Women in face veils detained as France enforces ban

[Gerald]

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by MH

I agree that its all matter of interpretation that comes from core meaning. When it says that woman must be modest you can interpret it in dress contex or/and behavior contex. When some one does interpret modesty to extreme which means wearing Burka it usually comes with the rest of the package where imagination is a limit. When you see a women wearing Burka in Iran(law enforced by revolutionary guards) let say there is a chance that she is having alcohol and drugs parties at home while having sex with husband and an neighbor. When you see an women in burka in free state like France its something that should be looked into because it will come usually with extreme interpretation just about any aspect of Koran.

Dont bother, you will spend your time better looking at this.

[Skybird]

@ Steve,

I realize that, but even in Islam not everyone thinks exactly alike, and I don't find the dress itself as insidious as you do. Of course I could be wrong.

I have only given a short hindsight to the historic connotation of why women originally should cover themselves. Beyond that historic referring, I said the Burkha today is used as a political symbol for pro-Islamisation parties to enforce further concessions for Islam in general by the West again, and that this is the reason why I oppose it. I said it compares to provoke by waving for example Nazi symbols on German streets. It is not the only reason I oppose it, but it is the one I have focused on in here. As a matter of fact I cut it short and did not comment on the cultural and religious meaning fo the Burkha, instead bypassed that by linking to two books that thoroughly deal with this issue and others issues of Islam’s use of female oppression.
I could also additionally hint to the proven statistical link to Burkha-wearing and health problems, as well as shortened life expectancy due to the immense heat inside of these. This is something that is more and more being brought up even by doctors in Muslim countries.
[quoteAre you my therapist? Do you want to be? Whether you buy it or not is your business. I just don't trust people who talk as if they're absolutely convinced they're right. [/quote]
I am convinced of course that I get it right, else I would not talk the way I do. What have you thought? Do you think it is a virtue to base on an opinion founded so weak that every coupe of weeks you need to correct it? Somebody correcting his opinion too often does not impress me at all. To me it illustrates that he is thinking loosely and not thoroughly enough. Maybe he should be silent and start thinking better before opening his mouth, don’t you think? I am not sure of some things being discuss this forum, too. For example the air strikes in Lybia. That’s why from all beginning on I said my support for them is only as long as we cannot show for sure the nature of the rebels to be just another Al Kaida or Gaddafi clone, so that our uncertainty about them may justify to invest into a risk because maybe they show to be something better than Gaddafi or Al Kaida. But have you ever realized how often I got accused for producing “walls of texts” when putting my thoughts into a bigger context or explaining an – imo – necessary precondition for my arguments? That are the moments when I sometimes could pull my hairs out over this forum.

Fair enough. As I've said, I agree with you about the dangers of Islam, but I know that I could be wrong, and I hesitate to make absolute decisions concerning how to deal with them.

Steve. I’m getting a bit tired of your constant self-contradicting behavior of “ I think like this but I do not know”. If you do not know it, then why do you tell an opinion at all?

As I've also said, there is a fine line between restricting one segment and restricting all of us. I'm not sure exactly where that line is, and I don't believe you do either. I'm just trying to balance the equation of going to far and not going far enough.

Balancing? You are crucifying yourself over it, with great pleasure, endlessly, and you do not stop. That’s why you refuse to accept a standpoint for yourself for which you maybe could be held responsible for one day. On things where I feel I do not know enough, I either mark any contributions of mine as speculation, or I do not make these “contributions” in the first.
My quarrel with islamophile mainstream opinion is that it has too much of “mere opinion”, but too little knowledge of the basics of Islam, the historic examples it has set, and the scripture. With so little knwoeldge many people and many columnists in the press prove to have, they should not dare to form opinions in defence of Islam. As I said earlier, I do not pay respect to just any opinion just because it is being voiced. I demand a bit more. But I have explained that before, too, haven’t I.

I understand, and I actually don't oppose your opinion on this. I do, however, question exactly what needs to be done, and again I stress the dangers I see of going too far.

