Forums - Politics Discussion - China has just banned the burqa in its biggest Muslim city

less spin... we dont talk about ali from the grill who drinks a beer when allah isnt watching, or aische who likes to wear a lot of makeup and skinny jeans to her Headscarf...
we are talking about hardcore islamistic women, who wear full boy pixellationbars.



Around the Network
Nem said:
I am not opposed to this.

I agree with some comments that say religion should be banned. Its true, it has served as an excuse for countless atrocities. Its hightime to see it come to a stop as we step into the future of civilization.

First of all, I'm oppossed to all religions as well, but banning them is not what a democratic sociaty does. That boarders to dictatorship, telling people what to believe. What we should do is to educate people (and perhaps most of all children) and just show them what kind of gods they worship.



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

Lafiel said:
DanneSandin said:

But this ban enables others to still wear a ski mask in a demonstration and behave like a dick and destroy public property. Thats even more negative than for a woman to wear a face mask. Thats why I said that NO ONE should be allowed to cover up their face. Not the muslim woman. Not the anarcist. Not anyone. Better to ban all masks rsther than just the religious ones, because thats a sure way to create an INtolarante multicultural situation

sounds like just banning masks in an official demonstration is a better solution there as masks itself aren't a big problem, as long as people don't wear them every day/most of the time

in china/asia it's also pretty normal to wear masks when you have a cold/fever/flu, to prevent it from spreading (or during times of heavy smog/sandstorms) - those alone still leave a person pretty identifiable though unlike a burqa or niqab

I'm sorry, but I do not understand where you are coming from. Shouldn't these "flu masks" also prevent people from interacting with each others, similar to how you argue that burqas should be banned because of this very same thing? Banning a specific religious garb is oppressing. I'm not surprised that China does it, but any democratic sociaty shouldn't. Better to ban ALL masks in that case.



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

DanneSandin said:

I'm sorry, but I do not understand where you are coming from. Shouldn't these "flu masks" also prevent people from interacting with each others, similar to how you argue that burqas should be banned because of this very same thing? Banning a specific religious garb is oppressing. I'm not surprised that China does it, but any democratic sociaty shouldn't. Better to ban ALL masks in that case.

typical flu mask:                                                           

I have nothing against the Hijab or the Chador other than that they make women look worse than non-veiled (sort of their purpose) and I don't agree with China banning those. But I don't consider the Niqab or Burqa "religious gear", as it's use is an enormously strict interpretation of some suras and hence it's only enforced in "fundamentalist" sects - it just takes the arabic tradition to seclude women from society to the extreme.

And as I said again, again, again and again, the problem I see is when people wear those every time they step outside of their houses, I can even accept niqab and burqa, if they were only used during the highest muslim holidays/ a few days a year, but they aren't.

Outside of muslim/arabic women wearing those special garbs (and maybe some small tribes I never heard of) hardly anyone/ only very few individuals mask their face in such an extreme way every day and towards pretty much everybody they encounter - an overwhelming part of the population realizes instinctively that showing your face is the minimum requirement to take part in society, so a ban to everything that masks the face (with probably exceptions based on special circumstances) is superfluous legislation.



Lafiel said:
DanneSandin said:

I'm sorry, but I do not understand where you are coming from. Shouldn't these "flu masks" also prevent people from interacting with each others, similar to how you argue that burqas should be banned because of this very same thing? Banning a specific religious garb is oppressing. I'm not surprised that China does it, but any democratic sociaty shouldn't. Better to ban ALL masks in that case.

typical flu mask:                                                           

I have nothing against the Hijab or the Chador other than that they make women look worse than non-veiled (sort of their purpose) and I don't agree with China banning those. But I don't consider the Niqab or Burqa "religious gear", as it's use is an enormously strict interpretation of some suras and hence it's only enforced in "fundamentalist" sects - it just takes the arabic tradition to seclude women from society to the extreme.

And as I said again, again, again and again, the problem I see is when people wear those every time they step outside of their houses.

Outside of muslim/arabic women wearing those special garbs (and maybe some small tribes I never heard of) hardly anyone/ only very few individuals mask their face in such an extreme way every day and towards pretty much everybody they encounter - an overwhelming part of the population realizes instinctively that showing your face is the minimum requirement to take part in society, so a ban to everything that masks the face (with probably exceptions based on special circumstances) is superfluous legislation.

But shouldnt it be up to them if they wanna partake in the sociaty? If they choose to exclude themselves, shouldnt they be allowed to? Choosing not to vote in an election is in a small way to exclude oneself from sociaty. Shouldnt ppl have that right?



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

Around the Network
padib said:
Samus Aran said:

Islam is not one religion, there are different movements, hence muslims killing muslims. It's religious intolerance against religious people.

IS are also killing Christians in the Middle-East and other religions. 

There has been much more conflict in this world between different movements of religion than religion vs. atheists. Suggesting otherwise is ridiculous. I don't see atheists blowing up mosques, churches or synagogues... 

They (non-religious) may not express their intolerance with violence, but they express it with repression, fear and paranoia. With suppression and segregation.

ISIS are killing christians, but my point is that they are killing Shia. These are muslims. The issue is not one of religion. It's an issue of politics. The shia and sunni in the area ISIS is controlling have been tribes at odds, one repressing the other for political reasons.

This needs to be fully understood before putting the blame on religion.

I mostly agree with your point and in basics the religions are not the reasons for wars/fights/killing/slaugtherings, but you can see them as tools!
It sounds negative, but human beings always have used tools to rule other human beings and in the past religions have been setup to rule over 'their' people!



padib said:
Nem said:

They are not ideas, they are irrational beliefs. I dont see a problem in freedom of thought and speech at all, but these religions atempt to impose themselves over everyone else, often spreading irrational commandments to prevent its extinction aswell as to enforce its views.

Having ideas is all nice and dandy, but keep them to yourself, basically. 

Religion was something used to bring order to a chaotic world where a means of enforcement was necessary. Nowadays information flows easily, police forces can cope with the reduced criminality and courts bring justice and garantee punishment to infractors. There is no more need for religion. Its nefarious self-preservation and spread policies bring more harm than they bring good. They also can't continue to exist as peaceful doctrines while that aspect isnt taken care of, and quite honestly, we know it never will. Maybe its time to create a new religion that keeps up with the times and isnt an excuse for extreme behaviour amd get rid of the old ones.

What is the difference between an idea and a belief? The spreading of ideas applies to religious and non-religious ideas equally.

People share ideas all the time, I'm not sure where you came to the conclusion that people should keep ideas to themselves. You are sharing an idea on a forum right now which displeases me, yet I don't ask you to keep it to yourself. People share ideas all the time, it's part of being human.

You are kind of contradicting yourself though, since at first you asked for banning religions as a whole but now you're proposing a new religion. Also, religion is a type of idea that tries to answer questions about the metaphysical world. Improved police force will never satisfy the existential questions humankind will have for most likely the entirety of its existence.


Religious ideas! Cmon, do i have to spell it out? I dont mean you cant think and speak what you will, i'm saying you cant force it into others.

You are interpreting me personally when i'm talking about this in light of the incident that is the threads theme.



Thanks Kappie1977, and history seems to agree with us.

Nem said:

Religious ideas! Cmon, do i have to spell it out? I dont mean you cant think and speak what you will, i'm saying you cant force it into others.

You are interpreting me personally when i'm talking about this in light of the incident that is the threads theme.

I agree with you. The problem is that asking a ban on religion forces an idea (non-religion) onto others.

The only way to fight ideas you think are wrong, even evil, is with ideas. To censor ideas never really resolves them.

As for sharing ideas, people do it all the time. The key is not forcing ideas on anyone, and being tolerant to ideas that we don't agree with.



padib said:

Thanks Kappie1977, and history seems to agree with us.

Nem said:

Religious ideas! Cmon, do i have to spell it out? I dont mean you cant think and speak what you will, i'm saying you cant force it into others.

You are interpreting me personally when i'm talking about this in light of the incident that is the threads theme.

I agree with you. The problem is that asking a ban on religion forces an idea (non-religion) onto others.

The only way to fight ideas you think are wrong, even evil, is with ideas. To censor ideas never really resolves them.


It is societies job to filter out the ideas that may disrupt civil order though. Its actually what i sugested. To defend an idea of a new peaceful religion that cuts all ties with the past idea of religion as a holy crusade is necessary to evolve religion into something that can exist in a peaceful intellectual society.

If that doesnt happen, the society does have to defend itself against it. I believe its what is happening with China in this case.

DanneSandin said:
 

First of all, I'm oppossed to all religions as well, but banning them is not what a democratic sociaty does. That boarders to dictatorship, telling people what to believe. What we should do is to educate people (and perhaps most of all children) and just show them what kind of gods they worship.

I recommend you read my conversation with padib to clear some things up. You are having religion play the role of the victim when they are the agressor. I do believe they need to be eradicated by evolution into a better doctrine than by beeing forced to do it. But, if this does not happen societies will be forced to have to defend themselves from it. This is very different from banning them cause they disagree with it or dictatorship. Its self defense over something that promotes irrational and distabilizing behaviour to others inside the society.

I am sure you wouldnt be so understanding if one of your family worked on the offices in france and got killed. This kind of behaviour in modern society is intolerable. Non violent muslims will tell you the problem is a minority and not all, but that is not true. The problem is the religion. It has not evolved, it didnt move into modern times and its open interpretation and past history promotes this kind of behaviour. It needs changing. A new Islam is necessary because the west will eventually lose patience and raise bans or the conditions to another Hitler rising to power will return. Of course, this isnt isolated to Islam, i just used it as an example. China is now on the first stage of that.



Ka-pi96 said:
HigHurtenflurst said:
Ka-pi96 said:
padib said:

"and authorities in the Xinjiang city of Karamy barred anyone wearing burqas, niqabs, hijabs or simply “large beards” from taking public buses."

That's sad. Fundamental Islam can lead to violent fanaticism, but not all fundamentalists are fanatics.

It's another sign of increased religious intolerance around the world, and as a Christian I am against it, even if it doesn't affect my personal religion. Freedom is a value of many progressive countries. But none will stand against this.

It is pretty harsh (especially the large beards part), but it makes sense. If you think of it as separate from the religion then people covering their faces when they are in the streets isn't a good thing. They could very well be robbers or something, so from a security standpoint it does make sense.

I'm gonna have to stop going out in winter then.

That's.... a very good point.

I guess the main thing I was thinking about is sometimes women refuse to remove them when it is needed to see their faces. I did say it was kinda harsh, it probably could do with some altering, but in some cases it is understandable.

Yes I agree there are some times when proof of identity is needed, and being unable to show your face to an official can complicate things (needing female staff permanently on hand and a special room just to check passports for example). There is no security issue in wearing them in the street though.

The no beards rule is particularly odd, makes it seem like a joke or something from N.Korea... ZZ Top are going to have to cancel their tour.