Should The Muslim Veil Be Banned In USA? - Page 4 - GoFuckYourself.com

DWB · 04-12-2011, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by selena

I do think that it should be a woman that they reveal to.

According to their religion, it has to be.

If they have to sit and wait around and waste their time while they wait for a female police officer to show up, fuck 'em, let them wait.

You ever see one of them in the gym? You can't help laugh.

Rofl · 04-12-2011, 09:46 AM

Fuck upskirts...

New niche is up burkas!

Joxxy · 04-12-2011, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rofl

Fuck upskirts...

New niche is up burkas!

AmeliaG · 04-12-2011, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWB

That was hypothetical to show just one reason why a person needs to show their face.

Reading is difficult, I know.

So, uhm, do you have an example of anything which has been any kind of actual non-hypothetical issue i.e. something which is actually enough of a problem that the USA needs legislation on it so badly that the Constitution is irrelevant?

brassmonkey · 04-12-2011, 03:04 PM

AmeliaG if your husband ordered you to wear that mask stuff. would you sport that in public and when company comes over? take a trip to iran and stay a few weeks

jigg · 04-12-2011, 03:24 PM

ah... The US is not France, there's that pesky 1st amendment that protects personal expression

AmeliaG · 04-12-2011, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brassmonkey

AmeliaG if your husband ordered you to wear that mask stuff. would you sport that in public and when company comes over? take a trip to iran and stay a few weeks

I was not raised that way, so it is not my culture. As an American woman, of course I disagree with much of how Iran does things.

The debate here is whether American women should have the government tell them what they may wear. I am assuming you do not believe a woman's husband should tell her what to wear, so how can you think it is okay for her government to do the same?

jigg · 04-12-2011, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

The United States of America is supposed to be better than that.

As a woman, I am disgusted by men who think they can legislate what women need. Women should get to make their own choices. Women in the USA, who choose to dress a certain way, have a choice. That said, I can at least respect that misguided male attitude as coming from a logical place. The people who are scaredy-cat about all the big bad Muslim chick bank robbers have no connection with anything which has ever happened.

The majority would not suffer terribly much, if all smut-mongers were rounded up, but I assume most people posting here would prefer that did not happen.

quoted for truth!

Kenko · 04-12-2011, 04:43 PM

I don't see what is so hard about this.
There are already many exceptions to first amendment rights - eg obscenity, bomb scares, shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
No-one can just do what they want if it harms other people.

The whole point of the ban is fight extremism and protect women.
Basically, oppression trumps fashion choice.

moeloubani · 04-12-2011, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenko

I don't see what is so hard about this.
There are already many exceptions to first amendment rights - eg obscenity, bomb scares, shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
No-one can just do what they want if it harms other people.

The whole point of the ban is fight extremism and protect women.
Basically, oppression trumps fashion choice.

So it's not oppression to force someone NOT to wear something?

brassmonkey · 04-12-2011, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

I was not raised that way, so it is not my culture. As an American woman, of course I disagree with much of how Iran does things.

The debate here is whether American women should have the government tell them what they may wear. I am assuming you do not believe a woman's husband should tell her what to wear, so how can you think it is okay for her government to do the same?

anyone can hide under that shit. put it up to the people to vote then.

im not flying on a plane with someone wearing the mask thing.

AmeliaG · 04-12-2011, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brassmonkey

anyone can hide under that shit. put it up to the people to vote then.

im not flying on a plane with someone wearing the mask thing.

One of the reasons we have a Supreme Court is to prevent ignorant mob rule.

Aside from the obvious legal issues, I don't think we need a law, unless something is a common problem. So far, not one person in this thread can come up with a single example of Muslim women's clothing enabling crime. It is not just uncommon; none of you can come up with even one example. And it would take more than one isolated incident for a law to be needed.

I would like our airports to have two lines, one for scaredy-cats who don't understand the meaning of Home of the Brave and one for people who are not freaked out by a chick in a head covering, one for people who think security is the most important issue and one for people who don't feel more secure being irradiated by machines made in a foreign (heavily Muslim) country, one for people who want to tell women how to dress and one for people who just want to get from point A to point B with a minimum of fuss, one for bigots who fear anyone different from themselves and one for patriotic Americans who don't want to give up the freedoms guaranteed in the American way of life.

Rofl · 04-12-2011, 11:11 PM

Fuck the Burka!

