"Burquini" Banned in France
#12
Contributors
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 2,718
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
My Ride: 2006 525XI, Jet black on Dakota beige. Premium and winter packages. I consider myself a purist and intend to keep my car absolutely stock and shiny.
2008 328I Convertible, Sapphire black on beige interior. Premium package, NAV, iPod adapter.
Retired: 2002 325I, Titanium silver on black leather. Premium package. Absolutely stock and proud of it.
Originally Posted by CWS530' post='974076' date='Aug 12 2009, 03:46 PM
OK. I have succombed to the slow news day.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090812/ap_on_...burquini_banned
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090812/ap_on_...burquini_banned
#13
i saw someone wearing one of these in bestbuy yesterday. she was covered from head to toe, only thing exposed were her eyes. she was walking about 5 paces behind her husband at all times, woulndnt make any eye contact with anyone. this lifestyle is truly tragic. that woman will go through life without ever experiencing anything other then being a completely submissive obedient wife. this is no way for a human being to live.
#14
Senior Members
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Belgium
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by craigm1841' post='978209' date='Aug 16 2009, 05:26 PM
i saw someone wearing one of these in bestbuy yesterday. she was covered from head to toe, only thing exposed were her eyes. she was walking about 5 paces behind her husband at all times, woulndnt make any eye contact with anyone. this lifestyle is truly tragic. that woman will go through life without ever experiencing anything other then being a completely submissive obedient wife. this is no way for a human being to live.
#15
Contributors
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 10,301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: See my signature
Originally Posted by craigm1841' post='978209' date='Aug 16 2009, 11:26 AM
i saw someone wearing one of these in bestbuy yesterday. she was covered from head to toe, only thing exposed were her eyes. she was walking about 5 paces behind her husband at all times, woulndnt make any eye contact with anyone. this lifestyle is truly tragic. that woman will go through life without ever experiencing anything other then being a completely submissive obedient wife. this is no way for a human being to live.
Accordingly, I won't impose my own beliefs and standard on those who come from a totally different culture with totally different religious beliefs.
What France did by banning the Burquini would not be constitutionally permitted here. Which is as it should be. Someone wear a burqua has absolutely no impact on my life.
#16
Originally Posted by sdg1871' post='978235' date='Aug 16 2009, 11:57 AM
Yes from the perspective of a Judeo-Christian westerner, it does seem barbaric, oppressive, unfair and downright sad to me. But one of the fundamental tenants of our constitition here in the US is the Free Exercise of religion clause. That provision is one of the pillars of our liberty and is designed to protect unpopular religious beliefs held and practiced by a minority from being trampled and persecuted by the majority.
Accordingly, I won't impose my own beliefs and standard on those who come from a totally different culture with totally different religious beliefs.
What France did by banning the Burquatini would not be constitutionally permitted here. Which is as it should be. Someone wear a burqua has absolutely no impact on my life.
Accordingly, I won't impose my own beliefs and standard on those who come from a totally different culture with totally different religious beliefs.
What France did by banning the Burquatini would not be constitutionally permitted here. Which is as it should be. Someone wear a burqua has absolutely no impact on my life.
I do not feel the government should intervene on anyones behalf in almost every case involving religion, there are some cases where human rights are being violated based on religious beliefs. It is a case where the first amendment creates a conflict within itself based on the ideology of two rights it protects.
This is the first time i have ever thought about this, so my feelings on the matter havent fully developed, but this is something I will think more about. Besides, I fear getting into a debate about the constitution with a lawyer as i dont look forward to crushing public embarrassment, whether i think i am right or not
edit: i do know the 1st amendment doesent expressly protect the freedom of "expression". I presume that is implied, another topic for debate. we can say "speech" if it helps tie my argument in to factual information.
#17
Contributors
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 10,301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: See my signature
Originally Posted by craigm1841' post='978258' date='Aug 16 2009, 12:13 PM
but these women are oppressed, and I am not so sure that every single one of them wants to live like that. Although freedom of religion is protected by the first amendment, so is freedom of expression. Maybe these poor women dont know any better, they are just doing what they are told whether they like it or not. in a way, our constitution is hindering human rights in certain cases.