I do not think in terms of philosophy anymore when I am meeting a hungry crocodile in the bush that gioes after me. I run or I shoot it, depending on the situation. You think you still have the time to not decide where you stand, although we are under siege since almost 50 years, which repeatedly I have argued and illustrated with examples in the past years. You do not listen to their own leaders when they tell you they want your ay of life destroyed, and you just find ever more starting points for those endless concerns of yours – just so that you must not take action and accept responsibility, and must not risk a conflict over it. You say you are concerned about freedom, in a way I can understand that if you would point to the implication of freedoms being reversed in the name of more security and “war against terror”. But your undecided attitude on Islam is because you – run away form the challenge it has set up. And that, Steve, is something totally different, although you probably represent a wide majority in Western societies. Most people I ever talked to about it seemed to prefer to just not wanting to realize unwanted grim truths, for that would mean they would need to chose a side and take action.

I know that Naziism was evil in hindsight. I can't say that I would have recognized it at the time. That said, we did and still do tolerate it in my country, as shown by my links to the Skokie incident.

Which I find to be one of the great absurdities in America. Prevention is rankling low in your country, you prefer to see real heavy damage and then repair it at much greater costs. Thousands and thousands and tens of thousands of your forefathers have lost their lives, many more got wounded and suffered miserably when they fought against Nazism – and now you save this hostile enemy ideology from confronting it because you think not tolerating the intolerant would man you are tyrants yourself. Steve, I deliberately refuse to take that serious. In my book it is hilarious, cynical, unthankful, somewhat decadent, and insane. I already have a problem with turning the other cheek when I get hit. But to wage the greatest war in human history with the greatest amount of suffering and destruction, just to afterwards still tolerate the reasons and the thinking that caused it – for that I have nothing but bitter laughs. I refuse to pay that attitude any respect at all.

As to slavery, of course it should be forbidden; but here we are talking about the practice itself, not the people who practiced it. Is Islamic terror bad? Yes. Should it be stopped? Of course. On the other hand, is the burqua evil? I don't see it. Is Islamic worship evil? Should all mosques be banned from the country? I don't know, and until I do I still see intolerance as the greater evil.

You do not. You tolerate the immense and unhidden intolerance of Islam and in Islamic countries. Also, above you give the impression as if we discussed or made a distinction between Islam and Islamic terror. But I haven’t done it. I talked about Islamic ideology, and that is what Islam is: an ideology. I did not even talk about Muslims in general. Most of the time I am about the ideology in these kinds of threads, and I say so time and again. Islam is nothing linked to race, ethnicity, geography, and this being against Islam is no racism or nationalism or ethnicity-based discrmination. It is the rejection of an ideology that neutrally analysed from the outside is more political than religious, but still does not and strictly refuses to differenciate between politics and religion. Muhammad has called for terror against his critics, he has called for their assassination. Muhammad mocked his fighters when they expressed hesitation and fear over attacking and overthrowing the infidels. Muhammad ordered for the discrimination of infidels, and he willed and ordered terror being used to weaken them by pouring fear into the hearts of those tribes and people resisting. He committed massacres and genocide by his own hand and command. And this was a pattern that has repeated itself time and time again through the centuries. It were Muslim slave traders bringing the slave trade to the Western societies into swing. Richard the Lionheart once ordered the execution of a great number of Muslims fighters that were taken prisoners after a battle. He did so, because he was short in supply, had not sufficient men to leave behind a sufficient guard to keep them in check, and did not wish to risk to have such a huge force of enemy warriors in his back when he was confronting Saladdin later on. He had military motives. But some years before he arrived in the socalled Holy Land, and Saladdin still was to rise to full power and still was in service with some king in today’s Syria, he had defeated a big French army in the North and took many princes and sons from noble families and many knights as prisoners. He too executed them, all of them. But he was in full supply of water and food, and had overwhelming forces and no more enemy anywhere, and no risks to be taken be guarding the prisoners. His supply lines were short, for he basically fought that battle inside the territory he ruled about. He did so because he wanted to send a message to the Europeans: look, these were the best you can sent, your bets knights and most noble men, and look how we killed them all – is that all you can bring up against us?