BAN PANTIES!!!

marlboroack · 04-12-2011, 11:18 PM

I hate racism. And those dude's at 7-11 make more than you do. yeah that franchise is mad money.

RazorSharpe · 04-13-2011, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWB

"And say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their head coverings to cover their bosoms, and not to display their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband's fathers, or their sons, or their husband's sons, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their womenfolk, or what their right hands rule, or the followers from the men who do not feel sexual desire, or the small children to whom the nakedness of women is not apparent, and not to strike their feet so as to make known what they hide of their adornments. And turn in repentance to Allah together, O you the faithful, in order that you are successful"

- Qur'an

That means, they don't take that shit off for anyone outside their own clan.

yes but they'd take it off for a female security officer ... duhhhh

RazorSharpe · 04-13-2011, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendot

Dood, I dont know what to make of this as Ive always had you down as a bit of a thicko not to mention a racist.

Hammer, meet Nail's head!!

Kenko · 04-13-2011, 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

..
I would like our airports to have two lines, one for scaredy-cats who don't understand the meaning of Home of the Brave and one for people who are not freaked out by a chick in a head covering, one for people who think security is the most important issue and one for people who don't feel more secure being irradiated by machines made in a foreign (heavily Muslim) country, one for people who want to tell women how to dress and one for people who just want to get from point A to point B with a minimum of fuss, one for bigots who fear anyone different from themselves and one for patriotic Americans who don't want to give up the freedoms guaranteed in the American way of life.

So long as there were 2 planes at the end of the 2 lines.

One for folks who understand the need for security checks.
And another for those with their heads in the sand.

Kenko · 04-13-2011, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moeloubani

So it's not oppression to force someone NOT to wear something?

Would you fight for the right for a guy to keep his wife in a cage?

Many of them might even claim to enjoy it.
Especially if they are told some boogie monster in the sky demands it.

AmeliaG · 04-13-2011, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenko

Would you fight for the right for a guy to keep his wife in a cage?

Many of them might even claim to enjoy it.
Especially if they are told some boogie monster in the sky demands it.

You do know some people -- male and female -- choose to be lifestyle dominant or submissive, right? Yes, I would fight for sexual freedom. If you sell adult entertainment online, I honestly think it is bizarre if you would not. Some people like to hang from meathooks. I think they have the right to, even though obviously that would be a horrific thing to do to someone who was not consenting. Freedom, so long as it does not infringe on the freedom of others. Freedom includes the freedom to make bad decisions.

Ayla_SquareTurtle · 04-13-2011, 02:46 PM

Freedom means being able to make the decision with a reasonable amount of agency. Someone born into a family who actively practices a religion that hates women has no such agency.

That being said, I don't think women should be punished for wearing it in the USA. There should, however, be strict mandatory jail time for anyone who forces a woman to do so.

Vendot · 04-14-2011, 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ayla_SquareTurtle

That being said, I don't think women should be punished for wearing it in the USA. There should, however, be strict mandatory jail time for anyone who forces a woman to do so.

Sounds reasonable. I agree that forcing someone is definitely something that needs to be guarded against and perhaps people may be required to remove their veil for legal, national security, police enforcement or other specific reasons.

Banning it outright seems to be, to be a bit disrespectful and excessive though...... I think some people on this thread are borderline racist, uneducated or in some way nonsensical but there are also a lot of well reasoned, well argued points here which is good to see.

potter · 04-14-2011, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ayla_SquareTurtle

That being said, I don't think women should be punished for wearing it in the USA. There should, however, be strict mandatory jail time for anyone who forces a woman to do so.

There already are laws against forcing people to do things against there will.

brassmonkey · 04-14-2011, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

One of the reasons we have a Supreme Court is to prevent ignorant mob rule.

yeah right! you see what a mess things are? too much government power! and if a majority of the people want something you think the government should block it? on man that's how civil wars start.

Ayla_SquareTurtle · 04-14-2011, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by potter

There already are laws against forcing people to do things against there will.

There are indeed. However, I'm sure the specific punishment would vary widely depending on what you forced someone to do. I think forcing someone to wear dehumanizing religious BS should be specifically criminalized with harsh, mandatory prison penalties. There may already be laws on the books about this, but I haven't heard of them if there are.

