Should Muslim veils be banned in public universities?

[Shadow Wolf]

More discrimination to fuel anti-Western sentiments and Islamic extremism. Someone should give France a big pat on the back (preferably delivered by a horse kick that France doesn't see coming) for doing exactly what shouldn't be done, especially at a time like this.

 

[gsa]

More discrimination to fuel anti-Western sentiments and Islamic extremism. Someone should give France a big pat on the back (preferably delivered by a horse kick that France doesn't see coming) for doing exactly what shouldn't be done, especially at a time like this.

It is a minority party proposal.

But it is interesting that we are so focused on reforming our discussions and politics to accommodate Islamists. Why doesn't anyone blame Saudi Arabia's flogging or executions for fueling anti-Islamic backlash in the West?

 

[Bunyip]

I think it is a basic safety issue to ensure that students and all other people on site are unmasked. When people are masked we can not identify them and so it places the entire facility at risk for no good reason.

 

[gsa]

I think it is a basic safety issue to ensure that students and all other people on site are unmasked. When people are masked we can not identify them and so it places the entire facility at risk for no good reason.

All public displays of the burqa and,I think, niqab,are banned already. This would extend a ban on hijab, or the headscarf, to public universities. They're already banned in primary and secondary public schools.

 

[Bunyip]

It is a minority party proposal.

But it is interesting that we are so focused on reforming our discussions and politics to accommodate Islamists. Why doesn't anyone blame Saudi Arabia's flogging or executions for fueling anti-Islamic backlash in the West?

Because Saudi Arabia can do whatever it wants, it does not need to obey or respect any form of international law or normative behaviour. It is not accountable in any way to its people, its region or the global community. The alliance with the US frees the Saudi Elite from any and all responsibility.

 

[gsa]

Because Saudi Arabia can do whatever it wants, it does not need to obey or respect any form of international law or normative behaviour. It is not accountable in any way to its people, its region or the global community. The alliance with the US frees the Saudi Elite from any and all responsibility.

Truth. One day, though, they'll be held to account. Probably, and unfortunately, by monsters of their own making.

 

[Bunyip]

All public displays of the burqa and,I think, niqab,are banned already. This would extend a ban on hijab, or the headscarf, to public universities. They're already banned in primary and secondary public schools.

I tend to support that. In Australia it is illegal to enter a bank or servo masked. I do not think that there should be exceptions to this most reasonable of laws, especially given that there is no directive in Islam to wear a veil.

 

[Bunyip]

Truth. One day, though, they'll be held to account. Probably, and unfortunately, by monsters of their own making.

I damn well hope so my friend.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hijab? No, they should be allowed. They do not hide nearly enough of the face to justify a prohibition.

Burqa and Niqab, sure. But not Hijab.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But it is interesting that we are so focused on reforming our discussions and politics to accommodate Islamists. Why doesn't anyone blame Saudi Arabia's flogging or executions for fueling anti-Islamic backlash in the West?

I do not think extremists should be catered to. I do think places like Iran and Saudi Arabia are ran by terrible regimes. I do not think anyone should be banned from practicing a religion, especially when only such a small minority of that religion is violent. Why don't we move to ban crosses because of Christian Terrorists? Why not ban displaying the Star of David? Why not profile animal rights groups?
I truly do not understand what is so hard about taking in concrete facts-the facts that most Muslims are not violent, and Western Muslims especially are just not a significant threat-and realizing what it is that should be so very obvious. Political activists as a whole commit more acts of terrorism in the West, yet, for some reason that is beyond my comprehension, we focus on Muslims. The Bible, it has some really bad things in it. Incest, drunkenness, genocide, rape, misogyny, slavery, and very extreme punishments for trivial things, yet you'd get a torch and pitch-fork mob on your heals if you even dared to suggest we ban laws based on Biblical law. If you were a politician and you said that, your career is over.

 

[gsa]

I do not think extremists should be catered to. I do think places like Iran and Saudi Arabia are ran by terrible regimes. I do not think anyone should be banned from practicing a religion, especially when only such a small minority of that religion is violent. Why don't we move to ban crosses because of Christian Terrorists? Why not ban displaying the Star of David? Why not profile animal rights groups?
I truly do not understand what is so hard about taking in concrete facts-the facts that most Muslims are not violent, and Western Muslims especially are just not a significant threat-and realizing what it is that should be so very obvious. Political activists as a whole commit more acts of terrorism in the West, yet, for some reason that is beyond my comprehension, we focus on Muslims. The Bible, it has some really bad things in it. Incest, drunkenness, genocide, rape, misogyny, slavery, and very extreme punishments for trivial things, yet you'd get a torch and pitch-fork mob on your heals if you even dared to suggest we ban laws based on Biblical law. If you were a politician and you said that, your career is over.

To clarify:

1. The ban on conspicuous religious symbols in schools in France also applies to Christians and Jews.

2. Animal rights activists are routinely profiled by law enforcement, and at least some states have moved to criminalize otherwise legal activities, like photographing factory farms, to target nonviolent animal rights activism.

3. Animal rights "terrorists" rarely kill people. Islamist terrorists routinely do, or make attempts.

4. The Bible is wretched but the percentage of Christians who read its violent commands literally is quite small compared to their Islamic cousins.

5. Proposals in Europe to ban sharia would ban biblical law, presumably, just as NC banned all "foreign law" to prohibit sharia.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

1. The ban on conspicuous religious symbols in schools in France also applies to Christians and Jews.

It is only fair that if you do not allow you must not allow any. But I see no reasonable grounds for banning such things. In America, Muslim headpieces may be up for banned, but a cross? Never.

2. Animal rights activists are routinely profiled by law enforcement, and at least some states have moved to criminalize otherwise legal activities, like photographing factory farms, to target nonviolent animal rights activism.

