# France outlaws burkas



## Ravi

I can understand why they did it...but are they not condemning some women to choosing between their religious beliefs and their ability to leave the house?


----------



## AllieBaba

No. It's the choice of those people to stay in the house rather than leave based upon their insane religious beliefs. Nobody is forcing them to do anything.

France obviously regrets embracing Islam. What a shame it's too late for them to undo it.


----------



## syrenn

Ravi said:


> I can understand why they did it...but are they not condemning some women to choosing between their religious beliefs and their ability to leave the house?




Good for france! 

You leave out one option,  the freedom of leaving france and moving to a muslim country.


----------



## Ravi

What if they are French citizens?


----------



## manifold

But can you still burn a book?


----------



## AllieBaba

What if they are? It's a security issue, and an oppression issue.


----------



## Ringel05

Ravi said:


> I can understand why they did it...but are they not condemning some women to choosing between their religious beliefs and their ability to leave the house?



Life is a series of choices, some optional, some required.  Choose which option best suits you out of the choices available.  It's not always fair nor is it alway palatable but it's really that simple.


----------



## Kalam

No problem. A Muslim is under no obligation to follow laws that restrict her freedom of religious expression.


----------



## syrenn

Ravi said:


> What if they are French citizens?




They still have the freedom to move. Though i would prefer the men wearing the burkas  and staying home.


----------



## Si modo

France's Senate bans women from wearing the burka in public | Mail Online

Good grief.    Don't make me look for a link to read the details.


----------



## syrenn

Kalam said:


> No problem. A Muslim is under no obligation to follow laws that restrict her freedom of religious expression.




It is interesting how you word that Kalam.


----------



## Ravi

syrenn said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if they are French citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They still have the freedom to move. Though i would prefer the men wearing the burkas  and staying home.
Click to expand...



Now you're talking!

Seriously, though, I think this is wrong and would hate to see it happen in our country unless it was for a matter of imminent threat to keep men from pretending to be women and blowing things up...no matter what the religion.


----------



## Si modo

I disagree with this law.


----------



## AllieBaba

Kalam said:


> No problem. A Muslim is under no obligation to follow laws that restrict her freedom of religious expression.



Yet another excuse for muslims to attack and kill westerners!

Hurrah!

Alternately, another reason for Muslim men to keep their women under lock and key, and beat them for disobedience...

Double hurrah!


----------



## Kalam

syrenn said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> No problem. A Muslim is under no obligation to follow laws that restrict her freedom of religious expression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting how you word that Kalam.
Click to expand...


How so?


----------



## Granny

Ravi said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if they are French citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They still have the freedom to move. Though i would prefer the men wearing the burkas  and staying home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're talking!
> 
> Seriously, though, I think this is wrong and would hate to see it happen in our country unless it was for a matter of imminent threat to keep men from pretending to be women and blowing things up...no matter what the religion.
Click to expand...


That thought alone would be enough to ban burkas.


----------



## Sheldon

And to think this is the same country that gave us the Statue of Liberty.


----------



## AllieBaba

Because you're saying Muslims don't have to obey the law.


----------



## Kalam

AllieBaba said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> No problem. A Muslim is under no obligation to follow laws that restrict her freedom of religious expression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another excuse for muslims to attack and kill westerners!
> 
> Hurrah!
> 
> Alternately, another reason for Muslim men to keep their women under lock and key, and beat them for disobedience...
> 
> Double hurrah!
Click to expand...


I could post random, meaningless strings of text and you'd interpret it as "supporting terrorism." Stay crazy.


----------



## Si modo

Kalam said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> No problem. A Muslim is under no obligation to follow laws that restrict her freedom of religious expression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting how you word that Kalam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
Click to expand...

Easy.  In your mind, Muslims are fully justified in doing criminal acts simply because of their religion.

Don't get me wrong, this law is unjust...very.  I am stunned that is was even proposed, let alone passed.  However, it is the law.

Folks can protest it with civil disobedience if they view it unjust, but they better be prepared for the consequences.


----------



## WillowTree

Ravi said:


> What if they are French citizens?



They can un French themselves.


----------



## Sheldon

So I guess there won't be many French kids dressing up as ghosts on Halloween.


----------



## syrenn

Si modo said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting how you word that Kalam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy.  In your mind, Muslims are fully justified in doing criminal acts simply because of their religion.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, this law is unjust...very.  I am stunned that is was even proposed, let alone passed.  However, it is the law.
> 
> Folks can protest it with civil disobedience if they view it unjust, but they better be prepared for the consequences.
Click to expand...



The moment the ban was announced a bomb threat was called in on the Eiffel Tower.



> This was just after Islamic face coverings, including burkas and niqabs, were outlawed by the country&#8217;s Parliament.
> 
> The scare in tourist Paris followed warnings from Al Qaeda that they would strike if the ban went ahead.
> 
> A spokesman for the Eiffel Tower&#8217;s management said: &#8216;We received an anonymous call at 8.20pm saying a bomb was set to go off in the vicinity of the tower.



France's Senate bans women from wearing the burka in public | Mail Online


----------



## Si modo

Si modo said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting how you word that Kalam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy.  In your mind, Muslims are fully justified in doing criminal acts simply because of their religion.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, this law is unjust...very.  I am stunned that is was even proposed, let alone passed.  However, it is the law.
> 
> Folks can protest it with civil disobedience if they view it unjust, but they better be prepared for the consequences.
Click to expand...

Or, they could bomb.

Eiffel Tower Evacuated Bomb Threat


----------



## Kalam

Si modo said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> 
> 
> Easy.  In your mind, Muslims are fully justified in doing criminal acts simply because of their religion.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, this law is unjust...very.  I am stunned that is was even proposed, let alone passed.  However, it is the law.
> 
> Folks can protest it with civil disobedience if they view it unjust, but they better be prepared for the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or, they could bomb.
> 
> Eiffel Tower Evacuated Bomb Threat
Click to expand...


Qa'idah bomb threats are news?


----------



## Bootneck

manifold said:


> But can you still burn a book?



Sure. If you're cooking the books, theres always a chance you'll burn them!


----------



## Si modo

Kalam said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy.  In your mind, Muslims are fully justified in doing criminal acts simply because of their religion.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, this law is unjust...very.  I am stunned that is was even proposed, let alone passed.  However, it is the law.
> 
> Folks can protest it with civil disobedience if they view it unjust, but they better be prepared for the consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> Or, they could bomb.
> 
> Eiffel Tower Evacuated Bomb Threat
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Qa'idah bomb threats are news?
Click to expand...

You really should be more careful calling Paris from your cell.


----------



## xotoxi

I think that the United States should ban denim on obese women.


----------



## Kalam

Si modo said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or, they could bomb.
> 
> Eiffel Tower Evacuated Bomb Threat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Qa'idah bomb threats are news?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really should be more careful calling Paris from your cell.
Click to expand...


Tut-tut. You're getting dangerously close to libel.


----------



## xotoxi

Bootneck said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> But can you still burn a book?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. If you're cooking the books, theres always a chance you'll burn them!
Click to expand...


I always thought "cookbooks" was a command.


----------



## Bootneck

syrenn said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> 
> 
> Easy.  In your mind, Muslims are fully justified in doing criminal acts simply because of their religion.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, this law is unjust...very.  I am stunned that is was even proposed, let alone passed.  However, it is the law.
> 
> Folks can protest it with civil disobedience if they view it unjust, but they better be prepared for the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The moment the ban was announced a bomb threat was called in on the *Elfie Tower*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was just after Islamic face coverings, including burkas and niqabs, were outlawed by the countrys Parliament.
> 
> The scare in tourist Paris followed warnings from Al Qaeda that they would strike if the ban went ahead.
> 
> A spokesman for the Eiffel Towers management said: We received an anonymous call at 8.20pm saying a bomb was set to go off in the vicinity of the tower.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> France's Senate bans women from wearing the burka in public | Mail Online
Click to expand...


Those little bastards! They get everywhere. I had some at the bottom of my garden last year!


----------



## xotoxi

Kalam said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Qa'idah bomb threats are news?
> 
> 
> 
> You really should be more careful calling Paris from your cell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tut-tut. You're getting dangerously close to libel.
Click to expand...


I think she was referring to Paris Hilton.


----------



## Ozmar

syrenn said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand why they did it...but are they not condemning some women to choosing between their religious beliefs and their ability to leave the house?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for france!
> 
> You leave out one option,  the freedom of leaving france and moving to a muslim country.
Click to expand...

That would defeat the purpose of moving to non-Muslim countries and demographically converting them to Islamic countries. Iran anyone? Byzantine Empire? The whole Middle East?


Ravi said:


> What if they are French citizens?


 Then they obviously have loyalty to the French state, and not to Mecca. As such I'm sure they value the supremacy of French rule of law over Sharia and Mecca...


----------



## WillowTree

Si modo said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting how you word that Kalam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy.  In your mind, Muslims are fully justified in doing criminal acts simply because of their religion.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, this law is unjust...very.  I am stunned that is was even proposed, let alone passed.  However, it is the law.
> 
> Folks can protest it with civil disobedience if they view it unjust, but they better be prepared for the consequences.
Click to expand...


I don't think it's an unjust law at all. I think France got a heavy dose of muslim violence a summer or so ago when the muslim populice tried to burn down Paris. I think they had a bellyfull. Ya reaps what ya sow.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You know......I'm gonna put it simple......

If your face is covered, there is no way to identify you.

If you can't be identified?  You're probably up to no good.


----------



## WillowTree

Sunni Man said:


> My wife wears the burqa which is usually in black.
> 
> Here face is always covered in public and she usually wears gloves.
> 
> I have never told her to put it on.
> 
> And she doesn't wear it for me.
> 
> She wears it for the sake of Allah (swt) and her religion.



Why? what benefit does God or religion derive from covering oneself from head to toe. And if the benefit is so great why don't the men do it?


----------



## Kalam

xotoxi said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really should be more careful calling Paris from your cell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tut-tut. You're getting dangerously close to libel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think she was referring to Paris Hilton.
Click to expand...


I know, I don't associate with hussies.


----------



## Ozmar

ABikerSailor said:


> You know......I'm gonna put it simple......
> 
> If your face is covered, there is no way to identify you.
> 
> If you can't be identified?  You're probably up to no good.



Damn those Klingons. Never did trust 'em.


----------



## Ravi

Ozmar said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand why they did it...but are they not condemning some women to choosing between their religious beliefs and their ability to leave the house?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for france!
> 
> You leave out one option,  the freedom of leaving france and moving to a muslim country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would defeat the purpose of moving to non-Muslim countries and demographically converting them to Islamic countries. Iran anyone? Byzantine Empire? The whole Middle East?
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if they are French citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then they obviously have loyalty to the French state, and not to Mecca. As such I'm sure they value the supremacy of French rule of law over Sharia and Mecca...
Click to expand...

So you'd also be okay if wearing crosses were outlawed?

IMO this ban is just as oppressive as the forcing of women in some Muslim countries to wear a burka in public.


----------



## Ringel05

silkyeggsalad said:


> So I guess there won't be many French kids dressing up as ghosts on Halloween.



Uuummm, I guess my terrorist bomb vest outfit is a no go this year.  The embassies always give out the best Halloween treats....... Especially the French embassy.


----------



## Sunni Man

ABikerSailor said:


> If you can't be identified?  You're probably up to no good.


The Lone Ranger covered his face with a mask and he was always doing good.


----------



## xotoxi

Ravi said:


> So you'd also be okay if wearing crosses were outlawed?
> 
> IMO this ban is just as oppressive as the forcing of women in some Muslim countries to wear a burka in public.



We've got to ban this guy's clothes!







There's no telling what kind of weaponry he has concealed!

Methinks nunchucks!


----------



## Ravi

So much for my halloween costume.


----------



## Sunni Man

AllieBaba said:


> What if they are? It's a security issue, and *an oppression issue*.


My wife wears the burqa which is usually in black.

Here face is always covered in public and she usually wears gloves.

I have never told her to put it on.

And she doesn't wear it for me.

She wears it for the sake of Allah (swt) and her religion.


So please tell me how she is being oppressed when it is 100% her choice to dress this way?


----------



## Ringel05

Sunni Man said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if they are? It's a security issue, and *an oppression issue*.
> 
> 
> 
> My wife wears the burqa which is usually in black.
> 
> Here face is always covered in public and she usually wears gloves.
> 
> I have never told her to put it on.
> 
> And she doesn't wear it for me.
> 
> She wears it for the sake of Allah (swt) and her religion.
> 
> 
> So please tell me how she is being oppressed when it is 100% her choice to dress this way?
Click to expand...


Let me guess, you don't live in France.......


----------



## ConHog

syrenn said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> No problem. A Muslim is under no obligation to follow laws that restrict her freedom of religious expression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting how you word that Kalam.
Click to expand...


I'm telling you, read Kalam's posts in their entirety. He is a radical.


----------



## ConHog

AllieBaba said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> No problem. A Muslim is under no obligation to follow laws that restrict her freedom of religious expression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another excuse for muslims to attack and kill westerners!
> 
> Hurrah!
> 
> Alternately, another reason for Muslim men to keep their women under lock and key, and beat them for disobedience...
> 
> Double hurrah!
Click to expand...


Ravi needs to marry a Mulsim extremist.


----------



## chanel

> PARIS &#8211; The French Senate has voted overwhelmingly for a bill banning the burqa-style Islamic veil everywhere from post offices to streets, in a final step toward a making it law.
> 
> The Senate voted 246 to 1 Tuesday in favor of the bill, which has already passed in the lower chamber, the National Assembly.



French Senate passes ban of full Muslim veils - Yahoo! News



> PARIS &#8211; French media report that a second tourist hub &#8212; the Saint-Michel subway station near Notre Dame Cathedral &#8212; has been evacuated following a similar bomb threat at the Eiffel Tower.
> 
> A Paris police spokesman said he had no information about the reports on the Saint-Michel station, which was the target of a terrorist attack in 1995 that killed eight and injured scores of people.



Reports: Subway station near Notre Dame evacuated - Yahoo! News

Coincidence?  merged-del


----------



## Misty

France is a sea of burkas. It's creepy as hell. 

Sorry but the beards turbins burkas are all creepy. 

All religious robes are creepy.


----------



## Misty

Banning burkas. My new band. Lol


----------



## Ravi

Sunni Man said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if they are? It's a security issue, and *an oppression issue*.
> 
> 
> 
> My wife wears the burqa which is usually in black.
> 
> Here face is always covered in public and she usually wears gloves.
> 
> I have never told her to put it on.
> 
> And she doesn't wear it for me.
> 
> She wears it for the sake of Allah (swt) and her religion.
> 
> 
> So please tell me how she is being oppressed when it is 100% her choice to dress this way?
Click to expand...

Jeesh, Sunni, she wears it because she's ashamed to be seen in public with you.


----------



## chanel

Banning Burkas might just get you guys a bomb threat.

Burning Burkas might get you a real bomb.

Might want to rethink that.


----------



## Kalam

Misty said:


> France is a sea of burkas.



At no point has this ever been true.


----------



## chanel




----------



## ABikerSailor

Sunni Man said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if they are? It's a security issue, and *an oppression issue*.
> 
> 
> 
> My wife wears the burqa which is usually in black.
> 
> Here face is always covered in public and she usually wears gloves.
> 
> I have never told her to put it on.
> 
> And she doesn't wear it for me.
> 
> She wears it for the sake of Allah (swt) and her religion.
> 
> 
> So please tell me how she is being oppressed when it is 100% her choice to dress this way?
Click to expand...


ANY woman married to someone like you is automatically oppressed.

The fact she wears a full burka in public is her being ashamed of her choice in marrying you.

Ravi is right.


----------



## Sunni Man

ABikerSailor said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if they are? It's a security issue, and *an oppression issue*.
> 
> 
> 
> My wife wears the burqa which is usually in black.
> 
> Here face is always covered in public and she usually wears gloves.
> 
> I have never told her to put it on.
> 
> And she doesn't wear it for me.
> 
> She wears it for the sake of Allah (swt) and her religion.
> 
> 
> So please tell me how she is being oppressed when it is 100% her choice to dress this way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ANY woman married to someone like you is automatically oppressed.
> 
> The fact she wears a full burka in public is her being ashamed of her choice in marrying you.
Click to expand...

She wore it long before I ever met her.


----------



## ConHog

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> My wife wears the burqa which is usually in black.
> 
> Here face is always covered in public and she usually wears gloves.
> 
> I have never told her to put it on.
> 
> And she doesn't wear it for me.
> 
> She wears it for the sake of Allah (swt) and her religion.
> 
> 
> So please tell me how she is being oppressed when it is 100% her choice to dress this way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ANY woman married to someone like you is automatically oppressed.
> 
> The fact she wears a full burka in public is her being ashamed of her choice in marrying you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She wore it long before I ever met her.
Click to expand...


In that case, sympathies. 

have you ever hit her? be honest.

I mean I'm SURE the other Muslim , Kalam, has beat some women in his lifetime, but I wonder about you.


----------



## ABikerSailor

ConHog said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ANY woman married to someone like you is automatically oppressed.
> 
> The fact she wears a full burka in public is her being ashamed of her choice in marrying you.
> 
> 
> 
> She wore it long before I ever met her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In that case, sympathies.
> 
> have you ever hit her? be honest.
> 
> I mean I'm SURE the other Muslim , Kalam, has beat some women in his lifetime, but I wonder about you.
Click to expand...


Probably why he married her when he saw her wearing a burka.

Easier to hide the cigarette burns and bruises.