RebelR · 04-14-2011, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

You do know some people -- male and female -- choose to be lifestyle dominant or submissive, right? Yes, I would fight for sexual freedom. If you sell adult entertainment online, I honestly think it is bizarre if you would not. Some people like to hang from meathooks. I think they have the right to, even though obviously that would be a horrific thing to do to someone who was not consenting. Freedom, so long as it does not infringe on the freedom of others. Freedom includes the freedom to make bad decisions.

You are absolutely right. However the freedoms that you are referring to happen within the confines of specific places, home, club etc. And not within the domain of the general public. I think that is what this issue pertains to. Wear whatever you want in your home, in a meeting place, but the gov't does dictate what you wear outside of those places. Otherwise someone could walk around naked in public without any repercussions.

_Richard_ · 04-14-2011, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ayla_SquareTurtle

Freedom means being able to make the decision with a reasonable amount of agency. Someone born into a family who actively practices a religion that hates women has no such agency.

That being said, I don't think women should be punished for wearing it in the USA. There should, however, be strict mandatory jail time for anyone who forces a woman to do so.

so you feel you should be applying the freedoms, or 'society', on to other just because you feel yours is superior? not trying to flame you or anything, it is an interesting problem 'both sides' face

telling an idiot that they are an idiot just seems to make them more idiotic lol

Ayla_SquareTurtle · 04-14-2011, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

so you feel you should be applying the freedoms, or 'society', on to other just because you feel yours is superior? not trying to flame you or anything, it is an interesting problem 'both sides' face

telling an idiot that they are an idiot just seems to make them more idiotic lol

I'm not sure I understand your question. I didn't imply that I wanted to force anything on anyone and I certainly have no illusions that the US is a perfect society and I didn't say anything about inferior or superior. I am AGAINST people being forced to do things, whether in the name of religion or otherwise, so I'm not really sure where you got that. I simply believe that it should be a serious crime to force women to wear religious garb they don't want to wear.

Poindexterity · 04-14-2011, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

so you feel you should be applying the freedoms, or 'society', on to other just because you feel yours is superior?

i sure as hell do.
so did the soldiers who stormed the beaches of normandy.

brassmonkey · 04-14-2011, 03:18 PM

if they can wear that stuff then i should be able to wear a bandanna and ill say its worn in instruction of my religion

Quentin · 04-14-2011, 04:19 PM

The U.S. government already can (and already does) regulate the wearing of cover using the same sort of "time, place and manner" restrictions that are applied to a wide variety of expression protected by the First Amendment.

A good example of that sort of restriction involves the lovely folks over at the Westboro Baptist Church (AKA the "God Hates Fags" geniuses).

The reason that Fred Phelps and family prevailed in their appeal of the civil case recently reviewed by the Supreme Court was that in conducting the 'protest' that they were sued over, the Westboro group honored the time, place and manner restrictions their charming little demonstrations are subject to. They concluded their demonstration prior to the beginning of the funeral services, held it at a distance removed from the ceremony as proscribed by law, and otherwise conformed to the relevant statutes.

Had the Westboro crowd shown up at the actual funeral itself, they would have been in violation of the law, and the jury's verdict probably would have withstood appeal (the amount of the damages probably would not have survived under any circumstances, as it was out of line with damages awarded in previous cases involving intentional infliction of emotional distress... but that's another story altogether). As it was, the Westboro creeps simply didn't break the law, so the Supreme Court got it right (IMO, at least) when they upheld the overturning of the original jury verdict.

Bottom line: there's a substantial difference between something being "protected by the First Amendment" and that same thing being A-OK in any and all circumstances. The more controversial or potential "harmful" the expression in question is, the more likely it is to be restricted with time, place and manner limitations of some kind.

Banning something is rarely an effective approach to solving any problems associated with the existence of that 'something,' and it is rarer still for a ban to be a good idea from a public policy standpoint. As a practical matter, an outright ban on wearing burqas and/or veils has no prospect whatsoever of surviving the scrutiny of U.S. courts. Given that fact, any legislative time and money spent on crafting such a law would be time and money wasted, as would be the time and money spent defending the doomed statute in court.

Vick! · 04-14-2011, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamsMaster

to be honest yes, I respect them and their religion, and in the same way I respect them, as long as they are in my country at my home they should respect me and not wear that Veil as I am not wearing it.

This is the weakest argument I ever read on the banning side. Strange how some people's logic is.