Do you see the basic and fundamental difference here between the execution ordered by Richard, and the execution ordered by Saladdin? And it is like this very very often in Islam’s violence-driven, war-obsessed history. Saladdin gave Muhammad as his example by which he followed. Terror is a fully legitimate tool to spread Islam, as is enforced subjugation of others, enforced Islamisation, and the assassination of apostates. Strength by uniformity. Power by totalitarianism. Peace by wiping out all others. Even the killing of Muslims is allowed if they are no real Muslims, but are claiming to be Muslim why not fully living by Muhammad’ rules and demands to participate in djihad. It is often said that Islamic terror has nothing to do with Islam, and is in violation to it, and that this is proven by that the extremists also bomb and kill Muslims. But that is wrong as a matter of fact. First, Bin Laden for example has explicitly based his reasons to fight against Islkamic establishements on the corruption of the leading elites of the Islamic countries which violate Islam by being that way, and he is right when he argues that way. Second, killing non-combatant Muslims or getting killed in fight to spread Islam in djihad is acceptable and legitimized by Sharia and Hadith as long as it is for the purpose to win the battle on behalf of the Islamic cause. That’S why you see no awareness of guilt when “extremists” build ammo depots inside schools and put their artillery on the roof of a hospital and try human shields in order to score in the propaganda war. From truly Islamic perspectives, this is acceptable, all of this.

Of course, it gets opportunistically abused as well by the powerful as well. For slave traders in Northafrica also sold Muslim slaves whom they attacked and justified it by ranbdompoy accusing them of having violated Islam’S rules and demands, which – if true – woudl have caused them to loose any protection indeed. What these slave traders wanted, was to make big andf quick money. So abuse there was and is, yes. But that does not mean the grim face of Islam behind it becomes any nicier.

Nobody wants to be seen as somebody being related to such a brutal and inhumane ideology, of course. And so there is plenty of effort amongst Muslims to deceive not only us but also themselves over the grim reality of things. But still – the slent majority of these somewhat “false” Muslims by that passivity and unwillingness to inegrate and to hand over the extremists in their rows, and to not stand up and fight against the rule of the religious dogma and its barbaric orders, still support this grim Islam through their tolerance for it, while at the same time they tell you in your face they are not like that. Of course they do tell you that, and nothing else? What do you expect…? I said that Westerners have no informational absis about Islam, and that debate in the West is grounded on lacking knpowedge. The ironicpoint is – many socalled Muslims also are uneducated abiout the redral content of that ideoliogy named Islam and what iot really means, but by cultural climate and education thy nevert5helss got brainwashed to support it, if somehow unaware.

That’S why I often make a difference between real Muslims and untrue Muslims. And for words having a meaning, I base my definition of what Islam is and what not, on the authority of Islam’S own fundament: the Quran, the Sharia, both work hand in hand, you cannot take the one away from the other, it is not possible. You cannot take away the sermon on the mount and Jesus’ teachings and then claim that what is left still is the Christian message, that is stupid nonsense. The chriuch did take it away in the dark medioevla times, and look how Christian it was what was left: it was the most unchristian brutal era and dogma since Jesus’ days that you can imagine.
I cannot know about whether or not Islam is good or not? Could be tolerated or not? Pulling my leg, maybe? And in case you question the information I brutally summarized in the above paragraphs – no, that is not just some stuff from some islamophobic website, but I summarise it by memory from what is left of the quite some numbers of books I have read years ago. It is now general knowledge of mine, not just something specifically attributed to one sentence in one book. It does not matter to recall specific names and specific details, for example I always forget the cities near t which the two battles I quoted, Richard and Saladdin took place. The important thing is that I remember that I have read it indeed, and not just in one book, and that these battels and mass executions have taken place indeed. I am no academic expert on Islam, and I cannot quote Suras blindly – and why should I? That I have nevertheless a good general knowledge about the layout and hidden intricacies – this I what counts, and this is what we all base our daily decision making on – ALL OF US. It’s like bicycle-riding. But still I can say that I have read and learned many single facts about it, who all got assimilated like we assimilate all things that we learn and understand (else we forget them if not constantly juggling with them), and by that I claim that I have accumulated a sufficient basis of understanding of what Islam is, in order to trust my general knowledge on it and form an opinion on it that I refuse to arbitrarily manipulate and to not take serious.

As I said, I'm not talking about your beliefs, but the way you express them. If you don't discuss the issue reasonably, no one will listen, you won't ever get your point across and your comments become ultimately useless. Shouting the other guy down only serves to encourage him to try to shout you down, and nothing is accomplished.

Ideological extremists and religious people NEVER discuss reasonably anyway, they are not in that business. Their business is mere believing and brainwashing. And we Westerns – we discuss Islam since almost 50 years now, since the 60s, and what must be known about it we can already know, and do know, even since longer. It’s just that we do not want to realize it, because it is not the wanted outcome we hoped for, and illustrates how naive and doomed-to-fail from the beginning on we were when hoping we could civilize and integrate and educate Islam and change it to make it compatible with our laws and values. We are now openly attacked, we are under siege. If you still not know whom you are dealing with, then you will never know even if you discuss the issue for another 1400 years.
But go on, send more Chamberlains to Munich. And after the heaps of dead bodies of more WWIIs have mounted, save tolerance and freedom by giving your enemy again the opportunity to foster, to survive, and cause another disaster. You have all reasons to be still iun doubt about his wishes and intentions, right? What does historic examples mean in the face of the convincing shine of absolute tolerance and absolute freedoms? When has reality ever beaten utopia? Facts get formed on the ground, demographic and cultural realities get created, established orders get adjusted relativized, vaporized – so what? We just can turn back the wheels of time and have another WWII, so to speak, to repair the damage we have passively let happen by tolerating that once again we repeated the mistakes from history that we have already done repeatedly.

Let’S discuss the issue some longer time. Let’s learn some more. That’s good.
Nur über meine Leiche.

I never put anyone on my ignore list. Well, one person, once.

Well I do, and more than once, but never over differing opinions but always about issues of foul behavior and personal attacks, mostly repeatedly, but in one case - because it was hefty - already after the first strike. In case of such things it would be a case for the moderator taking disciplinary measures, but my standards and Neal’s standards for that are slightly different maybe, so then the ignore button is my tool to compensate for that.

I honestly don't know. The real question is whether I would have recognized it at the time. On the other hand this leads us back to modern Naziism in the US. We allow them their freedom of speech and it doesn't seem to be causing any overt harm. So should they be outlawed here? Again I have to ask "Where do we draw that line?"

Draw the line where the new, unknown evil emerges, that is not fully known and understood and thus doubt remains. The proven evil that already has been shown by evidence and historic record to be evil – well, I just said it: it has already been proven to be evil. You must not send the sentenced offender time and again to court over the same offence. You do not gain anything positive by tolerating Nazism. It does not enoble you, but makes you suspicious, because you will the risk that it brakes out again and goes on rampage again. Has one holocaust and one Word War II not be enough? Can’t you learn from history? Nazism will not learn from history, I assure you.

So yes, I hesitate, not because I believe you are wrong, but because you are single-minded in this quest, and single-mindedness is inherently dangerous, whether it comes from them or from you.

I am not single-minded. I am determined – no due to lacking understanbding of the issue, but because right my understanding of the issue. The more I understood Islam, the more hostile I became to it – and from a moral standpoint I even had no other choice. Tolerating Islam would need me to be intolerant to my own moral basiics and my own ethical fundament, and I would need to villate what I consider to be og good and of beauty and to be right in the understanding of ancient Greek and modern humanitarian tradition as well as Buddhism and Taoism.

From my point of view I would be immoral if I DO NOT oppose Islam. I also would contradict myself and everything that is dear and precious to me, and that I see as rational and reasonable and sensible.

So you see I have good reasons to be determined and uncompromised.

Yes I do, and I'm aware of that. But you're the one who absolutely believes that Islam is absolutely evil, and I think you run the risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, meaning destroying the rest of us along with your intended target. And that frightens me.

Funny, to imagine that Roosevelt and Churchill have thrown out the baby with the bathwater when they refused tolerant coexistence and tolerance for fascist Germany. Can you imagine why they ruled out any deals and compromises, and destroyed Germany until the unconditional surrender?

I sum up the answer in short: because it was the only way that could work.

