anyone can hide under that shit. put it up to the people to vote then. :2 cents: im not flying on a plane with someone wearing the mask thing. :1orglaugh

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.

Fuck the Burka!

BAN PANTIES!!!

:2 cents:

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

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

Hammer, meet Nail's head!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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. :2 cents:

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.

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.

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.

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

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

http://ny-image0.etsy.com/il_fullxfull.97348572.jpg

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. :2 cents:

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

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?

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.

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.

yessum

..

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.

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.

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.

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 :2 cents:

Ooh, I really loathe wigs too. Good point.

Seriously, all good points and interesting examples :thumbsup

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.

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.

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.

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..

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?

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.

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.

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 :winkwink: