Gibson: no Sharia law, no veils. If you're here, be American

[brettdale]

"Gibson doesnt think that woman should be allowed to wear Veils"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,222270,00.html

She referred to it as the letterbox veil, the one where the only thing visible of the woman is her eyes, through a narrow letterbox slit in the veil.

That is clearly a sign of separation, clearly a sign of wanting to avoid assimilating in the western culture, whether it's here or Britain or Italy. And it is clearly a sign of a subculture that wants to establish its own rules separate and apart.

Another way of saying that is: The veil is a sign of the Muslim subculture wanting Sharia law, religious law which supercedes secular or common law in their communities.

Tolerance is what we practice in the West, meaning we are tolerant of the religions and customs of others. But we are also vigilant for signs they are among us and are intolerant of us and our customs and laws.

Speaking as an American: no Sharia law, no veils. If you're here, be American.

[WCGreen]

1. Yea, fuck that freedom of religion shit...

Fucking Ah-rabs....

That pasty face goof ball is nothing more than a nazi wanna be...

[kiahzero]

2. "You don't have to conform."

"If you're here, be American."

Getting past the stupidity of the piece, I can't imagine anyone is surprised that a conservative commentator thinks he has a right to set a dress code for women.

[EstimatedProphet]

3. "Be American"?!

Take your own fucking advice, Gibson.

[Iris]

7. Does that mean wear pilgrim hats?

Or are we only allowed to wear baseball hats now? Of course, women would have to do the ponytail pull through thing.

[EstimatedProphet]

9. It also means wearing flags on everything as a reminder

lest we forget we are American

[Iris]

12. yeah. And women must wear them on their butts.

[Richard Steele]

49. Actually, it would mean wearing beaded buckskins...

...and speaking Iroquois, like the AMERICANS did!
(before our illegal-immigrant ancestors killed them all)

[Igel]

168. Hundreds of languages, not just the one.

Some Algonquians had little love for their oppressors, at that--although the Europeans were even worse, in many cases.

[obreaslan]

75. "Be American" And while your at it, speak American too!!!!

I'm tired of these furriners that come here and can't even speak American. You should learn to speak American so you can be like us.


:sarcasm:
:eyes:

[sweetheart]

179. He needs to read: "Hegemony or Survival"

The problem, Mr. Gibson, is that the US government is not American, but rather
a devious warmaking polyarchy, a degenerate exercise in cult dissonance, on
a TV near you thanks to Mel and FAUX..

[TallahasseeGrannie]

4. How tolerant can we be

of intolerance? Is veiling women abusive? That's the question. When religious freedom steps on civl rights, where do we draw the line?

[Iris]

5. Who's civil rights are being stepped on?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

13. I don't know

if I belong to a club that insists I degrade myself publically, (or face death) are my civil rights being protected or abused?

I have no answers. It's a very tough call and Europe is having one hell of a time with it.

[Iris]

17. but is it up to the gov't. to decide if you are being degraded?

I mean, I don't think all the women feel they are forced to wear a veil. Honestly, when I see girls wearing pants that bare their (often flabby) stomachs and (sometimes equally flabby) butts, I gotta wonder what's worse.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

22. Great minds think alike

! Read my next post on the issue.

[pampango]

67. If it were not for everything that has happened since 2001 (Bush, 9/11,

Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.), how would our views of the ways in which Islam, or certain sects of it, treats women be different?

I tend to reflexively defend the customs of Islam, even when the specifics make me uncomfortable, due probably to all that Bush has done to polarize the world into "us" and "them." We don't allow Mormons to practice polygamy, partly to protect women, even if some of them might not be opposed to it. We support efforts to empower women which would be in conflict with religious customs which place women in more of a supportive and family role - not just Islam, but conservative Christian sects as well.

If Gore were president, there had been no attack on 9/11 and no subsequent wars, how would we view manifestations, such as the burkha or hijab, of a conservative religion and its voluntary or involuntary customs regarding empowering women?

[Iris]

74. I would still support a woman who chooses to wear a veil or a burqua.

Burquas, frankly, scare me, but it's not my decision to make. There's a societal reason to restrict polygamy - mainly making sure people who have children together can identify those children and support them financially. There's also the aspect of polygamy that pushes out younger men so that the older men literally get all the women. So there are problems all the way around with that. But my co-worker wanting to wear a head scarf? That's not harming anyone.

[riderinthestorm]

162. Headscarves and a full face veil are two different things

and government does get in the middle of religious practices that degrade others all the time with their laws. There's more than just polygamy that are problematic religious beliefs that are outlawed (unequal treatment for men and women, beatings etc.)

[Iris]

177. I'm sorry. Still not up to the gov't. to determine what is "degrading"

I just don't see how the government gets to decide who is being degraded. What about Hasidic Jews - could the gov't decide their haircuts are degrading? If a woman is choosing to wear these coverings of her own free will, it is not up to the government or those who feel uncomfortable about it to decide for her.

And why stop there? I think the sex industry is a degrading business - to both men and women - but there aren't a lot of people on this board who would agree with me. But then again, that wouldn't matter, would it, if all I had to do was get the gov't. to deem it as degrading.

[Critters2]

200. The Hasidic example...

Hasidic women don't wear pants or short sleeves. Should the govt say they must?

Should Amish people dress "like the rest of us"?

Where does this end?

[Iris]

206. exactly my point.

[LostinVA]

77. Yes, it is up to governmnet to decide that in many cases n/t

[Iris]

159. I'm sorry, but I disagree.

[mondo joe]

38. If you choose to belong to that club and go along, no.

Your civil rights are not being abused.

[Leopolds Ghost]

114. Europe does not believe in 1st Amendment Freedom.

They are having an excellent and easy time defrauding some people of unpopular speech, as did the genocidal "secular" Turkish and Pakistani military regimes with the full support of the West. Obviously they hate us for our freedoms.

Many Muslim and Western feminists view scantily-clothing on women (and their children!) as oppressive to women. Look to the beam in yer own eye, right?

[walldude]

6. No, the question is do the women object to being veiled...

We shouldn't assume that all Muslim women are against wearing veils, it is a part of their religion. It seems to me to if you want to "outlaw" veils then we should outlaw those stupid hats with beer can holders on the sides of them. :D

[Solo_in_MD]

16. Not clear it is in the Koran...its as much a social than a true religeous

issue.

My wife has been following some of this closely, since she has several Muslim girls in her classes. She is quite protective of their equality with boys in her classes (does that make sense?) They wear scarfs (hijab) but not a burka or niqab. She says they are bright and thirst for knowledge. I imagine she does plant a lot of seeds about the equality of women with them as well.

Consider this as well: http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Religion&loid=8.0.350835102&par=0

[TallahasseeGrannie]

24. I've been fascinated by this issue

ever since my sister, who was a Director of Nursing, had to let a female student go for wearing a burqua in clinicals.

Figure THAT one out!

First, it freaked out the patients. But it was her religious right. My mind has never been the same.

[Solo_in_MD]

30. I can deal with the headscarf, barely, but the veil is beyond the level

of misogynism I can tolerate

[kiahzero]

39. So you decide what women get to wear?

That must be a nice job.

[Solo_in_MD]

45. I susbscribe to the theory that it is not freely chosen and was

imposed upoin them by the Muslim patriarchy. Also wearing it indicates being under an extreme interpretation of the sharia that devalues and demeans women. I don't harrass those who wear it, but I have and will state publicly I consider it a sign of oppression against women. For those who claim that women themselves support it, I suggest they recall that women in some nations also support FGM, something none of us (hopefylly) countenance.

That is not cme hoosing what they get to wear...its expressing an opinion that the sharia interpretations of the Muslim fundies is unacceptable in a society based on equality and other progressive values.

[kiahzero]

48. We're talking about women in the U.S.

Wearing a veil does not necessarily imply "being under an extreme interpretation of the sharia that devalues and demeans women." Women shouldn't be compelled to wear one, but if a woman freely chooses to wear one, that's her right.

[KitSileya]

100. I completely agree with you.

The hijab is their religious right to wear, but the niqab comes with so many misogynistic strings that it cannot be interpreted as anything but an infringement on civil rights, like FGM.

[mondo joe]

41. Your deciding what women can or can't wear by their own choice is

beyond the level of misogynism I can tolerate.

[Leopolds Ghost]

118. "I can deal with the headscarf, barely"

What is your proposed dress code for women or do you recommend banning all garments that are not unisex?