AmeliaG · 04-14-2011, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brassmonkey

yeah right! you see what a mess things are? too much government power! and if a majority of the people want something you think the government should block it? on man that's how civil wars start.

You are saying that giving the government the power to tell people what kind of hat they are allowed to wear would somehow be less government power?

_Richard_ · 04-14-2011, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ayla_SquareTurtle

I'm not sure I understand your question. I didn't imply that I wanted to force anything on anyone and I certainly have no illusions that the US is a perfect society and I didn't say anything about inferior or superior. I am AGAINST people being forced to do things, whether in the name of religion or otherwise, so I'm not really sure where you got that. I simply believe that it should be a serious crime to force women to wear religious garb they don't want to wear.

i disagree with the fact that woman are directly 'forced' to wear them.. it's a matter of society and culture that can be compared to pre-marital sex

a lot of the foreign policy decisions made, in face of nuclear war granted, have created a powerful and unstable element that seems to be driving the 'extreme' side of the news that we hear

i find it disturbing the rhetoric that we have to 'change this silly world', rather than lead by example

Ayla_SquareTurtle · 04-14-2011, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

i disagree with the fact that woman are directly 'forced' to wear them.. it's a matter of society and culture that can be compared to pre-marital sex

a lot of the foreign policy decisions made, in face of nuclear war granted, have created a powerful and unstable element that seems to be driving the 'extreme' side of the news that we hear

i find it disturbing the rhetoric that we have to 'change this silly world', rather than lead by example

You can disagree with the fact that women are forced to wear it but you'd be wrong because many are.

_Richard_ · 04-14-2011, 11:25 PM

i understand your point, but my question is how much of what you feel is 'forced' is simply a 'societal screen' that you, and myself for that matter, are unable to relate to?

we're talking about a group of populations that doesn't even hit a percentage point in the United States.. and in Canada, the horrific acts against family for perceived 'honour killings' is dive bombing as the cultures/societies begin to trust our institutions

i suppose my question is if you are so against forcing people to do things, why are you willing to be forced to support a compromise of your constitution?

Ayla_SquareTurtle · 04-14-2011, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

i understand your point, but my question is how much of what you feel is 'forced' is simply a 'societal screen' that you, and myself for that matter, are unable to relate to?

we're talking about a group of populations that doesn't even hit a percentage point in the United States.. and in Canada, the horrific acts against family for perceived 'honour killings' is dive bombing as the cultures/societies begin to trust our institutions

i suppose my question is if you are so against forcing people to do things, why are you willing to be forced to support a compromise of your constitution?

Richard, I don't. The law *I* want does not violate the constitution. You seem to be projecting other people's opinions on to me. Please stop doing that.

_Richard_ · 04-15-2011, 12:21 AM

yessum

..

Jon Oso · 04-15-2011, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

In the USA, we have a little thing called Separation of Church and State. That means the government does not get to legislate on this sort of thing. As a patriotic American, I'm embarrassed that anyone in my country would even be discussing this as a potentially good idea.

The neighborhood I went to High School in was the suggested area to build a Mosque when I was about to graduate.

This was a few years after the 9/11 attacks and it was still a pretty sore subject for most people. The people in my neighborhood were adamant that a Mosque not be built in their community, and yet there was a Church bordering the high school and nobody cared one bit.

As far as I can recall, the last time I was in that area, there was a Mosque there and the rest of the community wasn't burned down, and nothing was different other than a new building being there where there was just a dirt lot before.

Not that I'm all for people wearing masks and shit in public, but all this "It's my country" shit is ridiculous. It's my country, and your country, and it's THEIR country too. A lot of them are US citizens, and if they aren't, they're here legally working and living just like everyone else.

This country was built with freedom in mind, hell the founding fathers wore fucking wigs for crying out loud, but nobody seems to bring that up when discussing the whole Burka issue. If they ban that, they should make it mandatory that politicians wear wigs and face powder. It's just as asinine.

