The Dutch government has banned the wearing of Hijab(Burkha or Veil) in their country.
Do you feel they are justified with the ban?
My personal opinion is, in Islamic countries, they have their own dress code according to their religion. Like in Saudi Arabia, If you wear a short skirt, you are in the danger of losing your life or atleast, being thrashed, even if you are a non-muslim.
The argument that you are NOT a muslim and your religion does not want you wear a hijab does not hold good there. It is their country, follow their rules...
So I feel the dutch are completely justified in imposing this rule. It is their country and live according to their rules...If you still want to wear a hijab, go to Saudi.
i only agree if the ban includes all forms of covering your head, and i only agree for the same reasons most places make you take off your helmet/hat/hood. and that is so criminals can be identified. i think dutch people shouldn't be offended by a headscarf though, i figured they'd be more open to other people.
as a personal note i don't like hijabs because they portray to me a closed-offness and i like the idea of people being open with who they are, and feeling confident in expressing themselfes.
i'd be interested to hear the views of someone affected by this, their initial reaction, and also a while (couple months) afer it has been in effect. if it had any effect on their confidence/how they felt about themselves or anything else.
I would only agree with their decision if they also banned the wearing of obvious religious medals and other obvious religious items. It's not fair to single out any one religion about their dress code.
Although I'm slightly certain that the ban on veils are targeted at Muslim women (of course, it's rather iffy; the Dutch aren't really known for supporting the war on Iraq, or any other kind of hostilities in the Middle East, as it does remain quite neutral in most affairs), I would like to point out, like someone else had earlier, so that people can be identified. It's kind of like the same reason why a lot of schools don't let their students wear hats; it's really easy to mask their identity that way, and there wouldn't be enough witnesses for a real confirmation as to who the troublemaker really was. Let's put it this way; would you be comfortable if a man was walking around the streets with a bandana around his face like he was a train robber?
Still, I'm not very supportive of this new law, anyways.
And soon the threads will be "Religion Banned From ..."
| Soulfire wrote: |
| And soon the threads will be "Religion Banned From ..." |
is that such a bad thing?
If we look at current conflicts and/or previous conflicts one will notice that the majority have been centred around religious difference. Why is it that people will be willing to go against their religious profession of kindness, compassion and love to kill, mame and hurt others in the name of their religion.
Does Christianity not teach to "love your neighbour as yourself", does Islam not teach followers to be tolerant? Yet Christians were killing each other in Northern Ireland. Muslims in Iraq are killing their country men who are fellow Muslims. there are plenty other religions one could choose from.
Maybe religion should be banned from the public place and be reserved only for inside a church, mosque or wherever or simply in the privacy of one own home.It's still being discussed and would only be for the Burkha, if I'm not mistaken, and the law wouldn't have anything to do with religious symbols - only covering your complete body in public places.
The above picture is of "Burkha", the severe form of dress code in Muslim women where even their eyes are not allowed to be shown.
I feel that Burkha is one weapon that has kept the muslim women totally under control of their men for centuries! These women don't exist for the outside world except their immediate family! I laugh at muslim women who say that Burkha empowers them and gives them an identity! What hypocrites! Or maybe a scared lot.
For centuries, the men in the Islamic world tried to enslave their women by various methods. On the surface they keep harping that their religion gives equal rights for women.
1. In Saudi Arabia, Women cannot drive a car.
2. If they are seen outside on the road without a male relative, they are flogged and jailed!
3. If they show even their ankles, they are beaten up to pulp. There are cases of women's hands being chopped off as they were visible in the public.
The men know that the day their women taste freedom, their tyranny will end, so they keep trying various methods to crush them under their ruthlessness.
Their argument is, a woman's face, if exposed in public, creates lust and lawlessness in people. This clearly shows what kind of men Islam has. They know that their fellow brothers are the worst scum and won't leave their wives and hence, everyone tries to keep away their women from other men of their religion.
