France shows some spine

[mar1t1me]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/01/25/france.burqa/index.html?hpt=T2

Ban it baby. Don't like it? Back to Iran where women are treated somewhat differently.

[geezerman402]

The Ipsos poll for Le Point magazine found 57 percent of French people said it should be illegal to appear in public wearing clothes that cover the face, like the burqa.

Toque + scarf over mouth and nose = illegal. Enjoy your face freezing off.

[mrsleeve]

Wow

On one hand I like it and say hell yeah GO FRANCE (shit did I just say that)


On the other hand a outright ban on what individual should, can or cant wear, is jumping out onto a very slick slope with both feet and no safety rope. Once you start where dose it end????????????????????????

[mar1t1me]

Goes back to "reasonableness".

When people are reasonable, and try to assimilate their appearance and behavior into the norm for the society in which they have chosen to live, this shit doesn't happen. But when you show up for a driver's license and won't show your face for "religious reasons" that shit needs stomped on.

geezerman: scarves and hats are different. You wouldn't expect to go to the airport and waltz through security with your face completely obscured by a hat and scarf because normal people take that shit off when they come in out of the cold.

You slippery-slope types should worry more about public places siding with the overly-sensitive Muslims and forcing people to cover more than they normally would for the culture. You really want this enforced at the pool??:

[mrsleeve]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Wow we agree twice in one day

yes your right, this is one of the reasons I have such a issue with the illegal immigration, they dont bother to assimilate to the new country, just try and turn here into there.

Yes No face pic no DL or State ID, totaly agree,

No you should not have to dress to appease the Muslims, if they dont like it go back to durka-durka-stan, that simple, if they want to wear footie Jammies at the public pool thats their prerogative, but I am not gonna stop wearing a banana hammock and tell the little woman to leave the thong at home is she wants to wear that (not that we got to public pools)

Yes siding with the overly sensitive is what has gotten much of euproe in the predicament they are in with the influx of Islam. This ultra PC crap has to stop and has to return to personal responsibility, if you dont like something then leave or dont expose yourself to that situation.

[mar1t1me]

^^^^LOL footie jammies...... HAHAHAHA!

Yeah....2X in one day and it ain't even 2012.

[Massive Lee]

There have a been a few local situations that have upsetted many Montrealers lately. The town of Outremont has a large concentration of Hassidic jews. They are not difficult to spot as they always wear their "signature" gear. There are a few public parks in Outremont where all non-Hassidics spend some time in Summer, especially when it is hot. And some girls sometimes wear bikinis, which is perfectly legal. Until the Hassidics made it to townhall and declared bikinis in parks... illegal. It was beyond their acceptation.

Another situation involved the Hassidics inability to operate any man-made machinery on Saturdays. Be it a light switch or a car. So, they made a bylaw that forbids emoving snow on Staurday as it would require Hassidics to drive their cat to move it... Whic infuriated "locals" as they have to suffer a few extra days being stuck in snow after a snowstorm.

Not to mention that Hassidics have mandated that the local WMCA put some blurred vinyl on windows where women have their yoga classes. Because not too far, kids at the synagogue could peek at them and have impure thoughts....

I am all for freedom of religion. But totally against imposing it to others. Live your religion at home, and according to local laws and habits. Meaning nobody can beat or kill her wife because of ethnic believes... Wether being a Red Neck or an Indu, or a teenage-fucking Mormon.

[fiftytakedowns]

time for me to open my political voice.

I think this is interesting because of the double standard within the separation of church and state. I dont want to be naîve so I'll consider this as if it were happening in the US, because I'll assume they have slightly similar policies within the government w/ regard to individual freedom.

what is interesting is how much religion is imposed on the government within many states, and affects the law based upon certain say... biblical refrences. and Most governments make it usually blantantly obvious that there is a separation between religion and government. and I find it interesting that because that has Failed, (religious beliefs have found their way within the lawmaking, and the gov't system) that now it is turning around, and the government is now opposing laws against religious aspects of society. not sure if I wrote that out well enough, Im bad at explaining things.

I wonder how the US would do somethign like this because of the debate between Womens rights, VS religious rights.... I guess it all comes down to the person, if dont want to wear that shit becuase it is demeaning, then I guess they dont have to.