Let them do what they want, it's not hurting anyone, it SHOULDN'T be offending anyone, and if it makes them feel better about themselves great. It's not like it's a community of sweaty fat chicks wearing daisy dukes and halter tops. I think we can ALL agree that shit isn't cool and yet every day I see fat people wearing clothes that are way too goddamn small for them.

nico-t · 04-15-2011, 05:39 AM

if its a veil that covers the complete face, except for the eyes, then its pretty logical that it's not accepted at least in some public places etc.
Because as long as i can remember, you may not keep your helmet on at the gas station shop because you might rob the place.
You have to equate a face covering veil with this example. As for walking around on the street, i wouldnt care. You may walk around on the street with a helmet too.
But when it comes to the gas station shop example, a bank, a store, etc. its expected that you take it off.

Cherry7 · 04-15-2011, 07:06 AM

People should have the right to wear what ever they want of their own free will.

Are you proposing to ban Nuns and Priests and their wierd attire ?

How about the Amish?

The real right is for children to be able to grow up without religion (of any sort ) being forced down their throats, so that when they are adults they can make informed decisions on their life.

What people wear "debate" is a smokescreen for racism.

Slappin Fish · 04-15-2011, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

You do know some people -- male and female -- choose to be lifestyle dominant or submissive, right? Yes, I would fight for sexual freedom. If you sell adult entertainment online, I honestly think it is bizarre if you would not. Some people like to hang from meathooks. I think they have the right to, even though obviously that would be a horrific thing to do to someone who was not consenting. Freedom, so long as it does not infringe on the freedom of others. Freedom includes the freedom to make bad decisions.

They didn't choose to wear the burqa.

Pictures of students in Egypt dating back to the 60's show not a single one wearing a veil (never mind a Burqa), it isn't until the 80's after the Iranian revolution and the radicalization of Islam that you see the first women wearing a veil. Fast forward to today every female student is wearing a veil. every single one. Do you think they all decided they wanted their faces covered?

banning the burqa rids Muslim women of that ball and chains without getting a beating when they got home

AmeliaG · 04-15-2011, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Oso

The neighborhood I went to High School in was the suggested area to build a Mosque when I was about to graduate.

This was a few years after the 9/11 attacks and it was still a pretty sore subject for most people. The people in my neighborhood were adamant that a Mosque not be built in their community, and yet there was a Church bordering the high school and nobody cared one bit.

As far as I can recall, the last time I was in that area, there was a Mosque there and the rest of the community wasn't burned down, and nothing was different other than a new building being there where there was just a dirt lot before.

Not that I'm all for people wearing masks and shit in public, but all this "It's my country" shit is ridiculous. It's my country, and your country, and it's THEIR country too. A lot of them are US citizens, and if they aren't, they're here legally working and living just like everyone else.

This country was built with freedom in mind, hell the founding fathers wore fucking wigs for crying out loud, but nobody seems to bring that up when discussing the whole Burka issue. If they ban that, they should make it mandatory that politicians wear wigs and face powder. It's just as asinine.

Let them do what they want, it's not hurting anyone, it SHOULDN'T be offending anyone, and if it makes them feel better about themselves great. It's not like it's a community of sweaty fat chicks wearing daisy dukes and halter tops. I think we can ALL agree that shit isn't cool and yet every day I see fat people wearing clothes that are way too goddamn small for them.

Ooh, I really loathe wigs too. Good point.

Seriously, all good points and interesting examples

AmeliaG · 04-15-2011, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nico-t

if its a veil that covers the complete face, except for the eyes, then its pretty logical that it's not accepted at least in some public places etc.
Because as long as i can remember, you may not keep your helmet on at the gas station shop because you might rob the place.
You have to equate a face covering veil with this example. As for walking around on the street, i wouldnt care. You may walk around on the street with a helmet too.
But when it comes to the gas station shop example, a bank, a store, etc. its expected that you take it off.

Men wearing motorcycle helmets have robbed gas stations. Wearing a motorcycle helmet indoors is not a religious imperative.

Women wearing burkas have clearly not been on a gas station robbing spree or somebody here would have been able to find some examples of this religious practice being super harmful to society. It has probably happened at some point, but it is hardly a scourge on America.

AmeliaG · 04-15-2011, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slappin Fish

They didn't choose to wear the burqa.

Pictures of students in Egypt dating back to the 60's show not a single one wearing a veil (never mind a Burqa), it isn't until the 80's after the Iranian revolution and the radicalization of Islam that you see the first women wearing a veil. Fast forward to today every female student is wearing a veil. every single one. Do you think they all decided they wanted their faces covered?

banning the burqa rids Muslim women of that ball and chains without getting a beating when they got home

Pictures of students in America dating back to the 60's show not a single one with a tramp stamp.