If their religion was so great, it would have made the men better people. it would have made the men control such factors like lust and lawlessness. So there would be no need for half their population to become faceless. They know it is not possible, they know that the men in Islam are animals. So the women have to suffer...for how many centuries more..no one knows..meanwhile, the women continue getting brain washed that they are being empowered by wearing a Burkha. Such a sad situation...
their country their rules
| Quote: |
| is that such a bad thing? |
That's a terrible thing - one of our basic principles is freedom of religion, and if that right is taken away, where would we stop? After religion comes speech, then assembly, and slowly we become a "democratic" dictatorship.
| Quote: |
| If we look at current conflicts and/or previous conflicts one will notice that the majority have been centred around religious difference. Why is it that people will be willing to go against their religious profession of kindness, compassion and love to kill, mame and hurt others in the name of their religion. |
While it appears to be religion on the surface, religion is not the only cause of the conflicts. Most conflicts are much more complex - including conquest, power, wealth, land, influence, etc. Religion actually played a minor part in wars for awhile, that is, until a jihad was declared against everyone who does not worship Allah, now it is provocation centered on religion.
Agreed that people stray from the foundings on their religion.
| Quote: |
| Does Christianity not teach to "love your neighbour as yourself", does Islam not teach followers to be tolerant? Yet Christians were killing each other in Northern Ireland. Muslims in Iraq are killing their country men who are fellow Muslims. there are plenty other religions one could choose from. |
It does - but you'll see that in those days, most people missed out on the "forgive" part of the New Testament, all the way through Puritanism. Were, used to be, but now we aren't killing each other.
| Quote: |
| Maybe religion should be banned from the public place and be reserved only for inside a church, mosque or wherever or simply in the privacy of one own home. |
I think this will just provoke people more than anything.
I think it's safe to stray away from "religion is the cause of conflict" to "Radical Islam is the cause of conflict" - because in reality, it's the only religion that is (today) grinding gears and causing problems.
Although it pains me to say so - around 90% of the world's problems are straight out of the Middle East, at the hands of said Radical Islam. | MadeinIndia wrote: |
The Dutch government has banned the wearing of Hijab(Burkha or Veil) in their country.
Do you feel they are justified with the ban?
My personal opinion is, in Islamic countries, they have their own dress code according to their religion. Like in Saudi Arabia, If you wear a short skirt, you are in the danger of losing your life or atleast, being thrashed, even if you are a non-muslim.
The argument that you are NOT a muslim and your religion does not want you wear a hijab does not hold good there. It is their country, follow their rules...
So I feel the dutch are completely justified in imposing this rule. It is their country and live according to their rules...If you still want to wear a hijab, go to Saudi. |
Sure they should ban it. It's a form of oppression. It's a way to sneak bombs into public places. No where in their 'code' is it required. I think small minded men just like slaves. Bleech!
In this time of global fear and anger about anything to do with Islam, thank you osama and george, is it any wonder that western culture is banning or talking about banning this silly style of clothing?...
I think men should have to wear them so they don't see the women if they're so sensitive to them...jeez...
religion, brain-washing for the masses...and around and around the world goes...hang on!
M | Soulfire wrote: |
| Quote: | | is that such a bad thing? |
That's a terrible thing - one of our basic principles is freedom of religion, and if that right is taken away, where would we stop? After religion comes speech, then assembly, and slowly we become a "democratic" dictatorship. |
Soulfire is absolutely correct. Any government that tries to dictate the way people live their lives (beyond the absolute minimum that is necessary to maintain a stable society) is repressive, and doomed to fail. Anyone who believes in freedom has a moral imperative to oppose such a government.
i think i've made it plainly obvious over my many posts that i am atheist, but i would fight to the death for anyone's right to believe whatever they want. i would also fight to the death for their right to live according to those beliefs - provided they don't infringe on anyone else's rights to live according to their beliefs. Why? Because that's the right thing to do.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| Quote: | | If we look at current conflicts and/or previous conflicts one will notice that the majority have been centred around religious difference. Why is it that people will be willing to go against their religious profession of kindness, compassion and love to kill, mame and hurt others in the name of their religion. |
While it appears to be religion on the surface, religion is not the only cause of the conflicts. Most conflicts are much more complex - including conquest, power, wealth, land, influence, etc. Religion actually played a minor part in wars for awhile, that is, until a jihad was declared against everyone who does not worship Allah, now it is provocation centered on religion.