With some ideologies, compromise is not possible. And you should not even wish to make a deal with it – for the sake of what is precious and valuable and noble to yourself.

And I told you more than once that my "absolute" is just a starting point, and that I believe nothing is truly absolute. But you ignored that part. I firmly believe that there is a lot of give-and-take involved, but you seem to want to do all the taking and none of the giving, so true debate is impossible.

I don’t ignore your words on that matter. I just do not take them as anything else but self-contradicting. To me you claim that you mean something different than what you say.

I don't know that you're wrong. But I don't know you're right either, and I'm not willing to take your word for it.

Nor did I demand it. Several times in several threads over the years I said, guys, read yourself. Do not believe the Muslim cleric, nor do believe me. Check it out yourself, read some books of diverse origin, than form your own opinion and accept full responsibility for this your opinion. I fully follow in the Buddha’s footprints here! Do not beieve something, do not believe somebody. Check yourself. Turn it, look at it, analyse it. When you finally find it to be for the good of the few and the good of the many, than accept it and live by it. I add the motto of an author whom I rediscovered last year from my teenage years, and for whom I feel a deep admiration and respect, Nikolay von Michalewsky: “Woran Du glaubst, dafür sollst Du leben und sterben.” In the end, in the face of this mysterious universe and the unimaginable abyss of times, what matters regarding our lives cannot be “how long”, but only “how”.
[quote}I've tried to read the Quran, and found it confusing and hard to understand. [/quote]
Oh yes, and I explained in the past why it is so, there are historic causes that have little to do with Muhammad but the later Caliphs, and that there have been several circulating versions of Qurans. Nevertheless, Muhammad surely also used his preachings as self-justifications for his warmongering and powerhungry intentions. The Quran IS difficult to oversee indeed, and is full of –mostly probably wanted – contradictions, but contradictions that can be solved, and has been agreed to be solved in a commonly and widely accepted way since the 10th century, focussing on timestamps. But you may have noted that where I say “Read the thing yourself, guys” I almost always say: “also read academic comment and secondary literature about it”. With the Quran alone, almost everybody gets lost.
With studying the chaos of the Hadith, it gets even worse…

As I said, my problem isn't with your assessment, it's with your destination. What should be done? Banning all things Islam from the Western World entirely? Another Crusade? That's what I don't know, and that's what you've never fully explained.

You asked that some months ago, and I gave a list to start with , and your reply was to ask again as if I had answered nothing. But I have. I sum it up very brief here, therefore. The two magical words are: “reciprocity”, and “determination”.
Reciprocity: Muslim nations must act as tolerant on other cultures and human rights and women and relgions, like we have treated them in the Wets in the past 50 years. So far, they have not replied to that, but have driven on their cultural cleansing. Islam prevents them to turn tolerant, Islamic ideology is not taching tolerance, but monoculturalism. I am pessimistic that they wil, change, andn that’S why I am pessimistic about Islam in the West.

Determination: no more costly, foul compromises on behalf of special status for Islam in the west. They have to fully integrate (which necessarily means to become unislamic by leaving the inhumane and incompatabile aspects of this ideology behind), or they have to leave and go back to where they came from. Full stop to further Muslim migration. In our home countries, Islam has to adapt to our culture and has to give up, unconditionally, any inherent claim to make us adapting to it. FULL ENFORCEMENT OF ALREADY EXISTING CRIME LAWS. Destruction of the islamophile EU, replacement with a new pragmatic economy union that gives up the claim for a European, pan-Arabian superstate focussing around the Mediterranean sea. Giving priority to overcome dependence on Muslim oil. Isolation and rejection of Turkey’s attempts to sneak into Europe.

No more foul compromises and always always always assuming that Islam means it well and that it is just our own fault. Islam does not mean it well.
On the rest regarding Locke, Popper and American tolerance, I cut it short: the paradoxon I lined out so often now, does not get addressed but ignored by you, and when your version of tolerance hinders you to learn from mistake and evil that exist as proven facts in history, then you have a big problem with yourself in America. Like they use to say: he who refuses to learn from history is doomed to repeat it. Germany ha changed, so it is okay to seek new relations with it. Nazi ideology still is what it was. Your tolerance should understand the need of limits, for this ideology already has costed you and the world dearly. Same is true for Islam. And compared to the historic effect of Fascism, Islam is by far the worse enemy.
Boah, long thread, I feel like having been thrown back to 2004
0115 over here, time to shut down the system. Good night.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

Dont bother, you will spend your time better looking at this.

