Why do liberal SJWs say nothing about the burqa?

[bankside]

I agree with bankside, forbidding to wear and forcing to wear both take away freedom.

Yeah except you made the point in a dozen words instead of a couple of paragraphs.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

I also think it is odd to want to force someone to not wear a piece of clothing..seems very invasive to me. I don't see the point of it.

In a society where peer pressure takes away freedoms, a prohibition can be the only way to give it back. That is why so many moderate muslim-majority countries like Turkey and Tunisia prohibited the headscarf in schools for so many years. To protect girls from being forced to wear it before they were old enough to choose it for themselves. For the same reason, burqas are still prohibited in every muslim country west of Saudi Arabia.

It is also why I would prohibit routine infant circumcision. Let the boy decide for himself when he's a man.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Where the heck did you pull that from? You make a lot of grand statements without any evidence whatsoever, but this is one I want to call you out on. Evidence, please?

Pulled it from life, like I pull everything else. Dunno how to state 'I think people putting metal through their dick, glans included, for no religious reason I can discern' is more extreme than 'a bit of sensitive skin was clipped off the end." If you want to talk modifications and how they come to be, sure, but otherwise, best not to insist something isn't probable, let alone possible, unless you at least have a little background in its experience. being circumcised is not a qualification in itself, you need to study modifications in general before making a statement about what modifications would never have been invented.

Plenty of people have had plenty of sensitive places modified for all kinds of reasons. Circumcision isn't special in that regard just because it's what you're most familiar with.

Now, I'd like to know why you think circumcision wouldn't have been done without religion and that the practitioners would have been jailed. You made the statement, now put up the reasoning for your statement. Quid pro quo and all that jazz.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Being circumcised is not a qualification in itself, you need to study modifications in general before making a statement about what modifications would never have been invented.

Otherwise you're basing your, ahem, 'grand statement' on exactly one explanation of one practice in how many billions of years through history and humanity fucking with their bodies? It's a long history oozing with all sorts of body mod rituals, and not all of them were based on 'man in the sky' by far.

It...boggles my mind that you think weirdness would disappear if god(s) stepped out of the picture.

But that's the goddamn point of this thread. Only a handful of women worldwide CHOOSE to wear the burqa.

And a handful of women choose to wear heels in the higher echelons of business in the USA but the majority are probably suffering from daily crippling foot issues. (that includes those 'flats' with no arch support with the small heel and no tread). It's not the injustice itself that bothers you, it's where you think it's coming from. Or at least, there's a suspicious lack of giving a damn for sexism on the homestead compared to the sexism in other countries. Not that mandatory covering is a false concern, but it is...narrowly aimed, let's say.

 

[luckynumbah7]

If I were to take a look at the way religion influenced society, neither forced circumcision or forced clothing 'options' would disappear from the possible list of offenses. Because people don't need religion to be shits.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Or at least, there's a suspicious lack of giving a damn for sexism on the homestead compared to the sexism in other countries.

Well, countries or locales. The usa example was used because that's the one I'm familiar with when describing 'those people over there with dangerous beliefs attached to cloth' to 'these people right here with dangerous beliefs attached to footwear despite medical evidence of health concerns otherwise". Feel free to pick your own. There's undoubtably something that's fucked up you could point to that reminds yourself that correlation isn't causation when discussing evils and religion.

 

[Telstra]

I agree with bankside, forbidding to wear and forcing to wear both take away freedom.

The problem is more complex than this ...

I'll choose an extreme example:
If a culture's moral is for everyone to cut off one arm and it is normal,
so therefore they feel free when one arm is cut off.

Would you take away the freedom to cut ofF one arm ?????
I would take away the freedom of cutting off arms because the culture is WRONG !!!

Same thing with the Burqa, the culture is WRONG !!!

 

[gsdx]

Would you take away the freedom to cut ofF one arm ?????
I would take away the freedom of cutting off arms because the culture is WRONG !!!

In your mind. Not in theirs.

To carry your analogy into reality, what about circumcision? In many places and in certain religions, circumcision is a freedom for parents or a religious requirement.

You forget that people have the right to choose to follow cultural traditions or to ignore them. In the United States, the government cannot pass a law denying people the right to practice their religion as they wish. That fact has been rammed down our throats here time and time again. Banning the burka would be an infringement of the First Amendment. It would be just like banning Catholics from wearing a crucifix. Nobody would even consider such an ban.

 

[Telstra]

In your mind. Not in theirs.

To carry your analogy into reality, what about circumcision? In many places and in certain religions, circumcision is a freedom for parents or a religious requirement.

You forget that people have the right to choose to follow cultural traditions or to ignore them. In the United States, the government cannot pass a law denying people the right to practice their religion as they wish. That fact has been rammed down our throats here time and time again. Banning the burka would be an infringement of the First Amendment. It would be just like banning Catholics from wearing a crucifix. Nobody would even consider such an ban.

Circumcision they have an excuse of preventing the spread of diseases and to keep the penis clean and it is "sort" of true. But cutting off arms or covering the whole head , there is zero excuse.

And No, not just like wearing crucifix period.

 

[gsdx]

And No, not just like wearing crucifix period.

Yes, it is. The Constitution says that the government cannot do it. Banning the burka is exactly the same as banning the crucifix. Both are practices and symbols of religion.

 

[Telstra]

Not same,
1 totally hiding everything and the other one is not.

 

[bankside]

The problem is more complex than this ...

I'll choose an extreme example:
If a culture's moral is for everyone to cut off one arm and it is normal,
so therefore they feel free when one arm is cut off.

Would you take away the freedom to cut ofF one arm ?????
I would take away the freedom of cutting off arms because the culture is WRONG !!!

