Can a government tell you what to wear? - Page 3

**juliensimon** · 06-24-2009, 02:39 PM

no need to beg.
I pardon you felon.

Atom · 06-24-2009, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juliensimon

no need to beg.
I pardon you felon.

You could at least cite which posts you are confused by. I don't see that any of them are confusing at all.

**juliensimon** · 06-24-2009, 02:49 PM

the confusion was previous to your posts, about whether the burka was required by religion or not. SITA clarified it, which made me not confused anymore..followed by your posts contradicting SITA bringing back the confusion

is that clear or confusing you ?

Atom · 06-24-2009, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juliensimon

the confusion was previous to your posts, about whether the burka was required by religion or not. SITA clarified it, which made me not confused anymore..followed by your posts contradicting SITA bringing back the confusion

is that clear or confusing you ?

I see. But Sita did not clarify it in my mind. Sorry about that.

Atom · 06-24-2009, 03:07 PM

Getting back, I'd like to direct your attention, and especially Muddy, to post #39.

Atom · 06-24-2009, 03:11 PM

Isn't the Qur'an a religious document?

**Muddy** · 06-24-2009, 03:34 PM

I just got back to my machine.

There's no doubt that the concept as a whole is indeed based in the religion. It seems to be the concept of modesty though. Different people (within Islam) call different things modest. Some say a burka (niqab) is required, some say just a hijab. In fact, in the first link posted, the source says that the niqab is optional.

Atom · 06-24-2009, 03:46 PM

I think that the French stance may be in order.

Allen Farlow · 06-24-2009, 05:06 PM

I give very little credit to any country where the people believe it is okay to beat women to death for the terrible crime of walking outside of the home without being accompanied by a male relative...wearing burkas may be their custom, but it sure isn't mine. If they want to come and live in my county, they can adopt my customs. Otherwise, just stay home.

I'm behind France 100%. Insisting on maintaining their old customs, religious or not, is one thing that causes problems for immigrants. In the privacy of their homes, fine, but don't interact with me and expect I will accept your customs in my land when I am not the immigrant.

**Muddy** · 06-24-2009, 05:31 PM

When in Rome...

**juliensimon** · 06-24-2009, 06:02 PM

....visit the coliseum - it's beautiful!

wasn't what you meant?

I understand your point Allen and I think it is a valid point.

**Muddy** · 06-24-2009, 06:44 PM

Actually the Spanish Steps.

**Muddy** · 06-24-2009, 06:55 PM

If someone moved to the U.S. from Germany, they'd have to abide by the speed limits regardless of being used to the autobahn.

anonymously · 07-02-2009, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

I give very little credit to any country where the people believe it is okay to beat women to death for the terrible crime of walking outside of the home without being accompanied by a male relative...
.

Countries and people change over time, sometimes a short time. How long ago was it that America segregated blacks, not that long. Perhaps dress code changes may occur in other cultures. Let's not just try and pretend we have everything right and everyone else is wrong, respect, understanding, offering better ways hold more to change things.

Do we also condemn other religious groups for wearing special garments, like priests, nuns, Jews and do we also unreservably condemn youngsters who wear hoods?

Which of the Jamaicans that live in US or UK have US or UK nationality support that country when The West Indies come and play cricket. There is a natural desire to keep some of ones history and culture.

So I would be with those who do not want top ban things, but try and show why something can be let go or is not needed.

**Muddy** · 07-02-2009, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymously

Countries and people change over time, sometimes a short time. How long ago was it that America segregated blacks, not that long. Perhaps dress code changes may occur in other cultures. Let's not just try and pretend we have everything right and everyone else is wrong, respect, understanding, offering better ways hold more to change things.

Do we also condemn other religious groups for wearing special garments, like priests, nuns, Jews and do we also unreservably condemn youngsters who wear hoods?

Which of the Jamaicans that live in US or UK have US or UK nationality support that country when The West Indies come and play cricket. There is a natural desire to keep some of ones history and culture.

