It makes sense from both sides of the argument. One the legal/state side, a person's identity is essential to providing them with the state services they request. On the flip side, to tell someone that their culture or religious views are not acceptable is absolutely outrageous.
And Foxxie, Elite, I think I will have to disagree with you on the issue of the idea that Muslim women have been brainwashed into concealing their faces and bodies. This sector of debate about Muslims is so hotly contested that I've reached a point where any testimony given by someone who doesn't live that kind of lifestyle, let alone never met someone who has, is garbage. This is not a slight against either of you, but I've done some digging, and found out that far from being forced to wear them wherever they go, many Muslim women, even outside Muslim-dominated societies, choose to wear them anyhow. Some say they like them, some say it's habit, some say it's and integral part of their lifestyle and individuality.
[Edited by AdmiralThrawn, 3/28/2010 2:34:09 PM]
Well I wasn't referring to all Muslim women there may well be plenty who prefer to wear it.
However seeing as they have been covering their face from an early age the way they may become part of the way they have come to identify themselves. I think one of the key words you mentioned is "habit" which is what it is really.
This won't pass.
Nor should it be allowed to either.
You can't take away a part of a persons culture/religion like that.
Sooooo, if their religion calls for sexual intercourse with minors...would it be wrong to disallow that?
Or if their religion requires the ownership of slaves?
In a civil, secular society, we accept that some tenants of our particular religions are not conducive to the business of society and we give them up.
Muslims should be treated no differently than Mormons. We don't let Mormons practice polygamy, despite their religion requiring it. We don't allow fringe Christian groups or Santerians to conduct live animal sacrifices.
If head coverings are not conducive to the business of society, they should be given up.
Plus, if I have to remove my sunglasses when I show my ID, then a Muslim woman better damn well remove her veil.
[Edited by Dhampy, 3/28/2010 2:59:02 PM]
This won't pass.
Nor should it be allowed to either.
You can't take away a part of a persons culture/religion like that.
Sooooo, if their religion calls for sexual intercourse with minors...would it be wrong to disallow that?
Or if their religion requires the ownership of slaves?
In a civil, secular society, we accept that some tenants of our particular religions are not conducive to the business of society and we give them up.
Muslims should be treated no differently than Mormons. We don't let Mormons practice polygamy, despite their religion requiring it. We don't allow fringe Christian groups or Santerians to conduct live animal sacrifices.
If head coverings are not conducive to the business of society, they should be given up.
Plus, if I have to remove my sunglasses when I show my ID, then a Muslim woman better damn well remove her veil.
[Edited by Dhampy, 3/28/2010 2:59:02 PM]
Exactly, baptized Sikhs are required to wear a dagger called a Kirpan. But when they board a plane they have to remove it, not because of discrimination but because in the end it is a weapon. Being part of a religion/culture does not mean someone isn't willing to abuse it.
A burka is the same situation. How do you know there isn't a terrorist with explosives strapped to him under there? Google it, it happens.
Public safety > religious freedom