Blah blah blah Im kinda stupid nvm


EDIT:

There have a been a few local situations that have upsetted many Montrealers lately. The town of Outremont has a large concentration of Hassidic jews. They are not difficult to spot as they always wear their "signature" gear. There are a few public parks in Outremont where all non-Hassidics spend some time in Summer, especially when it is hot. And some girls sometimes wear bikinis, which is perfectly legal. Until the Hassidics made it to townhall and declared bikinis in parks... illegal. It was beyond their acceptation.

Another situation involved the Hassidics inability to operate any man-made machinery on Saturdays. Be it a light switch or a car. So, they made a bylaw that forbids emoving snow on Staurday as it would require Hassidics to drive their cat to move it... Whic infuriated "locals" as they have to suffer a few extra days being stuck in snow after a snowstorm.

Not to mention that Hassidics have mandated that the local WMCA put some blurred vinyl on windows where women have their yoga classes. Because not too far, kids at the synagogue could peek at them and have impure thoughts....

I am all for freedom of religion. But totally against imposing it to others. Live your religion at home, and according to local laws and habits. Meaning nobody can beat or kill her wife because of ethnic believes... Wether being a Red Neck or an Indu, or a teenage-fucking Mormon.

ya post this right before I was able to read it, but this is exaclty what Im talking about

[Massive Lee]

"In God we trust"

I always wondered which God or fairy...

[mrsleeve]

Ok fifty.

No Where in the US Constitution dose it say "separation of church and state".

In fact our system of govt is designed to work hand in hand with religion and the church. You see we are supposed to be allowed maximum freedoms in our lives and only the most sever infractions are to have legislation against them. You see its a fact that the vast majority of people use their faith as a moral guide, and the way things are set up, the bulk of the power is to remain in the peoples hands. There for if there is some issue that arises it is set up to be handled on a local level (ie. church or small group of families). If that cant happen then it goes to a county level, state level, and so on up the ladder. (based on early Saxon legal and system of governance)

You have to remember our laws are based on the Judeo Christian values. Its those values no matter how much or little or total reject, you personally believe in, is what you base right and wrong on.

The federal state and local govts were set up to rely on peoples ability to work things out among them selves and only step in if absolutely necessary, and the church was the primary way of doing that.

What you are confusing with "separation of church and state" is part of the 1st amendment that reads

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

which all that means is that you can worship as many or as few gods or deities as you wish with no fear of govt persecution.

Or article 6 of the Constitution which reads

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust

which means no matter your choice of beliefs they cant disqualify you from holding public office.

Please read and understand the Constitution, before you start spouting off.


Now to compare religious freedoms to womens rights is not too far from the actual picture. The issue remains that with in the culture of Islam and other male dominated society, these women are taught from before they have taken their 1st breath that they are to be covered up and do as the man says at all times, and to viloate these rules is immoral, and wrong, no different than a baptists view on porn or sex before marriage or the uber strict christian denominations view on oral sex. These things are just unthinkable to them.

[mar1t1me]

There have a been a few local situations that have upsetted many Montrealers lately. The town of Outremont has a large concentration of Hassidic jews. They are not difficult to spot as they always wear their "signature" gear. There are a few public parks in Outremont where all non-Hassidics spend some time in Summer, especially when it is hot. And some girls sometimes wear bikinis, which is perfectly legal. Until the Hassidics made it to townhall and declared bikinis in parks... illegal. It was beyond their acceptation.

Don't the Amish and Mennonites in US keep mostly to themselves without being as contrary as the Hassidics? Just wondering....I don't remember hearing of them wigging out about girls in bikinis or whatever....

or a teenage-fucking Mormon.

FWIW, Glenn Beck is a Mormon.....I wonder if he wears the underwear.

[fiftytakedowns]

Ok fifty.

No Where in the US Constitution dose it say "separation of church and state".

In fact our system of govt is designed to work hand in hand with religion and the church. You see we are supposed to be allowed maximum freedoms in our lives and only the most sever infractions are to have legislation against them. You see its a fact that the vast majority of people use their faith as a moral guide, and the way things are set up, the bulk of the power is to remain in the peoples hands. There for if there is some issue that arises it is set up to be handled on a local level (ie. church or small group of families). If that cant happen then it goes to a county level, state level, and so on up the ladder. (based on early Saxon legal and system of governance)

You have to remember our laws are based on the Judeo Christian values. Its those values no matter how much or little or total reject, you personally believe in, is what you base right and wrong on.

The federal state and local govts were set up to rely on peoples ability to work things out among them selves and only step in if absolutely necessary, and the church was the primary way of doing that.