They do rarely kill anyone, but they, and environmentalist extremists, are some of the most active groups in America and cause a lot of damage. But there just is not much animosity in society against them.

4. The Bible is wretched but the percentage of Christians who read its violent commands literally is quite small compared to their Islamic cousins.

I suspect you may be underestimating how many Christians have read them. They may have not read them all, but many of those passages are still taught to instill blind obedience towards god and to not get too caught up on it because god's ways are not our ways and we are not able to understand or comprehend his divine plan.

5. Proposals in Europe to ban sharia would ban biblical law, presumably, just as NC banned all "foreign law" to prohibit sharia.

Many politicians have specifically stated Sharia. If they said Biblical-which would be very understandable so men cannot sell their wife and daughters into slavery, so boys cannot be thrown to bears for laughing at old bald men, and so beating your child with a rod isn't mandated-they would be finding themselves in need of a new job.
Overall, what I do not like, is the blatant, widespread, pervasive, and largely acceptable hypocrisy of the whole thing.

 

[loveendures]

We have enough of these "religious" symbols ..cosmetics, head gears, veils, etc Religion is a private affair, Keep it in your house. In public places we need spirituality.. love forgiveness, compassion Gratitude, humility, civility etc. Ban all religious stuffs in the public places..

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When secularism becomes banishment of religion, it is no longer secularism, but an anti-religious agenda.

I agree. Secularism is neutral toward religion, not antagonistic toward it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wear a mask into a Bank and see the trouble it causes. Same as a University.

When I was in university, I would wear a scarf around my face on cold days like today. Campus police never took issue with me doing this. Should they have?

 

[Astrologer]

The burqa is dangerous. It restricts vision.I feel sorry for the Afghani and Saudi women who have to wear them, especially around traffic, and on windy days. Muslim Headscarves are simply headscarves. I wear a headscarf. 1960's style, if it's windy or chilly. I like a feminine look.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The burqa is dangerous. It restricts vision.I feel sorry for the Afghani and Saudi women who have to wear them, especially around traffic, and on windy days.

Personally, I'd never choose to wear something like that myself, but if a woman freely chooses to wear one, I won't be the one to stop her.

And if she's been forced to wear it, I think the best way to help get her into a position where she can say "no" is to give her opportunties for education and careers that will free her from dependency on those who are making her wear it. When we say that niqabs should be banned from universities, we're really saying that women who are currently forced to wear niqabs should be forced to wear them forever.

 

[leibowde84]

Ban them. They look like thieves wearing them.

So, hooded sweatshirts should go too then, right? Wht about ski masks, hockey masks, pantyhoes, etc.? Were you just joking or do you really think that your reasoning is justified?

 

[metis]

I voted "other" as I'm not willing to try and tell the French what they should do. Here in the States, I do believe that the veil should not be allowed in public because of potential problems of identification. However, the hijab is OK, imo.

 

[leibowde84]

I do not think extremists should be catered to. I do think places like Iran and Saudi Arabia are ran by terrible regimes. I do not think anyone should be banned from practicing a religion, especially when only such a small minority of that religion is violent. Why don't we move to ban crosses because of Christian Terrorists? Why not ban displaying the Star of David? Why not profile animal rights groups?
I truly do not understand what is so hard about taking in concrete facts-the facts that most Muslims are not violent, and Western Muslims especially are just not a significant threat-and realizing what it is that should be so very obvious. Political activists as a whole commit more acts of terrorism in the West, yet, for some reason that is beyond my comprehension, we focus on Muslims. The Bible, it has some really bad things in it. Incest, drunkenness, genocide, rape, misogyny, slavery, and very extreme punishments for trivial things, yet you'd get a torch and pitch-fork mob on your heals if you even dared to suggest we ban laws based on Biblical law. If you were a politician and you said that, your career is over.

People have short term memories, as they should. Nobody should consider things that happened hundreds of years ago, or even 50 years ago, because it is detrimental to societal evolution. We need to be able to forgive and move on. That being said, the major terrorist organizations throughout the world that are causing the most issues/damage all identify themselves as Muslim (correct me if I'm wrong). Further, the amount of evil present in these groups, led by psychopathic brain-washed murderers, has been unmatched since the Nazi's during WWII. Even they did not publicize the brutality they were inflicting on innocent civilians, taking great care in keeping the Halocaust a secret. So, there is good reason that Muslim is being looked at with skepticism.

Further, there was a lot of upset in the Muslim world over the cartoons recently published. Now, the adult reaction would have been ridicule of the psychos who committed the attrocities, murdering innocent civilians. Unfortunately, much of the Muslim world errupted in protest over the freaking cartoons. This is shown to be even more outrageous when one realizes the fact that the publication threw insults at practically all major religions on a regular basis, and was in no way "anti-muslim." If anything, they are a secular, anti-religion magazine ... which they have every right to express.

How is the west supposed to view those who get that upset over a drawing ... it seems extremely childish and unreasonable to get violent over publications. So, that outrage should have been silenced and redirected toward those that murdered in the name of Islam.

Finally, what is the deal with mention of the crusades?! It just makes those bringing it up seem stupid or at least extremely ignorant. It was 800 years ago and has nothing to do with what is happening in the world now. Our society has evolved quite a bit since then, and to judge anyone living today for the crimes of those who lived hundreds of years ago is just about the most unreasonable thing I have ever heard of. Mentioning something so removed and unrelated to the events of today is shooting yourself in the foot. No one should take anyone who uses the crusades as an example of "Christian Terrorism" should be outright ignored.

Can you refute the position that the most notable terrorist groups present in the world (amount of people killed, threaten national security the most, etc.) identify themselves as Muslim?