I watched a little snippet on 60 minutes last weekend on how countries, in particular Australia are trying to ban Muslim women from wearing the Burka, (The full body cover Islamic attire with a slight peep hole for the eyes).

Now in theory I do agree with this and on some counts I dont.

I think they should ban it, but while they are on the 'Vindication of Religious Oppression Highway' they should not only ban the Burka but extend this branch of hatred and ignorance to every form of religious attire. Ban the jews from wearing that tea cosy Kippah, seriously hats with out a peak and seven stitches are wack, grow up. Hell even ban Christians from wearing the cross around their neck, god dammit ban those pesky Jehovah Witnesses wearing the white shirt and black tie. Ban them all or leave them alone.

How would Jews react to being singled out for their religion attire, told they cannot wear it because due to a universal ignorance.

Most people in Australia looking to have it banned are Christians, (Generalization FTW) and they use the idea of 'Female Liberation' as their vocal point to form their movement. When in all reality the bible and every other religion is just as sexist as Islamism. How can Christians talk about liberation of anything? They are the ones who used to burn people at the stake for questioning the bible and or God, now they just persecute them through media outlets to satisfy there short sighted ignorant prerogatives. I guess thats a step forward...

Thoughts?

I can't imagine this would ever actually happen in a civilized country.

Dear women,

Effective March 1, it is no longer your personal right to cover your own body.

In other news, binoculars, camcorders, and digital cameras are on sale this week at Best Buy!

Believe dat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa

Wearing the burqa has been banned in French public schools since 2004, as the result of a law that prohibits students to wear any clearly visible religious symbols. This was followed on 22 June 2009, when the president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy said that burqas are "not welcome" in France, commenting that "In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity".[9] The French National Assembly appointed 32 lawmakers from right- and left-wing parties to a six-month fact-finding mission to look at ways of restricting its use.[10] On 26 January 2010, the commission reported that access to public services and public transport should be barred to those wearing the burqa. The Netherlands seek to propose a country-wide ban as well. On 29 April 2010, the lower house of parliament in Belgium passed a bill banning any clothing that would obscure the identity of the wearer in places like parks and in the street. The proposal was passed nem con and now goes to the Senate. The BBC estimate that "Only around 30 women wear this kind of veil in Belgium, out of a Muslim population of around half a million." [11]

women wear burkas because their owners insist

also it makes them unemployable in most professions which makes them a huge drain on the welfare system

I've been wondering about this too. We in the Netherlands have a history of new right wing parties that try to defend versus 'Islamization' of our country. The use of the headscarf and the burqa are big issues in politics.

For me the main arguments for banning the burqa in public and the headscarf in government institutions are free will and governmental neutral representation. I have nothing against any sort of way of dressing yourself, but when there is not free will in doing so, I strongly disagree with wearing a burqa or headscarf. The burqa and headscarf are clothings that are sometimes oppressive and there is no free will in dressing them. When there is free will, I believe it should be possible to wear them.

Ofcourse, the left parties in the Netherlands think like you, when you say all religions should be treated equally before the law, I'm missing the point. The burqa can not be put equal to wearing a cross. Simply because of the absence of free will. The opinion of society is also important. If in a democracy, the majority feel they can not live with a public figure wearing a burqa or a headscarf. So if you want a democracy, the banning of a headscarf or burqa could be banned.

And then your point about Christianity and liberty. I agree with you, institutionalised religion, in the form of Roman Catholicism in the Dark Ages etc was very wrong in the aspect of suppressing minorities and people that think differently.

But that doesn't mean the core principles of Christianity are racist or sexist! No, it are the people that claim to be Christians (yes True Scotsman Fallacy) but are actually interpreting the Bible very wrongly. I think Christianity in the form of Jesus Christ is perfectly moral (you will obv disagree with me). I believe Christianity opposes interference between Church and State, so people that try to take liberties on Christian basis are very wrong.

Let me ask you a question, if Jesus Christ could choose a political philosophy, which would he choose? My personal opinion is that he would choose an anarchic society, based on capitalism, giving people the free will to live how they choose. When judging Christianity, you should judge Jesus Christ, not the perverted Christians that are no moral correct representation for Christianity.

