm saying and you understand why Australia is doing what it's doing.

That's wrong, just because you have muslims in a country that doesn't mean that Sharia law will be in place. You can't deny someone the right to pratice their religon, that's just plain wrong. It doesn't matter if it changes your culture, everyone has the right to religion including muslims.

Muslim women chose to wear the Burqa, their not forced to wear it at all

[Jean Poutine]

Let me tell you all something.

Quebec is a recent arrival in the midst of developed nations. The legal incapacity of married women (they could not hold property, vote or exercise civil rights) ended only in 1964. Why so late?

Prior to the 60s, there was a long period in Quebec where the Catholic Church had virtual control in matters of education, health and public morality. One could almost say that the province was a theocracy with an elected civilian government who was all too happy to collaborate with the Catholic clergy. We were an agrarian nation, that lived only to farm and to have kids - in fact, the Catholics made it their job to bring about God's kingdom on Earth...right here in good ol' Quebec City. We are talking about a province where the local parish priest kept note of how many kids each family had, and if it wasn't deemed enough, you went to the bedroom immediately. We are talking about a period where you learned math by adding and subtracting fucking crucifixes, multiplying and dividing hosts. They presided (along with then-Premier Maurice Duplessis) over a part of Quebec history known as la grande noirceur, or "the great darkness", due to Quebec's status as a retrograde, culturally insignificant nation.

Once the Quiet Revolution was underway (mid 60s), the Catholics were booted from what should have been state competences to begin with and the lay government took hold of education and health. The situation rapidly improved and the masses, finally free from the yoke of the Catholic Church, deserted en masse. Today, Quebec's church attendance rates are the lowest in Canada, and even the world.

France has a similar history and numerous religious schisms. This is why a lot of Quebecers and French people hold similar views on laïcité and why the rest of the world tries to paint us as a bunch of primitive xenophobes who obviously have understood nothing of the modern world of multiculturalism. Our history have turned us into skeptics who are immensely cautious about the role of religion in state matters and everyday life. This is our cultural bias, and I admit without reservation that I share it. My own mother lived through this period and I've seen first hand the damage such a culture did, and does.

Now consider this : remember when an obscure Danish newspaper released cartoons (granted, pretty inflammatory ones) of Muhammad? Remember how these cartoons sent the Arab world ablaze, how many Danish flags burned, embassies destroyed, riots and cars in flames? Now imagine the same except that the Arab World is in your country along with the newspaper.

Multiculturalism encourages ghettos and it also encourage hardliners (because we are not screening immigrants on the strength of their religious convictions, are we?) not only to stay put in their ways, but also to radicalize otherwise moderate people who feel like they don't belong in their host country because they're not assimilating. It also undermines people's trust - in everything. Multiculturalism causes intense friction. In the long run, it doesn't work.

The best way to put a stop to religious friction is to remove any way that might distinguish an adherent from other people as well as refuse any outrageous, toxic ethno-religious accommodations, and the best way to assimilate newcomers with a radically different religion and culture is to do the same. If I were president of the US, the WBC would never picket anywhere, ever. Pro-lifers would not harass already emotionally taxed women trying to get an abortion at clinics. People would be free to live their religious life, if applicable, in total peace and serenity, but in private. Public religious life is meaningless and a source of conflict. Let it go.

[Walter Powers]

Let me tell you all something.

Quebec is a recent arrival in the midst of developed nations. The legal incapacity of married women (they could not hold property, vote or exercise civil rights) ended only in 1964. Why so late?

Prior to the 60s, there was a long period in Quebec where the Catholic Church had virtual control in matters of education, health and public morality. One could almost say that the province was a theocracy with an elected civilian government who was all too happy to collaborate with the Catholic clergy. We were an agrarian nation, that lived only to farm and to have kids - in fact, the Catholics made it their job to bring about God's kingdom on Earth...right here in good ol' Quebec City. We are talking about a province where the local parish priest kept note of how many kids each family had, and if it wasn't deemed enough, you went to the bedroom immediately. We are talking about a period where you learned math by adding and subtracting fucking crucifixes, multiplying and dividing hosts. They presided (along with then-Premier Maurice Duplessis) over a part of Quebec history known as la grande noirceur, or "the great darkness", due to Quebec's status as a retrograde, culturally insignificant nation.