----------



## ConHog

ABikerSailor said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> She wore it long before I ever met her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that case, sympathies.
> 
> have you ever hit her? be honest.
> 
> I mean I'm SURE the other Muslim , Kalam, has beat some women in his lifetime, but I wonder about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably why he married her when he saw her wearing a burka.
> 
> Easier to hide the cigarette burns and bruises.
Click to expand...


I reiterate, Ravi needs to marry a radical Muslim.


----------



## Sheldon

Misty said:


> France is a sea of burkas. It's creepy as hell.
> 
> Sorry but the beards turbins burkas are all creepy.
> 
> All religious robes are creepy.



The highest estimate is that 10% of the French population is Muslim. Since men don't wear burqas, cut that figure in half and assume all Muslim women wear burqas.

Please explain how in the fuck 5% equates to a sea?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Misty said:


> Banning burkas. My new band. Lol



Actually, reverse it and you would have something better..........

Burkas Banned.  And, the cool part is you've already got a hook, dress up several hot chicks in full burkas which get removed at the end of the show and then, they could be wearing thong bikinis and pasties.

Also, serve pulled pork sandwiches and beer for refreshments!


----------



## Si modo

ConHog said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> No problem. A Muslim is under no obligation to follow laws that restrict her freedom of religious expression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting how you word that Kalam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm telling you, read Kalam's posts in their entirety. He is a radical.
Click to expand...

Why yes, yes he is.


----------



## ConHog

silkyeggsalad said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> 
> France is a sea of burkas. It's creepy as hell.
> 
> Sorry but the beards turbins burkas are all creepy.
> 
> All religious robes are creepy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The highest estimate is that 10% of the French population is Muslim. Since men don't wear burqas, cut that figure in half and assume all Muslim women wear burqas.
> 
> Please explain how in the fuck 5% equates to a sea?
Click to expand...


3 million burqas is a lot of burqas.


----------



## Bootneck

There's going to be a lot of muslim girls angry that they can't wear the burqa. They're going to have start shaving their faces more often!


----------



## syrenn

Bootneck said:


> There's going to be a lot of muslim girls angry that they can't wear the burqa. They're going to have start shaving their faces more often!




You mean so that they may start to become more french?


----------



## syrenn

Alright boys im going to say this. Slamming on the women who are wearing burkas is pretty low. I am sure some want to wear them, just as  i am sure some do not want to wear them but have to.


----------



## ConHog

syrenn said:


> Bootneck said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's going to be a lot of muslim girls angry that they can't wear the burqa. They're going to have start shaving their faces more often!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean so that they may start to become more french?
Click to expand...


French women don't shave.......................




















at all.


----------



## ConHog

syrenn said:


> Alright boys im going to say this. Slamming on the women who are wearing burkas is pretty low. I am sure some want to wear them, just as  i am sure some do not want to wear them but have to.



Not as low as slamming on Americans who need SNAP benefits. 

Damn you are one high horsed bitch


----------



## ABikerSailor

ConHog said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootneck said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's going to be a lot of muslim girls angry that they can't wear the burqa. They're going to have start shaving their faces more often!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean so that they may start to become more french?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> French women don't shave.......................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at all.
Click to expand...


Yeah........and when they wear those high cut bikini bottoms, they look like they're trying to smuggle Brillo pads onto the beach!


----------



## syrenn

ConHog said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alright boys im going to say this. Slamming on the women who are wearing burkas is pretty low. I am sure some want to wear them, just as  i am sure some do not want to wear them but have to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not as low as slamming on Americans who need SNAP benefits.
> 
> Damn you are one high horsed bitch
Click to expand...


That rich coming from you conjob. Cant you even keep your threads straight?  I wasn't slamming anyone.

So get off your soap box dick.


----------



## Ravi

For the record, I was just joking Sunni. 

Nice to see cornjob still wishing violence on people...he could be a terrorist all by himself.


----------



## Charles_Main

Ravi said:


> I can understand why they did it...but are they not condemning some women to choosing between their religious beliefs and their ability to leave the house?



Maybe


----------



## Ravi

syrenn said:


> Alright boys im going to say this. Slamming on the women who are wearing burkas is pretty low. I am sure some want to wear them, just as  i am sure some do not want to wear them but have to.


Exactly...that's why this law is wrong.


----------



## Charles_Main

Ravi said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alright boys im going to say this. Slamming on the women who are wearing burkas is pretty low. I am sure some want to wear them, just as  i am sure some do not want to wear them but have to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly...that's why this law is wrong.
Click to expand...


I am sure the french will repeal it because you say it is wrong. 

What is happening in France is what happens when you push secularism to the extreme. They gave 2 main reasons for the ban. One it is a security issue to have people walking around basically with a mask on. Two public displays like a burka violate Frances STRICT SECULAR traditions. 

Think about that next time you loudy voice support for removing some crosses from the side of a highway because they might offend a small minority of people.


----------



## Ravi

Charles_Main said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alright boys im going to say this. Slamming on the women who are wearing burkas is pretty low. I am sure some want to wear them, just as  i am sure some do not want to wear them but have to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly...that's why this law is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure the french will repeal it because you say it is wrong.
> 
> What is happening in France is what happens when you push secularism to the extreme. They gave 2 main reasons for the ban. One it is a security issue to have people walking around basically with a mask on. Two public displays like a burka violate Frances STRICT SECULAR traditions.
> 
> Think about that next time you loudy voice support for removing some crosses from the side of a highway because they might offend a small minority of people.
Click to expand...

I never supported such a thing, fucktard.


----------



## Charles_Main

Ravi said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly...that's why this law is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure the french will repeal it because you say it is wrong.
> 
> What is happening in France is what happens when you push secularism to the extreme. They gave 2 main reasons for the ban. One it is a security issue to have people walking around basically with a mask on. Two public displays like a burka violate Frances STRICT SECULAR traditions.
> 
> Think about that next time you loudy voice support for removing some crosses from the side of a highway because they might offend a small minority of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never supported such a thing, fucktard.
Click to expand...


So you support the rights of cops to put up crosses to commemorate their fallen. Even if it means they might be on state land?

Good for you.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

This law is a gross infringement of religious freedom, but then, the Europeans have never been big on liberty.


----------



## Charles_Main

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> This law is a gross infringement of religious freedom, but then, the Europeans have never been big on liberty.



Yep, agreed on both points.


----------



## Ravi

Charles_Main said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure the french will repeal it because you say it is wrong.
> 
> What is happening in France is what happens when you push secularism to the extreme. They gave 2 main reasons for the ban. One it is a security issue to have people walking around basically with a mask on. Two public displays like a burka violate Frances STRICT SECULAR traditions.
> 
> Think about that next time you loudy voice support for removing some crosses from the side of a highway because they might offend a small minority of people.
> 
> 
> 
> I never supported such a thing, fucktard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support the rights of cops to put up crosses to commemorate their fallen. Even if it means they might be on state land?
> 
> Good for you.
Click to expand...

Yes...what I wouldn't support is limiting it to crosses and nothing else. All or nothing.


----------



## Charles_Main

Ravi said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never supported such a thing, fucktard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you support the rights of cops to put up crosses to commemorate their fallen. Even if it means they might be on state land?
> 
> Good for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...what I wouldn't support is limiting it to crosses and nothing else. All or nothing.
Click to expand...


Good then we agree. I am pleased you feel that way. I wish more Americans did. I will never understand people who claim a cross on state or federal land in any way establishes religion. Now if under the cross it said "Christianity is the official religion of America" we could talk


----------



## Political Junky

Kalam said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tut-tut. You're getting dangerously close to libel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think she was referring to Paris Hilton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, I don't associate with hussies.
Click to expand...

Paris Hilton, the spawn of a Republican dynasty.


----------



## Charles_Main

Si modo said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting how you word that Kalam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't get me wrong, this law is unjust...very.  I am stunned that is was even proposed, let alone passed.  However, it is the law.
Click to expand...


If you knew what has been going on in France. With the riots and demonstrations and demands for Sharia Courts. You might better understand why it passed. Between that and frances long standing hatred of any organized religion and you have your reasons. 

like I said this is basically secularism out of control. Something I think we are heading toward in this country as well.


----------



## ConHog

spawn of the devil? come on now, that's a little harsh. lol


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

This is  the kind of foolish government overreaction  that is  inevitable after  years of foolish accommodation of an ideology  that calls for  the death of  all non members .
Things will become  increasingly unstable  there.
 They have been moving the art so it doesn't get burned in the riots .
For some reason they are sending  it to muslims countries.
I guess  that will just  make the big burn  environmentally friendly .


----------



## chesswarsnow

Sorry bout that,


1. Oh wow, should we fear if islam disagrees?
2. Will mobs go amuck in Pakistan?
3. What will France do?
4. About all those who want them dead?


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## rhodescholar

Kalam said:


> No problem. A Muslim is under no obligation to follow laws that restrict her freedom of religious expression.



Uh yeah ok.  Hopefully they will be stripped of citizenship after violating the law, and deported to a muslim country of their choice, assuming one will accept them.  There are 57 to choose from.


----------



## rhodescholar

Kalam said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> No problem. A Muslim is under no obligation to follow laws that restrict her freedom of religious expression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another excuse for muslims to attack and kill westerners!
> 
> Hurrah!
> 
> Alternately, another reason for Muslim men to keep their women under lock and key, and beat them for disobedience...
> 
> Double hurrah!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could post random, meaningless strings of text and you'd interpret it as "supporting terrorism." Stay crazy.
Click to expand...


Islam is a death cult, not a religion, and therefore, laws can be passed banning it or any of its components.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Ravi said:


> I can understand why they did it...but are they not condemning some women to choosing between their religious beliefs and their ability to leave the house?



Not at all, it gives every Muslim in France to demonstrate just how peace loving Islam is. Since the burqa actually has nothing to do with being a Muslim all they really have to choose between is their culture of repression and leaving the house.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Kalam said:


> No problem. A Muslim is under no obligation to follow laws that restrict her freedom of religious expression.



The burqa is part of Islam now? I must have missed that memo, did it only go to the terrorists like you?


----------



## Kalam

ConHog said:


> I mean I'm SURE the other Muslim , Kalam, has beat some women in his lifetime, but I wonder about you.



I have never touched a woman in a way that wasn't loving and affectionate. We know from your posts that you can't say the same, CornDog.


----------



## ConHog

Kalam said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean I'm SURE the other Muslim , Kalam, has beat some women in his lifetime, but I wonder about you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never touched a woman in a way that wasn't loving and affectionate. We know from your posts that you can't say the same, CornDog.
Click to expand...


LOL @ you , many abusers, not just Muslim abusers, consider their abuse to be done out of love. 

So say it plain. Have you struck a woman ? Yes or no?


----------



## Kalam

ConHog said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean I'm SURE the other Muslim , Kalam, has beat some women in his lifetime, but I wonder about you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never touched a woman in a way that wasn't loving and affectionate. We know from your posts that you can't say the same, CornDog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL @ you , many abusers, not just Muslim abusers, consider their abuse to be done out of love.
> 
> So say it plain. Have you struck a woman ? Yes or no?
Click to expand...


That's a categorical no. I made mistakes by doing things with women, not to them.


----------



## saveliberty

Kalam said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never touched a woman in a way that wasn't loving and affectionate. We know from your posts that you can't say the same, CornDog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL @ you , many abusers, not just Muslim abusers, consider their abuse to be done out of love.
> 
> So say it plain. Have you struck a woman ? Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a categorical no. *I made mistakes by doing things with women, not to them*.
Click to expand...


I think we have found some common religious ground bro.


----------



## ConHog

Kalam said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never touched a woman in a way that wasn't loving and affectionate. We know from your posts that you can't say the same, CornDog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL @ you , many abusers, not just Muslim abusers, consider their abuse to be done out of love.
> 
> So say it plain. Have you struck a woman ? Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a categorical no. I made mistakes by doing things with women, not to them.
Click to expand...


Were they screaming and crying and such as you were doing things "with them?"


----------



## Kalam

ConHog said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL @ you , many abusers, not just Muslim abusers, consider their abuse to be done out of love.
> 
> So say it plain. Have you struck a woman ? Yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a categorical no. I made mistakes by doing things with women, not to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were they screaming and crying and such as you were doing things "with them?"
Click to expand...

Not in the way you're thinking of.


----------



## Charles_Main

saveliberty said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL @ you , many abusers, not just Muslim abusers, consider their abuse to be done out of love.
> 
> So say it plain. Have you struck a woman ? Yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a categorical no. *I made mistakes by doing things with women, not to them*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we have found some common religious ground bro.
Click to expand...


Yeah I mean we all know chicks are the root of all evil right. I guess the Muslims got it right, Making them bitches cover their faces, Beating the shit out of them, and cutting off their clits.

Plus when they get sick of one, they can just kill them and tell the mullahs she was talking to some dude. Then go pick up some new chick to own I mean marry. 

Yeah sounds great!!!

wooo hooo yay for the 8th century


----------



## Sunni Man

Charles_Main said:


> Yeah I mean we all know chicks are the root of all evil right. I guess the Muslims got it right, Making them bitches cover their faces, Beating the shit out of them, and cutting off their clits.
> 
> Plus when they get sick of one, they can just kill them and tell the mullahs she was talking to some dude. Then go pick up some new chick to own I mean marry.



You sound a little jealous of us.


----------



## lizzie

syrenn said:


> Alright boys im going to say this. Slamming on the women who are wearing burkas is pretty low. I am sure some want to wear them, just as i am sure some do not want to wear them but have to.


 
To be honest, most of them probably do want to wear them, because this is part of their identity, and for most every Muslim I know, religious identity is the primary component of their personalities. Muslim women, as a rule, haven't discovered women's rights yet. They are raised to be reverent and subservient. It's not normal to you and me, but to them, it's their responsibility and their honor. I would find it easy to believe that there is a high rate of abuse, but they don't seem to view that as abuse. It's just the way it is in their reality.


----------



## ConHog

Kalam said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a categorical no. I made mistakes by doing things with women, not to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were they screaming and crying and such as you were doing things "with them?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in the way you're thinking of.
Click to expand...


So you enjoy making women cry? You sick fucking terrorist.


----------



## Charles_Main

Sunni Man said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I mean we all know chicks are the root of all evil right. I guess the Muslims got it right, Making them bitches cover their faces, Beating the shit out of them, and cutting off their clits.
> 
> Plus when they get sick of one, they can just kill them and tell the mullahs she was talking to some dude. Then go pick up some new chick to own I mean marry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound a little jealous of us.
Click to expand...


it's called sarcasm! and if by us you mean someone who does or supports any of the things I mentioned above. Then disgusted is a better word to describe it.


----------



## mal

Ravi said:


> I can understand why they did it...but are they not condemning some women to choosing between their religious beliefs and their ability to leave the house?



Finally something the Frogs have done Right in some time... 



peace...


----------



## Gatekeeper

I am all for their ban. France especially, has more problems with Islam than the average person in America knows, and it's coming to a town near you.

When the wife was visiting her family, in Paris a few years back her sister told her NOT to wear ANY religious medals etc when walking the streets. Her sister told her that some of the Muslims may literally cut your throat or attack you. Don't tell me about the tolerance of this violent belief, they ARE TROUBLE in France, and other locations already and have been for years.

They use, many times not all, intimidation,bullying, threats to others that are not of their belief. Depends on how much 'backup' they have in numbers.They do just what this Imam in NYC is trying to do, "social' building as close to Ground Zero as possible, why? Because with our laws they can, Islamic rads attacked America and now watch our brothers build OUR Mosque or "Social Center", (right), as near the zone of attack and murder as possible.

Wake up and *read *the Qur'an folks, and then come back and post your comments.

I still hope for a last minute solution to this issue. Hoping that someone in this belief will stand up and try getting along with the rest of the world in peace. The ball is really in their court, IMHO.


----------



## nia588

I'm tired of government dictating how women dress. France is no different than Iran now.


----------



## Si modo

nia588 said:


> I'm tired of government dictating how women dress. France is no different than Iran now.


Sad, but true...sorta.  Not 'no different' as there are other big differences between the two countries.

But, in this, France is doing exactly what many theocratic Middle Eastern countries do.

What a shame.

Good point, though.


----------



## mal

nia588 said:


> I'm tired of government dictating how women dress. France is no different than Iran now.



Um... France is Stoning Women who have been Raped and Executing Homosexuals for Acting on their Urges?...

Wow, I had no Idea.

France is Dealing with Terrorists on their Streets like People in Arizona are Dealing with Mexican Nationals taking Jobs...

If you don't like, Move out of France.



peace...


----------



## Ringel05

Si modo said:


> nia588 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tired of government dictating how women dress. France is no different than Iran now.
> 
> 
> 
> Sad, but true...sorta.  Not 'no different' as there are other big differences between the two countries.
> 
> But, in this, France is doing exactly what many theocratic Middle Eastern countries do.
> 
> What a shame.
> 
> Good point, though.
Click to expand...


Cool!  Let me know when you two decide to walk down Penn Ave nude at noon.  I want to make sure my camera is charged.


----------



## Ravi

nia588 said:


> I'm tired of government dictating how women dress. France is no different than Iran now.


Yes, and I find it incredibly sad.


----------



## Si modo

Ringel05 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nia588 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tired of government dictating how women dress. France is no different than Iran now.
> 
> 
> 
> Sad, but true...sorta.  Not 'no different' as there are other big differences between the two countries.
> 
> But, in this, France is doing exactly what many theocratic Middle Eastern countries do.
> 
> What a shame.
> 
> Good point, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool!  Let me know when you two decide to walk down Penn Ave nude at noon.  I want to make sure my camera is charged.
Click to expand...