If Jesus asked me to choose a political stance I would personally nail him to the cross.

Politics is made up of conceited, self interested, hypocritical fat people in suits who manipulate the public to create schemes and polices to the industries that fund their political parties wallets.

Let me ask you a question. If by way of making a political or legal loophole, Islam said 'We will not force women to wear a Burka, instead they may choose to wear this based on their own freewill', and say hypothetically more muslims decided to wear it with their own free will, would you be against it then? Would that negate any type of oppression, enough for you or others to find it acceptable?

As for sexism in the Bible is this sufficient?

1 Corinthians 11:7 - 9*

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35*

34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Are we allowed to deny benefits to people who make themselves unemployable in this way?

Such a hypothetical is pretty much a nonsense as muslim women can't just tell their husbands/families to go **** themselves. What you are referring to wouldn't be Islam with a minor difference. It would be a different religion altogether.

In my opinion they should not ban the full body burka. But then they should not charge discrimination or make it illegal to refuse doing business with anyone when you can't see their face. It should not be illegal from banning someone who's face is covered up from entering your place of business. Of course, this would incude schools.

But to tell someone what they can and can't wear is probably wrong. -IMO

That is not an answer to my question btw. There are different political philosophies. Liberalism, Communism, Socialism, Libertarianism.... what would he choose? I want to know what Christ would choose, not what Christ would ask you to choose.

No, then I wouldn't be against it. If there is absolute 100% Free will, in principal they should have the freedom to choose it. But it's not only about what Islam says, but also what the husband or parents do. If they take the free will from the woman, then it shouldn't be allowed. But my personal opinion is rather that the government should interfere with the people that take away the freewill, instead of punishing the victim.
But I would like to make the comment that because we have the democratic system in the West, it is possible for a majority of people to decide if they want to ban the burqa or headscarf. If you do not agree with this conclusion, you should oppose democracy.

1st verse: I think seeing the man as head of the woman, or the first among equals is not really sexist. Because there is still equality between the two married people. (I do see however, that you can conclude that this is sexist, but I really see this differently). I don't think you should interpret this passage as seeing the woman as a slave/minion of the man.

2nd verse: I've had problem with this too, but the interpretation that I've heard on another forum is that because women were talking a lot in the church, while they should be silent. But yeah this passage is kinda weird, I would have rather seen that Paul wrote that both man and woman should be silent (other than the deacon and the preachers).

I see the Bible as a God given book that gives men and women different tasks, but not stating that the woman can treat the woman as a slave.

This is basically what I want to say, thank you. The whole system of the welfare state (especially in Europe) is a perverted system, which makes everything very difficult, because it creates different spheres of the public and the private, and because we have social benefits, we can now demand something of the people that are profiting from these benefits, diminishing their freedom.

When we have an anarchic society where discrimination is allowed, people are paying for their own freedom of wearing a burqa or headscarf and not the whole society.

I was hoping you could read between the lines. I meant to insinuate that Jesus would not conform to any political stance. How about treating everyone as equal-ism. Or what about not killing each other in the name of god-ism.Thats a political stance I would stand up for.

You understand that "seeing the Bible as a God given book that gives men and women different tasks" is inherently sexist...right? If paul was smarter and didnt think the world was flat we would have wrote 'Shut up all you idiots, and pay taxes on all those billions of dollars in donations you receive so that we can feed all those homeless people that sleep outside our gold plated places of worship'

Also until I figure out how to internerd efficiently and find that multi-quote button Ill have to reply like this. Sorry mate

Hmm I understand what you´re saying. But, although Christ doesn´t really speak about politics in the Bible (other that render Caesar what belong to Caesar, or something like that) you can pick some philosophical stances.
State interference or not?
Private property or not?
But if you don't want to answer, no problem, I know what you're saying (but I just think you are misunderstanding me)

And no I don't believe it is inherently sexist:

(wiki/sexism)

If you believe God created mankind ( which you don't obv ), is he then sexist because he gave man and woman different appearances and different functions in procreating for example. Also, when the Bible speaks about man and woman, it speaks about the married couple obv, so there is freewill. The woman can choose not to marry a Christian. Agree/disagree? If you agree, you are wrong is stating Christianity is just as sexist as Islamism, because Islamists are trying to oppress women on a different scale and on a different level. If there are levels of sexism, you can not say that Christianity is just as sexist as Islamism.

and yea, multiquoting is a bitch :P Just wrap quote tags around the message.