Once the Quiet Revolution was underway (mid 60s), the Catholics were booted from what should have been state competences to begin with and the lay government took hold of education and health. The situation rapidly improved and the masses, finally free from the yoke of the Catholic Church, deserted en masse. Today, Quebec's church attendance rates are the lowest in Canada, and even the world.

France has a similar history and numerous religious schisms. This is why a lot of Quebecers and French people hold similar views on laïcité and why the rest of the world tries to paint us as a bunch of primitive xenophobes who obviously have understood nothing of the modern world of multiculturalism. Our history have turned us into skeptics who are immensely cautious about the role of religion in state matters and everyday life. This is our cultural bias, and I admit without reservation that I share it. My own mother lived through this period and I've seen first hand the damage such a culture did, and does.

Now consider this : remember when an obscure Danish newspaper released cartoons (granted, pretty inflammatory ones) of Muhammad? Remember how these cartoons sent the Arab world ablaze, how many Danish flags burned, embassies destroyed, riots and cars in flames? Now imagine the same except that the Arab World is in your country along with the newspaper.

Multiculturalism encourages ghettos and it also encourage hardliners (because we are not screening immigrants on the strength of their religious convictions, are we?) not only to stay put in their ways, but also to radicalize otherwise moderate people who feel like they don't belong in their host country because they're not assimilating. It also undermines people's trust - in everything. Multiculturalism causes intense friction. In the long run, it doesn't work.

The best way to put a stop to religious friction is to remove any way that might distinguish an adherent from other people as well as refuse any outrageous, toxic ethno-religious accommodations, and the best way to assimilate newcomers with a radically different religion and culture is to do the same. If I were president of the US, the WBC would never picket anywhere, ever. Pro-lifers would not harass already emotionally taxed women trying to get an abortion at clinics. People would be free to live their religious life, if applicable, in total peace and serenity, but in private. Public religious life is meaningless and a source of conflict. Let it go.

You sound like Kim Jong Eun. Reply to my rather lengthy response directly, please. There's lots of stuff you didn't address. Then I'll reply.

[Jean Poutine]

So you think Muslim-American women are stupid because there culture tells them they have to, and they do it? NO! And regardless of what you do, changing the laws about self-expression will only suppress the problem, not change it. If you fell so strongly about this issue, start a privately funded campaign about it, don't waste the polices time arresting people for wearing too much clothing! Talk about a war on women!

A war on women? I didn't know stripping somebody of retrograde brainwashing was a war on them.

When have I ever called Muslim women stupid? Don't put words in my mouth, please.

This is a ridiculous statement. So the fact that the Iranian constitution give you freedom of religion means that the state isn't endorsing Islam? Come on. There are plenty of places where a religion isn't banned but other religions are endorsed by the state. I don't see how atheism would be any different.

No, it isn't.

Iran is constitutionally set up to favor Islam from the get-go and only "permits" freedom of religion for the "benefit" of its religious minorities.

In my system, freedom of religion would be guaranteed to all, but in private, with no advantage given to any religion or the lack thereof. What is so hard to understand about that?

PS : atheist proselytizing and t-shirts with "God doesn't exist" written on them would be as restricted as any other religious display. For fuck's sake.

Come on, religion doesn't "only bring trouble". My experinece with friends of faith tells me they are mostly some of the most well behaved, responsible, and successful people out there. Let's look at Christianity, for example. Look at the Bible. An argument can be made against some stuff in there, most of it is indisputably good advice. I've attended Sunday School classes with friends; the teacher has never taught anything that I thought wasn't a good idea. Look at what's included in the Ten Commandments:

Religion brings so much trouble because the dogma is so badly written people can make it say whatever they want.

There are successful and nice religious people and successful and nice non-religious people. I don't see what that has to do with any of it.

Give honor to your father and mother by treating them with respect and obedience.