Silly, silly, Ringel.  I'll be F NW at Happy Hour, near N Capitol Ave.


----------



## mal

Ravi said:


> nia588 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tired of government dictating how women dress. France is no different than Iran now.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and I find it incredibly sad.
Click to expand...


Yeah... It's Sad that the French are the ones FINALLY Leading the way...



peace...


----------



## Ringel05

Si modo said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sad, but true...sorta.  Not 'no different' as there are other big differences between the two countries.
> 
> But, in this, France is doing exactly what many theocratic Middle Eastern countries do.
> 
> What a shame.
> 
> Good point, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool!  Let me know when you two decide to walk down Penn Ave nude at noon.  I want to make sure my camera is charged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Silly, silly, Ringel.  I'll be F NW at Happy Hour, near N Capitol Ave.
Click to expand...


What's silly about it.  The government dictates such a state of (un)_dress_ in non-specified locations is illegal.
Just saying......


----------



## Ravi

tha malcontent said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nia588 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tired of government dictating how women dress. France is no different than Iran now.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and I find it incredibly sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah... It's Sad that the French are the ones FINALLY Leading the way...
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...

Good for you mal, applauding oppressive governments. It won't be long before you come out in support of Iran.


----------



## mal

Ravi said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and I find it incredibly sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... It's Sad that the French are the ones FINALLY Leading the way...
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for you mal, applauding oppressive governments. It won't be long before you come out in support of Iran.
Click to expand...


Yeah... Iran is what?... Oh yeah, it's an Islamic Republic.

Tell me again about that Faith?...

Don't those Islamists Execute Homosexuals and Stone Women?...

And I am hard pressed to Find you and yours Condemning them except when it's Convenient or you are Forced to...

It's a Rare Occassion, such as this that you even Hint and Condemning the likes of Iran and other Leading Islamist States in the ME.

And I would Expect that you will be in Support of Marrying Children here in the US, since you are so Concerned about Religious Rights and Freedoms. 

Good to Know about you, Ravi.



peace...


----------



## Ravi

Yep...Iran is more in line with your beliefs every day, isn't it mal?


----------



## Freeman

Do you accept that US autorities ban jurqa and dictate you the color of socks?!!


----------



## mal

Freeman said:


> Do you accept that US autorities ban jurqa and dictate you the color of socks?!!



As long as I can Wear a Ski Mask into the Bank today... 



peace...


----------



## mal

Ravi said:


> Yep...Iran is more in line with your beliefs every day, isn't it mal?



Since I am Against Executing Homosexuals and Certainly would NEVER Support Stoning a Woman for ANY Reason, much less for being Raped...

And since I Support Civil Unions and am Against Sodomy Laws in the United States...

*No, they are NOT, Ravi.*

Stop being an Asshole for once in your Life.

My Objections to Marriage being Expanded outside of what Creates us and that Homosexuals stop trying to Spread the Agenda to Children in Schools does not mean that I want Homosexuals Executed as the Muslims do.

Fuck off, you Dishonest Internet Slug.



peace...


----------



## rightwinger

I hope this doesn't survive French courts, it is blatant descrimination

What would the response be if they said nuns are not allowed to wear habits or jews are not allowed to wear a yalmuka


----------



## mal

rightwinger said:


> I hope this doesn't survive French courts, it is blatant descrimination
> 
> What would the response be if they said nuns are not allowed to wear habits or jews are not allowed to wear a yalmuka



You go ahead and post Pics of each... Habits... Yalmukas and then Burkas...

I'll let you Know the Difference once you've done this, because you are Obviously Ignorant of Fact to Post something that Fucking Stupid.

Or, you are being Deliberately Dishonest, either because you are an Internet Asshole like Ravi, or you Hope to Convince at least some that these (3) things are Analgous when they are NOT.

I'll be here.



peace...


----------



## Ravi

rightwinger said:


> I hope this doesn't survive French courts, it is blatant descrimination
> 
> What would the response be if they said nuns are not allowed to wear habits or jews are not allowed to wear a yalmuka


Yep. Fear makes people do stupid things and take away everyone's freedom to dress as they please.

If you aren't doing anything wrong who cares how you dress? It would actually benefit society at large if some people went around with bags over their heads.


----------



## mal

Ravi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this doesn't survive French courts, it is blatant descrimination
> 
> What would the response be if they said nuns are not allowed to wear habits or jews are not allowed to wear a yalmuka
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Fear makes people do stupid things and take away everyone's freedom to dress as they please.
> 
> If you aren't doing anything wrong who cares how you dress? It would actually benefit society at large if some people went around with bags over their heads.
Click to expand...


Idiot.



peace...


----------



## rightwinger

tha malcontent said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this doesn't survive French courts, it is blatant descrimination
> 
> What would the response be if they said nuns are not allowed to wear habits or jews are not allowed to wear a yalmuka
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You go ahead and post Pics of each... Habits... Yalmukas and then Burkas...
> 
> I'll let you Know the Difference once you've done this, because you are Obviously Ignorant of Fact to Post something that Fucking Stupid.
> 
> Or, you are being Deliberately Dishonest, either because you are an Internet Asshole like Ravi, or you Hope to Convince at least some that these (3) things are Analgous when they are NOT.
> 
> I'll be here.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...









Strange looking isn't it?   Why would anyone want to dress this way?  Don't you find this offensive?

These women should not be allowed to cover their bodies.....what if they are hiding a weapon or something under there?


----------



## mal

rightwinger said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this doesn't survive French courts, it is blatant descrimination
> 
> What would the response be if they said nuns are not allowed to wear habits or jews are not allowed to wear a yalmuka
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You go ahead and post Pics of each... Habits... Yalmukas and then Burkas...
> 
> I'll let you Know the Difference once you've done this, because you are Obviously Ignorant of Fact to Post something that Fucking Stupid.
> 
> Or, you are being Deliberately Dishonest, either because you are an Internet Asshole like Ravi, or you Hope to Convince at least some that these (3) things are Analgous when they are NOT.
> 
> I'll be here.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strange looking isn't it?   Why would anyone want to dress this way?  Don't you find this offensive?
> 
> These women should not be allowed to cover their bodies.....what if they are hiding a weapon or something under there?
Click to expand...


Idiot.

It's about the Faces being Covered...

That's why you weren't Honest about it and Failed to Post Pics of EACH.

Try again.



peace...


----------



## rightwinger

Should this bride be allowed to cover her face?


----------



## Ringel05

rightwinger said:


> Should this bride be allowed to cover her face?




What's with the straw grasping?


----------



## mal

rightwinger said:


> Should this bride be allowed to cover her face?



When you are Honest enough to post (3) Pics that would Illustrate your Attempt at Comparing Catholics, Jews and Islamists, I will get back with you on that Question...

Fucking Troll.



epace...


----------



## rightwinger

It all comes down to intollerance of other cultures. A woman wears a burka because she is not supposed to reveal herself to other men. We think it is stupid....so we ban it

Is it any different than our cultural ban on a woam baring her breasts? There is no pressing reason women should not be allowed to walk around toplesss....men do it

But there is a cultural distaste of women baring their breasts in public. We respect this ban but think muslim women should be forced to "expose" themselves in public


----------



## rightwinger

tha malcontent said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should this bride be allowed to cover her face?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you are Honest enough to post (3) Pics that would Illustrate your Attempt at Comparing Catholics, Jews and Islamists, I will get back with you on that Question...
> 
> Fucking Troll.
> 
> 
> 
> epace...
Click to expand...


If you wish to make a point you are free to post your own pictures on this thread


----------



## Ozmar

rightwinger said:


> Should this bride be allowed to cover her face?



If she were walking around a shopping mall like that, security would tell her to take the face covering off.


----------



## mal

rightwinger said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should this bride be allowed to cover her face?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you are Honest enough to post (3) Pics that would Illustrate your Attempt at Comparing Catholics, Jews and Islamists, I will get back with you on that Question...
> 
> Fucking Troll.
> 
> 
> 
> epace...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you wish to make a point you are free to post your own pictures on this thread
Click to expand...


What a Dishonest Hack you are...



peace...


----------



## Ozmar

rightwinger said:


> It all comes down to intollerance of other cultures. A woman wears a burka because she is not supposed to reveal herself to other men. We think it is stupid....so we ban it
> 
> Is it any different than our cultural ban on a woam baring her breasts? There is no pressing reason women should not be allowed to walk around toplesss....men do it
> 
> But there is a cultural distaste of women baring their breasts in public. We respect this ban but think muslim women should be forced to "expose" themselves in public



In covering breasts, genitals, etc, we as a society are accepting a social norm, a standard relevant to the society we live in. In France, it has gotten to the point where it has become necessary to encode in law what is socially acceptable within their culture in regards to what can be worn. It's really unfortunate that it had to be taken to this extreme, but when you have a group of people who violate those social norms in a way that starts to threaten that society as a whole (with what they represent), then measures must be taken. Do you think if a bunch of westerners tried to immigrate to Saudi Arabia, with the women wearing scantily clad clothes, it would not be perceived as a threat, an attempted cultural usurpation? That's what this is really about. It's not really about "women's rights."

In America women have the right to wear almost anything they like, but they can't walk around naked. 

In France women have the right to wear almost anything they like, but they can't walk around covered head to toe. I think it has to be a reasonable compromise for a society to remain cohesive.


----------



## rightwinger

Ozmar said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It all comes down to intollerance of other cultures. A woman wears a burka because she is not supposed to reveal herself to other men. We think it is stupid....so we ban it
> 
> Is it any different than our cultural ban on a woam baring her breasts? There is no pressing reason women should not be allowed to walk around toplesss....men do it
> 
> But there is a cultural distaste of women baring their breasts in public. We respect this ban but think muslim women should be forced to "expose" themselves in public
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In covering breasts, genitals, etc, we as a society are accepting a social norm, a standard relevant to the society we live in. In France, it has gotten to the point where it has become necessary to encode in law what is socially acceptable within their culture in regards to what can be worn. It's really unfortunate that it had to be taken to this extreme, but when you have a group of people who violate those social norms in a way that starts to threaten that society as a whole (with what they represent), then measures must be taken. Do you think if a bunch of westerners tried to immigrate to Saudi Arabia, with the women wearing scantily clad clothes, it would not be perceived as a threat, an attempted cultural usurpation? That's what this is really about. It's not really about "women's rights."
> 
> In America women have the right to wear almost anything they like, but they can't walk around naked.
> 
> In France women have the right to wear almost anything they like, but they can't walk around covered head to toe. I think it has to be a reasonable compromise for a society to remain cohesive.
Click to expand...



We do not look to the Saudis to be our model for cultural tolerance


----------



## Ozmar

rightwinger said:


> Ozmar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It all comes down to intollerance of other cultures. A woman wears a burka because she is not supposed to reveal herself to other men. We think it is stupid....so we ban it
> 
> Is it any different than our cultural ban on a woam baring her breasts? There is no pressing reason women should not be allowed to walk around toplesss....men do it
> 
> But there is a cultural distaste of women baring their breasts in public. We respect this ban but think muslim women should be forced to "expose" themselves in public
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In covering breasts, genitals, etc, we as a society are accepting a social norm, a standard relevant to the society we live in. In France, it has gotten to the point where it has become necessary to encode in law what is socially acceptable within their culture in regards to what can be worn. It's really unfortunate that it had to be taken to this extreme, but when you have a group of people who violate those social norms in a way that starts to threaten that society as a whole (with what they represent), then measures must be taken. Do you think if a bunch of westerners tried to immigrate to Saudi Arabia, with the women wearing scantily clad clothes, it would not be perceived as a threat, an attempted cultural usurpation? That's what this is really about. It's not really about "women's rights."
> 
> In America women have the right to wear almost anything they like, but they can't walk around naked.
> 
> In France women have the right to wear almost anything they like, but they can't walk around covered head to toe. I think it has to be a reasonable compromise for a society to remain cohesive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We do not look to the Saudis to be our model for cultural tolerance
Click to expand...


Indeed. Imagine if a bunch of people with the level of cultural tolerance of the Saudis immigrated to another country and started trying to intimidate the original population with little trifles one by one such as demanding concessions to their dress code, their laws, their oppressive way of life, all in the name of religious freedom. The burka is probably one of the most symbolic representations of what's transgressing.

How far does cultural tolerance go? Do we tolerated stonings and beheadings in the name of permitting others to express their religious freedom? Do we allow the brainwashed oppression of women with the burka?


----------



## saveliberty

Ski masks are for skiing.  They are restricted as to where you can wear them.  Can't wear your golf spikes everywhere either.  I guess when a couple of your people wear bombs under those things, it ruins it for everyone.


----------



## nia588

tha malcontent said:


> nia588 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tired of government dictating how women dress. France is no different than Iran now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um... France is Stoning Women who have been Raped and Executing Homosexuals for Acting on their Urges?...
> 
> Wow, I had no Idea.
> 
> France is Dealing with Terrorists on their Streets like People in Arizona are Dealing with Mexican Nationals taking Jobs...
> 
> If you don't like, Move out of France.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...


im talking about in terms of dress. obviously France isn't stoning anybody. but my point is that dictating how women dress is something that a country like Iran would do.

so those who support france shouldn't complain about Iran's enforced hijab anymore because France is dictating how women dress.

my thing is why is women's dress always the focus of these type of clothing laws? it's sexism at it's finest.


----------



## nia588

Ozmar said:


> Indeed. Imagine if a bunch of people with the level of cultural tolerance of the Saudis immigrated to another country and started trying to intimidate the original population with little trifles one by one such as demanding concessions to their dress code, their laws, their oppressive way of life, all in the name of religious freedom. The burka is probably one of the most symbolic representations of what's transgressing.
> 
> How far does cultural tolerance go? Do we tolerated stonings and beheadings in the name of permitting others to express their religious freedom? Do we allow the brainwashed oppression of women with the burka?



see one of the reasons why i don't support the ban is that many women who do wear the niqab wear due to their own choice. i have friends who wear it many of them don't even believe it's obligatory but they wear it anyway because they believe it brings them closer to their lord.

now of course they should be made to remove the niqab if they are going through aiports banks etc. but walking down the street they should be allowed to. niqab in the west has been around for quite some time hasn't caused much problems, why is it a problem now? and please don't give me the fox news crap that the women could be hiding a bomb under there.

Here in philly i would say in the last 5 years or so niqab has become a common site. its not odd to a woman covered head to toe and none of had bombs under their burkhas nor have they ever bothered anyone. and most the women in philly who wear it are converts and many of them single so no male influence has been involved in their niqab wearing decision.

i just think people need to start minding their business. and government needs to stay out of people's wardrobe decisions. if i want to wear a cardboard box down the street then it's my right.


----------



## Si modo

I have to say that after being behind a woman driving with the headdress of the full burqa (the one with the slit at the eyes for 'seeing'), she was an absoulte hazard on the road and endangered all those near her.

So, I would be all for a legal prohibition of that for the good of all on public roads.

I'm also for a law allowing anyone (bank teller, store clerk, cop, TSA, etc.) who needs to identify the person behind the burqa to do so.

I think Americans can walk around with a skimask on, but the cops will likely be called to check them out, and I'm cool with that.

Anyway, it seems as if this French law goes too far - just prohibiting it altogether in public.  If that is for the overall good of the public, I'm cool with it.  But, I don't see how it is.  

Allow it, but also allow for mandatory removal for identification when identification is needed.  Don't just disallow it altogether.


----------



## Claudette

I'll bet if France could turn back the clock they  would surely have had loads of second thoughts on the wisdom of letting millions of Muslims into France.

Hindsight. She sure is 20/20


----------



## 007

I don't think muslims should be allowed to wear anything in public that they could conceal a BOMB under, woman, man or otherwise. They've "blown" that privilege.


----------



## Si modo

Pale Rider said:


> I don't think muslims should be allowed to wear anything in public that they could conceal a BOMB under, woman, man or otherwise. They've "blown" that privilege.


A bunch of nekkid Muslims walking around?  No thanks.


----------



## uptownlivin90

Well it is France. They just don't value individual liberties like we do. Reason number 15,432 why we should be thankful for our constitution. That's how I see it.


----------



## uptownlivin90

Pale Rider said:


> I don't think muslims should be allowed to wear anything in public that they could conceal a BOMB under, woman, man or otherwise. They've "blown" that privilege.



Fear and intimidation. That's how rights are stripped away.

I'm just wondering when do I get to see the French version of this?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKYjCeXmz6w&has_verified=1[/ame]


----------



## Gadawg73

When can we ban NASCAR and baseball hats worn backwards, regular and sideways?


----------



## Yurt

Ravi said:


> I can understand why they did it...but are they not condemning some women to choosing between their religious beliefs and their ability to leave the house?



do you support muslim countries in their right to ban or strongly curtail other religions?  after all, what i hear from many lefties in defense of islamic law is, 'its their country'


----------



## saveliberty

Gadawg73 said:


> When can we ban NASCAR and baseball hats worn backwards, regular and sideways?



I turn them forwards and wait.  Every single one of them just walks away until they think I can't see and turns them back.  Funnier than Hell.


----------



## manifold

Ravi said:


> I can understand why they did it...





Ravi said:


> Seriously, though, I think this is wrong... *unless it was for a matter of imminent threat*...





Ravi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this doesn't survive French courts, it is blatant descrimination (sic)
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Fear makes people do stupid things and take away everyone's freedom to dress as they please.
> 
> If you aren't doing anything wrong who cares how you dress? It would actually benefit society at large if some people went around with bags over their heads.
Click to expand...