Yep

When you see a women wearing Burka in Iran(law enforced by revolutionary guards)

A good example MH. Not quite right but a good example for the purpose.......
Don't you mean a Chador which isn't a Burka as not only is it a different culture its a different flavour islam.
Isn't it funny that any female crazy Iranian revolutionary fundamentalist muslim terrorist will still be able to walk the streets of Paris in their "religious" attire as their cultural dress isn't covered by the ban.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I am convinced of course that I get it right, else I would not talk the way I do. What have you thought? Do you think it is a virtue to base on an opinion founded so weak that every coupe of weeks you need to correct it?

No, the virtue is in honest debate, which you apparently are too superior to understand. Thank you for stooping to lecture us from on high, oh wonder of academia.

Steve. I’m getting a bit tired of your constant self-contradicting behavior of “ I think like this but I do not know”. If you do not know it, then why do you tell an opinion at all?

I didn't enter this thread to give opinions on the topic, but to point out to you why no one ever listens to your arrogant diatribes. You claim to know exactly what you're talking about, but you fail to convince anyone else.

Balancing? You are crucifying yourself over it, with great pleasure, endlessly, and you do not stop. That’s why you refuse to accept a standpoint for yourself for which you maybe could be held responsible for one day. On things where I feel I do not know enough, I either mark any contributions of mine as speculation, or I do not make these “contributions” in the first.

And once again you attack what you think I'm thinking, without bothering to listen to what I actually say. You live in your own little heaven, knowing that everyone is inferior to you and needs your correction, and yet you know nothing, at least about me. But you keep jumping on your own opinion of me, and not who I am. You are so blind in your arrogance I'm beginning to think you know nothing at all.

My quarrel with islamophile mainstream opinion is that it has too much of “mere opinion”, but too little knowledge of the basics of Islam, the historic examples it has set, and the scripture. With so little knwoeldge many people and many columnists in the press prove to have, they should not dare to form opinions in defence of Islam. As I said earlier, I do not pay respect to just any opinion just because it is being voiced. I demand a bit more. But I have explained that before, too, haven’t I.

And again you attack me for agreeing with you.

I do not think in terms of philosophy anymore when I am meeting a hungry crocodile in the bush that gioes after me. I run or I shoot it, depending on the situation.

So Islam has gone after you directly? You would shoot anyone you thought might think about going after you, which, as I keep saying, makes you as dangerous as them.

[quote]You think you still have the time to not decide where you stand, although we are under siege since almost 50 years, which repeatedly I have argued and illustrated with examples in the past years. You do not listen to their own leaders when they tell you they want your ay of life destroyed, and you just find ever more starting points for those endless concerns of yours – just so that you must not take action and accept responsibility, and must not risk a conflict over it. You say you are concerned about freedom, in a way I can understand that if you would point to the implication of freedoms being reversed in the name of more security and “war against terror”. But your undecided attitude on Islam is because you – run away form the challenge it has set up. And that, Steve, is something totally different, although you probably represent a wide majority in Western societies. Most people I ever talked to about it seemed to prefer to just not wanting to realize unwanted grim truths, for that would mean they would need to chose a side and take action.

Which I find to be one of the great absurdities in America. Prevention is rankling low in your country, you prefer to see real heavy damage and then repair it at much greater costs. Thousands and thousands and tens of thousands of your forefathers have lost their lives, many more got wounded and suffered miserably when they fought against Nazism – and now you save this hostile enemy ideology from confronting it because you think not tolerating the intolerant would man you are tyrants yourself. Steve, I deliberately refuse to take that serious. In my book it is hilarious, cynical, unthankful, somewhat decadent, and insane. I already have a problem with turning the other cheek when I get hit. But to wage the greatest war in human history with the greatest amount of suffering and destruction, just to afterwards still tolerate the reasons and the thinking that caused it – for that I have nothing but bitter laughs. I refuse to pay that attitude any respect at all.