So I would be with those who do not want top ban things, but try and show why something can be let go or is not needed.

Thank you for your articulate post. Very refreshing.

I agree with you that this would be the ideal approach. However, how do you propose that a government should "try and show why something can be let go or is not needed"? I would suppose through public service announcements on radio and television. But how far should they go, and for how long should they try this approach? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Perhaps I could liken it to a hypothetical person on this forum who resides in a country where nudity is not a big issue. To her, posting pictures of topless people on the beach is quite normal. While many of us may have a certain appreciation for these pictures, it is our desire to keep the forum from becoming completely x-rated. We therefore try and show why this practice "can be let go or is not needed". Not as a function of obstinacy, but as a function of misunderstanding this person continues to share these windows into her life and culture. Since with greater passage of time comes greater risk of our forum's reputation being sullied, how long do we keep making suggestions or try to "help her let go"? At some point the risks must be weighed against the advantages and more often than not, we're forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. So, for the greater good, a direct and concrete decision is made.

StrongInTheArm · 07-02-2009, 11:18 AM

You raise an interesting point Muddy. Can I ask as a neutral observer, what harm are these people actually doing?

How does wearing one particular garment so offend the Western world?

(I find those fcuk t-shirts offensive, but then you know all about my dyslexia

)

**Muddy** · 07-02-2009, 11:33 AM

lol@dyslexia!

There is no harm in their attire, only potential harm as previously mentioned. If a man or woman walked into a bank with a ski mask on, they'd be immediately detained if possible. But let's say it's part of my (and others) culture to wear ski masks wherever we go and we're allowed to. Now there's an opportunity for some unscrupulous types to take advantage of that allowance and openly wear ski masks while they accomplish whatever nefarious tasks they desire.

StrongInTheArm · 07-02-2009, 11:43 AM

What self respecting bank robber does not wear a face mask or more traditionally a pair of women's tights over his head. Try telling one you won't hand over the money until he takes his mask off.

I don't know the answer to this, but I would have thought a person walking into Israeli territory with a bomb strapped to their waist would be in disguise. A burka would be a dead give away don't you think? Just a thought.

All the tourists at ski resorts must be wetting themselves each time they go out.

blazin1 · 07-02-2009, 12:20 PM

I think France just wants all the bombers. They can have them if you ask me.

anonymously · 07-03-2009, 08:51 AM

Do we allow nuns in full habit to go into a bank. Would we refuse someone after an operation, like plastic surgery who needed to wear banages still, will we stop people wearing face masks if swine fever strikes? I guess the answer to all of those is no we would not.

So what is different about this. Well if all Muslims are terrorists, now we get close. I think it is something to do with the fact that it is a Muslim symbol. One we are not used to and if one allows it that is threatening therefore. Groups we know little of who dress differently and have different customs are always threatening and persecuted beause of it. This sounds like that to me. How many real threats have there been because of women wearing burkas?

Quote:

However, how do you propose that a government should "try and show why something can be let go or is not needed"? I would suppose through public service announcements on radio and television. But how far should they go, and for how long should they try this approach? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

I would nor propose that the government do anything, that would be a recipe for disaster, about as helpful as invading Iraq, I would have thought.

People and customs change, the Jews have been quite successful in keeping up culture in exile, but not many hasidin Jews around though, a token skull cap mostly. The best way of changing others it to show a different way by the way we live. Threatening them or forcing them will not bring about a change that brings harmony with it. It may take a few years, but I think we need to prove a real threat before we use terrorism to crack this small nut.

Muddy, you also said "When in Rome". Is that why so many foreign countries now are blessed with Irish bars, English pubs and US eating joints, because tourists want to live local? When the English went abroad and conquered most of the world, they took their religion, food, eating habits (English afternoon tea in India!!!), dress with them.

I see so far no harm in this dress, but a good deal of harm to race and world relations by trying to force a change.