Does this also apply to what are now illegal drugs? (not trying to argue about it, just curious what you apply this to and what you don't)


But he didn't write that, so would you agree there is sexism in the bible?

they have illegal drugs in the netherlands?

and wtf multi-quoting is pretty effin simple iyam...?

this has no bearing on my question as he can just put himself in the shoes of an american and answer from there.

either way, i'm pretty sure you couldn't set up shop on the street corner in the netherlands with a bunch of acid and trip out with you buddies while offering it to people walking by.

somewhat extreme example, but there's definitely some restrictions on drugs.

1) there are other ways of 'covering your body' besides a burka. what isnt covered by wearing a long sleeve shirt and pants/long dress? only the head. and a burka covering everything including the head is not a beautiful display of multicultural diversity. its an oppressive piece of cloth meant to keep women in their place.

seriously, what is the 'pro' side of the burka argument? i see a long list of cons, and not a single up side.

2) unless it is mandated by law that you can't wear a burka, muslim women will continue to wear them in devout areas, despite their wishes to the contrary. as it would be seen as an offence against their husbands and their religion, and retribution for doing otherwise would be severe.

i have little doubt muslim women are joyous (on the inside) at laws which prevent them from wearing them. its really their only out.

Yes this would also apply to illegal drugs. The politards have convinced me that Libertarianism/ACism is the best :P


Mwoah, I don't really think so. I think the passage is just incomplete or something like that. And it leaves a big possibility of falsely interpreting. I would rather have seen it written differently, but I wouldn't classify it as sexist. That wasn't the intention of the writer.

Here in Germany it is generally not allowed to cover your face in public, the "anti-mummery law". An exception is made for religious beliefs, i.e. the Burka. To be honest, I've never seen a completely mummed woman here. Once this happens more regularly, there will probably be some fuss to distract from more important things.

In particularly hot weather it can prevent the wearer getting sunburn. I guess that's why its so popular in the middle east.

The most practical argument against the ban is the possibility that it will more deeply ingrain an 'us and them' mentality in Muslim communities, with a risk of it impeding their absorption into the surrounding culture (the slower but more effective way of getting rid of the burqa). The polarisation risks making extremists appear more sympathetic to moderate Muslims also.

Besides all that, legislation is generally ineffective as a tool of moderating behaviour. I agree with OP that the ban should be applied to all religious symbolism if it is applied at all, and I would be opposed to such a ban anyway.

The whole point of the burka is to vigorously reject absorption into the surrounding culture and by imposing a ban, you might annoy a few people, but that is something of a birth pain if you will to get the oppressed women to connect with western society. Left to fester in the ghettos, extremist views grow stronger rather than get watered down by surrounding culture. crucifix necklaces don't oppress women and purposefully disconnect them from society. if they had exactly the same effects, you could lump them all together but they don't.

Aigyptos the twisted logic in which you attempt to rationalize blatant sexism in the bible is uncategorically astounding.

Bring arguments. I'm here to learn.
Give me a definition of sexism, and test the passages in the Bible.

I agreed with you that the passages are easily wrongly interpreted, but I just don't see the goal of the New Testament in being sexist or anything. I'm trying to explain the passages, not rationalizing.. but you have to know I haven't studied theology, and am only 20 years, and I don't know the Bible perfectly. But what I've read and heard about so far, it isn't intentionally sexist.

It may represent such an attitude, which doesn't make it 'the whole point'.

And we will do this by legislating against their faith and culture... I see...

I agree. Which is why I think the ban is a bad idea. I think you are grossly overestimating the ability of legislation to directly influence people's attitudes and actions.

I don't like the burqa. I don't like what it does and I don't like what it represents. I also don't like it when I'm in a lift with someone who's on the phone. That I don't like something doesn't mean I must favour legislation banning it.