the burqa ban in france

[Ocean]

so as you all probably know, france has recently banned the burqa. this has been met with criticism from both citizens of france and outside sources.

what are your thoughts on the situation? do you agree with the ban, or do you think france is going to far?

 

[eschemat]

I think that I agree with the ban of the burqa. Perhaps not in France, but for a Western society, we have a few values we have to uphold, and I'll use the burqa ban in Quebec for example. So, why did they ban the burqa? I think it was for two reasons. Firstly, we kinda consider the burqa as a security risk. Concealment of the face is a major thing in our society, and it really hides someone's identity, making it easier for them to do something to the state that damages it.

OK, so the second reason is because in a state that is legally secular, there still have to be some fundamental rights to be upheld. As much as there's the right to express yourself, the burqa impedes on the right of woman by forcing them to do something, and degrades them. I don't think it's a matter of liberty when you're religion forces you to do something, and something that also fundamentally degrades members of our society.

So I support the burqa ban because of that.

 

[Battlecow]

The burqa ban is ridiculous on the face of it. I know they still haven't caught on to the whole freedom of religion thing over in the old country, but it's kind of an inalienable and universal right. The burqa, if worn willingly, is no less demeaning than any other traditional religious dress, nor does it cause harm to anyone other than the wearer. I hate Islam too, Sarkozie, but I at least acknowledge the rights of muslims.

 

[Dre89]

To be honest, I think religious freedom of expression is a privellage, not a right. If I'm a Christian and I go to a muslim country, I'd consider myself fortunate to be allowed to express it, I wouldn't demand they cater to me.

It's like how you don't go to a country where soft-core drugs are banned and expect them to be legal just because it's legal in your country.

 

[ballin4life]

To be honest, I think religious freedom of expression is a privellage, not a right. If I'm a Christian and I go to a muslim country, I'd consider myself fortunate to be allowed to express it, I wouldn't demand they cater to me.

It's like how you don't go to a country where soft-core drugs are banned and expect them to be legal just because it's legal in your country.

But there is a difference between what I expect and what I think is right.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

To be honest, I think religious freedom of expression is a privellage, not a right. If I'm a Christian and I go to a muslim country, I'd consider myself fortunate to be allowed to express it, I wouldn't demand they cater to me.

Freedom of speech. It may not be a basic human right, but it sure as hell is necessary for a society to function at a high level.

It's like how you don't go to a country where soft-core drugs are banned and expect them to be legal just because it's legal in your country.

Unfortunately, not enough places have drugs legal...

 

[Ocean]

If I'm a Christian and I go to a muslim country, I'd consider myself fortunate to be allowed to express it, I wouldn't demand they cater to me.

how is allowing someone to wear a burqa 'catering'?

 

[Battlecow]

It's an inalienable right, yo. Muslim countries don't grant you it, and that's a sign of a society inferior to that of the USA (i.e. all societies). We should be better than them at this because we're more advanced and better in every respect.

 

[eschemat]

Wait. Are you guys saying that you don't think that the burqa undermines a woman at all? Forcing them to conceal their face because they're a woman? It's not a choice in the religion. You can't talk about freedom of expression when the fact is they're forced to wear that burqa lol.

The burqa is contradictory to any idea of woman being equal to men, guys. There's a reason that you're forced to veil your face in the Muslim religion if you're a woman.

 

[Battlecow]

Lulz. Women in France are given a choice as to whether or not to wear the burqa. It's not up to you to tell them that their religion is bull****. If "The burqa is contradictory to any idea of woman being equal to men," then so is the custom that women have to wear tops whereas dudes don't. It's a cultural thing, bro. The women want to wear burqas because they feel that their religion requires them to. So let them fulfill their religious duties.

 

[eschemat]

well, they have the choice to follow the religion, but not to wear the burqa. i'm not saying their religion is bs, but I do think that the Muslim religion tells woman to screw off cause they're inferior, and I don't think that in a developed country that's accepted.