Same thing with the Burqa, the culture is WRONG !!!

Your example is helpful because it admits that wearing a burqa is less of a problem than cutting body parts off someone. If there is a reason for me to give my opinion, I'm happy to point out that wearing a burqa is ridiculous on a hot day, and I would encourage people not to limit themselves. We live in a world where we can do things other than either ban something or require it. The law isn't the answer to every problem. We don't even have to decide whether we love something or hate it before we figure out that it's not right to bring the force of law into it.

During the 60's sexual revolution, we were only a generation away from very similar mentalities about women in our own western history. We didn't have burqas, but we did have headscarves, and chaperones on dates, and the idea that a woman was worn out, worthless, and unmarriageable if she took a dick from some guy before her husband on their wedding night.

We didn't ban old fashioned morality, we just pointed out how ridiculous it was. Not sure why we keep forgetting that just because it's a burqa. People lose their shit and forget the middle ground.

Circumcision they have an excuse of preventing the spread of diseases and to keep the penis clean and it is "sort" of true. But cutting off arms or covering the whole head , there is zero excuse.

And No, not just like wearing crucifix period.

Actually circumcision needs banning way more than an outfit. An adult can decide how to dress. A baby is never asked whether they want their penis de-skinned, to satisfy someone else's sense of morality.

We should ban circumcising boys, or messing around with the plumbing of intersex kids to "make them appear normal", or whatever weird adult body fetishes we use to justify putting unaware innocent babies through surgical hell.

 

[Kahaih]

Yes, it is. The Constitution says that the government cannot do it. Banning the burka is exactly the same as banning the crucifix. Both are practices and symbols of religion.

Show us a photo of someone wearing a crucifix large enough to cover his/her face, thereby inhibiting matching a person's face with a photo ID.

Give us a link to a story where a person who appeared on a surveillance film couldn't be identified due to wearing a crucifix.

~~~

As for the law interfering with, or banning, religious practices, Utah couldn't become a State until the Mormons gave up polygamy.

And probably, if I did some snooping around, I might even find places where it is now illegal for Jews to skin animals alive.

Shall we take a look at laws that deal with human sacrifice?

 

[Thad1527]

In the United States, this is clearly a matter of religious freedom and freedom of expression. Nobody can be forced to wear - or not wear - a burqa.

I see them daily and even work with a woman who usually wears one. I like her; she is a delightful co-worker. I don't like all women in burqas: overhearing some on their cellphones appalls me! But it's only clothing.

 

[Kahaih]

. . . .

But it's only clothing.

Then you won't mind if I copy this quote and post your words in this thread;

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/threads/463909-Would-You-Fuck-A-Nazi

 

[Zeno Lorea]

To carry your analogy into reality, what about circumcision? In many places and in certain religions, circumcision is a freedom for parents or a religious requirement.

You forget that people have the right to choose to follow cultural traditions or to ignore them.

People have the right to follow cultural traditions, but not when it infringes on the rights of others. If people want to cut off a part of their OWN body, I don't care. But they should not mutilate OTHER people, including their children. Male genital mutilation is as unacceptable to me as female genital mutilation. Living in Morocco, I feel blessed every time I piss because I was born in the non-cutting world.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

In the United States, this is clearly a matter of religious freedom and freedom of expression. Nobody can be forced to wear - or not wear - a burqa.

I see them daily and even work with a woman who usually wears one. I like her; she is a delightful co-worker. I don't like all women in burqas: overhearing some on their cellphones appalls me! But it's only clothing.

I beg your pardon? You see women wearing a burqa daily? And you work with one who "usually" wears one? I don't know if we use the same definition of burqa. Please show me a photo of what you call a burqa.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Show us a photo of someone wearing a crucifix large enough to cover his/her face, thereby inhibiting matching a person's face with a photo ID.

Give us a link to a story where a person who appeared on a surveillance film couldn't be identified due to wearing a crucifix.

On the other hand, nuns elect to wear very restrictive clothing that DOES cover all except their faces, so a similar religious statement.

And Amish women and Hutterites and Mennonites similarly demand their adherents who are women dress plainly in a restrictive code.

Pentecostal women were expected to never wear cosmetics and were expected to not ever cut their hair.

All have elected to follow the teachings of their religion, yet we debate none of it as the question of whether they will be allowed.

As for the law interfering with, or banning, religious practices, Utah couldn't become a State until the Mormons gave up polygamy.

And probably, if I did some snooping around, I might even find places where it is now illegal for Jews to skin animals alive.

Shall we take a look at laws that deal with human sacrifice?

I truly believe polygamy could not be outlawed today if it were to be challenged in court now, but your observation is exactly correct. The Mormon Temple in Utah was actually seized by the federal government under force, and miraculously, the First President of the LDS had a revelation that informed him and his church that the time for polygamy had passed. It was a most convenient revelation.

The Mormons probably exist today due to that concession when faced with total repression by the US government.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

On the other hand, nuns elect to wear very restrictive clothing that DOES cover all except their faces, so a similar religious statement.

And Amish women and Hutterites and Mennonites similarly demand their adherents who are women dress plainly in a restrictive code.

But none of those cover their faces, so they are still recognizable. People do cover their faces when wearing a burqa, a motorcycle helmet, a carnival mask and so on. Which is why these things may be a security hazard.

 

[Thad1527]

Then you won't mind if I copy this quote and post your words in this thread;

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/threads/463909-Would-You-Fuck-A-Nazi

That's more than just clothing...that's an attitude, a way of looking at the world. Maybe the burqa reflects that too...but the message I get is of modesty. That doesn't scare me.