What you are confusing with "separation of church and state" is part of the 1st amendment that reads


which all that means is that you can worship as many or as few gods or deities as you wish with no fear of govt persecution.

Or article 6 of the Constitution which reads


which means no matter your choice of beliefs they cant disqualify you from holding public office.

Please read and understand the Constitution, before you start spouting off.


Now to compare religious freedoms to womens rights is not too far from the actual picture. The issue remains that with in the culture of Islam and other male dominated society, these women are taught from before they have taken their 1st breath that they are to be covered up and do as the man says at all times, and to viloate these rules is immoral, and wrong, no different than a baptists view on porn or sex before marriage or the uber strict christian denominations view on oral sex. These things are just unthinkable to them.

I remain humble, because I still am quite young to have Full understanding of government, and other political goals due to lack of experience. I take everything I hear with a grain of salt, and try not to judge cons vs liberals etc..
I stand corrected for the Separation of church and state, and I am glad you pointed out to me the flaws in the information I knew. For some reason I was under the impression that the U.S. was founded on keeping religion out of government, and the freedoms of the constitution were the supporting reasons to get the hell out of britain, taxes, freedoms etc..
However I did know that the government did circle it's laws around the Judeo Christian values, because they are quite standard as you said (especially at the time of the creation of the constitution). But I thought that was just because of people's, personal beliefs (due to religious upbringing), not Because of the direct affect from the bible if that makes sense.

Now, I Thought that also no laws could be created because of religion too? if that's right? therefore no laws can be created against religion?

As for the Womens right vs the religious rights, I was just stating that in the US a woman could get out of her thingy, and have no problems, it would only be within her religion that she would be punished, and it would be interesting to see how that pans out.

[VacMan]

You know what's funny? Reading threads like this on an E30 site largely populated by kids who haven't moved out of their parent's houses yet.

Carry on.

[mrsleeve]

I remain humble, because I still am quite young to have Full understanding of government, and other political goals due to lack of experience. I take everything I hear with a grain of salt, and try not to judge cons vs liberals etc..
I stand corrected for the Separation of church and state, and I am glad you pointed out to me the flaws in the information I knew. For some reason I was under the impression that the U.S. was founded on keeping religion out of government, and the freedoms of the constitution were the supporting reasons to get the hell out of britain, taxes, freedoms etc..
However I did know that the government did circle it's laws around the Judeo Christian values, because they are quite standard as you said (especially at the time of the creation of the constitution). But I thought that was just because of people's, personal beliefs (due to religious upbringing), not Because of the direct affect from the bible if that makes sense.

good continue to learn and ask questions, read on your own and advance your own knowledge. The crux of this issue is so few people know or even care and take for granted the freedoms and protection our Constitution provides and dont educate them selves on such topics.

Now, I Thought that also no laws could be created because of religion too? if that's right? therefore no laws can be created against religion?

Nope, they just cant be advancing one particular religion or set of beliefs over another. I hate the idea of legislated morality, pushed but the ultra far right, as much as the uber libbs do.

As for the Womens right vs the religious rights, I was just stating that in the US a woman could get out of her thingy, and have no problems, it would only be within her religion that she would be punished, and it would be interesting to see how that pans out.

Well there you have it you get it, they have these deep seated religious beliefs, ingrained on them since birth. "Give me a child till it 6 and its mine for life"- I dont remember which Cardnial or pope this came from but it did come form the church.

It refers to the how hard it is to go against our formative years of our lives and shake those beliefs and teachings that were embedded in our fundamental early development.

[mar1t1me]

Nope, they just cant be advancing one particular religion or set of beliefs over another. I hate the idea of legislated morality, pushed but the ultra far right, as much as the uber libbs do.

Even the Pledge of Allegiance, in its original form did not contain the words "under God", nor was "In God We Trust" on coins until the Civil War and then largely to differentiate the North from the "godless" rebels. Funny how the righteous of the day liked having their slaves-after all, King David and many other righteous Bible figures had them....

I believe the Fathers of this country felt that if people could exist in a situation where one's religion wasn't more or less mandated, but rather open to choice and that said choice was reflective of a desire to live harmoniously and with personal accountability, that the brand of religion wasn't so important.

The (fundamental) Muslims believe quite differently. The brand IS everything.

Of course, then there's my Evangelical Christian niece who let her daughter get fake boobs at 17 so she could enter beauty pageants, but complains that the two piece pageant suits are "too revealing"....