You seem conflicted.  And that is a good thing.

Perhaps some day you'll even be able to contemplate a reasonable hypothetical question that forces you to evaluate such inner-conflict.







maybe...


----------



## xotoxi

saveliberty said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When can we ban NASCAR and baseball hats worn backwards, regular and sideways?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I turn them forwards and wait.  Every single one of them just walks away until they think I can't see and turns them back.  Funnier than Hell.
Click to expand...


You actually grab someone's hat off their head and turn it around?

Are you recovering from your beatings?


----------



## Kalam

ConHog said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were they screaming and crying and such as you were doing things "with them?"
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the way you're thinking of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you enjoy making women cry? You sick fucking terrorist.
Click to expand...


You're such a dumbass. 

Get a grown-up to explain it to you.


----------



## Ravi

Yurt said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand why they did it...but are they not condemning some women to choosing between their religious beliefs and their ability to leave the house?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you support muslim countries in their right to ban or strongly curtail other religions?  after all, what i hear from many lefties in defense of islamic law is, 'its their country'
Click to expand...

No, I don't. I am however more concerned with what France does, them being a democratic country and all and one that I sometimes visit.

I hate to see democratic countries act like oppressive regimes.


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand why they did it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, though, I think this is wrong... *unless it was for a matter of imminent threat*...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this doesn't survive French courts, it is blatant descrimination (sic)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. Fear makes people do stupid things and take away everyone's freedom to dress as they please.
> 
> If you aren't doing anything wrong who cares how you dress? It would actually benefit society at large if some people went around with bags over their heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem conflicted.  And that is a good thing.
> 
> Perhaps some day you'll even be able to contemplate a reasonable hypothetical question that forces you to evaluate such inner-conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maybe...
Click to expand...

Are people in burkas blowing things up in France? No? Then it isn't a matter of an imminent threat.


----------



## manifold

Ravi said:


> ...it isn't a matter of an imminent threat.



You're entitled to your opinion, as are we all.

I doubt very much whether the leaders in France value your's much though.


----------



## 007

Si modo said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think muslims should be allowed to wear anything in public that they could conceal a BOMB under, woman, man or otherwise. They've "blown" that privilege.
> 
> 
> 
> A bunch of nekkid Muslims walking around?  No thanks.
Click to expand...


I can't hide a bomb on me anywhere, and I don't walk around naked.

I think that might even be half the reason muslims want to wear sheets and curtains and all those total body covering drapes thingies, is because they know if they want to strap on a bomb, nobody is going to be able to see it, and I'm sure that had a lot to do with why France outlawed the burka. I say good for France. I might even feel safer there now if I visit.


----------



## Yurt

Ravi said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand why they did it...but are they not condemning some women to choosing between their religious beliefs and their ability to leave the house?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you support muslim countries in their right to ban or strongly curtail other religions?  after all, what i hear from many lefties in defense of islamic law is, 'its their country'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I don't. I am however more concerned with what France does, them being a democratic country and all and one that I sometimes visit.
> 
> I hate to see democratic countries act like oppressive regimes.
Click to expand...


perhaps its liberating, at least that is how they view it


----------



## xotoxi

Pale Rider said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think muslims should be allowed to wear anything in public that they could conceal a BOMB under, woman, man or otherwise. They've "blown" that privilege.
> 
> 
> 
> A bunch of nekkid Muslims walking around?  No thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't hide a bomb on me anywhere, and I don't walk around naked.
> 
> I think that might even be half the reason muslims want to wear sheets and curtains and all those total body covering drapes thingies, is because they know if they want to strap on a bomb, nobody is going to be able to see it, and I'm sure that had a lot to do with why France outlawed the burka. I say good for France. I might even feel safer there now if I visit.
Click to expand...


They didn't outlaw trenchcoats.


----------



## saveliberty

...and where is the outrage in the Middle East over the law?  Imagine what the Imam's would be saying if we had done this is the US.


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...it isn't a matter of an imminent threat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion, as are we all.
> 
> I doubt very much whether the leaders in France value your's much though.
Click to expand...

*sob*

How kind of you to grace my thread with your presence.


----------



## manifold

Ravi said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...it isn't a matter of an imminent threat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion, as are we all.
> 
> I doubt very much whether the leaders in France value your's much though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *sob*
> 
> How kind of you to grace my thread with your presence.
Click to expand...



you're welcome


----------



## saveliberty

xotoxi said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A bunch of nekkid Muslims walking around?  No thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't hide a bomb on me anywhere, and I don't walk around naked.
> 
> I think that might even be half the reason muslims want to wear sheets and curtains and all those total body covering drapes thingies, is because they know if they want to strap on a bomb, nobody is going to be able to see it, and I'm sure that had a lot to do with why France outlawed the burka. I say good for France. I might even feel safer there now if I visit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't outlaw trenchcoats.
Click to expand...


France would be nothing without their flashers.


----------



## WillowTree

nia588 said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nia588 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tired of government dictating how women dress. France is no different than Iran now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um... France is Stoning Women who have been Raped and Executing Homosexuals for Acting on their Urges?...
> 
> Wow, I had no Idea.
> 
> France is Dealing with Terrorists on their Streets like People in Arizona are Dealing with Mexican Nationals taking Jobs...
> 
> If you don't like, Move out of France.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> im talking about in terms of dress. obviously France isn't stoning anybody. but my point is that dictating how women dress is something that a country like Iran would do.
> 
> so those who support france shouldn't complain about Iran's enforced hijab anymore because France is dictating how women dress.
> 
> my thing is why is women's dress always the focus of these type of clothing laws? it's sexism at it's finest.
Click to expand...


It has nothing to do with sexism nimrod unless it was you women trying to burn Paris down.


----------



## manifold

xotoxi said:


> They didn't outlaw trenchcoats.



Probably because they don't view the wearing of trenchcoats as an imminent threat.

But if they come to, then this would be clear precendent paving the way to banning them too.

Excellent contribution to this dialogue


----------



## Si modo

WillowTree said:


> nia588 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um... France is Stoning Women who have been Raped and Executing Homosexuals for Acting on their Urges?...
> 
> Wow, I had no Idea.
> 
> France is Dealing with Terrorists on their Streets like People in Arizona are Dealing with Mexican Nationals taking Jobs...
> 
> If you don't like, Move out of France.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> im talking about in terms of dress. obviously France isn't stoning anybody. but my point is that dictating how women dress is something that a country like Iran would do.
> 
> so those who support france shouldn't complain about Iran's enforced hijab anymore because France is dictating how women dress.
> 
> my thing is why is women's dress always the focus of these type of clothing laws? it's sexism at it's finest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with sexism nimrod unless it was you women trying to burn Paris down.
Click to expand...

Actually, I see it as a form of sexism, too.  Of course, those women who are coerced into wearing one by the males in their lives is blatantly sexist.  But, there are women who freely choose to wear one (so I hear).  Taking away a woman's choice is sexist on its face.

Now, government's prevention of sexism is usually a good idea, in my book.  But, at the cost of another inalienable right - freedom of religion - seems like a bad idea.

If they can show that all women who wear one are coerced into doing so, I might give this law further consideration.


----------



## Ravi

Si modo said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nia588 said:
> 
> 
> 
> im talking about in terms of dress. obviously France isn't stoning anybody. but my point is that dictating how women dress is something that a country like Iran would do.
> 
> so those who support france shouldn't complain about Iran's enforced hijab anymore because France is dictating how women dress.
> 
> my thing is why is women's dress always the focus of these type of clothing laws? it's sexism at it's finest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with sexism nimrod unless it was you women trying to burn Paris down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, I see it as a form of sexism, too.  Of course, those women who are coerced into wearing one by the males in their lives is blatantly sexist.  But, there are women who freely choose to wear one (so I hear).  Taking away a woman's choice is sexist on its face.
> 
> Now, government's prevention of sexism is usually a good idea, in my book.  But, at the cost of another inalienable right - freedom of religion - seems like a bad idea.
> 
> If they can show that all women who wear one are coerced into doing so, I might give this law further consideration.
Click to expand...

They have also made it illegal for men to force women to dress in this manner. From what I've read, France has done this to protect women...but how are you protecting women if you are also forcing them to adhere to a dress code of the country's choosing?


----------



## manifold

How are laws mandating that certain parts of the body MUST be covered any dfferent in principal than  laws mandating that certain parts MUST NOT be covered?


----------



## saveliberty

Can we outlaw wearing pajamas in public and other Walmart fashion violations?


----------



## Valerie

manifold said:


> How are laws mandating that certain parts of the body MUST be covered any dfferent in principal than  laws mandating that certain parts MUST NOT be covered?





That's a good question.



Note there is a difference between a "burka" and a "niqab".






> Dissenters have 10 days to challenge the measure in the constitutional Council watchdog, but that is considered unlikely.
> 
> Legislative leaders said they wanted the constitutional Council to examine it.
> 
> "This law was the object of long and complex debates," the Senate president, Gerard Larcher, and National Assembly head Bernard Accoyer said in a joint statement explaining their move. They said they want to be certain there is "no uncertainty" about it conforming to the constitution.
> 
> The measure affects fewer than 2,000 women, but Muslims believe it is one more blow to France's second religion, and risks raising the level of Islamophobia in a country where mosques, like synagogues, are sporadic targets of hate. Some women have vowed to wear a full-face veil despite the law.
> 
> The proposed law was passed overwhelmingly by the National Assembly on July 13. The green light from the Senate would make it definitive once the president signs off on it  barring amendments and an eventual legal challenge.
> 
> *In France, the terms "burka" and "niqab" often are used interchangeably. The latter is a full-face veil, often in black. Unlike the burka, it does not obscure a woman's eyes.*
> 
> 
> CBC News - World - French Senate bans burka


----------



## Ozmar

Ravi said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand why they did it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Fear makes people do stupid things and take away everyone's freedom to dress as they please.
> 
> If you aren't doing anything wrong who cares how you dress? It would actually benefit society at large if some people went around with bags over their heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem conflicted.  And that is a good thing.
> 
> Perhaps some day you'll even be able to contemplate a reasonable hypothetical question that forces you to evaluate such inner-conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maybe...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are people in burkas blowing things up in France? No? Then it isn't a matter of an imminent threat.
Click to expand...

 There were definitely some bomb threats and evacuations linked to this new law. Probably from those same guys who brainwash their little girls from infancy to want to wear those burkas.



Ravi said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with sexism nimrod unless it was you women trying to burn Paris down.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I see it as a form of sexism, too.  Of course, those women who are coerced into wearing one by the males in their lives is blatantly sexist.  But, there are women who freely choose to wear one (so I hear).  Taking away a woman's choice is sexist on its face.
> 
> Now, government's prevention of sexism is usually a good idea, in my book.  But, at the cost of another inalienable right - freedom of religion - seems like a bad idea.
> 
> If they can show that all women who wear one are coerced into doing so, I might give this law further consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have also made it illegal for men to force women to dress in this manner. From what I've read, France has done this to protect women...but how are you protecting women if you are also forcing them to adhere to a dress code of the country's choosing?
Click to expand...

Well, if they're brainwashed, oppressed and devalued from a young age to want to wear the burkas, then I suppose it would be their choice to want to wear one to begin with. Tell a woman she's a doormat from infancy, and she's bound to believe she's one, and cling to it. Try to un-cling her, and protests of "rights" violations will ensue. BTW, I don't recall there being a ban on Islam, so how is this religious oppression? 

The image that comes to my mind as I write this is of a non-Muslim lady wearing normal European clothes being heckled and harassed for walking through a predominantly Muslim neighborhood. Where's the freedom there?


----------



## Ravi

Obscenity laws are not easily comparable.


----------



## manifold

I didn't know that about the burka vs the niqab.  Thanks for the info.

Am I to understand that this law doesn't also ban the wearing of a niqab?


----------



## Gatekeeper

Personally I see the Burkas and just another oppressive move by the Islamic men to control their 'wives' in the name of this largely perverted belief. They, in my opinion, demean women and place them at the bottom of the rung right next to the gutter.

These Islamic 'husbands' or jailers if you will have a thing about total control of others, women being the easiest to control through FEAR and Intimidation, and I believe they are so afraid of their husbands, and the beatings and other abuses that would follow if they protested, so they keep their mouths shut, maybe not all but most. 

We have all seen these maniacs place an AK-47 in the back of the head of a woman and blow her brains out for minor so called offenses, or anyone else who they feel violated their fanatic laws in the Qur'an. And they have no qualms taking an AK and blowing the brains out of ANY non Muslim. Wake up folks.


----------



## Si modo

Ravi said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with sexism nimrod unless it was you women trying to burn Paris down.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I see it as a form of sexism, too.  Of course, those women who are coerced into wearing one by the males in their lives is blatantly sexist.  But, there are women who freely choose to wear one (so I hear).  Taking away a woman's choice is sexist on its face.
> 
> Now, government's prevention of sexism is usually a good idea, in my book.  But, at the cost of another inalienable right - freedom of religion - seems like a bad idea.
> 
> If they can show that all women who wear one are coerced into doing so, I might give this law further consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have also made it illegal for men to force women to dress in this manner. From what I've read, France has done this to protect women...but how are you protecting women if you are also forcing them to adhere to a dress code of the country's choosing?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I had to look for that information about it being illegal to force women to wear one, on my own...again...ravi. Burqa Is Banned in France - WSJ.com


> ....
> The ban would apply to everyone in France, including visitors. Offenders face a maximum fine of &#8364;150 (about $190) and could be asked to attend courses on what the government calls "republican values." Individuals who encourage others to ignore the ban would face tougher penalties: up to one year in prison and a maximum fine of &#8364;30,000.
> ....



It would be more cool if you sourced stuff.  

Anyway, I agree.  Taking religion out of the equation, this is an infringement on individual freedom.  Big time.

When the individual freedom endangers the public, yeah - take it away.  I don't think France has demonstrated in any significant manner that it has.

I'm not a fan of the Muslim culture, at all.  But I am a fan of inalienable rights.  They have a perfect right to show all that they live in the stone age.


----------



## Ravi

Ozmar said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem conflicted.  And that is a good thing.
> 
> Perhaps some day you'll even be able to contemplate a reasonable hypothetical question that forces you to evaluate such inner-conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maybe...
> 
> 
> 
> Are people in burkas blowing things up in France? No? Then it isn't a matter of an imminent threat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were definitely some bomb threats and evacuations linked to this new law. Probably from those same guys who brainwash their little girls from infancy to want to wear those burkas.
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I see it as a form of sexism, too.  Of course, those women who are coerced into wearing one by the males in their lives is blatantly sexist.  But, there are women who freely choose to wear one (so I hear).  Taking away a woman's choice is sexist on its face.
> 
> Now, government's prevention of sexism is usually a good idea, in my book.  But, at the cost of another inalienable right - freedom of religion - seems like a bad idea.
> 
> If they can show that all women who wear one are coerced into doing so, I might give this law further consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have also made it illegal for men to force women to dress in this manner. From what I've read, France has done this to protect women...but how are you protecting women if you are also forcing them to adhere to a dress code of the country's choosing?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if they're brainwashed, oppressed and devalued from a young age to want to wear the burkas, then I suppose it would be their choice to want to wear one to begin with. Tell a woman she's a doormat from infancy, and she's bound to believe she's one, and cling to it. Try to un-cling her, and protests of "rights" violations will ensue. BTW, I don't recall there being a ban on Islam, so how is this religious oppression?
> 
> The image that comes to my mind as I write this is of a non-Muslim lady wearing normal European clothes being heckled and harassed for walking through a predominantly Muslim neighborhood. Where's the freedom there?
Click to expand...

First of all, there is no evidence the bomb threats were real or that they were linked to this law.

Second...who are you to decide why they wear them? IMO, Republican women are brainwashed from birth...maybe Republicanism should be banned.


----------



## Ravi

Gatekeeper said:


> Personally I see the Burkas and just another oppressive move by the Islamic men to control their 'wives' in the name of this largely perverted belief. They, in my opinion, demean women and place them at the bottom of the rung right next to the gutter.
> 
> These Islamic 'husbands' or jailers if you will have a thing about total control of others, women being the easiest to control through FEAR and Intimidation, and I believe they are so afraid of their husbands, and the beatings and other abuses that would follow if they protested, so they keep their mouths shut, maybe not all but most.
> 
> We have all seen these maniacs place an AK-47 in the back of the head of a woman and blow her brains out for minor so called offenses, or anyone else who they feel violated their fanatic laws in the Qur'an. And they have no qualms taking an AK and blowing the brains out of ANY non Muslim. Wake up folks.


So now they have to stay inside their homes or risk being beaten...how is that progress?


----------



## Ozmar

Ravi said:


> Obscenity laws are not easily comparable.



The hell they're not. In Muslim countries, it is considered "obscene" for a woman to be uncovered in public. Is that the kind of hardline values you want imported to your neck of the woods?

Having the body too revealed is socially unacceptable. The converse, that having the body too hidden is also socially unacceptable in a Western society. This law going into effect is a reaction to a group of people who unabashedly do not want to accept the customs and norms of Western culture. This whole thing is about separateness and contempt for the West.


----------



## manifold

Ravi said:


> Obscenity laws are not easily comparable.



Obscenity... is a matter of opinion.
Imminent threat... is a matter of opinion.

In my opinion the comparison is quite reasonable.

So again I ask, how are laws mandating that certain parts of the body MUST be covered any different in *principal* to laws mandating that certain parts MUST NOT be covered?


