~candice~ Posted September 21, 2010 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Author Share Posted September 21, 2010 Candice would you accept Beany being treated by a doctor that didnt wash her hands and looked at her through a back full face mask ? Would you accept her being taught by a teacher that never showed her face so the children couldnt understand what they were doing worng ( since young children take about 50 % of meaning from facial expression ) ? Would you be happy to hand her over to a masked person if you used a nursery ? What about taking her to a birthday / clebration party where the rest of the adults were all dressedin full black face coverings? This is NOT about religeous freedom as even muslims agree that there is nothing in the koran that states they need to cover the face or the hands etc only the hair and to dress modestly There are a few scenarios where a full covering isn't appropriate, I totally agree. I would support banning them in those cases only, but not a blanket ban... It doesn't matter to me that the koran doesn't state they should be covered... they want to be covered as an expression of their faith and they should be able to, with those obvious exceptions (please let's not make out as if I haven't acknowledged them!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littlelambseativy Posted September 21, 2010 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 230 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 4,941 Content Per Day: 0.95 Reputation: 2,003 Days Won: 14 Joined: 02/08/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted September 21, 2010 Wearing the burqa is not = to the cross on the neck. As far as religion, if you can not wear the cross you do not lose your religion. Do they? It is a man mad law. Wearing the burqa means that one can not tell if it is a man or a woman that you are meeting either on the street or in a car. What a fantastic disguise it can be. When all the other nationalities came to the west they were assimilated into the community. Why do these refuse to become so? This is a new phenomenon. They use to dress as they did in which ever country they went. This appears to be a defiant act mostly by the men. They will not let the women be seen. As I said ( perhaps cynically) a great way to hide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted September 22, 2010 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Author Share Posted September 22, 2010 And again I ask, why should the right to practice your religion as you see fit, be conditional on the degree to which you have assimilated? If rights are conditioned on assimilation, they are not rights at all.* *read previous post before replying, I HAVE made an exception for certain scenarios.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littlelambseativy Posted September 22, 2010 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 230 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 4,941 Content Per Day: 0.95 Reputation: 2,003 Days Won: 14 Joined: 02/08/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted September 22, 2010 Where is the right of religion drawn? For whom? The nudist who says it is his religion, the cannibal, or the other odd rituals that are considered a religion? or are these in some respect customs and in the desire for control considered religion? Having the head covered with a kerchief is one thing having the body in fully cover is another, it is control over woman, ask them in Iraq or Iran where the Taliban insist on it. It is not safe for the woman or the average citizen as I said how do you know it is a woman under the burqa. What a way for the terrorist to enter the country, as a woman. Probably a major concern for the government too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted September 22, 2010 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Author Share Posted September 22, 2010 Where is the right of religion drawn? For whom? The nudist who says it is his religion, the cannibal, or the other odd rituals that are considered a religion? or are these in some respect customs and in the desire for control considered religion? Having the head covered with a kerchief is one thing having the body in fully cover is another, it is control over woman, ask them in Iraq or Iran where the Taliban insist on it. It is not safe for the woman or the average citizen as I said how do you know it is a woman under the burqa. What a way for the terrorist to enter the country, as a woman. Probably a major concern for the government too. I am not scared of them... too many people are suggesting that I am driven by fear but from your post it reads as if you are the one afraid of terrorism facilitated by full face coverings. There are obviously restrictions on the freedom of religion, but I think a blanket ban on all full face coverings is going too far. Just because you find it oppresive, doesn't make it so for them. Why should it bother you at all if someone decides to cover their face? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest man Posted September 22, 2010 Share Posted September 22, 2010 Candice would you accept Beany being treated by a doctor that didnt wash her hands and looked at her through a back full face mask ? Would you accept her being taught by a teacher that never showed her face so the children couldnt understand what they were doing worng ( since young children take about 50 % of meaning from facial expression ) ? Would you be happy to hand her over to a masked person if you used a nursery ? What about taking her to a birthday / clebration party where the rest of the adults were all dressedin full black face coverings? This is NOT about religeous freedom as even muslims agree that there is nothing in the koran that states they need to cover the face or the hands etc only the hair and to dress modestly There are a few scenarios where a full covering isn't appropriate, I totally agree. I would support banning them in those cases only, but not a blanket ban... It doesn't matter to me that the koran doesn't state they should be covered... they want to be covered as an expression of their faith and they should be able to, with those obvious exceptions (please let's not make out as if I haven't acknowledged them!). Allowing some to express their faith while placing restrictions on others? Just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted September 22, 2010 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Author Share Posted September 22, 2010 Candice would you accept Beany being treated by a doctor that didnt wash her hands and looked at her through a back full face mask ? Would you accept her being taught by a teacher that never showed her face so the children couldnt understand what they were doing worng ( since young children take about 50 % of meaning from facial expression ) ? Would you be happy to hand her over to a masked person if you used a nursery ? What about taking her to a birthday / clebration party where the rest of the adults were all dressedin full black face coverings? This is NOT about religeous freedom as even muslims agree that there is nothing in the koran that states they need to cover the face or the hands etc only the hair and to dress modestly There are a few scenarios where a full covering isn't appropriate, I totally agree. I would support banning them in those cases only, but not a blanket ban... It doesn't matter to me that the koran doesn't state they should be covered... they want to be covered as an expression of their faith and they should be able to, with those obvious