Okay, I'm done with you. All I wanted to do was explain that your method of posting was keeping people from listening to you, making yourself your own worst enemy in this kind of discussion. But you want to jump back into judging me, even when I say I agree with you.

Don't bother answering. You've just become the first jackass in more than a year to end up on my ignore list.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

A good example MH. Not quite right but a good example for the purpose.......
Don't you mean a Chador which isn't a Burka as not only is it a different culture its a different flavour islam.
Isn't it funny that any female crazy Iranian revolutionary fundamentalist muslim terrorist will still be able to walk the streets of Paris in their "religious" attire as their cultural dress isn't covered by the ban.

Its not about preventing terrorism by itself-
Burka law can never prevent anything of this sort.

For me its a more statement against anachronistic and intolerant way of life that pushes its self deeper and deeper.
Constantly exercising limits of law and tolerance screaming racism each time they don't get what they want.
Believe it or not but in many cases its purposeful tactics ...

As i live in Jerusalem which is Muslim in part i cant really simply hate Muslims/Palestinians because for every hammas terrorist there is 1000 others that just want to live their lives here.
I can also see how certain groups use religion/politics for gains.
I believe than many French simply get pissed when someone behaves ME way
I don't have problem with that since Israel has a lot of ME in its culture now.
Jerusalem in particular.
Believe i prefer it this way than Paris way.

Its not about preventing terrorism by itself-
Burka law can never prevent anything of this sort.

I know, that was one of the silliest reasons given in support of the ban, but if it is to combat muslim fundamentalists and stick up for womens rights then why are they not banning the Iranian version?
Surely Iranian fundys are just as incompatible with French values as Saudi fundys.
Doesn't that demonstrate that yet another of the arguements for the ban is complete rubbish.
The more you look at the legislation the sillier it looks, it really is nothing but a very stupid piece of knee jerk populism which actually serves no real purpose.

For me its a more statement against anachronistic and intolerant way of life that pushes its self deeper and deeper.
Constantly exercising limits of law and tolerance screaming racism each time they don't get what they want.
Believe it or not but in many cases its purposeful tactics ...

Yes, but this ban does nothing to even remotely address that does it.

[Skybird]

I now see, Steve. You never pull the cat's tail, you just hold it tight. It's not your grab, but it's the cat.

[MH]

At the end of the line its just matter of how French perceive themselves.
They want Islamic traditions in their country or not.
Can they deal with Islamic influence in politics or not.
Forget integration as some would like to see it-Ahmad from ME becoming Mr Sarcozy.
IF French let the emigration flow they will become Islam influenced country period.

[Alex]

@ Steve & Skybird : Hey guys, I've been following your conversation with MUCH interest. @ Skybird : I'd have to let you know something in private - not in this thread, please can you let me know via PM where/how I can contact you, thanks in advance.

[tater]

Isn't the actual wording that it is illegal in France to hide the face in public? Not women, but everyone. Not Muslims, but everyone?

In the west, who wears face-covering masks in public with the exception of criminals?

What they should have done instead was make every kid in France got to schools that meet some gov standard (likely already true), but have school with forced, coed activities, ideally topless swimming

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by tater

Isn't the actual wording that it is illegal in France to hide the face in public? Not women, but everyone. Not Muslims, but everyone?

In the west, who wears face-covering masks in public with the exception of criminals?

What they should have done instead was make every kid in France got to schools that meet some gov standard (likely already true), but have school with forced, coed activities, ideally topless swimming

Good question, in some countries as you say-yes

[onelifecrisis]

Yay. Now they just need to start burning Qu'rans and their journey towards the dark side will be complete.

I've only read the OP, but I can guess the reaction. Skybird approves of this amd takes the opportunity to preach. Tribesman points out the stupidity of the French (and, probably, the stupidity of Skybird). Several Americans with IQs that match the number of guns they own say things like "well those Muslims deserve it" and metaphorically nod at each other in knowing agreement. How close am I?

[onelifecrisis]

Holy crap, Steve, you got mad! And at Skybird! Haha, go Steve!!!