----------



## Ravi

Si modo said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I see it as a form of sexism, too.  Of course, those women who are coerced into wearing one by the males in their lives is blatantly sexist.  But, there are women who freely choose to wear one (so I hear).  Taking away a woman's choice is sexist on its face.
> 
> Now, government's prevention of sexism is usually a good idea, in my book.  But, at the cost of another inalienable right - freedom of religion - seems like a bad idea.
> 
> If they can show that all women who wear one are coerced into doing so, I might give this law further consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> They have also made it illegal for men to force women to dress in this manner. From what I've read, France has done this to protect women...but how are you protecting women if you are also forcing them to adhere to a dress code of the country's choosing?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, I had to look for that information about it being illegal to force women to wear one, on my own...again...ravi. Burqa Is Banned in France - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> The ban would apply to everyone in France, including visitors. Offenders face a maximum fine of 150 (about $190) and could be asked to attend courses on what the government calls "republican values." Individuals who encourage others to ignore the ban would face tougher penalties: up to one year in prison and a maximum fine of 30,000.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would be more cool if you sourced stuff.
> 
> Anyway, I agree.  Taking religion out of the equation, this is an infringement on individual freedom.  Big time.
> 
> When the individual freedom endangers the public, yeah - take it away.  I don't think France has demonstrated in any significant manner that it has.
> 
> I'm not a fan of the Muslim culture, at all.  But I am a fan of inalienable rights.  They have a perfect right to show all that they live in the stone age.
Click to expand...

 You have my word that I don't post things here as fact that cannot be sourced.

Looks like you and I are in total agreement on this subject.


----------



## Ozmar

Ravi said:


> Gatekeeper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I see the Burkas and just another oppressive move by the Islamic men to control their 'wives' in the name of this largely perverted belief. They, in my opinion, demean women and place them at the bottom of the rung right next to the gutter.
> 
> These Islamic 'husbands' or jailers if you will have a thing about total control of others, women being the easiest to control through FEAR and Intimidation, and I believe they are so afraid of their husbands, and the beatings and other abuses that would follow if they protested, so they keep their mouths shut, maybe not all but most.
> 
> We have all seen these maniacs place an AK-47 in the back of the head of a woman and blow her brains out for minor so called offenses, or anyone else who they feel violated their fanatic laws in the Qur'an. And they have no qualms taking an AK and blowing the brains out of ANY non Muslim. Wake up folks.
> 
> 
> 
> So now they have to stay inside their homes or risk being beaten...how is that progress?
Click to expand...


If they're stupid enough to allow themselves to be oppressed like that, cordoned off in their little separate society, I'm not sure any progress can be made.


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obscenity laws are not easily comparable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obscenity... is a matter of opinion.
> Imminent threat... is a matter of opinion.
> 
> In my opinion the comparison is quite reasonable.
> 
> So again I ask, how are laws mandating that certain parts of the body MUST be covered any different in *principal* to laws mandating that certain parts MUST NOT be covered?
Click to expand...

In principal, they aren't. But I'm not getting how you are justifying denying women wearing something they wear for religious purposes by saying you can't walk down the street naked.


----------



## Ravi

Ozmar said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gatekeeper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I see the Burkas and just another oppressive move by the Islamic men to control their 'wives' in the name of this largely perverted belief. They, in my opinion, demean women and place them at the bottom of the rung right next to the gutter.
> 
> These Islamic 'husbands' or jailers if you will have a thing about total control of others, women being the easiest to control through FEAR and Intimidation, and I believe they are so afraid of their husbands, and the beatings and other abuses that would follow if they protested, so they keep their mouths shut, maybe not all but most.
> 
> We have all seen these maniacs place an AK-47 in the back of the head of a woman and blow her brains out for minor so called offenses, or anyone else who they feel violated their fanatic laws in the Qur'an. And they have no qualms taking an AK and blowing the brains out of ANY non Muslim. Wake up folks.
> 
> 
> 
> So now they have to stay inside their homes or risk being beaten...how is that progress?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they're stupid enough to allow themselves to be oppressed like that, cordoned off in their little separate society, I'm not sure any progress can be made.
Click to expand...

So it is the women's fault. Got it.


----------



## Si modo

Ravi said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have also made it illegal for men to force women to dress in this manner. From what I've read, France has done this to protect women...but how are you protecting women if you are also forcing them to adhere to a dress code of the country's choosing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I had to look for that information about it being illegal to force women to wear one, on my own...again...ravi. Burqa Is Banned in France - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> The ban would apply to everyone in France, including visitors. Offenders face a maximum fine of 150 (about $190) and could be asked to attend courses on what the government calls "republican values." Individuals who encourage others to ignore the ban would face tougher penalties: up to one year in prison and a maximum fine of 30,000.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would be more cool if you sourced stuff.
> 
> Anyway, I agree.  Taking religion out of the equation, this is an infringement on individual freedom.  Big time.
> 
> When the individual freedom endangers the public, yeah - take it away.  I don't think France has demonstrated in any significant manner that it has.
> 
> I'm not a fan of the Muslim culture, at all.  But I am a fan of inalienable rights.  They have a perfect right to show all that they live in the stone age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have my word that I don't post things here as fact that cannot be sourced.
> 
> *Looks like you and I are in total agreement on this subject.*
Click to expand...

 [Emphasis added]  Dammit, ravi...don't highlight THAT!


----------



## Ozmar

Ravi said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obscenity laws are not easily comparable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obscenity... is a matter of opinion.
> Imminent threat... is a matter of opinion.
> 
> In my opinion the comparison is quite reasonable.
> 
> So again I ask, how are laws mandating that certain parts of the body MUST be covered any different in *principal* to laws mandating that certain parts MUST NOT be covered?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In principal, they aren't. But I'm not getting how you are justifying denying women wearing something they wear for religious purposes by saying you can't walk down the street naked.
Click to expand...


If we're going down this route of "religious freedom," is it oppressive of governments not to allow Mormons to have polygamous marriages? 

There has to be a happy medium for a society to function.


----------



## Si modo

Ravi said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obscenity laws are not easily comparable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obscenity... is a matter of opinion.
> Imminent threat... is a matter of opinion.
> 
> In my opinion the comparison is quite reasonable.
> 
> So again I ask, how are laws mandating that certain parts of the body MUST be covered any different in *principal* to laws mandating that certain parts MUST NOT be covered?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In principal, they aren't. But I'm not getting how you are justifying denying women wearing something they wear for religious purposes by saying you can't walk down the street naked.
Click to expand...

OK, you two.  It's *principle*.

Sorry, was sorta bugging me.


----------



## blu

ABikerSailor said:


> You know......I'm gonna put it simple......
> 
> If your face is covered, there is no way to identify you.
> 
> If you can't be identified?  You're probably up to no good.



fail


----------



## Ozmar

Ravi said:


> Ozmar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now they have to stay inside their homes or risk being beaten...how is that progress?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they're stupid enough to allow themselves to be oppressed like that, cordoned off in their little separate society, I'm not sure any progress can be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it is the women's fault. Got it.
Click to expand...


I think the whole point is to break the cycle of oppression of women. The little parallel societies they have set up are largely about oppression of their women from birth. Do you really think a woman that brainwashed is going to be happy to give up her burka? 
There's a lot of coercion and manipulation at play here... right in the ghettos of France...


----------



## Valerie

manifold said:


> I didn't know that about the burka vs the niqab.  Thanks for the info.
> 
> Am I to understand that this law doesn't also ban the wearing of a niqab?





I'm pretty sure that's what they're saying...It's just the full face coverage burka they will be prohibiting in public places, not the niqab.







> The law banning the veil would take effect only after a six-month period.
> 
> *Full veils 'not welcome': Sarkozy*
> 
> *The Interior Ministry estimates the number of women who fully cover themselves at some 1,900*, with a quarter of them converts to Islam and two-thirds with French nationality.
> 
> The French parliament wasted no time in working to get a ban in place, opening an inquiry shortly after Conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy said in June 2009 that *full veils that hide the face are "not welcome" in France*.
> 
> The bill calls for the equivalent of $198.75 Cdn in fines or citizenship classes for any woman caught covering her face, or both. It also carries stiff penalties for anyone such as husbands or brothers convicted of forcing the veil on a woman. The $39,750 fine and year in prison are doubled if the victim is a minor.
> 
> It was unclear, however, how authorities planned to enforce such a law.
> 
> "I will accept the fine with great pleasure," said Drider, vowing to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg if she gets caught.
> 
> CBC News - World - French Senate bans burka


----------



## Ozmar

Valerie said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know that about the burka vs the niqab.  Thanks for the info.
> 
> Am I to understand that this law doesn't also ban the wearing of a niqab?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that's what they're saying...It's just the full face coverage burka they will be prohibiting in public places, not the niqab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law banning the veil would take effect only after a six-month period.
> 
> *Full veils 'not welcome': Sarkozy*
> 
> *The Interior Ministry estimates the number of women who fully cover themselves at some 1,900*, with a quarter of them converts to Islam and two-thirds with French nationality.
> 
> The French parliament wasted no time in working to get a ban in place, opening an inquiry shortly after Conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy said in June 2009 that full veils that hide the face are "not welcome" in France.
> 
> The bill calls for the equivalent of $198.75 Cdn in fines or citizenship classes for any woman caught covering her face, or both. It also carries stiff penalties for anyone such as husbands or brothers convicted of forcing the veil on a woman. The $39,750 fine and year in prison are doubled if the victim is a minor.
> 
> It was unclear, however, how authorities planned to enforce such a law.
> 
> "I will accept the fine with great pleasure," said Drider, vowing to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg if she gets caught.
> 
> CBC News - World - French Senate bans burka
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



I am not allowed to wear a shirt with a swastika on it in most European countries. Is that a violation of my human rights?


----------



## Ravi

Valerie said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know that about the burka vs the niqab.  Thanks for the info.
> 
> Am I to understand that this law doesn't also ban the wearing of a niqab?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that's what they're saying...It's just the full face coverage burka they will be prohibiting in public places, not the niqab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law banning the veil would take effect only after a six-month period.
> 
> *Full veils 'not welcome': Sarkozy*
> 
> *The Interior Ministry estimates the number of women who fully cover themselves at some 1,900*, with a quarter of them converts to Islam and two-thirds with French nationality.
> 
> The French parliament wasted no time in working to get a ban in place, opening an inquiry shortly after Conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy said in June 2009 that *full veils that hide the face are "not welcome" in France*.
> 
> The bill calls for the equivalent of $198.75 Cdn in fines or citizenship classes for any woman caught covering her face, or both. It also carries stiff penalties for anyone such as husbands or brothers convicted of forcing the veil on a woman. The $39,750 fine and year in prison are doubled if the victim is a minor.
> 
> It was unclear, however, how authorities planned to enforce such a law.
> 
> "I will accept the fine with great pleasure," said Drider, vowing to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg if she gets caught.
> 
> CBC News - World - French Senate bans burka
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Wow...all this because of 1900 women?


----------



## manifold

Ravi said:


> In principal, they aren't. But I'm not getting how you are justifying denying women wearing something they wear for religious purposes by saying you can't walk down the street naked.



I certainly hope you're not getting THAT because I'm saying no such thing.

I really don't know why you've now concluded that this law was implemented for "religious purposes," when you've already acknowledged, as evidenced by this quote...



Ravi said:


> Seriously, though, I think this is wrong... *unless it was for a matter of imminent threat*...



...that it would be ok if indeed there was, in your opinion, an imminent threat.

So I guess I'm confused by your reasons for opposing this law (which I'm quite conflicted about myself btw).

Do you disagree with it because you do not agree with *THEIR* conclusion that the threat was large enough to justify the law?

Or are you suggesting that *THEY* are lying about their conclusion concerning the magnitude of the threat and are simply motivated by religious bigotry?

Technically, you could try to weasel out and say both, but realistically the two are mutually exclusive.

I await your clarification.


----------



## Ozmar

The imminent threat is to their society. The burka is the most visible manifestation of a slippery slope.


----------



## Kalam

Valerie said:


> I'm pretty sure that's what they're saying...It's just the full face coverage burka they will be prohibiting in public places, not the niqab.



It applies to the niqab. Almost nobody outside of Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan wears the type of burqa with the mesh screen.


----------



## manifold

Si modo said:


> OK, you two.  It's *principle*.
> 
> Sorry, was sorta bugging me.





Now that you point it out, it kinda bugs me too.

But not quite enough to got back and edit.


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> In principal, they aren't. But I'm not getting how you are justifying denying women wearing something they wear for religious purposes by saying you can't walk down the street naked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly hope you're not getting THAT because I'm saying no such thing.
> 
> I really don't know why you've now concluded that this law was implemented for "religious purposes," when you've already acknowledged, as evidenced by this quote...
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, though, I think this is wrong... *unless it was for a matter of imminent threat*...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...that it would be ok if indeed there was, in your opinion, an imminent threat.
> 
> So I guess I'm confused by your reasons for opposing this law (which I'm quite conflicted about myself btw).
> 
> Do you disagree with it because you do not agree with *THEIR* conclusion that the threat was large enough to justify the law?
> 
> Or are you suggesting that *THEY* are lying about their conclusion concerning the magnitude of the threat and are simply motivated by religious bigotry?
> 
> Technically, you could try to weasel out and say both, but realistically the two are mutually exclusive.
> 
> I await your clarification.
Click to expand...

From what I have read the reason this law was passed was because France felt women were being oppressed by being forced to wear burkas. I have not read anywhere that it was passed because France felt there was the likelihood that burka wearing humans would suddenly start blowing up.

Therefore, there is no imminent threat and there is no real justification for passing this law.


----------



## ConHog

Ravi said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> In principal, they aren't. But I'm not getting how you are justifying denying women wearing something they wear for religious purposes by saying you can't walk down the street naked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly hope you're not getting THAT because I'm saying no such thing.
> 
> I really don't know why you've now concluded that this law was implemented for "religious purposes," when you've already acknowledged, as evidenced by this quote...
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, though, I think this is wrong... *unless it was for a matter of imminent threat*...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...that it would be ok if indeed there was, in your opinion, an imminent threat.
> 
> So I guess I'm confused by your reasons for opposing this law (which I'm quite conflicted about myself btw).
> 
> Do you disagree with it because you do not agree with *THEIR* conclusion that the threat was large enough to justify the law?
> 
> Or are you suggesting that *THEY* are lying about their conclusion concerning the magnitude of the threat and are simply motivated by religious bigotry?
> 
> Technically, you could try to weasel out and say both, but realistically the two are mutually exclusive.
> 
> I await your clarification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From what I have read the reason this law was passed was because France felt women were being oppressed by being forced to wear burkas. I have not read anywhere that it was passed because France felt there was the likelihood that burka wearing humans would suddenly start blowing up.
> 
> Therefore, there is no imminent threat and there is no real justification for passing this law.
Click to expand...


Watching you go postal is all the justification I need. Bring on a US law.


----------



## Si modo

Ozmar said:


> The imminent threat is to their society. The burka is the most visible manifestation of a slippery slope.


This ban can be viewed as a slipperly slope, too.  

I understand what you are saying, though.  France and other EU nations have surrendered some of their freedoms to accomodate Muslim pressures.  Free speech being a big one.

Now, they seem to be realizing that wasn't such a good idea.  They sold out inalienable rights (ie. free speech) to address a large population being 'offended'. rolleyes:  I still can't believe how so many allowed that to happen).  But, they are selling out inalienable rights to fix their original sellout.  Seems like a bad idea to me.

If they go back to some first principles concerning inalienable rights, maybe that might solve this problem.  Make it too difficult for these Muslims to live free.


----------



## Liability

Oh great.

Now only outlaws will wear burkas.

Ummm.  Or is that maybe already the case?

Hm.


----------



## manifold

Valerie said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know that about the burka vs the niqab.  Thanks for the info.
> 
> Am I to understand that this law doesn't also ban the wearing of a niqab?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that's what they're saying...It's just the full face coverage burka they will be prohibiting in public places, not the niqab.
Click to expand...


Something else I didn't know.  Thanks again.

Of course this puzzles me for two reasons.

If the niqab is still legal, then I hardly see this law being particularly effective at reducing the threat they perceived to be great enough to pass this law in the first place.

But at the same time, if women can still where the niqab, then I don't see this as being quite as restrictive to a woman's religious freedom as has been proffered.


----------



## Ravi

The niqab is also now illegal in France.


----------



## manifold

Kalam said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that's what they're saying...It's just the full face coverage burka they will be prohibiting in public places, not the niqab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It applies to the niqab. Almost nobody outside of Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan wears the type of burqa with the mesh screen.
Click to expand...


Can we get a ruling on this please?  

Somebody with mad google skeelz needed.


----------



## Valerie

Ravi said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know that about the burka vs the niqab.  Thanks for the info.
> 
> Am I to understand that this law doesn't also ban the wearing of a niqab?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that's what they're saying...It's just the full face coverage burka they will be prohibiting in public places, not the niqab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law banning the veil would take effect only after a six-month period.
> 
> *Full veils 'not welcome': Sarkozy*
> 
> *The Interior Ministry estimates the number of women who fully cover themselves at some 1,900*, with a quarter of them converts to Islam and two-thirds with French nationality.
> 
> The French parliament wasted no time in working to get a ban in place, opening an inquiry shortly after Conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy said in June 2009 that *full veils that hide the face are "not welcome" in France*.
> 
> The bill calls for the equivalent of $198.75 Cdn in fines or citizenship classes for any woman caught covering her face, or both. It also carries stiff penalties for anyone such as husbands or brothers convicted of forcing the veil on a woman. The $39,750 fine and year in prison are doubled if the victim is a minor.
> 
> It was unclear, however, how authorities planned to enforce such a law.
> 
> "I will accept the fine with great pleasure," said Drider, vowing to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg if she gets caught.
> 
> CBC News - World - French Senate bans burka
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow...all this because of 1900 women?
Click to expand...