Bullshit. Respect and honor are earned, not given. Parents should go through the same criterion. So many absolutely terrible parents out there don't deserve any "honor" at all.

Do not deliberately kill a fellow human being.

Well, duh. That's common sense and I don't need an old book to tell me killing people is bad.

But wait, don't people in the Bible kill others in fucking droves? On the orders of God?

Do not have sexual relations with anyone other than your spouse.

Why the Hell not? If I wanna have sex before marriage, that's none of God's fucking business. A famous person once said "the State does not belong in the bedrooms of the nation". Same for God.

Do not steal or take anything that doesn't belong to you, unless you have been given permission to do so.

Do not tell a lie about someone or bring a false accusation against another person.

Again, common sense.

Is this not good advice?

If you need advice to not kill, steal or lie, I fear you have a pretty big problem.

As for your opinion that religions place is private, do you seriously think that it should be against the law to talk about what you believe in public? Seriously?

When it comes to proselytism, yep.

If we're gonna do that, it could also lead to banning of political discussion and protest in public, which is downright tyranny. That is giving the government WAY too much power.

No? What letter of "religious proselytizing" is too hard to read?

And religion only brews physical conflict if you have a person who is unaccepting of another person's beliefs, like you appear to be.

I have said multiple times, again and again, that I do not give a single shit if you or anyone else choose to live in a childish delusion, the equivalent of the Aeneid for the Jews. Everyone is deluded to some degree, atheists included.

It's not a question of tolerance, it's a question of social order and stability. Now if you could kindly fuck off with the ad hominems (you're an intolerant bitch/Juche dictator!) maybe we might get somewhere.

You sound like Kim Jong Eun. Reply to my rather lengthy response directly, please. There's lots of stuff you didn't address. Then I'll reply.

Gee, I sound like a ruthless dictator that lets his people starve while he's airlifting caviar inside his train while it's running.

hahaha no I really don't

[Peta]

That's wrong, just because you have muslims in a country that doesn't mean that Sharia law will be in place. You can't deny someone the right to pratice their religon, that's just plain wrong. It doesn't matter if it changes your culture, everyone has the right to religion including muslims.

Muslim women chose to wear the Burqa, their not forced to wear it at all

Muslim leaders are already wanting to bring in Sharia law and really multiculturism is only youngish. Once the the culture changes, you start to lose your identity as a nation and once that happens it's much, much easier for other's to have an influence like bringing in Sharia law. This is why I believe we must stay true to our identity and our culture. Why should we as a nation be influenced by others?

People of all nations are still free to practice their religion, they are just not allowed to wear Burqua's in public. I know I said it wasn't the main reason for banning Burqua's but it's still a pretty good reason in my opinion. When criminals/terroists are using Burqua's to hide their identity to the public, that's certainly not safe.

[Harry Smith]

Muslim leaders are already wanting to bring in Sharia law and really multiculturism is only youngish. Once the the culture changes, you start to lose your identity as a nation and once that happens it's much, much easier for other's to have an influence like bringing in Sharia law. This is why I believe we must stay true to our identity and our culture. Why should we as a nation be influenced by others?

People of all nations are still free to practice their religion, they are just not allowed to wear Burqua's in public. I know I said it wasn't the main reason for banning Burqua's but it's still a pretty good reason in my opinion. When criminals/terroists are using Burqua's to hide their identity to the public, that's certainly not safe.

So by your theory should baseball bats be banned? Hockey masks? Anything which covers your face.

yes, a small miniortiy of Muslims call for sharia law just as how Christians call for gays to be killed. Because if you don't embrace influece then you'll end up being rather narrow minded, you need to embrace and understand other culture's.

Britain shows how multiculturalism can and does work

[Jean Poutine]

So by your theory should baseball bats be banned? Hockey masks? Anything which covers your face.


Why not? It's illegal to cover your face in public areas in France now. With anything.

[LouBerry]

Burn in hell Muslim scum! If someone is wearing a burqa they are a Muslim and if they are a Muslim then they are a terrorist. If you see a Berzerqa screaming Allah Ackbar run for your life because there is a bomb in that burqa which is why they are called berzerqas.