[hedgehog]

85. I would wonder about the sanitary aspect of a burqua.

Of course, the same applies to neck ties!

[Iris]

178. and the same applies to any piece of clothing any human being wears.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

19. Well, nuns wear some strange get-ups

or they used to.

Isn't the question whether or not a woman in a culture that punishes heresy by death can make a personal decision to wear a veil or not?

On the other hand, here in the US, our young women have a uniform that many times shows much more than they probably want to show, but they feel for fashion (religion?) and acceptance they must wear the pants low enough to show their pubes in the front and their cheeks in the back...

I dunno. You got me. Women always bear the brunt of it, it seems to me.

[Iris]

26. ah, yes!

I see where you are coming from! A lot to think about.

[Tom Joad]

88. I think you really need to understand Muslim culture before

you criticize it. It seems you have little understanding.

They do not put women to death for not wearing a veil. the taliban is not representative of Muslim culture.

Every cross or star of david or button that says *I love being an atheist* or veil does indeed say something about us, and shows our differences.

Has anyone got a problem with that?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

102. Tom, I only know what I read

and anymore that is precious little. But I have heard of women showing wrist or ankle during the Taliban reign and being severely punished. Do you remember something like that?

Now, as for the Taliban being representative of Muslims in general, I guess one could ask the same thing about Fred Phelps. I surely hope not!

[Tom Joad]

109. What we should know is that anti-Muslim hysteria is being used by

Bush and the neo-Cons to prop up support for their wars against Arab Muslim countries.
Let's not form alliances with such fools.
Listen to Muslims talk about their own faith.
http://www.amuslimvoice.org/

[TallahasseeGrannie]

112. I'll agree with you on that

however, is there the tiniest possibility that like most polarized siuations, there is a grain of truth in both sides?

And Bush, rather than being a uniter, is using that grain to divide?

On the other hand, I have a friend, an x-Muslim (black) who while is progressive socially, insists that the great Muslim threat is a huge thing.

I guess history will tell the story eventually.

[hedgehog]

141. Oddly enough,there was both a purpose and some history

behind some of those get-ups. Most were based on peasant dress in the area where the order started; they just were never updated. The wide starched caps on the Sisters of Charity (think flying nun) came out of southern France. Some of the head coverings were used by nursing sisters originally to protect themselves from lice. Nurses' caps came out of the same tradition. Of course, as time went on it was realized that the bulky garments themselves were a sanitation hazard.

[Chulanowa]

8. Seeing as how most women wearing the veil regard it as proper modest dress

... probably not. If they are beign forced to wear it agaisnt their will by their husbands, then the problem is their husbands, and not the garment.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. It's A Dilemma.

When Ataturk created the modern and democratic Turkey one of the things he did was outlaw the veil because he felt it was discriminatory to women.

I don't like the veil but if a Muslim woman wants to wear one that's her right.

[kiahzero]

11. Kemal wasn't exactly a champion of individual rights. (n/t)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Ataturk Was Far From Perfect

but as far as leaders of Islamic nations he created the most democratic and secular one.

[kiahzero]

18. I agree

My point was just that what he did isn't exactly a good example of what we should be done in this country.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. No...

If they want to wear the veil that's their right. End of story.

We don't have to like it but that's their choice.

[Leopolds Ghost]

120. Ataturk was a genocidal maniac, like Hitler, who banned fezzes

And even more off topic, it is illegal to disagree with me on this point if you are in France. Assuming you aren't in france, I find your embrace of genocidal secularism as an alternative to religion... disturbing.

[Irreverend IX]

28. It's interesting to contrast Turkey's approach with the US's.

Ataturk didn't just ban the veil, he banned fezzes, Arabic writing and many other Islamic trappings. It's still illegal to wear Islamic garb inside Turkish government buildings, but the party now in power, who have some Islamist influence, are working to change that. Turkey has banned more than 40 political parties since the revolution; if you look at a list of them you'll see that about half have "Kurdish" in their names, the other half have "Islamic." While Europeans were fussing over France's headscarf ban in schools, Turkey has had such a ban going for the last 60 years.

It seems that in the short term these measures squelched the ambitions of theocrats, but they may have allowed theocratic sentiment to simmer beneath the surface of some communities. Turkey is now facing the potential expulsion of Kemalists (those who follow Ataturk's philosophy) from government across the board by Islamist elements. The presidency, long a Kemalist stronghold, has a good chance of falling to a member of the ascendant party, and one of the new joint chiefs of staff of the Turkish military, historically a very secular institution, is also making unnerving statements.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. It's Distressing

Because Turkey is supposed to be the secular model for the rest of the Muslim world.

[kiahzero]

37. If that happened, the Kemalist military would likely throw them out again

It's happened quite a few times before.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. But That's Not Democracy

It's a dilemma. If you allow a fair vote the anti-secular and anti-democratic forces might win and kill democracy. But how can you be a small (d) democrat if you don't allow elections.

[Katzenjammer]

142. "how can you be a democrat if you don't allow elections?"

I think one of the problems is that we compartmentalize our thinking, and it makes us react as though we were stupid.

For example, we approve of unlimited immigration because we don't want to be racists. But for some reason we look at the issue in a vacuum, as though it were disconnected from all other issues such as the fact that, with the kind of government and economy that we now have, the more people there are, the worse off we are because of competition for scarce jobs. We somehow can't make the connection that, the worse off we are, the less able we will be to actually solve the problem. It's sort of like a doctor trying to treat a wound while bleeding to death. We can't help anyone else when we're trapped at the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy ourselves.

Similarly, we're all for getting rid of guns as though racism, poverty, overcrowding, and similar problems play no causal role in violence. We act as though the guns themselves are responsible, that there was never any violence before guns, and if we can just make guns go away, that will make violence go away too. It's truly stupid thinking, but we seem to do it all the time.

So the idea that we can't be democrats unless we allow elections is crazy as long as we live in an environment that's hostile to democracy. First we have to create an environment in which people get a real education (as opposed to job training) and independent thought is valued. Right now we're not even close. People are raised to be obedient and unthinking, not independent and thoughtful. Rather than try to support democracy's tools in an anti-democratic environment, we might as well just jump into the river with weights on our ankles and save time.

[Irreverend IX]

57. Even the military is now being subverted...

That's one of the things I mentioned in the last post. In the past, the presidency and the military have been bastions of Kemalism but it looks like the AK party may be able to turn those institutions to its ends and upset the balance.

[Solo_in_MD]

20. Most wear the scarf some of the time. Broad use and wearing of the

full veil is more of a modern thing, it was not nearly as common a generation ago (scary isnt it)

[Chulanowa]

31. Why would it scare me?

Unlike many Americans I can think of, I'm not terrified of Muslims. If they want to wrap themselves in cloth, hey, whatever.

Though in all honesty, I would prefer they go around in bikinis all the time. But then I have a thing for the middle eastern ladies.

[Solo_in_MD]

35. I subscribe to the theory that the veiling is fundementally oppressive to

women, so that it is getting more common is indeed scary.

[Chulanowa]

60. What you think doesn't count here

Rather, it's what the women wearign the thing think about it that counts.

What would be more oppressive, a woman willingly wearing the veil, or you forbidding her from doing so?

[LostinVA]

79. Lots of women didn;'t want the vote, or other rights either

I honestly do think it is a civil rights issue, like forced marriage and FGM, which ARE illegal here, and are no different than the veil. I'm sure many women don't like wearing the veil... and I'm sure most who say they do say it because they've been taught that it's the "right thing."

Even if you take this as a freedom of religion issue (which I don't), freedom of religion isn't an absolute right, as evidenced bu the above, by the FLDS and polygamy, and by many other things.

[mondo joe]

87. But no one is forced to vote. Suffrage gave women a choice.

I'm pro choice all the way.

Forced marriage is VERY different from choosing to wear a veil.

[Chulanowa]

170. Wait a minnit...

Wearing a veil by choice is the same thing as having one's genitals chopped up unwillinly?

I apologize, I'm gonna have to skip that discussion.

[smirkymonkey]

185. So why does what YOU think count any more?

In fact what is the point of having a thread on it, or even a discussion board for that matter? Why don't we all just quit DU and keep our opinions to ourselves? :sarcasm:

Your response was rude and dismissive. People are just weighing in and everyone has a right to an opinion. You have a right to refute an opinion you disagree with, but not to tell a person their opinion doesn't count. Who do you think you are?