exceptions (please let's not make out as if I haven't acknowledged them!). Allowing some to express their faith while placing restrictions on others? Just curious. More that I want people to have the right to express their faith as much as possible without restriction. It's not that some get the right and others don't, but that we all get the right, barring those health / security scenarios where it is inappropriate. Why should the government interfere beyond those scenarios? I'm really shocked at the American response here, I thought that as a nation you generally hated interference of personal religion by the government, but it appears you only hate it when it comes to your own faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted September 22, 2010 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,398 Content Per Day: 8.00 Reputation: 21,570 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted September 22, 2010 I am not scared of them... too many people are suggesting that I am driven by fear but from your post it reads as if you are the one afraid of terrorism facilitated by full face coverings. There are obviously restrictions on the freedom of religion, but I think a blanket ban on all full face coverings is going too far. Just because you find it oppresive, doesn't make it so for them. Why should it bother you at all if someone decides to cover their face? What if... Your child was abducted by one dressed this way. What chance would you have in finding even if surveillance was available? For this practice to be sanctioned anyone could use it to their benefit toward anonymity.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest man Posted September 22, 2010 Share Posted September 22, 2010 Candice would you accept Beany being treated by a doctor that didnt wash her hands and looked at her through a back full face mask ? Would you accept her being taught by a teacher that never showed her face so the children couldnt understand what they were doing worng ( since young children take about 50 % of meaning from facial expression ) ? Would you be happy to hand her over to a masked person if you used a nursery ? What about taking her to a birthday / clebration party where the rest of the adults were all dressedin full black face coverings? This is NOT about religeous freedom as even muslims agree that there is nothing in the koran that states they need to cover the face or the hands etc only the hair and to dress modestly There are a few scenarios where a full covering isn't appropriate, I totally agree. I would support banning them in those cases only, but not a blanket ban... It doesn't matter to me that the koran doesn't state they should be covered... they want to be covered as an expression of their faith and they should be able to, with those obvious exceptions (please let's not make out as if I haven't acknowledged them!). Allowing some to express their faith while placing restrictions on others? Just curious. More that I want people to have the right to express their faith as much as possible without restriction. It's not that some get the right and others don't, but that we all get the right, barring those health / security scenarios where it is inappropriate. Why should the government interfere beyond those scenarios? I'm really shocked at the American response here, I thought that as a nation you generally hated interference of personal religion by the government, but it appears you only hate it when it comes to your own faith. That's an interesting statement. Wouldn't the "security scenario" include everywhere except for the home of the individual? Just curious. As for the American response. Not everyone believes as I do, so you can't really say all americans feel this way. Yeah I know, you didn't say all americans, but I got the point. I actually believe I'm in the minority where this issue is concerned. And to be totally honest, I'm not gonna lose any sleep if they're allowed to keep their face covers. I do believe however, the issue of national security will come up because of these things. You can take that to the bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted September 22, 2010 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Author Share Posted September 22, 2010 Candice would you accept Beany being treated by a doctor that didnt wash her hands and looked at her through a back full face mask ? Would you accept her being taught by a teacher that never showed her face so the children couldnt understand what they were doing worng ( since young children take about 50 % of meaning from facial expression ) ? Would you be happy to hand her over to a masked person if you used a nursery ? What about taking her to a birthday / clebration party where the rest of the adults were all dressedin full black face coverings? This is NOT about religeous freedom as even muslims agree that there is nothing in the koran that states they need to cover the face or the hands etc only the hair and to dress modestly There are a few scenarios where a full covering isn't appropriate, I totally agree. I would support banning them in those cases only, but not a blanket ban... It doesn't matter to me that the koran doesn't state they should be covered... they want to be covered as an expression of their faith and they should be able to, with those obvious exceptions (please let's not make out as if I haven't acknowledged them!). Allowing some to express their faith while placing restrictions on others? Just curious. More that I want people to have the right to express their faith as much as possible without restriction. It's not that some get the right and others don't, but that we all get the right, barring those health / security scenarios where it is inappropriate. Why should the government interfere beyond those scenarios? I'm really shocked at the American response here, I thought that as a nation you generally hated interference of personal religion by the government, but it appears you only hate it when it comes to your own faith. That's an interesting statement. Wouldn't the "security scenario" include everywhere except for the home of the individual? Just curious. As for the American response. Not everyone believes as I do, so you can't really say all americans feel this way. Yeah I know, you didn't say all americans, but I got the point. I actually believe I'm in the minority where this issue is concerned. And to be totally honest, I'm not gonna lose any sleep if they're allowed to keep their face covers. I do believe however, the issue of national security will come up because of these things. You can take that to the bank. Nope, I don't think security is threatened by people wearing a full covering in public, but I would hestitate to allow them into ... banks etc. But I agree, people will try to use national security as a way to get the full face coverings removed. The real issue however is that our government views all religions as equal. So this isn't about the government intruding into islamic dress, it's about the government intruding in private religion. As far as the government is concerned, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.... this is setting the standard for how much interference is permissable. And I don't like it in the slightest. Since the government packages all religions together, it stands to reason that if I want to keep the right to exercise my own faith publically, I have to do that at the expense of allowing others to do the same regardless of their religion. Why is no one flipping out about this?!?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts