Burka Babes

Remove all ads!

The ID card scheme isnt going to be happening, its too expensive, although they may be making it law to carry a copy of your passport with you though once again being heavily criticised and the government will probably lose again, that of course being brought in with the new £77 cost of a passport.

The police carry out operations all the time which involve identity checks and searches, random knife and drug searches are common, section 23 of the misuse of drugs act allows any officer to search a person who he believes may be carrying drugs, and a simple justification like "your eyes look a little glazed" will do. If you are out on a night out dont be surprised to have a dog sniffing at your heels or to be randomly searched as you enter a pub or club, you may also have hats and masks confiscated by police or security, if your wearing a hoody, you may as well go home. And I welcome it, more of this should be happening.

 

This was essentially my point, Tal. The use of the Hijab and/or burqa varies more by region than it does by sect. If you really think about it, the reason for it is obvious. When two nations who are overwhelmingly of the same sect of the same religion have widely disparate laws and prevailing views about Hijab, the religion itself quite obviously doesn't explain the difference. The difference is cultural.

 

Ah, but there it's absolutely needed. You can't effectively give someone a speeding ticket, or question them about their questionable acts, without speaking their language. With a Burka, it's not absolutely needed. It's a convenience.

Tal, I think the solution is to ban the Burka based not on itself, but on it's characteristics (covers the face, inhibits movement, etc.) where appropriate. There should be no problem with someone walking down the street in a Burka, not unless France has a problem with people walking down the street in ski-masks, or hoodies pulled closed, or any other way to conceal one's identity with clothing.

... ahem *stares at Florida, California, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Mississipi, etc.* No. No, we have no idea.

The US, though, has been flexible, sometimes too flexible, but the overall result hasn't been that bad. Would I like language requirements? Sure. Would I like incintives for immigrants that avoid the typical cultural centers (a Latino in North Dakota is good)? Of course. Overall, though, the bulk of the *legal* immigrants' problems are ones of their own making.

That's very much the point, Tal. Modesty and cultural norms are not rational at all (well, not these days). Should the immigrants have thought twice before moving to a country with nude beaches? Maybe, but that doesn't mean they should be punished for wearing clothing they're used to.

Be honest, any answer would beg that question. Even if they said it was a modesty issue, or that they felt impowered by it, or that they just liked the texture of it, you'd always have that question in the back of your mind.

 

Fear is a mindkiller...

 

Tal, our news covers those immigration issues each and every day, and you don't need to live in Texas or Arizona to be aware of the problem, either. I lived 2 years of my adult life in California and another year in Florida and my wife is a Californian, so I've seen the trouble at the horses mouth. What you might also be surprised to find out, though, is that we have a serious problem with illegals in Iowa, too*. Americans tend to move around a lot, so I wouldn't take someone's current location as any indicator of what he knows or where he's been.

You do realize that, in Arabic, Allah just means God, right? Arab Christians and Jews worship Allah, too.

That said, Tal, I've known many women who didn't exactly feel empowered by it, but instead preferred the hijab because they felt it protected them from prying eyes. My hijab-wearing Egyptian Christian instructor was under no compunction from her faith, her nation, or her husband (she married an American) to wear it, and protection from prying eyes was the reason she cited for wearing it in Egypt, and for continuing to wear it in the US. That said, I doubt it helped all that much. Even in hijab, she was gorgeous.

* There is a lot of farming, a lot of manufacturing, and a lot of slaughterhouses in Iowa and it is common practice even for Iowa farms to bring in illegals, a lot of the factories like to bring in Puerto Ricans who, while technically American, often don't speak a lick of English as non-union labor, and it is common industry practice for slaughterhouses everywhere to ship in illegals to do their work. The Postville raid that made national headlines happened in a small Iowa town, but it really could have happened anywhere that has slaughterhouses -- pretty much all of them do it to some degree.

 

Actually, we do worship the same God as the Jews. The Muslim description of Allah, though, isn't really compatable with Christianity.