Besides, what escapes so many people on this board is that women who are "willingly" wearing the veil are not really willing wearing the veil. They have been indoctrinated and pressured by thier culture to conform to certain standards since birth. So your comment is kind of pointless.

[Chulanowa]

209. Yeah, it was kinda rude, I apologize.

But what I think doesn't matter, either. As I am stating here, it's up to what the women wearing the things think, not you or I.

[Tom Joad]

110. I think Muslim women must speak for themselves, and decide

what is "oppresive" or not.

[SmokingJacket]

27. If women are veiling themselves, they are free to.

If someone else is veiling a woman against her will, that is abuse.

Really simple.

[Solo_in_MD]

46. How can one really tell if its voluntary, considering the

extreme patriarchal mindset imposed by the some sharia adherents. Remember that in some countries FGM is considered a good thing and support by some women, but can scarcely be considered voluntary and a good thing.

There are those who will be irate of my linking of FGM to veiling, but to me its all a matter of degree. One also has to wonder if a woman out of a traditional Muslim culture can really understand the concept of free choice. The indoctrination is that intense and has been going on for generations.

My post(s) in this thread may well be deleted, but I have to take a stand against what I feel is a fundamental abuse of women.

[mondo joe]

52. The only person in a position to say is the woman herself.

And if you decide for her, that is certainly not free choice.

[Solo_in_MD]

54. I have never said it would decide for her, but I will state to her

and anyone else that the niqab and burka are signs of opression of women.

[mondo joe]

55. That seems quite fair, not to mention accurate.

In some recent threads people have advocated deciding for these women.

[Bridget Burke]

94. And they'd better listen to you....

Since you're a MAN!

[Solo_in_MD]

123. They have no requirement to listen or do what I say

I am not their husband/father or other male family member who under the sharia can make demands upon them.

[SmokingJacket]

122. We must make sure there are options for women to escape

abusive relationships of *all* kinds. If a woman is being forced to wear a veil by her husband, it's no different from a husband not allowing his wife to leave the house, or to get a job.

So we must fight it the same way: make sure girls have as much opportunity for education as boys, and make sure there is a social system in place for them if they want their freedom (which there isn't in all places, but that's where I'd put my energy, instead of making veils illegal).

[JCMach1]

61. It assumes quite a lot that every veiled woman has been forced to do so

I know some covered feminists in the UAE who would take you (very loudly) to the mat over that.

[bpeale]

14. STFU Gibson! you ignorant bastid!

[C_U_L8R]

23. How about no torture / no wiretaps ??!!!

Uphold the Constitution or get the fuck out... Gibson

[SmokingJacket]

25. The whole "assimilate or go home" thing pisses me off.

"Live and let live" is the motto I prefer to live by. And I believe it is more truly "American."

[Cha]

29. That bigoted cracker..

I don't want everyone the same..so, they can wear their veils, they're whatever and be who they are. That's what America was founded on but, of course, being a traitor..gibson wouldn't understand that.

[Marrah_G]

51. Bigoted Cracker

Oh the irony...........

[TallahasseeGrannie]

106. LOL

This made my day

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. Hey, Mel.

If you're going to be here in America, you've got to learn to respect others.

Fucking anti-semites.

[MUSTANG_2004]

56. Not that Gibson. John, not Mel. nt

[maxsolomon]

34. assimilation used to be a goal

when all the immigrants were white but poor.

try as i might as a 'feminist male', i am not a big hijab or burkha fan - call me a neandertal, but the 'her choice' part? if an abuse victim has internalized the abuse to the point where she believes she deserves to be beaten, we don't respect that choice, do we? whether or not it is in the koran or just a part of the culture, its enforced through many methods, through many generations. like female circumcision is.

and as a man - i feel the veil is an insult to my culture, education, self control, and sexuality - as in we have to hide our faces & bodies from you or you'll be unable to stop yourself & rape us. maybe YOUR men can't, but i sure as fuck can.

so, yeah. :popcorn:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. If you don't like veils...

don't wear one.

[maxsolomon]

99. wow, so insightful

i didn't call for legislating against the hijab, the nizab, the chador, the burkha (why do i even have to know the distinctions?).

i don't scream at the somali immigrant dads waiting at the bus stop to take those oppressive cultural relics off their 2nd graders.

they're free to be as backwards & ignorant as any other monotheist in america.

but i don't have to appreciate it, i just have to tolerate it.

and i do. for i am a far-left liberal secular hedonist.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

119. Eh.

Telling women what they can and cannot wear strikes me as backward and ignorant.

In fact, judging a woman based on what she chooses to wear doesn't seem far-left liberal secularist, it strikes me as the moral equivalent Jerry Falwell's dress code, or for that matter sharia law.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

121. So let's say

tomorrow ole' Jerry F decides that all good Christian women must wear nun's habits and chastity belts because of the dangerous world. Is your opinion the same?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

Jerry Falwell's opinion on women's clothing...

"Hair and clothing styles related to counterculture (as determined by the Deans’ Review Committee) are not acceptable. Dresses and skirts should be no shorter than the top of the knee (sitting or standing). Skirt slits should be modest; open slits should be no higher than the top of the knee, closed slits should be no higher than two inches from the top of the knee. Shoulder straps should be no less than two inches wide. Anything tight, scant, backless, see-through, low in the neckline or revealing the midriff (in any position) is immodest and unacceptable. Slips should be worn under thin material. Earrings and plugs are permitted in ears only. No other facial piercings or plugs are allowed, including tongue."

I'm sure he finds burkas, veils, an hijabs to be equally unacceptable.

"Is your opinion the same?"

No, I do not judge people based on what they choose to wear.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

150. But Bornagin

I think you aren't addressing the issue. And my analogy wasn't apt, either.

Women who wear veils and burkhas that cover their face.... are they victims of a male-dominated culture or are they exercising their civil rights? Can you believe what a person says when they have a gun (or a pile of stones) pointed at their head? (metaphorically)

I am inclined to think they are exercising their husbands' civil rights.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

155. ...

"are they victims of a male-dominated culture or are they exercising their civil rights?"

Depends on the circumstances.

"Can you believe what a person says when they have a gun (or a pile of stones) pointed at their head? (metaphorically)"

The subject was American women who choose to do it through their own free will.

"I am inclined to think they are exercising their husbands' civil rights."

Alright, and Jerry Falwell is inclined to think that women who wear mini-skirts are sluts.

[maxsolomon]

126. JUDGING? TELLING?

our society legislates that women they must cover their breasts in public. so that's telling them what they can & cannot wear. is that backward & ignorant? probably, but it is an accepted cultural practice.

everyone judges everything all day long. judgement is what makes us rational beings. i missed the part of the american constitution where it says i must reserve judgement. 'judge not lest ye be judged' is not a law. it is a religious admonition that encourages empathy, which i do have, particularly for muslim women who involuntarily wear the niqab or burkha. the ones that choose it voluntarily? first i question whether that is ultimately true, then i wish they'd wake up. i don't have to like it. i have to tolerate it.

perhaps i should add that i am increasingly hostile to monotheism, & its reign of terror over human history.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

137. ...

"is that backward & ignorant? probably, but it is an accepted cultural practice."

So in other words, your backwards and ignorant cultural practices are more important than their backwards and ignorant cultural practices.

"i missed the part of the american constitution where it says i must reserve judgement. 'judge not lest ye be judged' is not a law."

No, Max, there's nothing in the Constitution that says a person can't be ignorant and backwards. Or hypocritical for that matter.

"perhaps i should add that i am increasingly hostile to monotheism, & its reign of terror over human history."

The problem, you see, with "monotheism" and "organized religion" as you call it isn't that they're organized or that they're religious or that they believe in one god.

The problem is that they believe that they're right and everybody else is wrong, and that everybody else should change.

This problem is not isolated to monotheism, apparently.

[maxsolomon]

163. oh snap

i understand the cultural relativist argument in favor of toleration of the veil - we have no right to say that their culture is inferior to ours blah blah. i have that argument with the "that's not art" crowd often. i am not a defender of our cultural myopia.

but i must say, tolerance & relativism does not seem to be working so well in europe now, where i think multiculturalism is at a loss on how to deal with the issue of their muslim populace, and you see that in Blair's & Straw's floundering, Hirsan Ali's campaign in Holland, France's absurd ban on headscarves in school, etc. i know that FOX news is not going to come up with a solution. just like the GWOT, i don't want fundy RW christians defending the secularism they also despise.

but i don't believe we should never judge - polygamy is banned in america - was that backwards & ignorant?

yes, the problem of irrational certainty is not related to monotheisms, but historically, it is highly concentrated there. the atheist, totalitarian states being the exception.

pointing out the flaws in anyone else's logic or predjudices is like shooting fish in a barrel. pray, share your solution for england's dilemma so i may return the favor. i presume that driver's licenses, passports, etc. showing a head in a ski mask would be acceptable? or should the mask be individualized, as in luche libre?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

158. Good post

but pantheism wasn't too hot, either.

[maxsolomon]

164. Pantheism is not a 'was'

its the wave of the future! ;)

[smirkymonkey]

44. Thank you!

I can't believe the ignorance on this thread posing as "religious tolerance."

For many of these women (living under Sharia Law) making the wrong "choice" frequently ends up with the woman being murdered, usually by members of her own family. Why? For "shaming" them. It's misogyny through and through, regardless of how many people here are deluded into thinking it's about the woman's "choice".

It's amazing how many people here love to bash fundamentalist Christians or Jews, but start going off about "religious tolerance" when it comes to Islamic oppression of women. It's very clear what their agenda is. They get to cheer on misogyny without actually coming out and saying so.

BTW, I am against all fundamentalist religion, but it just angers me how Islam always seems to get a pass when it comes to sexist, anti-democratic, anti-progressive attitudes and behaviors. I am surprised more people don't seem to notice the disconnect.

[Solo_in_MD]

47. Hear Hear !!!

Well said

[smirkymonkey]

190. I am thinking of a quote that I find most relevant in this discussion

and which pretty much sums up the attitude here...

"When men are oppressed, it's a tragedy; when women are oppressed, it's tradition." - Bernadette Mosala

[mondo joe]

53. The thing I loathe about fundamentalists is that they force others to

live by their religion - or try to.

I don't care if a fundamentalist wants to force themselves to live by whatever stupid code they like, whether they wear a veil, whip themselves, refuse to eat fish on friday or any other nutty thing.

Forcing others vs forcing self -- get the disconnect?

[LostinVA]

80. Thank the gods -- a voice of reason

Being FOR the veil is not a Progressive attitude... nor one that embraces women's right.

The United States isn't Saudi Arabia... this country really does stand for freedom, even if the Cabal in office have perverted that freedom.

[KitSileya]

108. Amen!

I completely agree! The moment one talks about women and Islam, it's suddenly religious tolerance time. But it is very consistent with the attitudes expressed on other feminist threads on this message board.

[Leopolds Ghost]

133. It is always religious tolerance time in America.

Anti-religious bigotry should not be tolerated on DU. It is, but it shouldn't. It is an anti-progressive attitude expressed by self-described "far left pagan hedonists" whose only political attachment to the left is, ironically enough, motivated by religious belief (or lack their of) and attendant cultural obsessions.

They don't understand how "liberalism" was intended to work. They are the modern-day "Young Turks".

[KitSileya]

139. I am very much in favor of separation of Church and State,

I am against my own country's state church, even tho' I am a Christian. But that doesn't mean that I will let religious tolerance trumph civil rights. I will not accept marriage with under-age minors, where I am liable to accept polygamy and polyandry, I will not accept FGM, where I am liable to accept circumcision of men (not boys). It support the right of Orthodox Jews to cover their hair just as much as I support the right of Muslim women to cover *their* hair. But the covering of women's faces is to me akin to FGM. FGM is painful, and dangerous to the girl's health, and removes her chance of a normal, pleasurable sex life. The niqab is not painful, at least not physically, but it dehumanises women, and removes their chance of a normal, independent public life.

[smirkymonkey]

191. I don't consider being "anti-religious" to be bigotry, I consider

it to be rational. To say being anti-religious is bigoted is like saying being anti-fascist is bigoted. Some of us are pretty opposed to any kind of oppressive institution or system.

If people want to worship a box of cracker jacks, that's fine with me, but if they start to organize and demand special rights and privileges because of it, including having a say in the governance of a secular democracy, I have a problem.

[Leopolds Ghost]

132. All religions MUST "get a pass" when it comes to "anti-progressive"

attitudes and behaviors. That is how America works.

I know for a fact there are "progressives" who would prosecute people for all sorts of thought crimes. Graffiti for instance. That is why I refuse to call myself a "progressive". "Populist" has a much more honorable history.

[Codeine]

160. Preach it!

Just because some people choose to be idiots and slam all Muslims as being "terrists" doesn't mean that progressives and liberals need to react by whole-heartedly embracing the backward, medieval, sexist customs that Islam aims at it's women.

The enemy of your enemy doesn't have to be your friend. Sometimes he's your enemy too.

[NuttyFluffers]

217. we have Sharia law in America?

since when? hmm... ohh, you aren't actually addressing the *context* of the original post dealing with America, but injecting a side issue to justify your position. i see. ... and if the muslim american sub-culture/community tried to punish women under clandestine application of sharia law here in america i fully expect the weight of american legal system to come in to their community and bring the *lawbreakers* to justice. because the women are protected under the constitution first (or, well, we all used to be).

hey, hyper-conservative, oppressive, mysogynistic societies all deserve a swift kick in the ass. but saying that the solution is for america to demand its americans and legal residents to toss aside exercising of their freedoms is utter poo-poo. try again.

[Bridget Burke]

95. Yet another male DU'er telling these women what to do.

Some of my best friends are male, but....

[mondo joe]

97. If someonwe is telling you what to do, I don't think it really

matters what their gender is.

Some of the most outspoken posters who want to prohibit veils are women. I don't think that makes it any better. Do you?

[maxsolomon]

103. see post 99

here's your logic: germans don't get to offer opinions on genocide because their parents committed it.

if it were possible, i'd have you go ask my female co-workers, friends, or my daughter or wife if i am part of the caucasian patriarchy. i'm not.

i didn't TELL anyone what to DO. i said i think veiling is insulting to me as a non-rapist man (we are the majority of men, you know). i find it to be a cultural relic of a backwards, misogynistic religion little different than judaism or christianity. all i have to do is tolerate it, not like it.

if i say female circumcision or clitoral excision (don't know how to spell that one) is bad, will you say i'm telling liberated sudanese women what to do?

[smirkymonkey]

193. Uh... isn't following the dictates of a patriarchal religion the same

thing? So, Muslim men can tell Muslim women what to do, but it suddenly becomes "sexist" when a man from another culture does it? I'm not sure I get your reasoning.

[Leopolds Ghost]

127. you find the veil "an insult to your sexuality"? hmmm...

By the way, you may like it or not we DO respect women's decision not to participate in legal action against their abusive husbands. What that means is that the husband must commit a crime against the public for which he can be charged by the public, without requiring the woman to press charges. That is how Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence works.

Perhaps you would prefer the French system, where ANYTHING can be made legal or illegal by the whim of Parliament. There are no inalienable rights of the individual under Continental law.

[maxsolomon]

154. yes, i prefer the french system

ours anglo-saxon jurisprudence works so flawlessly... :eyes: just ask jose padilla.

and yes, i take it as an insult: the implication of the veil and its variations is that straight men cannot control their impulse to rape.

[Hatalles]

42. The Muslim Women's League

Here's an interesting site... I'd post it as an OP but I'm not sure whether it would garner the amount of responses some of the other threads have received.

http://www.mwlusa.org/about.html

The Muslim Women's League is a non-profit Muslim American organization working to implement the values of Islam and thereby reclaim the status of women as free, equal and vital contributors to society. The Muslim Women's League accomplishes its mission through:

* Cultivating and asserting the relationship of Muslim women with their Creator through spiritual retreats, study groups and dialogue;
* Supporting and promoting the efforts of individuals and organizations working towards similar goals through conferences, symposia and other educational forums;
* Informing the American public, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, of the perspectives of Muslim women and articulating our concerns to the media and relevant decision-making authorities;
* Publishing articles, position papers, and other texts which express our understanding of Islam, with careful attention to alternative perspectives on issues of concern to Muslim women.
* Networking with grass roots, civic, religious and other organizations;
* Participating in global efforts to improve the lives of women.

We invite you to find out more about our organization and the important issues that impact Muslim women and their families. Our main goal is to strengthen the role of Muslim women through increased awareness of their rights guaranteed by Islam. Sadly, many obstacles exist that not only impede efforts to improve women's lives, but also turn women as well as men away from Islam because of the misinterpretation and misapplication of religious texts.

In addition, Muslim women experience discrimination at school or in the workplace, particularly in countries where Muslims are in the minority and elsewhere where religious Muslims are treated with disdain. Dispelling stereotypes that contribute to discrimination and intolerance is also a major focus of our efforts.

The Muslim Women's League believes that in order for change to occur, Islam must be the driving force from which all of our ideals of freedom, justice, respect and honor are derived. In response to the call from God in the Qur'an, it is incumbent upon us to speak out against and challenge injustice on behalf of those who are oppressed:

And why should you not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are oppressed?...(4: 75)

Muslim women today experience high rates of illiteracy, poverty, violence, exclusion and other problems that are sometimes perpetuated in the name of religion. To all those who are committed to the Islamic principles of justice and truth, we call upon you to join us in our efforts by organizing similar groups in your community, participating in Muslim as well as non-Muslim organizations that are part of this struggle, educating yourselves and others about Islam, and by working together without divisiveness and ill-will. We all need to renew our dedication as we struggle to carry out the task enjoined on us by our Creator:

And strive in the cause of Allah with the striving due to Him; He has chosen you and has imposed no difficulties on you in religion; it is the religion of your father Abraham. It is He Who has named you Muslims both before and in this (revelation) that the Messenger may be a witness for you and you may be witnesses for mankind. So establish regular prayer, give regular charity and hold fast to Allah. He is your Protector-the Best to protect and the Best to help. (22: 78)

...In this way Allah makes clear His messages unto you, so that you might find guidance, and that there might grow out of you a community (of people) who invite unto all that is good, and enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid the doing of what is wrong: and it is they, they who shall attain to a happy state! (3:103-104)

[seabeyond]

43. If you're here, be American..... which allows sharia law and veils

jewdism, paganism, atheism...... whatever

what a total friggin moron

[JCMach1]

62. Amen....

:)

[Swede]

93. Do you know what Sharia laws are?

Stoning of adulterers,cutting off hands of thieves,etc?

[lastliberalintexas]

125. The hell we do

Do you know what Shari'a laws entail? Obviously not if you think that such hideous actions are permissible under current American law.

The veils are another issue, and one that I won't get into as the voluntary nature of the dress is in dispute. But the day we formally allow Shari'a laws to exist in this country is the day I head south of the border for good.

[smirkymonkey]

192. ?????

:shrug:

[Cleita]

50. Well, that's gonna piss off a lot of American nuns.

When I was in high school, one of my teachers was a Mexican American nun with family in Mexico. She had to take a leave to take care of family matters for a couple of months. When she returned she told the class what she had encountered, a rigid atheistic government that forced her to wear lay clothes instead of her habit. (This was back in the fifties.)

My point is that like it or not when this woman took the veil back then it was a sacred rite she did willingly and it was a privilege to her. You have to go through a lot of preparation to do this. For the government of her ancestors to force her to wear clothes that she had renounced with her vows made her very said.

Even atheists can violate the principle of separation of church and state.

[LostinVA]

84. Sisters' veil didn't/don't cover their faces

And, women today take their Orders willingly... they are not born into a strict convent.

[Cleita]

98. It's still a veil that covers their hair. But that isn't the point

Also, Muslim women who wear the veil in secretarian countries also do so willingly just like the nuns. The government doesn't make them do it. In many countries that rule by Sharia, even western women must wear veils. I have seen correspondents like Christiane Amanpour and others wearing veils when reporting from the ME. I saw Diane Sawyer once interview the Ayatollah Khoumeni in a hajib and no make up because the Iranian government and the Ayatollah demanded it.

You see voluntarily wearing a veil for whatever religious reasons or not wearing a veil should not be dictated by any government. I hope that everytime a Muslim woman is singled out for criticism because of what she wears that every woman she is acquainted with, in this case fellow teachers, will put on the veil in solidarity until this form of discrimination is stopped.

[KitSileya]

113. Those of us against 'the veil' on this thread, aren't talking about hijab

Hijab is the veil that covers the hair. We are talking about the niqab and the burka, which covers the face of the woman. Many religions have rules concerning the covering of hair, both male and female (Orthodox Jews,) the covering of the hair of women (Islam, Orthodox Christianity in Church) but what we're talking about is the covering of the face. Your face is you - it identifies you, it expresses your emotions, it is vital in connecting with people and communicating with them. When a culture mandates the covering of the face of women, it essentially wipes them out of society.

[Cleita]

181. Of course. It's a way of making a women insignificant and

unnoticed. However, why are you blaming the women? Blame the culture and the men who enforce this. For a lot of Muslim women it isn't just a matter of taking the veil off. She has a family and community she depends on to survive and to do this act could make her situation very unpleasant if not downright dangerous.

If those people really want to see these women remove the face veil, then the men of the school or whoever is objecting needs to have meetings with the men of her family and her imam to negotiate an acceptable end to this. But putting a woman who probably has very little say in her life in this position is just another example of blaming the victim.

[riderinthestorm]

116. Veil = face covering mask. Hijab = headscarf, face uncovered.

As many educators have already pointed out, teaching with a face mask/veil would not be good teaching.

The UK teacher's aide who wants to wear the face veil is an ESL teacher whose students needed to see her shape words with her mouth and face. The students complained about her performance and after investigating it, she was suspended by the school: an action supported by her imam, her Muslim MP, and the UK Islamic orgs.

Her own Muslim community doesn't support her desire to wear a face veil and teach.

Also, this is a teacher's AIDE in ESL. She says she would take the face veil off and teach children while assisting women teachers but she won't take the face veil off when she is assisting a male teacher which basically means she can't effectively do her job, and she's asking the school to discrminate against male teachers.

This woman's fellow UK teachers would be fools to put on a veil in solidarity because they would then also justifiably lose their jobs.

In the UK teacher case it's about job performance, not religious discrimination or bigotry although a lot of progressive DUers somehow want to make it that.

edited to add that she just lost her case. As I said before, this was never about religious discrimination.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1237944,00.html

[Cleita]

182. On a personal note I disagree. I would have loved it if

some of my nun teachers wore a mask over their faces. It would have hidden, the warts, facial hair and permanently etched cross looks on their faces, not to mention the red color their faces turned when they were really mad and heading for the class clown with a ruler in their hands ready to smack him down.

[LostinVA]

124. Your idea of willingly is different from mine

Being made to wear a veil because your religion/tradition/husband tells you to is a rights issue. NO DIFFERENT THAN FGM, etc. No different than FLDS stuff. Zero. Very strange disconnect on DU about this. It is a women's right issue, as much as abortion, voting rights, employment rights, etc. This is the United States, and the face veil IS subjugating women. I'll say it again: freedom of religion is not absolute, and never has been. Nor should it be.

And, when did I say anything a hajib??? I didn't it -- I said the opposite.

[riderinthestorm]

129. I wish the guy with the dog and leash analogy would re-post it here

It's an excellent one about how conditioning works. I can't even remember what thread it was on anymore....

And we don't allow unfettered freedom of religion in this country. I find it really bizarre how so many DUers keep bringing talking about how it would be infringing religious freedom to ban the veil when for example, we don't allow anyone to beat their wife (even if their religion allows it).

It is against the law in many places to wear a mask. The US has a lot of negative associations with masks and has rightly banned them. Why suddenly do we have to make an exception, particularly for a blatently sexist, misogynest symbol?

[LostinVA]

172. That was a terrific point -- I agree

And so was yours!

[mondo joe]

146. No. If you choose to do it because you're told to, it's your

choice - whether it's wearing a veil or high heels and a girdle.

I do agree, it's a women's rights issue just as much as abortin, about which I am also 100% pro choice.

[Cleita]

184. It is a women's issue. But you also have cultural issues here

that are well entrenched. A better way is to dangle a carrot not a stick to them. The women in question are victims here and yet they are getting blamed for something beyond their control. I have suggested that if they really want to make these women remove their veils, then they need to go negotiate with their male relatives and imam to come up with a solution. Sometimes cultural assimilation takes time and beating up on the person who has the least say in it is stupid.

If you read up on police blotters, often the male relatives will be honor bound to discipline a female relative who isn't behaving as they expect her to behave and for something as minor as removing their veil. Do you want this woman to be beaten, starved or even killed because you have been led to believe that children will be upset about this? Nonsense kids are quicker to catch on to a situation faster than their parents. All that is needed is for someone like maybe the principal to explain to the kids why their teacher is veiled. Believe it's no biggie.

