French approve ban on burqas...

Slartibartfast wrote: thellama73 wrote: ^we don't really hate Brewer so much as find her amusing I watch MSNBC for Keith and Rachel.  I really don't know who Brewer is.

You should check her out. She's a hoot. She once introduced Jesse Jackson as Al Sharpton.

BaldJean wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: BaldJean wrote: that really is an astonishing conclusion: people who are pro-burka can not be artistic? go wash your head, Mike; rarely have I heard a worse prejudice. what wonders me most is that no-one so far has named the real reason for the burka ban. it is not about the liberation of Islamic women at all; Sarkozy doesn't give  a rat's ass about that. no, what Sarkozy really is doing is playing on islamophobia. all people of the Islamic faith are being put under general suspicion of being terrorists, then here comes Superman Sarkozy saying: "look here; I do something against that: I ban the burka. if they no longer can hide they no longer can throw bombs".  this is of course highly absurd, but it is exactly these sentiments Sarkozy is playing with, and that's the real reason for the burka ban I'm not one to automatically associate terrorism with Islam, that would be stupid.  But you must admit that it does hide your identity and things of danger can be concealed underneath.  On the other hand, things can be concealed underneath jackets and coats in winter.  On the other hand (wait I have three??) wouldn't surprise me at all is the S man is doing this solely for political reasons.  I think our politicians here in the US have made that more of an art form though. you can conceal weapons and explosives beneath a lot of things. take a nun's habit, for example. but are people afraid of nuns? no, of course not, it is only them Islamic buggers who are the terrorists. you just have to watch how the media handle a bombing. first thing they ask:when there was a bombing: does it have an Islamic background. if it does, the bombing gets extra media coverage. if not, it is quickly played down, and you will soon forget all about it. just go and watch the pattern next time there is some kind of bombing

True we haven't seen many manic nuns blowing up innocent people in the name of the Anglican/Catholic/Methodist/Whatever Church

Forgot to say something important: another important thing from Muslim or African families that the French state should ban is sex between close relatives. Unfortunately it appears to be a well spread habit. My girlfriend is pediatrician and she tells me that the chances for a baby born from parents who are brother and sister to have severe heart malformations are huge, around five times higher than normally. This kind of cases are very current in Muslim and African families (especially African Muslims), and it's very sad to see how they have condemned their babies to an awful life because of social prejudices.  She sees this every day at the hospital.

@Ivan: Saint Sophia is Christian architecture  (byzantine, more precisely). But that doesn't mean that Islamic art and architecture isn't wonderful. Unfortunately most of it comes from many centuries ago, when the Arabs had the most advanced civilization and society in the Western World, in aspects such as maths, astronomy, medicine, philosophy, literature, architecture, navigation, etc. Unfortunately they are going backwords ever since.


Edited by harmonium.ro - July 17 2010 at 12:01

^ As I said, my girlfriend is pediatrician, she saw this herself too many times. She's specialized in pediatric cardiology and has worked at the cardiology section of the Necker hospital (enfants malades). I guess that if nothing out of the normal occurs, it is hard to notice that a couple is such a case.

BaldFriede wrote: Sean Trane wrote: BaldJean wrote: harmonium.ro wrote:    Good thing you quoted the Constitution Ivan, because it shows exactly the reasons. Freedoms are guaranteed not in absolute, but with the condition  they don't harm anyone else. And as full veil is a tool of women's oppression (expressing the interdiction for women to fully and freely interact with other people, and especially other men, alongside with the interdiction for women to have full legal rights, to have any decision power in the family, to have decision power for her own, and alongside horrific punishments going up to stoning and decapitation in some places, if she disobeys), it comes in strong disagreement with the constitution. The fact that many women got used to it doesn't change its nature. you overlook something though. ff the person concerned wants it you have no right to deny it to her   Even if she's been brainwashed through numbskulling religious (actually the Coran does not impose the veil of any kind, old traditions do, just like excision in Africa) almost right from birth???   I didn't read the whole thread, but to me, there are three reasons   1- if you allow it, anyone criminal (potential, terrorists or escaped convicts) can hide under it, not just muslim women!! Ossama surely wore it a few times to escape controls, since you need a female cop to look under the burqa.   2- ever since religion became monotheistic, women have been stripped from power (they were divinities, goddesses,  priestesses, etc..... in anaimistic or multi-divinities superstitions) Men have been accaparating the religious power and setting their moral autorities on women without much physical violence   3- If Islam wants women to remain modest, it is only because it doesn't want to impose on men self-restraint. Therefore when rapes occur, they can blame and punish the women, because she was the temptress and he couldn't help himself Excuse me, Sean, but what kind of argument is that? It HAD been allowed so far, and how many terrorists disguising in a burka have there been? As to male self-restraint: Indeed, and how often do you hear "she had it coming to her" when a rape occurs to a woman who was rather scantily clad? That argument is even often used by the defendant's attorney!

thellama73 wrote: Sean Trane wrote: Even if she's been brainwashed through numbskulling religious (actually the Coran does not impose the veil of any kind, old traditions do, just like excision in Africa) almost right from birth???   I didn't read the whole thread, but to me, there are three reasons   1- if you allow it, anyone criminal (potential, terrorists or escaped convicts) can hide under it, not just muslim women!! Ossama surely wore it a few times to escape controls, since you need a female cop to look under the burqa.   2- ever since religion became monotheistic, women have been stripped from power (they were divinities, goddesses,  priestesses, etc..... in anaimistic or multi-divinities superstitions) Men have been accaparating the religious power and setting their moral autorities on women without much physical violence   3- If Islam wants women to remain modest, it is only because it doesn't want to impose on men self-restraint. Therefore when rapes occur, they can blame and punish the women, because she was the temptress and he couldn't help himself I think calling religious traditions and customs "brainwashing" is utter nonsense. If you believe that, then you must also think that it's the government's job to liberate Christians and Jews from their "brainwashing." >>> hey that would be nice, you know. This planet would be such a nicer place without religions. I don't see many differences in between the religions >>> generally they are set up to control women first, because they are primordial to future recruits' supply. This is why baptism was so crucial in previous ceturies.... to claim the newborn soul.     1. There are a wide variety of clothing options that can be used for a disguise other than the burqa. Do you really think a six and a half foot tall Osama wouldn't attract attention in a burqa? He would do much better with a hat and sunglasses and a shave. >>> Not just talking of Ossama here (I suspect you know that) and Bin Laden is not 6.5 feet tall.... But nobody male is allowed to look under that burqa clothing, unlike a male disguised 2. Irrelevant. It's astounding to me how some of you are saying that denying a woman the right to wear what she wants is actually a feminist cause. >>> it is the female submission inculqued  right from birth that we must fight. The burqa is the first step (or most visible) to that goal, which is why it is important to forbid it. 3. Also irrelevant. In France, the country in question, the laws on spousal abuse are quite western in that they punish the aggressor. Yes, but only whenever he's been proven guilty in the 5% of rape case reported and reaching the courts    I don't see what any of this has to do with banning an article of clothing. >> it is NOT an article of clothing.... it's a symbol of ancient barbary and will to submit the women.... Stop fooling yourself, in Muslim countries, women are forced these clothes, beit burqas or tchador.

Chris S wrote: ^ Well well, I never knew you were a woman after all these years, not that it makes a difference either, just surprised Sean

Edited by Sean Trane - July 16 2010 at 19:48

Sean Trane wrote: Chris S wrote: ^ Well well, I never knew you were a woman after all these years, not that it makes a difference either, just surprised Sean     a male lesbian.... I only sleep with women...   thellama73 wrote: Did you miss the whole "the world would be a better place without religion" discussion? Give it a rest.   I do give it a rest... you didn't see me participate into that debate.   It's unfortunately no use to insist: you guys are brainwashed beyond belief

No one has answered the question I posted this morning.  All you fellas want to yak about the oppression of women, so here the question is again:

Epignosis wrote: By the way, what's wrong with a wife submitting to her husband?  My wife submits to me.  She believes in that.  Is she oppressed?

I would question how far she's submitting and whether she thinks of it as "submission."

I may not call her oppressed, but I might question her values.