No, they don't. It's a ridiculously authoritarian idea, and utterly horrendous. If the Government started deciding what clothes I am allowed to wear, I would take up arms.
When they start banning crucifixes because they might be used as a weapon, the red dots of Hindus because they may offend someone's fashion taste, sunglasses because they hide the eyes, cargo pants because they easy hide things, ect. I might not call this sectarianism. As it is... This is clear sectarianism and should have never happened. If a ban like this went into effect here, people would riot (non-Muslims included).
I agree David. This is actually the first I heard of the bans in France and Belgium and at first it took me by complete surprise since it is something that would never happen even in today's America. On a side note, I wonder how everyone who needed to compare us to Europe when it came to health care feels about this. If all of Europe adopted this policy, would the people who feel Europe is more "forward" than the US also support similar policy in the US?
Lol, I don't see it happening either and I don't expect a lot of those Americans who loved comparing us to Europe to support such a policy, but I just find it a bit hypocritical. I really don't understand why we have to ever compare ourselves to others- how about we just try doing what we think will work best because everyone knows there is no perfect system.
The reason the US is fortunately a little more liberal in these matters is because almost everyone in the US can trace their family back to immigrants.
And I will say, although some people are stupid enough to think it's justified, or even accept it, there are people that are very much opposed to this. I am one of them. I completely oppose the idea of Government controlling clothing. It's ridiculous, and I'm shocked it's even being discussed.
I'm against it. What's next, they ban the hijab as well?
A lot of my friends are muslim. I don't want any of that coming here.
A lot of my friends are muslim. I don't want any of that coming here.
I'm for it, for security reasons. There are strict rules in most countries with regard to passport photos, as well as being able to identify faces. It would be very easy for the burqa to be used to hide a face. Quite a number of women are also being used as suicide bombers, so it would be important for security reasons that they should show their faces where identification is needed.
I believe that one should do as the Romans do when you are in their country, and if Westerners visit the Middle East, they have to abide by rules, which would be frowned upon in the West. Such as all women who enter Saudi Arabia, who need to be accompanied by a father or husband in order to get a Visa, and once they are in Saudi Arabia, they cannot attend all social functions with men, etc. Similarly, if there are rules in the Western countries, for security reasons, that faces should be visible for identification purposes, then these should be adhered to. If there were no terrorists around the world, then it would have been a different matter, but if people find it acceptable to go through all the invasive security checks at airports, then for the same reason the burqa legislation is a practical regulation for security reasons.
I believe that one should do as the Romans do when you are in their country, and if Westerners visit the Middle East, they have to abide by rules, which would be frowned upon in the West. Such as all women who enter Saudi Arabia, who need to be accompanied by a father or husband in order to get a Visa, and once they are in Saudi Arabia, they cannot attend all social functions with men, etc. Similarly, if there are rules in the Western countries, for security reasons, that faces should be visible for identification purposes, then these should be adhered to. If there were no terrorists around the world, then it would have been a different matter, but if people find it acceptable to go through all the invasive security checks at airports, then for the same reason the burqa legislation is a practical regulation for security reasons.
David, please, no one-liners. Can you explain your points in a meaningful way?
I don't have the foggiest what you mean by:
And why am I wrong?
I don't have the foggiest what you mean by:
How does this question relate to any of my points? What does it refer to? Or are you just being sarcastic ... and if sarcastic, about what precisely?
And why am I wrong?
Wrong about what?
Last edited:
It's a joke, you said act like Romans while in another country.
As for being wrong, you're saying that people should act immorally (in their view) just because you find it inconvenient. You don't see the issue?
Agreed. I also don't agree that it's the Government's business to decide what people should or shouldn't wear. It should be the individual's business.
I think it is a disgrace to ban burqas in countries, it is very harmless and especially when it comes down to someone's religion or culture . Why should they not be able to express themselves with these burqas. I could see the practicable sense of banning them in an airports as you need to see people's faces. But otherwise I think people should be able to wear them.
There is a need because those few people happen to be Muslims. The Muslim community needs to be reminded that terrorism is wrong, violence is wrong, and jihad's (holy wars) are wrong. If banning the Burka achieves this reminder, then I am all for it. Remember, the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few.
Are you 100% sure that those are Muslims? How about saying that those people were Christians wearing Burqas to put blame on Muslims because only Muslims wears Burqa to hide her face which was the teaching of Islam.