[riderinthestorm]

186. The kids complained about the aide's job performance

Obviously it WAS a biggie for them. And the school agreed with them, as did the school board, and the court, and her imam, and her Muslim MP, and various UK Islamic orgs etc. etc.

Women are half of that culture, I agree with you that changing attitudes toward women will have to start from within.

[Cleita]

187. If it's her job performance, then I doubt if the veil is the real problem.

Maybe just a little bit of the problem. Do you know why nurses wear scrubs today? My mother used to work at UCLA Medical Center back when women wore white uniforms that were dresses. She announced one day that they would be required to wear pants, a new rule. She wasn't happy about it because she thought her ass was too big for pants.

It appears that more than one nurse had displayed her charms inadvertently, while they were trying to save a patient's life with CPR and had no choice to bend over the patient in an awkward position to do it that hitched up the skirt in the back. The hospital board, whichever one it is that makes rules, finally decided that nurse's pants uniforms were more appropriate for the job. Eventually, scrubs won out, which is what most medical personnel wear today.

I agree that you should wear clothes appropriate to doing a good job, however, culture is hard to change. So I still see office workers in tight skirs, pantyhose and high heels, not very efficient clothes for doing a great job.

[riderinthestorm]

188. I can't believe I'm repeating this again but here goes

the teacher's aide was an ESL helper, for second graders. They couldn't see her mouth shaping words with the veil over her face.

She said she would remove the veil if she were helping in a class taught by women but would not remove the veil when helping out in a class taught by men.

So not only could she not do her job appropriately with a veil over her face, she also wanted the school to discriminate against her male co-workers.

[Cleita]

198. I can't believe you are repeating that either when it doesn't

make sense. Why was she given that job if she couldn't perform it? If she's not a native English speaker, she shouldn't be doing it anyway even without a veil. This whole affair just stinks of hidden agendas to me.

As a victim of employment practices where I was thrown into a job I wasn't hired for and couldn't do because I had no training for it, so that it would give a middle manager an excuse to fire me for poor job performance, this whole thing strikes me as a witch hunt.

Oh, I kept my job because a fellow worker with a lot more seniority than me saw what was going on and complained to the CEO in charge of the department about it. It's nice to know that people with principles still exist in the work place. I found out later that said manager was trying to move a relative into my job.

Why is this such a big deal? Why don't they just tell her that her job performance isn't satisfactory and sack her. Why do they have to bring up the "if you take that veil off, then your job performance is good" meme? It just smacks of too many hidden agendas here and prejudice probably against Muslims.

[riderinthestorm]

201. She interviewed for the job without the veil, with a man

Then put it on after she was hired for the job.

I'm not sure you can point to the school as the one who came into this thing with a hidden agenda though....

[Cleita]

203. Again, isn't it a matter of telling her she's not working out

because her performance is poor? Why even bring the veil into it? I mean there is so much that is suspect in this story because of the inconsistencies. But I gotta say I have to bail out on this discussion. There aren't enough facts here.

[marmar]

58. Is he not the dumbest man on the planet?

At least the dumbest man not occupying the oval office? :dunce: :dunce: :dunce:

[Sabriel]

59. Can we also make Shriners stop wearing fezzes?

I mean, come on. No veil, no fez.

And no wimples for nuns, either.

(edited because I'm excited about the fact that I used "fez" and "wimple" in the same post....)

[spoony]

63. Hell I'm excited FOR you, lol

I'd have settled just for wimple :)
I think shriners just dig the fez because it has a tassel that blows in the wind when they ride their little motorcycles

[Bucky]

64. What an oddly French attitude from Mr Gibson.

Is the Fox Network going French on us? What a l'jackass.

[Swamp Rat]

65. SIEG HEIL Herrn Johannes Gibson!

[6000eliot]

66. "You're in America, now. Act like a Christian, goddammit!"

[Grebrook]

68. Veils yes, Sharia law ABSOLUTELY NOT, Gibson is right on that one

Look we all know Gibson is a raving nut, but when it comes to SHARIA LAW, hell no. Muslim-Americans are citizens of the United States and are bound to obey the legal codes of the United States. They cannot simply set up shop in their own little corner of the country and govern themselves with Sharia Law. Do you want Irish-Catholics and Italian-Catholics in New Jersey and New York to impose Catholic laws on themselves? Outlaw abortion, homosexuality, etc... in their own little slice of the country?

Fuck no. Christ know what the dominionists in the Deep South would write into law if they were allowed to govern themselves with religious laws.

[BootinUp]

69. What about the Amish?

:hide:

[Grebrook]

70. I'm against any laws the Amish has set into place that violate

American laws or meet out punishment that is cruel or unusual, such as Sharia law does.

[Grebrook]

71. How the hell can anyone here complain about right-wing fundamentalists

trying to write Biblical law into the Constitution if you're ok with Muslims attempting to write Sharia law into the Constitutions of their own communities? How is one ok and the other not?

[BootinUp]

73. I mean take it easy

I was just being a smart ass devils advocate. I would never support religious laws over the laws set by the whole society. I think there are issues in the Amish case that need to be addressed.

sorry, didn't mean to confuse.

[LostinVA]

86. No argument from me -- you're 100% right

I don't understand many of the posts on these "veil threads" either.

I loathe Gibson, but I agree with him... even if I don't see it as an "American" issue, as much as a civil rights/freedom issue.

[Tom Joad]

90. Please explain how forbidding women to wear an article of

clothing is protecting freedom?

[LostinVA]

92. Oh boy -- you totally don't get it

[smirkymonkey]

194. Ding, ding, ding!

It's amazing how that simple comparison fails to compute for so many people here.

[mondo joe]

205. Let's see if you can understand this: my criticism of fundamentalists

is that they aren't content to live their own religion - they want to force other people to live their beliefs.

If a woman chooses to adhere to a misogynistic religion and wear a veil it's her right to do so, and she's not forcing anyone else to do it.

The only people acting like fundamentalists here are the people who think they can decide FOR Muslim women.

[smirkymonkey]

224. Let's see if YOU can understand this:

First of all, I suggest you read the details of this particular case before commenting that this is simply a case of someone not being allowed to practice their religion.

Secondly, she is teaching ENGLISH as a second language to non-English speaking children in an Anglican School. They will allow her to wear her veil in the corridors or outside of the classroom, but NOT while she is teaching. Some relevant details of the situation are as follows:

"The school, which has 529 pupils aged seven to 11, takes many children from different ethnic backgrounds where English is not the first language.

An Ofsted report carried out in February said: "The first languages spoken by most children are Panjabi, Gujarati and Urdu, and many children are still learning to speak English.

"Significant improvement is required in relation to the inadequate standards of achievement reached by children and their slow progress over time.

"Children's speaking skills are poor and this holds them back in most aspects of their work."

This case is about politics, not religion.

[Tom Joad]

101. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Why this anti-Muslim diatribes?

[Grebrook]

130. What the hell are you talking about? Sharia Law should not be legal

Do you even know what Sharia Law is? Stone women who cheat on their husbands? Stone homosexuals? Everything is illegal? Porn, gambling, etc...? This isn't about veils, it's about law. Muslims do not have the right to institute religious fundamentalist laws inside of the United States for their own communities. That's ridiculous. The Amish don't really have any laws that violate the U.S. Constitution. The Amish don't fucking stone people.

[Tom Joad]

89. Muslim women can't decide for themselves? You must help them?

Sorry, i kinda doubt they are looking for your help. The simple act of wearing a veil is not imposing "sharia law". You are jumping to false conclusions. It certainly should be illegal to force women/men to wear extra clothing (hey, i am for *complete* freedom there), it should also be illegal for raving nuts to impose a "Reverse Sharia law", and say it is forbidden to wear a veil.

[mondo joe]

91. After all the pro-choice arguments about abortion it's very weird

to see anti-choice arguments about a veil.

Personally, I'm pro-choice all the way when it regards your own body.

[Grebrook]

131. You obviously did NOT read my post, I said "YES VEILS, NO SHARIA"

Which means I don't care if women want to wear veils as long as its their choice. But imposing Sharia law on Muslim-American communities, which has been attempted in the past, should not be legal.

[CJCRANE]

72. He's just jumping on a bandwagon.

Blairites have made this a big issue in the UK. It's an interesting issue but I don't think it's that common that it's worth worrying about.

Just like attacking muslim countries has created more fundamentalists, I'm equally sure that attacking the veil will just make more muslim women want to wear it.

[LostinVA]

76. I agree with him, gods help me

I don't consider this a Freedom of Religion issue, I consider this a civil rights issue for women.

A headscarf is one thing, but not the veil.

[mondo joe]

82. Isn't freedom of religion a civil right?

Who gets to decide for women which religion they'll adhere to (if any) or how they'll express it?

[Ravy]

105. Telling women they cannot wear a veil is definitely a civil rights issue.

And I think he is on the wrong side of it.

[LostinVA]

171. I think he's on the right side of it, even though he doesn't know it

[Ravy]

174. I would be interested in knowing how you came to that conclusion.

This is not an issue of forcing someone to wear a veil, it is an issue of forcing them not to-- in essence, striping the women of their rights.

How can you see a civil rights issue when his position is that women don't have a civil right to wear a veil (for religious reasons or otherwise)?

[smirkymonkey]

196. These women have already been stripped of their rights by

thier religion!! Why does nobody here get that? :argh:

[Ravy]

199. Voluntarily choosing not to exercise a right is not being stripped of it.

If someone is forcing them to wear (or not wear) the veil, that is wrong.

If they choose to wear a veil it because they believe it will please Allah then you have no right to arrest them for it.



:argh: back at ya!

[smirkymonkey]

202. Who said anything about arresting anybody? Not to exercise

a right? You mean like some black people choose not to "exercise" the right of slavery? Or like some poor people choose not to "exercise" their right to be rich?

Never mind.

[Ravy]

207. Blacks were forced into slavery.

The issue is about forcing someone to bend to your view of "correctness".

I think women in America should have a right not to wear a veil. I also think they have a right to wear a veil. Their choice... not John Gibson's or yours. What is so hard about that?

[smirkymonkey]

218. And most Muslim women are forced by their culture to dress as they

do. They can choose not to, but the consequences would be so dire or even deadly, that it's not really a choice to WEAR the clothing after all. Therefore, they are "choosing" to wear the veil or whatever religious garb they have to wear under DURESS. It is ultimately not a free choice.

The same holds true for ANY religiously or culturally mandated dress and/or behaviour codes. Even in this culture we think we have a lot more choices than we actually do, not realizing how we are coerced and manipulated by our culture to behave and dress in certain ways, all the while maintaining that we "choose."

Slavery apologists say that once slavery was abolished, many former slaves "chose" to stay with their "masters", making the assumption that given a "choice" most slaves preferred servitude to freedom. The truth was, many freed slaves had no place to go and no way to make a living once they were "freed" from the Plantations. Therfore they "chose" to stay. Do you see the point I am trying to make about "choice?"

[Ravy]

219. Yes, I see that.

What I don't see is how forcing them to unmask themselves could be considered upholding their civil rights.

You can only do what you can do. Forcing Muslims and Jews to eat pork is wrong, even though eating pork may be natural to you and I-- and we may consider their religion overly restricted in that area.

The flip side of "their culture forces them to wear a veil" is *not* "our culture forbids them from wearing a veil". Those are the same side in a choice argument. The true flip side is "our government doesn't have the right to make that choice for them."

To reply to your slavery analogy-- I view Gibson's remarks the equivalent of saying that freed slaves are forbidden from remaining on the plantation-- even though they have no place to go and no other way of making a living. They look like separate and opposite arguments, but they really aren't.

To add another analogy to the mix concerning choice (one that is not brought up nearly enough) is that if a government has the power to forbid a woman from having an abortion, they also have the power to force a woman to have an abortion. I find China's policy on forced abortion equally as bad as what some Conservatives would do here in banning abortion. They look like opposite arguments if you concentrate on the abortion detail only, but they are really the same position (China and the Conservative one) if you look at the governmental power side. Precisely why I would vehemently oppose being called "pro-abortion", but wear the "pro-choice" label proudly.

[mondo joe]

204. But it's THEIR religion. They're entitled to adhere to it.

How would you feel about someone telling you what religion you could follow and ow you could express it, because you don't know any better?

[smirkymonkey]

223. Forget it. You just don't want to get it so I am not going to

argue with you. Islam, the religion, does not require the veil. It is a cultural practice forced upon women in certain extremist sectors of Muslim society. It has nothing to do with following or practicing their religion. Nobody is saying she can't practice her religion.

She is teaching in an Anglican School. If it was really about religion, she wouldn't be there. I have read a bit more about this case in the foreign press and this woman seems more like an agitator than a pious woman who simply wants to practice her religion in peace.

[Coventina]

111. I can't believe what I am seeing here. Can't believe it's an issue.

You know what?

Here's what I say. If an Islamic woman wants to wear the veil (the face covering kind) then her husband has to as well. Equal "rights" and all that.

Nothing in the Koran requires it, and I don't believe anything in the Koran forbids it.

This is a bullshit issue. Banks don't even allow you to wear hats and sunglasses inside, how the fuck do these Islamic fundies think that they are going to be able to wear the veil?

Oh yeah, the women probably aren't allowed to do the banking.

:puke:

It's the fucking 21st century, people.

[mondo joe]

115. If an Islamic woman wants to wear the veil then her husband

HAS TO as well?

How about letting people decide for themselves what they want to do. Or wear.

I'm pro-choice.

[Coventina]

128. My point is that I have grave reservations about this so-called "choice"

There are people who will tell you that women "choose" to mutilate their genitals, or wear chastity belts, or be killed for the sake of family "honor".

Fuck that. It's all patriarchal bullshit.

And when it comes to obscuring someone's face, yeah, I have a problem with that. There is a reason why your driver's license has a picture of your face on it. It's because it is how we identify and communicate with each other as human beings.

Cutting off that communication is a REFUSAL to be part of the human community. Anyone who wants to live like that can stay out of an open, democratic society, thank you very much.

[Katzenjammer]

144. "It's all patriarchal bullshit"

Right on.

[mondo joe]

145. There's plenty of patriarchal bullshit to go around.

But I don't think it's less patriarchal to tell women what they CAN'T wear either.

I'm pro choice - about abortion, about drugs, about clothing.

[Arazi]

147. Pro-choice is a good way to put it

but that doesn't necessarily mean unlimited choices.

[mondo joe]

148. No, it doesn't mean that.

But it means a lot.

[riderinthestorm]

149. Did you see that UK teacher's aide lost her case today?

[mondo joe]

151. I did.

Interesting test case in the event of a similar scenario in the US. That said, I don't know that the UK has such strong protections for religious expression, and so I think it's both erlevant and irrelevant.

That said, the veil at school is just one narrow wedge of a much bigger issue in this thread, which is the wearing of the veil AT ALL.

IMO, not counting the cases in which a reasonable accomodation cannot be identified (and certainly there would be many), it's up to the woman in question to wear or not wear a veil, just as I think it's her right to choose to abort or not.

[riderinthestorm]

157. I'm not sure it's a narrow wedge even

You are right that this scenario is coming to the US.

Regardless of what you perceive of as "strong protections" in the US for religious expression, I will again say that she would lose here in the US as well since this was about job performance, not religious discrimination.

Beyond that, the US has laws in place about masks in some public places which veiled Muslim women are going to run smack into, as well as US antipathy for masked people. I know, I know, the KKK masks are fraught with peril as an analogy but they are a symbol of oppression that provokes a strong reaction, which means they work well as an analogy of the visceral reaction a veiled woman provokes for those who believe the veil is sexist and oppressive.

My prediction: the veil's hateful symbolism will be compared to the hateful symbolism of KKK masks when the battle comes to the US.

[LostinVA]

169. No, I didn't -- thanks for the info

And -- I'm glad she did. Bad precedent.

[riderinthestorm]

173. I posted a thread in GD. nt

[Bill McBlueState]

78. people, of course, should have the right to wear whatever they want

People, of course, should have the right to wear whatever they want. But someone whose face can't be seen should not expect to interact with the rest of the world without difficulty.

Gibson's rant on Sharia law is kind of stupid; nobody's going to enact Sharia.

[spoony]

167. Oh, I guess I'll sell my telephone then.

I had no idea that if my face isn't seen I can't communicate with anyone effectively. Shit, and I just found a good long distance plan.

[Bill McBlueState]

189. That would be pretty drastic.

But it's true, communication over the telephone presents certain difficulties compared to speaking face to face. You can't read facial expressions, and it's also easier to conceal one's identity over the phone.

[spoony]

215. I don't think the latter is an issue

and for the former, I agree that communication is easier face to face. But it isn't a deal-breaker, to me, to not be able to see a face. All I mean is that I think she can communicate through a thin veil as well as anyone can over the telephone, which is sufficiently well.