 

[Battlecow]

Muslim countries aren't developed countries, If women wanna believe they're crap that's their right, and they DO have the choice to follow Islam and not wear the burqa. Even if they didn't have that choice, I don't see how a law against burqa-wearing would help. The burqa ban is wrong.

 

[Ocean]

Wait. Are you guys saying that you don't think that the burqa undermines a woman at all? Forcing them to conceal their face because they're a woman? It's not a choice in the religion. You can't talk about freedom of expression when the fact is they're forced to wear that burqa lol.

The burqa is contradictory to any idea of woman being equal to men, guys. There's a reason that you're forced to veil your face in the Muslim religion if you're a woman.

not all the women are forced. I'm sure that there some women who are severely pressured into it by their family or mosque or other sources, but from my experience with women wearing the burqa, they are choosing to. now, were they raised strictly to believe that? probably, in the same way that catholics raise catholics with their own views, and that isn't something that we should interfere with and say is wrong. I personally think the burqa is degrading, but I find it even more degrading to tell someone that it is illegal to practice something that it is a part of their religion, as long as it's not way out of line. the women have a choice to follow the religion of islam, as well as having a choice to wear the burqa.
granted, with all this, I am not a woman, a muslim, or french, so I can't speak for them and I don't have first hand experience with the law.

well, they have the choice to follow the religion, but not to wear the burqa.

why shouldn't they have a choice to follow their religion and wear the burqa then?

 

[eschemat]

I think that moral coercion is why they basically wear the burqa. But other than that, I think that the other part about it being degrading is more serious. To any secular state, as I've said before, there have to be rules in place to protect more fundamental values to society. It's a sign of degradation that affects all of society, not just Muslim women. I'm tired so I'll elaborate on this post later lol

 

[Ocean]

how is it fundamental to society to protect against (by our standard) degrading material, if to do that they have to restrict both freedom of expression and in some ways freedom of religion?

 

[Battlecow]

You call it degrading, they call it modest. Bottom line: it's their choice.

Hypothetical situation: Aliens come to earth, pass a law banning clothes except in cold weather. Think about it.

 

[GoldShadow]

Forcing them to conceal their face because they're a woman? It's not a choice in the religion.

Actually, there is no requirement in the religion to wear a burqa (in other words, a garment that also covers the hands and face). In fact, it's not part of the religion at all; it's a cultural practice entirely unrelated to it.

The requirements are modest body covering (pants, no low-cut shirt necks, etc.) and the hijab (head scarf), but even then, the vast majority of Muslim women in Western countries don't wear the hijab.

 

[ballin4life]

You could make an argument along the lines of "it would be SO much better for women long term if we FORCE them right now to stop wearing it". I just think that's going way too far along the lines of "I know what's best for everyone else"

 

[eschemat]

It's not a choice because of moral coercion. Moral coercion basically forces them to wear it.

And of course, but at some point, protecting intrinsic values is much more valuable than defending individual cases.

I guess I'm the only supporting xD

 

[ballin4life]

It's not a choice because of moral coercion. Moral coercion basically forces them to wear it.

How so? They are totally free to renounce their religion.

 

[eschemat]

that's the problem with organized religion. it's great for sharing views, but in hierarchical, elitist religions it's do hard to get out. why?

firstly, friends and family. by practicing that religion, you make a large base of friends that are involved in religion, and a lot of the time you're whole family is practicing that religion. if you were to leave that religion, it ostracizes you from that group. no one wants to be ostracized, so they'll be morally coerced into staying in that group lol.

 

[Ocean]

but is forcing them to not wear it any better than forcing them to wear it? one could be considered moral coercion, one could be considered legal coercion. even if leaving your religion would have recuperations, religion is a choice. following the law, however, is not. I'd rather have them be able to choose whether or not to follow their religion (or cultural standards), then force them not to.

 

[eschemat]

The problem isn't just about the individual. There's a difference between individual rights and group security. Basically, the burqa has three major drawbacks to it. Firstly, it can demean women, which is more of a societal impact. Secondly, it provides a security risk due to lack of vision to the face. Thirdly, it invokes racism moreso than anything else. I'll give the example of Quebec in Canada, which is intercultural. It banned the burqa for those reasons, and a major reason was because people from foreign countries have to be integrated into society. If you create these differences, racism will become a much more prevalent threat to the individual, especially in a post-9/11 world.

To the second point, that's fairly self-explainable. Concealment of the face is always going to be a safety risk.

Lastly, it demeans women, which I was building on earlier. So, basically, if they're born into the religion, they choose to follow it with their family, whatever. They now can't leave the religious group because they may be socially ostracized. They have to wear the burqa because it's a moral expectation, so if they don't, they'll be socially ostracized. The burqa is a representation of women being demeaned because of a religious text that implicitly states they're inferior. Not only that, but the problem is more wide spread because it affects women in general and not only provide that image to men but also to women.

I understand about personal liberty, but at some points we have to stop it to make sure the rest of society benefits.

 

[Battlecow]

If you believe that it's the government's role to decide what a woman's views on clothing and religion should be, and if you believe that freedom of religion is something that's only necessary when convenient, then I can't help you. I'm done with this argument.

And the safety stuff is bull****.

 

[eschemat]

haha don't worry, I'm much more liberal in real life if you couldn't tell by my post in the abortion thread and the mandatory donation from the rich thread. just playing devil's advocate, i'm not a bigot

 

[Ocean]

If you create these differences, racism will become a much more prevalent threat to the individual, especially in a post-9/11 world.

it is society's job to better themselves; it is not the government's job to restrict the rights who might be discriminated against.

To the second point, that's fairly self-explainable. Concealment of the face is always going to be a safety risk.

ski-masks, trench coats, or even something as innocent as a bathrobe could also be seen as safety risks. I can easily conceal a gun in my top coat, which is actually shorter and less bulky than a trench coat. it's unfair to pick and choose what is[n't] a security risk, and then leave others that are just as dangerous.

Lastly, it demeans women, which I was building on earlier. So, basically, if they're born into the religion, they choose to follow it with their family, whatever. They now can't leave the religious group because they may be socially ostracized. They have to wear the burqa because it's a moral expectation, so if they don't, they'll be socially ostracized. The burqa is a representation of women being demeaned because of a religious text that implicitly states they're inferior. Not only that, but the problem is more wide spread because it affects women in general and not only provide that image to men but also to women.

you could also argue that, for example, hardcore catholic, or mormon beliefs demean women or other groups.

Spoiler

(I don't know if these christian sects actually do, I'm just using them as possible examples.)

. I have previously catholic friends who were ostracized from their families for denouncing and resigning from their previous beliefs. this concept does not apply only to islam, it is just most often associated with this due to the extremes taken in other countries.


for playing devil's advocate, you're doing a really good job of articulating points. kudos. however, try to refrain from implying/calling someone is a bigot. :x

 

[Battlecow]

People who play devil's advocate for dumb positions are annoying.

THAT SAID

I still love you all.

ESPECIALLY YOU ESCHEMAT

 

[Ocean]

we still love you too captain america.

 

[Dre89]

Ok firstly, the massive assumption here committed by virtually everyone in the thread is that freedom of religion/expression are necessary for a good society , and that comprimising these somehow comprimises a society. You've basically just dismissed monarchies, tyrant rule (which didn't always have a negative connotation), theocracies etc. simply because you live in democratic societies, so you assume democratic principles as axioms.

At least defend your criteria (or criterion? I always get confused by that) of what constitutes a good society first.

Also, whether the burqa demeans women is not relevant, because to the best of my understanding the reason for the ban is security. The theoretical demeaning of women is a theological issue, but the government, and socieities in general aren't concerned with theological dilemmas, they're concerned with social dilemmas. A government doesn't have an issue with Biblical extremists because they take the Bible literally, it's because (some of them) intend to burn down mosques and the like, which is a social/security issue.

 

[Battlecow]

I thought it went without saying that freedom of religion is a part of what makes today's "good" societies good. I'm perfectly willing to dismiss tyrant rule, monarchies, and theocracies; it's kind of funny that you evidently haven't dismissed them yet, because pretty much everyone else on the planet has. They're outdated, outmoded, and made obsolete by American-style democracy. I don't assume these principles as axioms; I've given them thought in the past and came to the (rather obvious) conclusion that they were the way to go.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6557252.ece

So yeah, it's a women's rights thing. Women in France now have the right to wear whatever the government allows them to wear.

 

[ballin4life]

Ok firstly, the massive assumption here committed by virtually everyone in the thread is that freedom of religion/expression are necessary for a good society , and that comprimising these somehow comprimises a society. You've basically just dismissed monarchies, tyrant rule (which didn't always have a negative connotation), theocracies etc. simply because you live in democratic societies, so you assume democratic principles as axioms.

How did monarchies get ruled out there? It's totally possible to have a monarchy with freedom of religion/expression.

Also, do you really disagree with the assertion that freedom of religion/expression are good? If we're going to say that, then I'm going to turn around and say it's ok to kill people because moral relativism is correct. If we don't start from some moral principles that we generally agree on, then we are only left with moral relativism due to the is-ought problem.

 

[Dre89]

BC- You still haven't really justified them. Of course someone who grows up i na democratic society will think democracy is superior.

Ballin4death- I'm not saying I disagree with religious freedom being a good, but the point is there are societies, such as theocracies, or medieval western civilisation, that didn't hold freedom of religion valuable, so those alternatives need to be addressed.

 

[ballin4life]

BC- You still haven't really justified them. Of course someone who grows up i na democratic society will think democracy is superior.

Ballin4death- I'm not saying I disagree with religious freedom being a good, but the point is there are societies, such as theocracies, or medieval western civilisation, that didn't hold freedom of religion valuable, so those alternatives need to be addressed.

There are societies where murder was ok. So you need to explain why murder is wrong.

It just seems pointless because it's impossible to justify without at least taking SOME assumptions.

 

[Battlecow]

Freedom of religion allows people to follow whatever spiritual path they want as long as they're not harming others. If the state told you how to worship, it would benefit no one, because some people would carry on as before and others would be horribly oppressed; there's nothing worse than fearing for one's soul or w/e because you face punishment if you try to express your beliefs.

 

[1048576]

All religions are equally psychotic, so if fairness is something to be valued, then we should treat all religions equally. If the burqa isn't allowed, then neither should putting angels on trees. Of course, I believe in freedom, so I think France is just being stupid.

 

[Dre89]

You can't always treat all religions equally though.

For example awhile ago in Australia Muslims were complaining about the fact we put up Christmas decorations in the streets, so it became religion vs religion. The government had to chose a side- either they left them up or removed them, one side would win either way.

 

[1048576]

streets are public property. Private citizens don't get to do whatever they want to them, otherwise I'd go out and troll with phantom signs.
How do Muslims win if nobody gets to decorate for any occasion?

 

[Dre89]

Well you're favouring them over Christians, as the only reason there would be no decorations is because they complained.

 

[Battlecow]

If the government did away with them, it wouldn't be choosing a side but rather choosing secularism over religious favoritism.

 

[1048576]

Well you're favouring them over Christians, as the only reason there would be no decorations is because they complained.

It's a street. It belongs to people who aren't Christian too. It's like if you're my roommate and you ask to play your country music really loud. If I say no, I'm perfectly within my right to do so. It's not favoring me. It's being neutral. Presumably I don't get to blast my techno either.

What happens if some Muslim dude decides to cover all the christmas decorations with whatever religious symbols he likes?