It does seem odd, doesn't it, that so few of them caused such a disturbance to have to create this law...I am conflicted as well, since I hate to see personal liberties taken away...But there is that sense of an imminent threat.


If it is sometimes legally justifiable for public surveillance, how is this any different than the legal standard of reasonable expectation of privacy?  Do they really have a "right" to completely cover their face in public?


----------



## Ravi

Valerie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that's what they're saying...It's just the full face coverage burka they will be prohibiting in public places, not the niqab.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...all this because of 1900 women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does seem odd, doesn't it, that so few of them caused such a disturbance to have to create this law...I am conflicted as well, since I hate to see personal liberties taken away...But there is that sense of an imminent threat.
> 
> 
> If it is sometimes legally justifiable for public surveillance, how is this any different than the legal standard of reasonable expectation of privacy?  Do they really have a "right" to completely cover their face in public?
Click to expand...

Does a democratic government have a "right" to forbid a religious practice that is for all intents and purposes harmless because someone might take advantage?


----------



## manifold

Ravi said:


> From what I have read the reason this law was passed was because France felt women were being oppressed by being forced to wear burkas. I have not read anywhere that it was passed because France felt there was the likelihood that burka wearing humans would suddenly start blowing up.
> 
> Therefore, there is no imminent threat and there is no real justification for passing this law.



Thanks for the clarification.  I appreciate your patience.

However, I still do not fully understand your reason for opposing this law.

Do you not believe muslim women are being forced to wear burkas in sufficient enough numbers to justify this law?

Do you not believe it is justifed NO MATTER whether woman are forced to wear burkas nor how many?

As for the blowing up part, I concede that I've only read about that in opinion pieces, but it doesn't seem completely unfathomable either.


----------



## Ravi

I think that women shouldn't be forced to dress in a certain way by anyone...the government especially.


----------



## Valerie

Ravi said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...all this because of 1900 women?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does seem odd, doesn't it, that so few of them caused such a disturbance to have to create this law...I am conflicted as well, since I hate to see personal liberties taken away...But there is that sense of an imminent threat.
> 
> 
> If it is sometimes legally justifiable for public surveillance, how is this any different than the legal standard of reasonable expectation of privacy?  Do they really have a "right" to completely cover their face in public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does a democratic government have a "right" to *forbid a religious practice* that is for all intents and purposes harmless because someone might take advantage?
Click to expand...






Covering their entire face is not actually required by their religion...And the vast majority of the French population supports their Senate vote of 246 to 1 that covering faces in public is not considered "harmless for all intents and purposes".





> *Muslim leaders concur that Islam does not require a woman to hide her face.* But they have voiced concerns that a law forbidding them to do so would stigmatize the French Muslim population, which at an estimated five million is the second largest in France and the largest in western Europe. Numerous Muslim women who wear the face-covering veil have said they are now being harassed in the streets.
> 
> CBC News - World - French Senate bans burka


----------



## Kalam

Valerie said:


> Covering their entire face is not actually required by their religion...



That's a matter of interpretation and governments -- particularly non-Islamic governments -- have no business interpreting our religion for us.


----------



## Valerie

Kalam said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Covering their entire face is not actually required by their religion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a matter of interpretation and governments -- particularly non-Islamic governments -- have no business interpreting our religion for us.
Click to expand...




Did you see the bold part above that says Muslim leaders concur???


----------



## ConHog

Valerie said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Covering their entire face is not actually required by their religion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a matter of interpretation and governments -- particularly non-Islamic governments -- have no business interpreting our religion for us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see the bold part above that says Muslim leaders concur???
Click to expand...


You people need to read Kalam's posts more carefully. He is clearly of the opinion that non Muslims both people and governments should fuck off and die. He has advocated ignoring laws that conflict with Islam and has expressed glee in the attacks that his fellow terrorists have perpetrated.


----------



## manifold

Ravi said:


> I think that women shouldn't be forced to dress in a certain way by anyone...the government especially.



That contradicts some of your earlier comments, like this one for example...



Ravi said:


> Seriously, though, I think this is wrong... *unless it was for a matter of imminent threat*...



Are you now retracting your previously expressed opinion that it _COULD_ be justified by an imminent threat?


----------



## Kalam

Valerie said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Covering their entire face is not actually required by their religion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a matter of interpretation and governments -- particularly non-Islamic governments -- have no business interpreting our religion for us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see the bold part above that says Muslim leaders concur???
Click to expand...


Sunni Islam has no clerical hierarchy. The word of one scholar is no more binding than the next and you can find scholars that represent just about every side of most issues like this. You've probably noticed, for example, that the Saudi dress code in certain parts of the country requires niqab.


----------



## Ravi

Valerie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does seem odd, doesn't it, that so few of them caused such a disturbance to have to create this law...I am conflicted as well, since I hate to see personal liberties taken away...But there is that sense of an imminent threat.
> 
> 
> If it is sometimes legally justifiable for public surveillance, how is this any different than the legal standard of reasonable expectation of privacy?  Do they really have a "right" to completely cover their face in public?
> 
> 
> 
> Does a democratic government have a "right" to *forbid a religious practice* that is for all intents and purposes harmless because someone might take advantage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Covering their entire face is not actually required by their religion...And the vast majority of the French population supports their Senate vote of 246 to 1 that covering faces in public is not considered "harmless for all intents and purposes".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Muslim leaders concur that Islam does not require a woman to hide her face.* But they have voiced concerns that a law forbidding them to do so would stigmatize the French Muslim population, which at an estimated five million is the second largest in France and the largest in western Europe. Numerous Muslim women who wear the face-covering veil have said they are now being harassed in the streets.
> 
> CBC News - World - French Senate bans burka
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I don't think that matters. Catholics aren't required to wear crosses around their necks but many of them do.


----------



## Sunni Man

The burqa ban is just another attemp to intimidate muslims in the West.

We are used to being vilified and discriminated against.

Quran burning, banning of mosque construction, etc.

It's not going to stop us. Nor is it going to drives us away.

All these petty slaps in the face do is weaken the moderate muslims position.

Then the extremists say to the moderates, "We told you so".


----------



## frazzledgear

Ravi said:


> I can understand why they did it...but are they not condemning some women to choosing between their religious beliefs and their ability to leave the house?




France only proves time and again why we should bend over backwards to AVOID imitating them.  What a pack of total losers.

First they open their doors to Muslim immigrants and encouraged them to come to France by the millions because they wanted to exploit them as a source of cheap labor.  As a result France has a significantly higher Muslim population than we do.  But at the very same time their Muslim population is significantly more poor as a whole compared to other groups in France.  Instead of doing all they could to positively encourage them to assimilate them into their society,  once they arrived they were herded into Muslim ghettos where they are cut off from the general population, where they are significantly more poor as a whole and as a result where rage, resentment and extremism flourish.   THEN after realizing what a tinderbox they are creating for themselves, they do stuff like passing this law in the belief they can now FORCE their Muslim population to outwardly pretend to be well assimilated into their general population.  Even as they remain segregated, exploited and poor -but now their Muslim population WANTS to be isolated from their general population.  _*Wearing a burka in a western nation is an indication of the severity of isolation felt by their Muslim population from the general population.*_  And France will never relieve that by demanding their Muslim population PRETEND they are assimilated with a change of clothing -while nothing else about their circumstances changes at all.  This law will only further fuel their anger, resentment, isolation -and extremism.  France's Muslim population is SIGNIFICANTLY more extremist than our own.  What they did to their own Muslim population was born of French arrogance and belief that France is for the "real" French -they do NOT want to be a nation of immigrants as the US is, which is why they deliberately isolated their immigrant Muslim population.  I have no sympathy for what they are bringing down on themselves as their result of their own arrogance and condescension for others and deliberate policies to exploit others for their own benefit while denying them full status in their country that the French believe is reserved for themselves alone.  *The French suck at freedom and to this day haven't a clue what it really is.*  It is why even though the US is one of the youngest nations in the world, it is closing in on having liberated 1 billion other human beings during its existence.  While France, which is centuries older than the US- has liberated ZERO.  Unlike our country, the French really do believe liberty is something to be hoarded for themselves, not shared.   God save us all from the French and their "values".

We did it differently here.  Muslims here are free to wear burkas if they want -the difference is in this country, we didn't herd them into Muslim ghettos when they did immigrate, we didn't try to exploit them financially for our own benefit, they don't feel segregated off from our general population and they don't want to be either.   We gave them the freedom to live their lives as they saw fit and for the most part, they chose to be Americans and fully assimilated into our general population.  The day we pass a law outlawing the wearing of any article of clothing in public that denotes someone's religion -is the day we have tossed our Constitution into the trash.  FREEDOM works -force does not.


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that women shouldn't be forced to dress in a certain way by anyone...the government especially.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That contradicts some of your earlier comments, like this one for example...
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, though, I think this is wrong... *unless it was for a matter of imminent threat*...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you now retracting your previously expressed opinion that it _COULD_ be justified by an imminent threat?
Click to expand...

Again, I do not believe this is an imminent threat. This is no different than how I feel about racial profiling. If a certain ethnic group is suddenly suicide bombing planes then go right ahead and profile. If they aren't then there is no reason to do so.


----------



## Ravi

frazzledgear said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand why they did it...but are they not condemning some women to choosing between their religious beliefs and their ability to leave the house?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> France only proves time and again why we should bend over backwards to AVOID imitating them.  What a pack of total losers.
> 
> First they open their doors to Muslim immigrants and encouraged them to come to France by the millions because they wanted to exploit them as a source of cheap labor.  As a result France has a significantly higher Muslim population than we do.  But at the very same time their Muslim population is significantly more poor as a whole compared to other groups in France.  Instead of doing all they could to positively encourage them to assimilate them into their society,  once they arrived they were herded into Muslim ghettos where they are cut off from the general population, where they are significantly more poor as a whole and as a result where rage, resentment and extremism flourish.   THEN after realizing what a tinderbox they are creating for themselves, they do stuff like passing this law in the belief they can now FORCE their Muslim population to outwardly pretend to be well assimilated into their general population.  Even as they remain segregated, exploited and poor -but now their Muslim population WANTS to be isolated from their general population.  _*Wearing a burka in a western nation is an indication of the severity of isolation felt by their Muslim population from the general population.*_  And France will never relieve that by demanding their Muslim population PRETEND they are assimilated with a change of clothing -while nothing else about their circumstances changes at all.  This law will only further fuel their anger, resentment, isolation -and extremism.  France's Muslim population is SIGNIFICANTLY more extremist than our own.  What they did to their own Muslim population was born of French arrogance and belief that France is for the "real" French -they do NOT want to be a nation of immigrants as the US is, which is why they deliberately isolated their immigrant Muslim population.  I have no sympathy for what they are bringing down on themselves as their result of their own arrogance and condescension for others and deliberate policies to exploit others for their own benefit while denying them full status in their country that the French believe is reserved for themselves alone.  *The French suck at freedom and to this day haven't a clue what it really is.*  It is why even though the US is one of the youngest nations in the world, it is closing in on having liberated 1 billion other human beings during its existence.  While France, which is centuries older than the US- has liberated ZERO.  Unlike our country, the French really do believe liberty is something to be hoarded for themselves, not shared.   God save us all from the French and their "values".
> 
> We did it differently here.  Muslims here are free to wear burkas if they want -the difference is in this country, we didn't herd them into Muslim ghettos when they did immigrate, we didn't try to exploit them financially for our own benefit, they don't feel segregated off from our general population and they don't want to be either.   We gave them the freedom to live their lives as they saw fit and for the most part, they chose to be Americans and fully assimilated into our general population.  The day we pass a law outlawing the wearing of any article of clothing in public that denotes someone's religion -is the day we have tossed our Constitution into the trash.  FREEDOM works -force does not.
Click to expand...

Wow. I do believe that is the first intelligent things I've ever seen you post.


----------



## manifold

Ravi said:


> Again, I *do not *believe this is an imminent threat...



But if you *did*, you'd conclude that the ban is justified, correct?


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I *do not *believe this is an imminent threat...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But if you *did*, you'd conclude that the ban is justified, correct?
Click to expand...

Temporarily, yes. And not just for women.


----------



## ConHog

Ravi said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that women shouldn't be forced to dress in a certain way by anyone...the government especially.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That contradicts some of your earlier comments, like this one for example...
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, though, I think this is wrong... *unless it was for a matter of imminent threat*...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you now retracting your previously expressed opinion that it _COULD_ be justified by an imminent threat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, I do not believe this is an imminent threat. This is no different than how I feel about racial profiling. If a certain ethnic group is suddenly suicide bombing planes then go right ahead and profile. If they aren't then there is no reason to do so.
Click to expand...


you are so stupid. Can you give me one example of profiling being used when it wasn't the case that the group being profiled needed to be profiled?


----------



## manifold

Ravi said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I *do not *believe this is an imminent threat...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But if you *did*, you'd conclude that the ban is justified, correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Temporarily, yes. And not just for women.
Click to expand...




Are you telling me that this ban doesn't apply to men also?  That men, if they chose to, could wear burkas?


----------



## nia588

Ignorance of what goes on in the middle east is still in style I  see. Instead bashing a region of the world leave your couch every once and while and actually see it for yourself.

Only Saudi and Iran (and in some parts of yemen) do they impose the hijab. In the rest of the middle east you can pretty much wear whatever. And actually in some places like Tunisia and Morroco hijab is actually discouraged in many work places.

I lived in the middle east for over 10 years and I faced no problems being hijabless. I actually knew some women who's families forbade them from wearing hijab (which i think is wrong because every woman has choice)

and many of the women who wore niqab were educated and it was their choice.

and it's a myth you can't drive with the niqab on. it doesn't impair your vision in anyway. i tested it myself.


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if you *did*, you'd conclude that the ban is justified, correct?
> 
> 
> 
> Temporarily, yes. And not just for women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you telling me that this ban doesn't apply to men also?  That men, if they chose to, could wear burkas?
Click to expand...

Let us see if any sheiks arrive in France and are told to change into a business suit.


----------



## Si modo

nia588 said:


> Ignorance of what goes on in the middle east is still in style I  see.
> 
> Only Saudi and Iran (and in some parts of yemen) do they impose the hijab. In the rest of the middle east you can pretty much wear whatever. And actually in some places like Tunisia and Morroco hijab is actually discouraged in many work places.
> 
> I lived in the middle east for over 10 years and I faced no problems being hijabless. I actually knew some women who's families forbade them from wearing hijab (which i think is wrong because every woman has choice)
> 
> and many of the women who wore niqab were educated and it was their choice.
> 
> and it's a myth you can't drive with the niqab on. it doesn't impair your vision in anyway. i tested it myself.


Then the woman I encountered driving in one was a moron.  She drove like shit and was a hazard on the road.  She clearly did not see me and others when she tried to pull in front of us.

It limits vision and that's a hazard when driving.


----------



## nia588

Si modo said:


> nia588 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance of what goes on in the middle east is still in style I  see.
> 
> Only Saudi and Iran (and in some parts of yemen) do they impose the hijab. In the rest of the middle east you can pretty much wear whatever. And actually in some places like Tunisia and Morroco hijab is actually discouraged in many work places.
> 
> I lived in the middle east for over 10 years and I faced no problems being hijabless. I actually knew some women who's families forbade them from wearing hijab (which i think is wrong because every woman has choice)
> 
> and many of the women who wore niqab were educated and it was their choice.
> 
> and it's a myth you can't drive with the niqab on. it doesn't impair your vision in anyway. i tested it myself.
> 
> 
> 
> Then the woman I encountered driving in one was a moron.  She drove like shit and was a hazard on the road.  She clearly did not see me and others when she tried to pull in front of us.
> 
> It limits vision and that's a hazard when driving.
Click to expand...


the woman is probably a crappy driver with or without the niqab. like i said i drove with the face veil on before and it does not in anyway impair vision.

try it for youself if you don't believe me.


----------



## Si modo

nia588 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nia588 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance of what goes on in the middle east is still in style I  see.
> 
> Only Saudi and Iran (and in some parts of yemen) do they impose the hijab. In the rest of the middle east you can pretty much wear whatever. And actually in some places like Tunisia and Morroco hijab is actually discouraged in many work places.
> 
> I lived in the middle east for over 10 years and I faced no problems being hijabless. I actually knew some women who's families forbade them from wearing hijab (which i think is wrong because every woman has choice)
> 
> and many of the women who wore niqab were educated and it was their choice.
> 
> and it's a myth you can't drive with the niqab on. it doesn't impair your vision in anyway. i tested it myself.
> 
> 
> 
> Then the woman I encountered driving in one was a moron.  She drove like shit and was a hazard on the road.  She clearly did not see me and others when she tried to pull in front of us.
> 
> It limits vision and that's a hazard when driving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the woman is probably a crappy driver with or without the niqab. like i said i drove with the face veil on before and it does not in anyway impair vision.
> 
> try it for youself if you don't believe me.
Click to expand...

No thanks.  I like my car too much.

Fact: The niqab limits vision, especially peripheral vision.

Fact: One must pass a peripheral vision test to be legally licensed to drive in many states.  I wonder why that is necessary?


----------



## manifold

Ravi said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Temporarily, yes. And not just for women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you telling me that this ban doesn't apply to men also?  That men, if they chose to, could wear burkas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let us see if any sheiks arrive in France and are told to change into a business suit.
Click to expand...


apples and oranges Ravi.