[Tom Joad]

81. Ohhh, that Gibson. I thought it was one of Mel's drunken rants.

[Xenotime]

83. "be American" that's what President Martin Van Buren...

said to the Cherokee people.

[Swede]

96. He's right.

Sharia law includes stoning of adulterers,cutting the hands off theives and female mutilation.

[Tom Joad]

104. so, in order to protect freedom, all woman wearing veils will be jailed

Bushlogic.

[Swede]

117. We tried Sharia in Canada.

It was not well received.

"If the Sharia is used in Canada, I also feel threatened here," said protester Nasrin Ramzanali, who said there should be a clear separation of church and state.

http://islamic-world.net/wmprint.php?ArtID=2486
http://www.nosharia.com/elka04.htm

[Tom Joad]

136. What has this got to do with forbidding women to wear

religious clothing?

[Swede]

176. You didn't read the links,did you.

Oh,well.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

183. I did, and it's STILL a non-sequitur.

How in the world ALLOWING someone to wear some piece of clothing equates to "implementing Sharia"?

You don't have an argument, only bullshit.

By the way, the original argument was whether to allow a woman to TEACH KINDERGARTEN in a burqa. Something completely different.

[Swede]

208. You've won me over with your brilliant retort.

Next time be careful,you might pull a muscle.

[smirkymonkey]

197. Here is my favorite quote from the first article...

"Religion is a sickness, and you don't open the door to invite sickness in," organiser Ebrahimi Poer said.

[Ravy]

107. While we are at it, nothing more American than a ham sandwich.

People should eat and wear what they feel is apppropriate for themselves.

[Leopolds Ghost]

138. Forcing Muslim children to go without ham in schools is wrong...right?

Oy gevalt, Every American should enjoy a ham sandwich! We can't let their parents tell them what to eat and not eat when it goes against basic nutritional science. Ham-deniers! :evilgrin:

[Ravy]

166. Yes, let's keep science in the lunchroom where it belongs...

... wait, am I confusing arguments again? *grin*

[spoony]

216. Lots of science can be done in the lunchroom

To finally answer the anguished cries of "what the hell is this" from children poking gelatinous blobs of leftovers on their Styrofoam trays. :D

[BootinUp]

134. Uhh, the veil "might" be a sign of wanting Sharia law.

1. No Sharia Law recognized by the government, that would be establishment of religion.

2. No laws prohibiting veils.

3. Organizations such as places of employment and schools may have dress codes that require no veils. Even Government jobs may require dress codes. Should not be seen as having anything to do with religion.

[RB TexLa]

135. From the man who thinks a Mass in English is invalid???

of all groups who should never forget what people who preached "assimilation" printed and thought of us.

[hedgehog]

143. I never noticed tha background in this print before.

What's going on with the woman being led away to the gallows?

[Homer Wells]

140. Whats next???

No yarmulkes for Jews. No rosaries for Catholics?

Our country is a haven for a multitude of different religions, and to attempt to require one particular religion to forgo their expression of their beliefs in their own way, when that expression causes no harm to others, is the height of intolerance and bigotry.

:grr:

[Temporary1]

152. Well I think that there Irony just killed someone

.....

[blitzen]

153. Gibson doesn't know Sharia from Shinola...

another talking head who learns one word and thinks he's an expert

[Skidmore]

156. So what exactly does an "American" look like?

And how does an "American" dress? Like the Amish? How about the Mennonites? The Navajo? Texans? Iowans? Naturalized Hindus? Naturalized Sikhs? Who are we to tell anyone how to dress? Did your choice of clothes go the way of habeus corpus?

Good grief. What is wrong with the nation?

[pschoeb]

161. He speaks like a Know Nothing, but yet is a Papist, ironic

nt

[michaelpush]

165. Define "American",,,NOT...

Not really, too many interpretations on what "American" is....I think :

1. This is a free country, anyone can wear what they wish as long as it conforms to current law.
2. If we ban certain head gear, it would be a hell of a bad deal.
3. Our laws protect people from abuse.
4. People have the right to conform to rules if they wish.
5. We cant protect everyone from everything we deem they need protection from.
6. Anyone who resides in our country should be educated about our laws, if they wish it.
7. Bottom line, the fewer laws the better!

[lumberjack_jeff]

175. I really Fox News. "We distort, you deride"

The issue in england was a recent decision to not allow a teacher to wear a full-face veil while teaching. This is a move I find eminently sensible. As an officer of the government, there are limits to an individuals religious expression while doing their civic duties.

Forbidding a woman from wearing a veil, period, was not the topic - except in the mind of John Gibson.

We each have a right to express our religion, unless it interferes with everyone else's right of religious freedom. I find the repression of women inherent in the full-face veil to be objectionable, but so long as they're not promoting their religion on me (or my kids), live and let live.

[Tom Joad]

180. Bush and his minions force millions of women into mourning veils.

From Iraq, to Lebanon, to Palestine.
Perhaps we should be talking about this.

[Uzybone]

195. Of course no Sharia law

Sharia law is an aberration to human rights. That should go without saying.

But no veils? thats just plain stupid. Let them wear whatever they want.

[pinto]

210. Eh. They report and we decide. Not worth the time or the energy.

Gibson's looking for an issue, no more - no less, imo. It's their MO.

[Warren DeMontague]

211. Fine. And no fucking Christian Theocratic law, either.

No laws against abortion, birth control, or gay marriage. Get your fucking religion out of my goverment.

Shithead.

[AnnieBW]

212. The Headscarf Is One Thing

But the letterbox is quite another. I don't mind the headscarf. It makes a statement. But, to this feminist, wearing the full veil is like advertising that you want to have less value than a camel, which is how traditional Islamic societies view women.

[bicentennial_baby]

213. In my opinion, hijab, chador, etc...

If a woman tells me that she chooses to wear them, and practice her religion in this way, and that she does not feel oppressed or diminished, then I support her 100%.

If a woman is being forced or coerced, or if her gov't is telling her she must wear it, then I am 100% against it.

It's about free will for me, and choice. If she has them, and she goes that route, fine by me. If not, then, no.

[treestar]

214. Right out of the 19th Century, I guess he'd object to Irish-American

songs, Italians neighborhoods, and Polish parishes.

Let's close all the pizza joints, all the Chinese-American joints (chinese food here is really just Chinese-American food) let's get rid of St. Patrick's Day and St. Anthony's Day.

The concept is too stupid for words. This assimilation does not happen immediately and that fact is wonderful - it makes our country so interesting. This is why we have Cinco de Mayo in LA and St. Anthony's Day carnivals and Native American dances and Italian restaurants and Irish jigs - we assimilate mentally right away, culturally, we just add our culture to the mix. This is the open, free area, where everyone contributes to the culture, and where the culture soaks up everything.

[Marie26]

220. Shut up, Mel Gibson

Is he considering a run for political office or something?

[MUSTANG_2004]

225. Shut up "JOHN" Gibson. nt

[joeygirl]

221. Freedom of religion is one thing, but freedom from religion is

another. I'm a Christian and I married an atheist. I choose my faith and he chooses not to believe.

We, as a society, have decided that it is okay for women to participate as equals, and we should be suspect of anything that would easily throw away the rights that our mothers and grandmothers fought for.

If you believe that women should be barefoot, uneducated, pregnant, and never leave the house or get a profession, and should be beaten, stabbed, and even, killed by their male relatives for perceived slights or sins, then Sharia law could in fact be for you. Don't expect your female relatives to agree with you though.

I do not want to see it become any part of our law. It's one thing for there to be religious law, but it's another for it to be a code of law that trumps civil law-which we all are expected to live by. You are setting the stage for a lot of legal and societal chaos.

[Coexist]

222. the only problem I have with the letterbox veil -

they could hide a lot of stuff - I could see high-security buildings having a problem with them, but they would have to enact their own rules for them.

[StellaBlue]

226. American = respect for the Constitution

That's it. Period.

Why do the majority of Americans not get this? It's so simple. It's what makes us American. It's why our country is trult revolutionary. The Constitution, stupid.

It's not apple pie, baseball, Protestant Christianity, white skin, Thanksgiving, any of that shit. Just the Constition. And within it, you have the right to be WHOMEVER YOU WANT TO BE. That's the American Dream. Not a 3/2 ranch house in the suburbs and a yearly camping vacation. No - self-creation.