craigm1841

YAGSAMASH

porsche911targa

I vote for the Monoburquini.

craigm1841

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.

KCHNG

reminds me of a guy(tourist from s.arabia i think) in turkey , its was freaking hot there , the man had shorts and a shirt ! while his 2 wife(s?) were baking in the sun , only thing exposed were their eyes too lol

sdg1871

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 Burquini would not be constitutionally permitted here. Which is as it should be. Someone wear a burqua has absolutely no impact on my life.

craigm1841

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.

sdg1871

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.

theXman

The one on the other left is too. Actually, they all are, except the hairy dude

sdg1871

+100000

craigm1841

I am by no means attempting to justify the outlawing of tradtional muslim garb. I do believe the protection of freedom of religion is important. I dont believe the government should interfere with ones practice of such. I was merely stating that I feel that these womens human rights are possibly being violated, but they dont know any better, and they wont. Many some of them are not allowed to socialize, watch telivsion, read.

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