Agreed that people stray from the foundings on their religion.
| Quote: | | Does Christianity not teach to "love your neighbour as yourself", does Islam not teach followers to be tolerant? Yet Christians were killing each other in Northern Ireland. Muslims in Iraq are killing their country men who are fellow Muslims. there are plenty other religions one could choose from. |
It does - but you'll see that in those days, most people missed out on the "forgive" part of the New Testament, all the way through Puritanism. Were, used to be, but now we aren't killing each other.
| Quote: | | Maybe religion should be banned from the public place and be reserved only for inside a church, mosque or wherever or simply in the privacy of one own home. |
I think this will just provoke people more than anything.
I think it's safe to stray away from "religion is the cause of conflict" to "Radical Islam is the cause of conflict" - because in reality, it's the only religion that is (today) grinding gears and causing problems.
Although it pains me to say so - around 90% of the world's problems are straight out of the Middle East, at the hands of said Radical Islam. |
Now that i don't agree with.
First of all, the fact that there is very little Christian violence at the moment could surely be called a "lull". Wait till Islam is no longer considered a threat, and it will be back to the status quo. As for Jewish violence, you're not absolving them of all the blame in the Palestinian conflict and saying that all of that is the Palestinian's fault, are you?
Very few wars have been started because of religious differences. Even in so called "religious" wars, more often than not, the war was provoked for other reasons - material and/or ideological. In the case of the current unrest that is normally attributed to radical Islam, it really doesn't have much to do with Islam, radical or otherwise. It has to do with a small group of people who control the Middle East under an absolute dictatorship fighting against the onslaught of western interests who want their stranglehold on the resources there broken.
What is happening in the Middle East, and what has happened often throughout history, is that once a conflict is desired, the leaders use religion to stir up armies and support. You're not going to get a lot of support for fighting America when you say "America is threatening to end the rule of the current administration, and install one more favourable to it". You are going to get a lot of support when you say "America is trying to destroy Islam".
Religion may not cause many wars. But it sure as hell does create a lot highly motivated soldiers willing to die for the cause. That is not just a characteristic of Islam either. Dubya's trying the same tactic in the west, for example. It's just that the mujahideen are doing it better than him.Religion, admittingly, has caused a lot more problems than it has solved in present times when communication has been on its highest ebb. From a certain perspective, yes, religion motivates a hell of a lot of soldiers. On the other hand, do you really think it's motivating the leaders who are making such war-prone decisions? I think not.
Haha...Totally waste of film..PoEverybody is saying that the burka represents a system of oppression, and that's why the Dutch government is justified in outlawing use of it. But in this case it is the Dutch government that is guilty of oppression. Banning the wearing of burkas is restricting the freedom of religious expression that anyone should be entitled to, and as a modern, healthy, and supposedly forward-thinking country, the Netherlands should recognize that right. Of course, they don't, because under the vineer of progressiveness lies a strong xenophobic streak. The Dutch believe so strongly that their way is the right way that they feel justified in oppressing the expression of those that disagree with their perspective. Immigrants already have to view ridiculous videos and sign statements that they may strongly disagree with in order to enter the country. The Dutch government is incapable of admitting the hypocrisy of its own attitude.
It frustrates me to hear Europeans criticize America for bigotry and racism, when European nations have demonstrated their own penchant for government-imposed racism and xenophobia for decades.
Regardless of who is oppressing who we now live in a dangerous world. We've already seen examples of Islamic terrorists attempting to flee dressed in the burkha.
IMHO it is no more appropriate for anyone to wear the burkha where they might represent a danger than it is for a motorcyclist to wear a crash helmet at a garage or in a bank.
What they wear in their own homes is up to them and their families but - in public - the burkha and anything else that hides the face should be banned unless it is needed for health and safety reasons.