Legislating religion is wrong. Even if we think someone else's religion is, ya know, stupid.

Slappin Fish · 04-15-2011, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

Pictures of students in America dating back to the 60's show not a single one with a tramp stamp.

You'll find those with tramp stamps volunteered to have it, they weren't branded by their husbands.

Anyway it isn't about religion itself but about finding a compromise between ones own beliefs and living in society.

wearing a burqa should be about as welcome in the West as walking around stark naked.
there is standards. They exclude both absence of clothes and total coverups.

Kenko · 04-15-2011, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

Pictures of students in America dating back to the 60's show not a single one with a tramp stamp.

Legislating religion is wrong. Even if we think someone else's religion is, ya know, stupid.

No - unlimited freedom is wrong when it begins to harm others.
It's about where you draw the line.

What if some extremist branch of Islam demanded that wives cut off one of their legs, to prove their devolution to Allah ?
Some of them would say they love hopping around..
But many others would go along with it, against their will, due to fear and intimidation.

Should that be acceptable in a civilized country?
It's the same principle..

helterskelter808 · 04-15-2011, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slappin Fish

Pictures of students in Egypt dating back to the 60's show not a single one wearing a veil (never mind a Burqa), it isn't until the 80's after the Iranian revolution and the radicalization of Islam that you see the first women wearing a veil. Fast forward to today every female student is wearing a veil. every single one. Do you think they all decided they wanted their faces covered?

If lots of women suddenly started wearing a niqab that may indeed suggest 'coercion'. As it stands though, given that very few women in France, the UK or the USA wear a niqab, what is there to suggest they are not doing it by choice?

Quote:

banning the burqa rids Muslim women of that ball and chains without getting a beating when they got home

Banning something that doesn't really exist in the USA to any significant extent, if at all, seems fairly redundant to me.

_Richard_ · 04-15-2011, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

Banning something that doesn't really exist in the USA to any significant extent, if at all, seems fairly redundant to me.

most law that isn't true law is redundant

unfortunately it also hides precedent.

helterskelter808 · 04-15-2011, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenko

What if some extremist branch of Islam demanded that wives cut off one of their legs, to prove their devolution to Allah ?

Now that would be totally crazy. If someone came with the idea of mutilating the cocks of babies for 'God' though, that would obviously make perfect sense.

JFK · 04-15-2011, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

It's all good till 5 veiled gunmen rob the 1st national bank

speaking of that, I saw a sign in a bank in Phoenix, stating, no hoodies, no hats, no sunglasses, etc, I guess they would frown on a veil as well

View Poll Results: Should The Muslim Veil (Niqab or Burka) Be Banned?
Yes	80	62.02%
No	41	31.78%
Not Sure	8	6.20%
Voters: 129. You may not vote on this poll

04-12-2011, 09:46 AM	#152
Rofl Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 129	Fuck upskirts... New niche is up burkas! __________________ ICQ: 350550117

04-12-2011, 03:04 PM	#155
brassmonkey Pay It Forward Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Yo Mama House Posts: 77,155	AmeliaG if your husband ordered you to wear that mask stuff. would you sport that in public and when company comes over? take a trip to iran and stay a few weeks __________________ TRUMP 2025 KEKAW!!! - The Laken Riley Act Is Law! DACA ENDED - SUPPORT AZ HCR 2060 52R - email: brassballz-at-techie.com

04-12-2011, 03:24 PM	#156
jigg Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 2,527	ah... The US is not France, there's that pesky 1st amendment that protects personal expression __________________ ...... eight,eight,two,eight,eight,four,two ......

04-12-2011, 11:11 PM	#163
Rofl Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 129	Fuck the Burka! BAN PANTIES!!! __________________ ICQ: 350550117

04-12-2011, 04:43 PM	#159
Kenko Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 65	I don't see what is so hard about this. There are already many exceptions to first amendment rights - eg obscenity, bomb scares, shouting fire in a crowded theatre. No-one can just do what they want if it harms other people. The whole point of the ban is fight extremism and protect women. Basically, oppression trumps fashion choice.

04-12-2011, 11:18 PM	#164
marlboroack So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: ☣ Posts: 9,327	I hate racism. And those dude's at 7-11 make more than you do. yeah that franchise is mad money.