 

I'm not as convinced. Why would it be that a woman who feels vulnerable without her hijab has a phobia, while a woman who feels vulnerable nude does not? The modesty standard in either case is equally arbitrary.

 

Let's tweak the question a little then. Why would it be that a woman who insists on wearing her hijab even though no one else is wearing one has a phobia, while a woman who refuses to strip at a nude beach does not?

How so, NOG? It is no less compatible than the Jewish God, since the Muslim idea of God is essentially the Jewish one. The major theological point of contention between Islam and Christianity is Christ, himself. Mohammad said that Christ was "just" one of the greatest prophets ever to live and that the Christians made a serious mistake in "deifying" him. Their concept of God is essentially identical to the Jewish one. This is hardly a surprise, of course, as the Quran draws on pretty much the same material as the Torah.

 

I think most Christians will refuse the fact that muslims worship the same deity. Or if they do worship the same deity, their faith has been corrupted by Mohammed, who to Christians would be a false prophet.

 

Well, for one thing, the Muslim god is capable of such things as lying, breaking his promises, and other sins. That's a huge difference between the two.

 

Err... what? Where did you get that one from?

 

Quoted for truth. NOG, if you think this, you probably haven't read the Quran.

Given what my point was supposed to be addressing, I don't think this is necessarily relevant. People go to clothing optional beaches and opt to keep on their clothing (at least in the US) and people go to nations that don't require hijab and opt to wear it anyway. It doesn't mean there's something psychologically wrong with them. It doesn't, in fact, mean anything is wrong with them at all. Many may not like it, but it's legal. Usually.

To put this more on topic, most of the people affected by France's laws immigrated to France and built their lives there on the understanding that they would still be allowed to adhere to their own standards of modesty since, at the time they immigrated, the law of the land did allow it. It isn't so easy for them to just pack up and leave just because the French government decided to change the rules, and not everyone affected is even an immigrant. At this point, many of them would be citizens who don't even have somewhere else to go.

If France wants their Islamic community to integrate, forcing them by legislative fiat isn't the way to do it. There aren't any easy answers to this problem, and France's answer is clearly "too easy". Forcing compliance in such a manner is going to disenfranchise France's Islamic community and galvanize even the moderates -- who were integrating just fine on their own -- against integrating at all. This is, I believe, exactly the opposite of what France is trying to achieve.

 

I have repeatedly heard Muslim friends (admittedly none were clergy, but several were quite faithful) saying that their god can (not necessarily has, but can) change his mind, break his promises, lie to his people, and other things. I don't know if this is an extension of the idea that God can do anything or not, but it's what I've heard.

Back on topic, though, Drew has a point. The French government is forcing this on their people. It's not like there are certain areas where this law applies, and others where it doesn't (though I think you'd need strong justification even for that). It's everywhere.

 

Actually, the God of the Old Testament broke a few promises himself.

The territory promised to the Jews in this verse would encompass not just the modern-day borders of Israel, but would contain most or all of the modern nations of Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq. Needless to say, this promise was not kept.

A double failure, here. Nebuchadnezzar did besiege Tyre, but he failed to conquer it; he did not break down its walls or enter into its gates. Alexander the Great did conquer it later, but he was not the object of the prophecy. And the city wasn't destroyed permanently, either. Tyre exists to this day, on the same spot as the ancient city, and tens of thousands of people still live there.

I think even the most biblicaly literal among us will agree that none of this ever happened. Egypt was never desolate, much less for forty years at a stretch, and its people were neither scattered nor later regathered. No archaeological evidence supports this conclusion and the bible does not record this ever occurring, either. This cannot be viewed as something that simply hasn't happened yet, since this verse specifically addresses the Pharaoh -- that system of government no longer exists.


Strictly speaking, your Muslim friends were right. The God of Abraham does occasionally break his promises. Perhaps even God can change his mind once in a while?