May 23, 2010 -- 12:48PM, rabello wrote:

May 23, 2010 -- 12:43PM, Lonesentinel wrote:

hmmm...and for those who defend the right to wear a burqa - do you also defend the rights of the religeous polygamist if those involved are consenting adults?

Those who "defend the right to wear a burqua" already understand that the desire to "ban the burqua" in America, if it should ever come to pass that Muslim-American women decide to start wearing a burqua, or if the few Muslims allowed entry into America as immigrants come here wearing their distasteful native dress, isn't about religion, or about "womens' rights"

Enlighten me then...what is it about?  I admit that I am almost on the fence on this issue, but since I lean toward the idea that to do so would be a form of bigotry, I am against it. This is my understanding of the issue.

May 23, 2010 -- 12:33PM, rabello wrote:

May 23, 2010 -- 11:56AM, Jstanl wrote:

That you have never seen a burka may be part of the problem. 

Yes, I have seen no hordes of burqua-clad women in the United States.  I don't believe I've seen one, "over here".  Imagining things that don't exist may cause problems, however.

May 23, 2010 -- 11:56AM, Jstanl wrote:

I do have a problem with what it represents when it turns up in an open Western societies.  I understand that women who have immigrated from countries where it is common practice are more comfortable continuing the practice.  But when the practice continues with younger generations, even those born here, I see something that has not been typical of other immigrant communities.

I have seen no hordes of burqua-clad women in the United States.  I don't believe I've seen one, "over here."

On the other hand, an Arab-American Muslim did win the Miss USA contest, recently, meaning that she had to bare hersefl for all to see, in the "swimsuit competition"

So confusing......however, to date, I have not seen the evidence you seem to be referring to that Muslim immigrants are contaminating American society.

I did hear a young Muslim-American soldier interviewed who is bringing a lawsuit against the army for the abuse he has experienced as a Muslim-American soldier, and who (he says) is now suffering retribution for "going public".  He wears an American military uniform, though, so you can't automatically tell he's contaminating American society.

At this point it depends on what we mean by "burka".  (I have used the term and the spelling in order to be consistant with the title of this thread.)  A head scarf is not a burka and it does not hide the identity of the person.

France has banned the headscarf in some cases apparently because of the impact it has on others (primarily women) rather than it's impact on the wearer.  There is an implication that those who are not wearing the headscarf are immoral.  I fully agree with Amin when he says that in Muslim communities the term "Westerinized" is synonomous with whore.  I witnessed many examples of this in the Middle East.

Eventually, Rabello, it won't be about what you or I think, it will be about what they think and how it affects our society and especially the women in our society.  Hiding behind the allegation of paranoia is not going to make the problem go away.

"Banning the burqa is against EVERYTHING the Constitution stands for jstani."

Really?  When was the last time you walked into a bank wearing a ski mask?

This example  is constantly being repeated and is a false analogy. A ski mask is not a clothing garment that people wear  in a city.

May 23, 2010 -- 1:20PM, arielg wrote:

"Banning the burqa is against EVERYTHING the Constitution stands for jstani."

 

Really?  When was the last time you walked into a bank wearing a ski mask?

 

This example  is constantly being repeated and is a false analogy. A ski mask is not a clothing garment that people wear  in a city.

 

 

Apparently you don't watch TV news reports of events in the Middle East and even Mexico.  In some places even the police cover their faces.  (Some of these places are in Central and South America)

But the point is still valid because it is essentially a hypothetical situation.  If it became a practice, there would be a reaction.  Again "no shoes, no shirt, no service".

I have said twice now that I don't see the problem in the US, yet.  But it has become a problem in Europe to the point that some of it's most liberal nations are responding very conservaively.

May 23, 2010 -- 1:17PM, rabello wrote:

May 23, 2010 -- 12:50PM, Jstanl wrote:

You, Amin and rabello can make whatever assumptions you like about me but perhaps you should go back and ask the person who started this thread why she started it.

To be clear, Jastani, I am making no assumptions about you.

For almost 9 years, now, I have been trying, very hard, to understand the right's insistance that we have to kill Muslims in order to "be safe", regardless of the cost to ourselves and innocent human beings "over there," because "they" want to "destroy western civilization" and "make" the entire world bow to Mohammad, at the point of a head-severing knife.  That supposition without regard to ANY OTHER causation, any other rationalization for endless war and endless killing.

The worry to "ban the burqua" in the United States fits right in to that supposition, which has, imo, lead us down an unwinnable and self-destructive path.

And when you have quotes from none other than Daniel Pipes (of all people) provided to supposedly advance the "rights of women" when what he does is spread hate and stigmatize one group of people that don't even really exist as claimed in this country, you know there's a lot of confused thinking over this non-issue.   All it really means is that Americans just don't like or care about Muslims, period, no matter what, and that is just the way it is.  Don't want 'em here, and don't care how many of their children die because of us....and of course, expect no "blow back" from our attitudes/actions.

The attack on the World Trade Center (they don't call it that just for the fun of it) defies everything you say above.  We know who the enemy is and it is not all Muslims.

The person recently arrested for plotting to blow up a tunnel in NYC was a resident of Denver (where I live).

The father of the Christmas day would be underwear bomber reported his own son to a US embassy even before he got on a plane to the US.

The family of the man who attempted a car bomb attack on Times Square are well educated, long time residents of Denver.  They are not at all happy about his activities.

This is not about hating Muslims or Islam.  This is about defending ourselves against people who are repeatedly trying to attack us on our own soil who happen to be Muslims and they give religious reasons for their activity.