We do not bash people for who they are/ what they believe.

[Yolo98]

People should be free to wear what they want... Simples

[Magus]

We do not bash people for who they are/ what they believe.

He must've had a bad experience with a Muslim women.

[PinkFloyd]

The only problem I see with it is people that don't even belong to the religion will put them on and be able to cover their identity up and like rob a liquor store or something like that..

I doubt it would be a problem though.

[LouBerry]

He must've had a bad experience with a Muslim women.

Haha, for real.

[Magus]

Burqa was never a religious garment. It is a cutlural attire. Famous female Muslim figures wore it because they use to live in a goddamn desert, and it did not became a fashion statement until recently.

Any association of it with the religion will reveal your lack of the ability to reasearch or your stupidity/bigotry

[teen.jpg]

I seriously don't understand why anyone would want to wear one. but so be it. Not my place to say what someone can wear or not.

[Magus]

I seriously don't understand why anyone would want to wear one. but so be it. Not my place to say what someone can wear or not.

Well there are several reason why they wear it.

Wearing hijab firstly gives the impression that the women in question is pious. The Burqa or the niqab automatically inflates that image. Since the face is a place also that attracts gazes, and it's common sense to not be the center of attraction when you are pious Muslimah.(of course, some do under false pretense).

It enhances the social status of that women and her family, especially the male of the house. Since patrarchal conservative societies have what the call the honor(namus) of the house. Having a scantly dressed women gives ample of chance for the society to gossip about the status of the family; it implies that the women is promiscuous, and thus the males do not have control over her, which really besmirches the reputation of the house/family. And finally they are outcasted, excommunicated, segregated from the rest of the society.

Got me so far?

[teen.jpg]

Well there are several reason why they wear it.

Wearing hijab firstly gives the impression that the women in question is pious. The Burqa or the niqab automatically inflates that image. Since the face is a place also that attracts gazes, and it's common sense to not be the center of attraction when you are pious Muslimah.(of course, some do under false pretense).

It enhances the social status of that women and her family, especially the male of the house. Since patrarchal conservative societies have what the call the honor(namus) of the house. Having a scantly dressed women gives ample of chance for the society to gossip about the status of the family; it implies that the women is promiscuous, and thus the males do not have control over her, which really besmirches the reputation of the house/family. And finally they are outcasted, excommunicated, segregated from the rest of the society.

Got me so far?

I don't think that's fair to the women.

[britishboy]

I don't think that's fair to the women.

who cares what you think? theyre wearing it because they want to for their religion

[teen.jpg]

who cares what you think? theyre wearing it because they want to for their religion

Rude much? -_-

But they're also wearing it because they're kind of forced into it. If they don't they're seen is dirty and impure. And nobody wants to be seen that way.

It's not so much as force, but pressure.

[britishboy]

Rude much? -_-

But they're also wearing it because they're kind of forced into it. If they don't they're seen is dirty and impure. And nobody wants to be seen that way.

It's not so much as force, but pressure.

you could say that about every religious thing, theyre Muslim and because of that they where it, most are very happy with it

[teen.jpg]

you could say that about every religious thing, theyre Muslim and because of that they where it, most are very happy with it

Then what's the controversy? O.o

[Magus]

Then what's the controversy? O.o

The controversy is the rising number of Muslims, which worries the predominantly white seculars and Christians in the West. Seeing people wearing burqa is a sure sign that the proponent of Islamofascism conspiracy theorist were right. Never mind that those Muslims are also mostly south-Asians and Middles-Easterners, so it is racism also in play under the guise of religious intolerance.

[teen.jpg]

The controversy is the rising number of Muslims, which worries the predominantly white seculars and Christians in the West. Seeing people wearing burqa is a sure sign that the proponent of Islamofascism conspiracy theorist were right. Never mind that those Muslims are also mostly south-Asians and Middles-Easterners, so it is racism also in play under the guise of religious intolerance.

People need to get over it. If they want to wear a burqa, let them. I don't see how that even affects them in the slightest.