So I take it that the ban on covering the head and face with a burka applies to both men and women.  Or at least until conflicting factual evidence is presented I'm going to assume that the French government wouldn't be quite so retarded as to pass this law as being applicable only to women.


----------



## Kalam

Si modo said:


> nia588 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the woman I encountered driving in one was a moron.  She drove like shit and was a hazard on the road.  She clearly did not see me and others when she tried to pull in front of us.
> 
> It limits vision and that's a hazard when driving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the woman is probably a crappy driver with or without the niqab. like i said i drove with the face veil on before and it does not in anyway impair vision.
> 
> try it for youself if you don't believe me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No thanks.  I like my car too much.
> 
> Fact: The niqab limits vision, especially peripheral vision.
> 
> Fact: One must pass a peripheral vision test to be legally licensed to drive in many states.  I wonder why that is necessary?
Click to expand...


I fail to see how that's possible unless the fabric is unreasonably close to the eyes.


----------



## Sunni Man

Si modo said:


> nia588 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance of what goes on in the middle east is still in style I  see.
> 
> Only Saudi and Iran (and in some parts of yemen) do they impose the hijab. In the rest of the middle east you can pretty much wear whatever. And actually in some places like Tunisia and Morroco hijab is actually discouraged in many work places.
> 
> I lived in the middle east for over 10 years and I faced no problems being hijabless. I actually knew some women who's families forbade them from wearing hijab (which i think is wrong because every woman has choice)
> 
> and many of the women who wore niqab were educated and it was their choice.
> 
> and it's a myth you can't drive with the niqab on. it doesn't impair your vision in anyway. i tested it myself.
> 
> 
> 
> Then the woman I encountered driving in one was a moron.  She drove like shit and was a hazard on the road.  She clearly did not see me and others when she tried to pull in front of us.
> 
> It limits vision and that's a hazard when driving.
Click to expand...

The worst drivers here where I live in the North East.

Is an Asian woman driving while talking on a cell phone.

They are a menace and shouldn't be allowed on the road.  Period.


----------



## Ravi

manifold said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you telling me that this ban doesn't apply to men also?  That men, if they chose to, could wear burkas?
> 
> 
> 
> Let us see if any sheiks arrive in France and are told to change into a business suit.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> apples and oranges Ravi.
> 
> So I take it that the ban on covering the head and face with a burka applies to both men and women.  Or at least until conflicting factual evidence is presented I'm going to assume that the French government wouldn't be quite so retarded as to pass this law as being applicable only to women.
Click to expand...

They were careful to write it without mentioning women...but only women wear the veil.


----------



## nia588

Si modo said:


> nia588 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the woman I encountered driving in one was a moron.  She drove like shit and was a hazard on the road.  She clearly did not see me and others when she tried to pull in front of us.
> 
> It limits vision and that's a hazard when driving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the woman is probably a crappy driver with or without the niqab. like i said i drove with the face veil on before and it does not in anyway impair vision.
> 
> try it for youself if you don't believe me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No thanks.  I like my car too much.
> 
> Fact: The niqab limits vision, especially peripheral vision.
> 
> Fact: One must pass a peripheral vision test to be legally licensed to drive in many states.  I wonder why that is necessary?
Click to expand...


and you are basing your facts on what? what you are saying is not a fact. it's a myth like i said.

most slits in niqab are wide. the sides of the eye are left open as well so your peripheral vision is not blocked. and how do you think thousands of niqabed women pass their drivers test in this country? do you think the DMV just lets them pass for no reason?


----------



## Si modo

Kalam said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nia588 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the woman is probably a crappy driver with or without the niqab. like i said i drove with the face veil on before and it does not in anyway impair vision.
> 
> try it for youself if you don't believe me.
> 
> 
> 
> No thanks.  I like my car too much.
> 
> Fact: The niqab limits vision, especially peripheral vision.
> 
> Fact: One must pass a peripheral vision test to be legally licensed to drive in many states.  I wonder why that is necessary?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I fail to see how that's possible unless the fabric is unreasonably close to the eyes.
Click to expand...

You don't have to wear one.



> Wearing the burqa is no easy task
> 
> By Sandra Milton Martelozzo
> The University of Wollongong
> 
> Published May 30, 2010
> 
> ....
> 
> Malalai Joya, an Afghan MP and a devout Muslim, did not pack her burqa when visiting Australia recently.
> 
> Its not only oppressive, but more difficult to wear than you might think. You have no peripheral vision. And its hot and suffocating under there," she said.
> 
> ....


Wearing the burqa is no easy task - UPIU.com


----------



## Si modo

nia588 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nia588 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the woman is probably a crappy driver with or without the niqab. like i said i drove with the face veil on before and it does not in anyway impair vision.
> 
> try it for youself if you don't believe me.
> 
> 
> 
> No thanks.  I like my car too much.
> 
> Fact: The niqab limits vision, especially peripheral vision.
> 
> Fact: One must pass a peripheral vision test to be legally licensed to drive in many states.  I wonder why that is necessary?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and you are basing you facts on what? what you are saying is not a fact. it's a myth like i said.
Click to expand...


Not quite.



> Wearing the burqa is no easy task
> 
> By Sandra Milton Martelozzo
> The University of Wollongong
> 
> Published May 30, 2010
> ....
> 
> Malalai Joya, an Afghan MP and a devout Muslim, did not pack her burqa when visiting Australia recently.
> 
> &#8220;It&#8217;s not only oppressive, but more difficult to wear than you might think. You have no peripheral vision. And it&#8217;s hot and suffocating under there," she said.
> 
> ....


----------



## Kalam

Si modo said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No thanks.  I like my car too much.
> 
> Fact: The niqab limits vision, especially peripheral vision.
> 
> Fact: One must pass a peripheral vision test to be legally licensed to drive in many states.  I wonder why that is necessary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fail to see how that's possible unless the fabric is unreasonably close to the eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have to wear one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wearing the burqa is no easy task
> 
> By Sandra Milton Martelozzo
> The University of Wollongong
> 
> Published May 30, 2010
> 
> ....
> 
> Malalai Joya, an Afghan MP and a devout Muslim, did not pack her burqa when visiting Australia recently.
> 
> Its not only oppressive, but more difficult to wear than you might think. You have no peripheral vision. And its hot and suffocating under there," she said.
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wearing the burqa is no easy task - UPIU.com
Click to expand...


"Burqa":





Can you spot the difference?


----------



## Si modo

Kalam said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fail to see how that's possible unless the fabric is unreasonably close to the eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to wear one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wearing the burqa is no easy task
> 
> By Sandra Milton Martelozzo
> The University of Wollongong
> 
> Published May 30, 2010
> 
> ....
> 
> Malalai Joya, an Afghan MP and a devout Muslim, did not pack her burqa when visiting Australia recently.
> 
> Its not only oppressive, but more difficult to wear than you might think. You have no peripheral vision. And its hot and suffocating under there," she said.
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wearing the burqa is no easy task - UPIU.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Burqa":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spot the difference?
Click to expand...

Can you?

Burqa:  A burqa (Arabic pronunciation: [&#712;b&#650;rqa&#661;]; also transliterated burkha, burka or burqua from Arabic: &#1576;&#1585;&#1602;&#1593;&#8206; burqu or burqa ) is an enveloping outer garment worn by women in some Islamic traditions
[Wikipedia]


----------



## Kalam

Si modo said:


> Can you?



Yep. Women in Afghanistan wear garments with mesh screens. Any other questions?


----------



## ConHog

Ravi said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us see if any sheiks arrive in France and are told to change into a business suit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apples and oranges Ravi.
> 
> So I take it that the ban on covering the head and face with a burka applies to both men and women.  Or at least until conflicting factual evidence is presented I'm going to assume that the French government wouldn't be quite so retarded as to pass this law as being applicable only to women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were careful to write it without mentioning women...but only women wear the veil.
Click to expand...


You are one ignorant bitch.

Just because traditionally only women wear the damned things doesn't mean the french were thinking "let's screw over Muslim women" when passing the law. Actually, the french are world renowned for their LOVE of women, so it's asinine to suggest they would target them with this law.

But you are asinine, so it fits.


----------



## nia588

Si modo said:


> nia588 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No thanks.  I like my car too much.
> 
> Fact: The niqab limits vision, especially peripheral vision.
> 
> Fact: One must pass a peripheral vision test to be legally licensed to drive in many states.  I wonder why that is necessary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you are basing you facts on what? what you are saying is not a fact. it's a myth like i said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not quite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wearing the burqa is no easy task
> 
> By Sandra Milton Martelozzo
> The University of Wollongong
> 
> Published May 30, 2010
> ....
> 
> Malalai Joya, an Afghan MP and a devout Muslim, did not pack her burqa when visiting Australia recently.
> 
> &#8220;It&#8217;s not only oppressive, but more difficult to wear than you might think. You have no peripheral vision. And it&#8217;s hot and suffocating under there," she said.
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


in Afghanistan they wear burkha not niqab. with a burkha i could understand why she couldn't see but with a niqab you can see. but most women who cover their face wear the niqab. only in Afghanistan is the burka popular.

here is a niqab. notice the slit is open wide enough for peripheral vision





here is a burkha. covers the eyes with net and slit is much more narrow


----------



## Si modo

Kalam said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Women in Afghanistan wear garments with mesh screens. Any other questions?
Click to expand...

So what?

It's part of wearing a burqa.

All head pieces are not alike, with burqas, but I suspect you know that. Regardless, any headgear that limits a driver's peripheral vision is a hazard.  Any.

Get off the road if you're a hazard.  Or move elsewhere where the hazards are the same for all on the road.  It's simple.


----------



## Kalam

Si modo said:


> So what?



So that isn't the same as a niqab, which has no screen.


----------



## Liability

Si modo said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to wear one.
> 
> Wearing the burqa is no easy task - UPIU.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Burqa":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spot the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you?
> 
> Burqa:  A burqa (Arabic pronunciation: [&#712;b&#650;rqa&#661;]; also transliterated burkha, burka or burqua from Arabic: &#1576;&#1585;&#1602;&#1593;&#8206; burqu or burqa ) is an enveloping outer garment worn by women in some Islamic traditions
> [Wikipedia]
Click to expand...



What a nasty religion.


----------



## Kalam

Liability said:


> What a nasty religion.



We should ban it and kill 'em all.


----------



## Valerie

Ravi said:


> I think that women shouldn't be forced to dress in a certain way by anyone...the government especially.





Which is why they did not exclude sexes and they actually went out of their way to mention equality of the sexes in this bill.  




> *The legislation adopted Tuesday by the Senate, the upper house of the French Parliament, forbids people from concealing their faces in public. It makes no reference to Islam*, and includes exceptions for people who need to cover up for work reasons, such as riot police and surgeons.
> 
> But it follows a year-long campaign by Frency President Nicolas Sarkozy&#8217;s ruling party against the burqa and niqab, head-to-toe robes worn by a small number of France&#8217;s Muslim women. The burqa is &#8220;a sign of enslavement and debasement,&#8221; Sarkozy said last year.
> 
> The bill is scheduled to come into force after six months, though it will be reviewed by France&#8217;s Constitutional Council before it takes effect. The Council, which reviews the constitutionality of laws after they are passed by Parliament but before they are put into force, has rejected several bills in recent years. It can censor all or part of the law deemed to contradict the nation&#8217;s bylaws.
> 
> The ban would apply to everyone in France, including visitors.
> 
> No First Amendment Here! France Bans Burquas, Niqabs - Law Blog - WSJ


----------



## Si modo

Kalam said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that isn't the same as a niqab, which has no screen.
Click to expand...

I don't really care all that much nor do I care to care all that much.  Both limit peripheral vision. 

If they want to drive, then don't wear anything that limits peripheral vision.   Burqa, niqab, or watermelon rind - don't care. 

You want to make this religious, like the good little Muslim victim you strive to be, fine.  It's not.  It's safety of the greater good.


----------



## Si modo

Funny, a student wearing a burqa was in my lab class in grad school.  I told her she had to secure her clothing because she was in violation of OSHA.  She created a stink about that, but I do like explicit OSHA standards - "loose, flowing clothing".

Too bad for her.


----------



## Ravi

Valerie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that women shouldn't be forced to dress in a certain way by anyone...the government especially.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why they did not exclude sexes and they actually went out of their way to mention equality of the sexes in this bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The legislation adopted Tuesday by the Senate, the upper house of the French Parliament, forbids people from concealing their faces in public. It makes no reference to Islam*, and includes exceptions for people who need to cover up for work reasons, such as riot police and surgeons.
> 
> But it follows a year-long campaign by Frency President Nicolas Sarkozys ruling party against the burqa and niqab, head-to-toe robes worn by a small number of Frances Muslim women. The burqa is a sign of enslavement and debasement, Sarkozy said last year.
> 
> The bill is scheduled to come into force after six months, though it will be reviewed by Frances Constitutional Council before it takes effect. The Council, which reviews the constitutionality of laws after they are passed by Parliament but before they are put into force, has rejected several bills in recent years. It can censor all or part of the law deemed to contradict the nations bylaws.
> 
> The ban would apply to everyone in France, including visitors.
> 
> No First Amendment Here! France Bans Burquas, Niqabs - Law Blog - WSJ
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 No wearing stilletto heels in public, boys.


----------



## nia588

Si modo said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that isn't the same as a niqab, which has no screen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't really care all that much nor do I care to care all that much.  Both limit peripheral vision.
> 
> If they want to drive, then don't wear anything that limits peripheral vision.   Burqa, niqab, or watermelon rind - don't care.
> 
> You want to make this religious, like the good little Muslim victim you strive to be, fine.  It's not.  It's safety of the greater good.
Click to expand...


here is a documentary called Muslim driving school where one of the instructors wears the niqab herself and some of the students. now England has stricter driving laws than we do.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC8fLjLn5UA]YouTube - Muslim Driving School - Episode 1 | Part 1 of 3[/ame]


----------



## ABikerSailor

It's simple......if you cover your face, you're either a terrorist or a criminal.

Why else hide who you are?


----------



## Kalam

Si modo said:


> I don't really care all that much nor do I care to care all that much.  Both limit peripheral vision.


You have yet to do anything in the way of proving this. Repeating it won't suffice. 



Si modo said:


> You want to make this religious, like the good little Muslim victim you strive to be, fine.  It's not.  It's safety of the greater good.


Where have I claimed to be a "victim" in this discussion? You assume that I care about your hatred for Muslims and Islam.


----------



## Si modo

nia588 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that isn't the same as a niqab, which has no screen.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really care all that much nor do I care to care all that much.  Both limit peripheral vision.
> 
> If they want to drive, then don't wear anything that limits peripheral vision.   Burqa, niqab, or watermelon rind - don't care.
> 
> You want to make this religious, like the good little Muslim victim you strive to be, fine.  It's not.  It's safety of the greater good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> here is a documentary called Muslim driving school where one of the instructors wears the niqab herself and some of the students. now England has stricter driving laws than we do.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC8fLjLn5UA]YouTube - Muslim Driving School - Episode 1 | Part 1 of 3[/ame]
Click to expand...

Their faces are covered?

Maybe I missed the covered face.  Give me the time, if you could.


----------



## Sunni Man

ABikerSailor said:


> It's simple......if you cover your face, you're either a terrorist or a criminal.
> 
> Why else hide who you are?


What about ZORO ???

He covered his face.

Yet all he did was good things and helped people.


----------



## Si modo

Kalam said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really care all that much nor do I care to care all that much.  Both limit peripheral vision.
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to do anything in the way of proving this. Repeating it won't suffice.
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to make this religious, like the good little Muslim victim you strive to be, fine.  It's not.  It's safety of the greater good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where have I claimed to be a "victim" in this discussion? You assume that I care about your hatred for Muslims and Islam.
Click to expand...

Where have I ever said I hate Muslims or Islam?

I'll save you some time.  I've never said it.

Liar.  But, it feeds your victimhood to believe I hate your religion and those who follow it.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's simple......if you cover your face, you're either a terrorist or a criminal.
> 
> Why else hide who you are?
> 
> 
> 
> What about ZORO ???
> 
> He covered his face.
> 
> Yet all he did was good things and helped people.
Click to expand...


Covering your eyes isn't covering your face, because you can still see the jaw line, nose and such and can make a positive ID.


----------



## Sunni Man

ABikerSailor said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's simple......if you cover your face, you're either a terrorist or a criminal.
> 
> Why else hide who you are?
> 
> 
> 
> What about ZORO ???
> 
> He covered his face.
> 
> Yet all he did was good things and helped people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Covering your eyes isn't covering your face, because you can still see the jaw line, nose and such and can make a positive ID.
Click to expand...

So wearing a mask like the Lone Ranger or Zoro isn't covering your face.

I bet they would disagree with you at the local bank.


----------



## Ozmar

> Response
> 
> Mohammed Moussaoui the president of French Council of the Muslim Faith has opposed the law but favored discouraging Muslim women from wearing the full veil.[3] *The bill drew condemnation from both U.S. President Barack Obama and Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri.*[6] Amnesty International had condemned the passage of the bill in the assembly as violation of freedom of expression of those women who wear the burqa or hijab.[9] In July 2010 hundreds of Muslims protested the bill in Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan. The chief of Jamaat-e-Islami party demanded that United Nations take immediate action against France.[10]


 French ban on full length Islamic veils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hmm...


----------



## ConHog

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about ZORO ???
> 
> He covered his face.
> 
> Yet all he did was good things and helped people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Covering your eyes isn't covering your face, because you can still see the jaw line, nose and such and can make a positive ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So wearing a mask like the Lone Ranger or Zoro isn't covering your face.
> 
> I bet they would disagree with you at the local bank.
Click to expand...