I do not feel the government should intervene on anyones behalf in almost every case involving religion, there are some cases where human rights are being violated based on religious beliefs. It is a case where the first amendment creates a conflict within itself based on the ideology of two rights it protects.
This is the first time i have ever thought about this, so my feelings on the matter havent fully developed, but this is something I will think more about. Besides, I fear getting into a debate about the constitution with a lawyer as i dont look forward to crushing public embarrassment, whether i think i am right or not
edit: i do know the 1st amendment doesent expressly protect the freedom of "expression". I presume that is implied, another topic for debate. we can say "speech" if it helps tie my argument in to factual information.
I do not feel the government should intervene on anyones behalf in almost every case involving religion, there are some cases where human rights are being violated based on religious beliefs. It is a case where the first amendment creates a conflict within itself based on the ideology of two rights it protects.
This is the first time i have ever thought about this, so my feelings on the matter havent fully developed, but this is something I will think more about. Besides, I fear getting into a debate about the constitution with a lawyer as i dont look forward to crushing public embarrassment, whether i think i am right or not
edit: i do know the 1st amendment doesent expressly protect the freedom of "expression". I presume that is implied, another topic for debate. we can say "speech" if it helps tie my argument in to factual information.
These protections have no relationship to whether a Muslim husband in the US can tell his wife to wear a burqua.
In our society, there are ways out for women oppressed in a marriage. There are shelters and there are organizations that assist opressed women.
And there is always divorce.
I do not believe it is in the US's interest to forcibly "Westernize" the non-Western world. George Bush tried and failed to do that. That just creates enemies and more terrorists.
What the US shoud be is a beacon of freedom for non-Western nations. Leading by example is better than dictating.
#18
Contributors
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Jersey
Posts: 7,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2004 530i
Model Year: 2004
Originally Posted by CWS530' post='975207' date='Aug 13 2009, 01:27 PM
That girl on the far left is amazing!
#19
Contributors
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 10,301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: See my signature
Originally Posted by theXman' post='978279' date='Aug 16 2009, 12:28 PM
The one on the other left is too. Actually, they all are, except the hairy dude
#20
Originally Posted by sdg1871' post='978275' date='Aug 16 2009, 12:26 PM
Freedom of expression stems from the freedoms of speech and association in the constitution. These protections bar the government -- not private citizens -- under certain (but not all) circumstances from supressing speech or free expression.
These protections have no relationship to whether a Muslim husband in the US can tell his wife to wear a burqua.
In our society, there are ways out for women oppressed in a marriage. There are shelters and there are organizations that assist opressed women.
And there is always divorce.
I do not believe it is in the US's interest to forcibly "Westernize" the non-Western world. George Bush tried and failed to do that. That just creates enemies and more terrorists.
What the US shoud be is a beacon of freedom for non-Western nations. Leading by example is better than dictating.
These protections have no relationship to whether a Muslim husband in the US can tell his wife to wear a burqua.
In our society, there are ways out for women oppressed in a marriage. There are shelters and there are organizations that assist opressed women.
And there is always divorce.
I do not believe it is in the US's interest to forcibly "Westernize" the non-Western world. George Bush tried and failed to do that. That just creates enemies and more terrorists.
What the US shoud be is a beacon of freedom for non-Western nations. Leading by example is better than dictating.
This is an extreme example, but if some strange culture believes that eating newborn children is okay, and they move to the states and eat newborn children, their freedom of religion violates the basic human rights of that child, same way it does the oppressed servant wife, just on a much much much greater scale.
EDIT: In an attempt to tie the two examples closer together, if this culture perceives their newborn child as their property to do as they see fit with, to include consume it as a meal, you might say "that is a baby, not someones personal property", however, these women culturally and religiously are the "property" of the husband.
The problem is we think like westerners from all angles of this argument, saying "oh, she can leave if she doesnt like it, there are outlets" but that is not the case when you dont know any better. we dont know her thought process.
at least amish people have that 1 year opportunity to see life on the outside world giving them an option.
Again, I have never put thought into this, I think i may just be playing devils advocate here, maybe looking for an argument from a worthy advisory