04-13-2011, 02:46 PM	#170
Ayla_SquareTurtle Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: 5000 full paysite reviews and counting Posts: 3,550	Freedom means being able to make the decision with a reasonable amount of agency. Someone born into a family who actively practices a religion that hates women has no such agency. That being said, I don't think women should be punished for wearing it in the USA. There should, however, be strict mandatory jail time for anyone who forces a woman to do so. __________________ gone. long gone. aylasquareturtle .."a"t".. gmail dawt com

04-14-2011, 03:18 PM	#179
brassmonkey Pay It Forward Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Yo Mama House Posts: 77,155	if they can wear that stuff then i should be able to wear a bandanna and ill say its worn in instruction of my religion __________________ TRUMP 2025 KEKAW!!! - The Laken Riley Act Is Law! DACA ENDED - SUPPORT AZ HCR 2060 52R - email: brassballz-at-techie.com

04-14-2011, 04:19 PM	#180
Quentin Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,280	The U.S. government already can (and already does) regulate the wearing of cover using the same sort of "time, place and manner" restrictions that are applied to a wide variety of expression protected by the First Amendment. A good example of that sort of restriction involves the lovely folks over at the Westboro Baptist Church (AKA the "God Hates Fags" geniuses). The reason that Fred Phelps and family prevailed in their appeal of the civil case recently reviewed by the Supreme Court was that in conducting the 'protest' that they were sued over, the Westboro group honored the time, place and manner restrictions their charming little demonstrations are subject to. They concluded their demonstration prior to the beginning of the funeral services, held it at a distance removed from the ceremony as proscribed by law, and otherwise conformed to the relevant statutes. Had the Westboro crowd shown up at the actual funeral itself, they would have been in violation of the law, and the jury's verdict probably would have withstood appeal (the amount of the damages probably would not have survived under any circumstances, as it was out of line with damages awarded in previous cases involving intentional infliction of emotional distress... but that's another story altogether). As it was, the Westboro creeps simply didn't break the law, so the Supreme Court got it right (IMO, at least) when they upheld the overturning of the original jury verdict. Bottom line: there's a substantial difference between something being "protected by the First Amendment" and that same thing being A-OK in any and all circumstances. The more controversial or potential "harmful" the expression in question is, the more likely it is to be restricted with time, place and manner limitations of some kind. Banning something is rarely an effective approach to solving any problems associated with the existence of that 'something,' and it is rarer still for a ban to be a good idea from a public policy standpoint. As a practical matter, an outright ban on wearing burqas and/or veils has no prospect whatsoever of surviving the scrutiny of U.S. courts. Given that fact, any legislative time and money spent on crafting such a law would be time and money wasted, as would be the time and money spent defending the doomed statute in court. __________________ Q. Boyer

04-14-2011, 11:25 PM	#185
_Richard_ Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Earth Posts: 30,989	i understand your point, but my question is how much of what you feel is 'forced' is simply a 'societal screen' that you, and myself for that matter, are unable to relate to? we're talking about a group of populations that doesn't even hit a percentage point in the United States.. and in Canada, the horrific acts against family for perceived 'honour killings' is dive bombing as the cultures/societies begin to trust our institutions i suppose my question is if you are so against forcing people to do things, why are you willing to be forced to support a compromise of your constitution?

04-15-2011, 12:21 AM	#187
_Richard_ Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Earth Posts: 30,989	yessum ..

04-15-2011, 05:39 AM	#189
nico-t emperor of my world Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: nethalands Posts: 29,903	if its a veil that covers the complete face, except for the eyes, then its pretty logical that it's not accepted at least in some public places etc. Because as long as i can remember, you may not keep your helmet on at the gas station shop because you might rob the place. You have to equate a face covering veil with this example. As for walking around on the street, i wouldnt care. You may walk around on the street with a helmet too. But when it comes to the gas station shop example, a bank, a store, etc. its expected that you take it off.

04-15-2011, 07:06 AM	#190
Cherry7 Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: UK Posts: 3,564	People should have the right to wear what ever they want of their own free will. Are you proposing to ban Nuns and Priests and their wierd attire ? How about the Amish? The real right is for children to be able to grow up without religion (of any sort ) being forced down their throats, so that when they are adults they can make informed decisions on their life. What people wear "debate" is a smokescreen for racism. __________________ My Neighbour Butterfly PORN-The Musical The Long Goodbye Cinema Erotique