I bet they wouldn't care. New facial recognition software would render Zorro's little getup useless. 

To compare Zorro, a fictional character, to Muslim women is laughable anyway.


----------



## Si modo

There's some good skiing to be had in France.  Does this now mean one cannot keep their face from freezing while skiing?


----------



## Liability

Kalam said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a nasty religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We should ban it and kill 'em all.
Click to expand...


That's dumber than your usual banter.  

No.

But we should recognize Islam for what it is.  

Yeeech.


----------



## Ozmar

Does anyone else see a problem with our president and the head of Al Qaida condemning France?


----------



## Ozmar

Si modo said:


> There's some good skiing to be had in France.  Does this now mean one cannot keep their face from freezing while skiing?



I imagine it would be quite difficult to ski in a burqa.


----------



## Kalam

Si modo said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really care all that much nor do I care to care all that much.  Both limit peripheral vision.
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to do anything in the way of proving this. Repeating it won't suffice.
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to make this religious, like the good little Muslim victim you strive to be, fine.  It's not.  It's safety of the greater good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where have I claimed to be a "victim" in this discussion? You assume that I care about your hatred for Muslims and Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where have I ever said I hate Muslims or Islam?
> 
> I'll save you some time.  I've never said it.
> 
> Liar.  But, it feeds your victimhood to believe I hate your religion and those who follow it.
Click to expand...


Do you?


----------



## Kalam

Ozmar said:


> Does anyone else see a problem with our president and the head of Al Qaida condemning France?



Hitler was a proponent of animal rights. Therefore, anybody who believes that animals should be treated kindly must sympathize with Hitler.


----------



## Si modo

Kalam said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to do anything in the way of proving this. Repeating it won't suffice.
> 
> 
> Where have I claimed to be a "victim" in this discussion? You assume that I care about your hatred for Muslims and Islam.
> 
> 
> 
> Where have I ever said I hate Muslims or Islam?
> 
> I'll save you some time.  I've never said it.
> 
> Liar.  But, it feeds your victimhood to believe I hate your religion and those who follow it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you?
Click to expand...

Huh?  What part of my post was so unclear to you?



Aparently you want me to hate Islam and its followers, though.


----------



## Si modo

Ozmar said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's some good skiing to be had in France.  Does this now mean one cannot keep their face from freezing while skiing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I imagine it would be quite difficult to ski in a burqa.
Click to expand...

But a ski mask does the same thing...covers all of the face but the eyes.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Ozmar said:


> Does anyone else see a problem with our president and the head of Al Qaida condemning France?



You trying to make a connection?  I bet Newt Gingrich is your hero as well.

You a tea bagging birther as well?


----------



## Liability

Si modo said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where have I ever said I hate Muslims or Islam?
> 
> I'll save you some time.  I've never said it.
> 
> Liar.  But, it feeds your victimhood to believe I hate your religion and those who follow it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh?  What part of my post was so unclear to you?
> 
> 
> 
> Aparently you want me to hate Islam and its followers, though.
Click to expand...



I detest his religion but _not_ its followers (except for the really fucking violent psychotic ones who engage in jihadistic behavior).


----------



## Kalam

Si modo said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where have I ever said I hate Muslims or Islam?
> 
> I'll save you some time.  I've never said it.
> 
> Liar.  But, it feeds your victimhood to believe I hate your religion and those who follow it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh?  What part of my post was so unclear to you?
> 
> 
> 
> Aparently you want me to hate Islam and its followers, though.
Click to expand...


In your post, you pointed out that you've never articulated your hatred for Muslims and Islam. You never said whether you actually did or not.


----------



## ConHog

Ozmar said:


> Does anyone else see a problem with our president and the head of Al Qaida condemning France?



No, because Obama just continues to prove what a douchebag he is.


----------



## ConHog

Kalam said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you?
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  What part of my post was so unclear to you?
> 
> 
> 
> Aparently you want me to hate Islam and its followers, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your post, you pointed out that you've never articulated your hatred for Muslims and Islam. You never said whether you actually did or not.
Click to expand...


I hate terrorists like you. Plain enough?


----------



## mal

Liability said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you?
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  What part of my post was so unclear to you?
> 
> 
> 
> Aparently you want me to hate Islam and its followers, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I detest his religion but _not_ its followers (except for the really fucking violent psychotic ones who engage in jihadistic behavior).
Click to expand...


And those who sit Silent when those one's Engage in Terrorism...

They Suck also.



peace...


----------



## Liability

tha malcontent said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  What part of my post was so unclear to you?
> 
> 
> 
> Aparently you want me to hate Islam and its followers, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I detest his religion but _not_ its followers (except for the really fucking violent psychotic ones who engage in jihadistic behavior).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And those who sit Silent when those one's Engage in Terrorism...
> 
> They Suck also.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...


I don't know that I hate them.  It's hard to hate a gutless weasel just because he (or she) is a gutless weasel.  

Find them contemptible?  Yep.  

But I see the point you are making and I have to admit, I don't care for the silent ones in such matters.


----------



## mal

manifold said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if you *did*, you'd conclude that the ban is justified, correct?
> 
> 
> 
> Temporarily, yes. And not just for women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you telling me that this ban doesn't apply to men also?  That men, if they chose to, could wear burkas?
Click to expand...


Nope... Crossdressing Muslims become Dead Muslims... Allah Akbar!



peace...


----------



## Si modo

Kalam said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you?
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  What part of my post was so unclear to you?
> 
> 
> 
> Aparently you want me to hate Islam and its followers, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your post, you pointed out that you've never articulated your hatred for Muslims and Islam. You never said whether you actually did or not.
Click to expand...

Liar.  I have answered your idiotic question before.

Liar.

Once again, I have never said I hate Islam and/or Muslims and I don't hate Islam and/or Muslims.

You've asked me several times before and I've always answered you.  Yet, you continue with your lying.  Countless times you say I hate Islam and/or Muslims.  And each time you lie, yet you keep doing it.

Your consistent lying makes you have no credibility.  

Poor, poor Kalam.


----------



## Si modo

ConHog said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  What part of my post was so unclear to you?
> 
> 
> 
> Aparently you want me to hate Islam and its followers, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your post, you pointed out that you've never articulated your hatred for Muslims and Islam. You never said whether you actually did or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate terrorists like you. Plain enough?
Click to expand...

I certainly hate Muslim terrorists.


----------



## mal

Liability said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> I detest his religion but _not_ its followers (except for the really fucking violent psychotic ones who engage in jihadistic behavior).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And those who sit Silent when those one's Engage in Terrorism...
> 
> They Suck also.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know that I hate them.  It's hard to hate a gutless weasel just because he (or she) is a gutless weasel.
> 
> Find them contemptible?  Yep.
> 
> But I see the point you are making and I have to admit, I don't care for the silent ones in such matters.
Click to expand...


I Denounced those on my Side here in America who were Shitting on Ted Kennedy's Warm Corpse...

You'd Think that ALL Muslims would Denounce one of their Monkeys who Blows up a School Bus full of Children.

But VERY Few do... Most of those are Westernized and NOT in the ME.



peace...


----------



## ConHog

Si modo said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  What part of my post was so unclear to you?
> 
> 
> 
> Aparently you want me to hate Islam and its followers, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your post, you pointed out that you've never articulated your hatred for Muslims and Islam. You never said whether you actually did or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.  I have answered your idiotic question before.
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Once again, I have never said I hate Islam and/or Muslims and I don't hate Islam and/or Muslims.
> 
> You've asked me several times before and I've always answered you.  Yet, you continue with your lying.  Countless times you say I hate Islam and/or Muslims.  And each time you lie, yet you keep doing it.
> 
> Your consistent lying makes you have no credibility.
> 
> Poor, poor Kalam.
Click to expand...


What is really funny is that the terrorist won't plainly answer the question "have you ever hit a woman?" 

If I asked  you that, would you answer with a yes or a no, or would you qualify it?

I have never hit a woman.... That's my stance


----------



## ConHog

tha malcontent said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And those who sit Silent when those one's Engage in Terrorism...
> 
> They Suck also.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know that I hate them.  It's hard to hate a gutless weasel just because he (or she) is a gutless weasel.
> 
> Find them contemptible?  Yep.
> 
> But I see the point you are making and I have to admit, I don't care for the silent ones in such matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I Denounced those on my Side here in America who were Shitting on Ted Kennedy's Warm Corpse...
> 
> You'd Think that ALL Muslims would Denounce one of their Monkeys who Blows up a School Bus full of Children.
> 
> But VERY Few do... Most of those are Westernized and NOT in the ME.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...


Which is why ME Muslims consider American Muslims to be unworthy. They hate them as much as they hate non Muslims, maybe more.


----------



## mal

ConHog said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know that I hate them.  It's hard to hate a gutless weasel just because he (or she) is a gutless weasel.
> 
> Find them contemptible?  Yep.
> 
> But I see the point you are making and I have to admit, I don't care for the silent ones in such matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Denounced those on my Side here in America who were Shitting on Ted Kennedy's Warm Corpse...
> 
> You'd Think that ALL Muslims would Denounce one of their Monkeys who Blows up a School Bus full of Children.
> 
> But VERY Few do... Most of those are Westernized and NOT in the ME.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why ME Muslims consider American Muslims to be unworthy. They hate them as much as they hate non Muslims, maybe more.
Click to expand...


Have one of them Define "Innocent"... Ask them if there are Innocent Jews.



peace...


----------



## ConHog

kalam beats women. fess up terrorist.


----------



## Kalam

Si modo said:


> and I don't hate Islam and/or Muslims.



Alright, that's all I wanted to know. I apologize and retract my statement. You're free to stop whining at any time.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

ConHog said:


> kalam beats women. fess up terrorist.


I dont think he ever  broke ones arm  falling  off a ladder while pissing on one.
Can you say the same?


----------



## Si modo

Kalam said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> and I don't hate Islam and/or Muslims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alright, that's all I wanted to know. I apologize and retract my statement. You're free to stop whining at any time.
Click to expand...

How very dishonest of you.  But, expected.

And, you can always count on me to point out your consistent dishonesty.

Poor, poor Muslim victim.  We're just picking on you because you are Muslim and not because you are consistently dishonest.  You are a good little Muslim, though.


----------



## GHook93

Kalam said:


> No problem. A Muslim is under no obligation to follow laws that restrict her freedom of religious expression.



Huh yes they are dumb fuck! What if there religion called for killing infidels and blowing up buildings, would they still be able to ignore laws against that? Oh wait their religion does call for that and they still ignore it. Your right carry on!


----------



## ConHog

Mr.Fitnah said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> kalam beats women. fess up terrorist.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think he ever  broke ones arm  falling  off a ladder while pissing on one.
> Can you say the same?
Click to expand...


Sadly, I can not. However I don't think an industrial accident that occurred on a woman's job site can be compared to systematic willful abuse.


----------



## Kalam

Si modo said:


> How very dishonest of you.  But, expected.
> 
> And, you can always count on me to point out your consistent dishonesty.
> 
> Poor, poor Muslim victim.  We're just picking on you because you are Muslim and not because you are consistently dishonest.  You are a good little Muslim, though.





Kalam said:


> ...You're free to stop whining at any time.


----------



## Si modo

Kalam said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How very dishonest of you.  But, expected.
> 
> And, you can always count on me to point out your consistent dishonesty.
> 
> Poor, poor Muslim victim.  We're just picking on you because you are Muslim and not because you are consistently dishonest.  You are a good little Muslim, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...You're free to stop whining at any time.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Still being dishonest, I see.  

You are a good little Muslim, though.


----------



## Kalam

GHook93 said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> No problem. A Muslim is under no obligation to follow laws that restrict her freedom of religious expression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh yes they are dumb fuck! What if there religion called for killing infidels and blowing up buildings, would they still be able to ignore laws against that? Oh wait their religion does call for that and they still ignore it. *Your right carry on! *
Click to expand...


Will do.


----------



## Kalam

Si modo said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How very dishonest of you.  But, expected.
> 
> And, you can always count on me to point out your consistent dishonesty.
> 
> Poor, poor Muslim victim.  We're just picking on you because you are Muslim and not because you are consistently dishonest.  You are a good little Muslim, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...You're free to stop whining at any time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still being dishonest, I see.
> 
> You are a good little Muslim, though.
Click to expand...


Whining, trolling, whatever you want to call it.


----------



## saveliberty

Kalam said:


> No problem. A Muslim is under no obligation to follow laws that restrict her freedom of religious expression.



Because...

1.  She is better than you.
2.  You are a worthless infidel.
3.  Sooner or later we will get around to blowing you up.  ( I KEELL YOU! )
4.  Mohammad says we can.


----------



## ConHog

saveliberty said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> No problem. A Muslim is under no obligation to follow laws that restrict her freedom of religious expression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because...
> 
> 1.  She is better than you.
> 2.  You are a worthless infidel.
> 3.  Sooner or later we will get around to blowing you up.  ( I KEELL YOU! )
> 4.  Mohammad says we can.
Click to expand...


IOW Kalam is in fact a fucking radical Muslim in sheep's clothing.


----------



## ABikerSailor

tha malcontent said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Temporarily, yes. And not just for women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you telling me that this ban doesn't apply to men also?  That men, if they chose to, could wear burkas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope... Crossdressing Muslims become Dead Muslims... Allah Akbar!
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...


Wrong.  Remember that incident where there were a couple of terrorist guys trying to pass themselves off as a brides wedding party to get past a US checkpoint?


----------



## Ozmar

so how about that burka ban in France? Pretty intense.


----------



## Si modo

Kalam said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still being dishonest, I see.
> 
> You are a good little Muslim, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whining, trolling, whatever you want to call it.
Click to expand...

Eh, a good little Muslim like you would call being called on their consistent dishonesty that.  The sane folks would call it what it is.


----------



## Ozmar

Ooh that burka ban!


----------



## Si modo

saveliberty said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> No problem. A Muslim is under no obligation to follow laws that restrict her freedom of religious expression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because...
> 
> 1.  She is better than you.
> 2.  You are a worthless infidel.
> 3.  Sooner or later we will get around to blowing you up.  ( I KEELL YOU! )
> 4.  Mohammad says we can.
Click to expand...


How do you spell 'innocent'?


----------



## Ozmar

Innocent? Is that something to do with the burka ban?


----------



## Kalam

Si modo said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still being dishonest, I see.
> 
> You are a good little Muslim, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whining, trolling, whatever you want to call it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eh, a good little Muslim like you would call being called on their consistent dishonesty that.  The sane folks would call it what it is.
Click to expand...


You can always expect at least some of the kuffar to be dishonest in any discussion that involves Islam, and this thread is no exception. CornDog is still way out in front, so you better step your game up if you want to take home the gold.


----------



## ConHog

&#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1593;&#1606;&#1577; &#1610;&#1575; &#1608;&#1589;&#1605;&#1577; &#1548; &#1571;&#1593;&#1578;&#1585;&#1601; &#1604;&#1603; &#1601;&#1602;&#1591; &#1590;&#1585;&#1576; &#1575;&#1604;&#1606;&#1587;&#1575;&#1569; &#1608;&#1575;&#1604;&#1575;&#1606;&#1578;&#1602;&#1575;&#1604;


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

ConHog said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> kalam beats women. fess up terrorist.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think he ever  broke ones arm  falling  off a ladder while pissing on one.
> Can you say the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, I can not. However I don't think an industrial accident that occurred on a woman's job site can be compared to systematic willful abuse.
Click to expand...


There is no evidence of abuse on Kalams part, on the other hand there is evidence you are  an  asshole , who has no room to talk when it comes to the treatment of  women.


----------



## ConHog

Kalam said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whining, trolling, whatever you want to call it.
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, a good little Muslim like you would call being called on their consistent dishonesty that.  The sane folks would call it what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can always expect at least some of the kuffar to be dishonest in any discussion that involves Islam, and this thread is no exception. CornDog is still way out in front, so you better step your game up if you want to take home the gold.
Click to expand...


What does the great Allah have to say about pot? I know he approves of the way you beat women, but what about your marijuana use?


----------



## ConHog

Mr.Fitnah said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think he ever  broke ones arm  falling  off a ladder while pissing on one.
> Can you say the same?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, I can not. However I don't think an industrial accident that occurred on a woman's job site can be compared to systematic willful abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of abuse on Kalams part, on the other hand there is evidence you are  an  asshole , who has no room to talk when it comes to the treatment of  women.
Click to expand...


NO evidence? Do you know ANYTHING about Islam? Mistreatment of women is SOP. 

Other than an industrial accident, I have never hurt a woman.


----------



## saveliberty

Si modo said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> No problem. A Muslim is under no obligation to follow laws that restrict her freedom of religious expression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because...
> 
> 1.  She is better than you.
> 2.  You are a worthless infidel.
> 3.  Sooner or later we will get around to blowing you up.  ( I KEELL YOU! )
> 4.  Mohammad says we can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you spell 'innocent'?
Click to expand...


S-h-r-a-p-n-e-l e-n-t-r-a-n-c-e w-o-u-n-d.


----------



## Si modo

Kalam said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whining, trolling, whatever you want to call it.
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, a good little Muslim like you would call being called on their consistent dishonesty that.  The sane folks would call it what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can always expect at least some of the kuffar to be dishonest in any discussion that involves Islam, and this thread is no exception. CornDog is still way out in front, so you better step your game up if you want to take home the gold.
Click to expand...

I don't see any lies from that poster.  I do from you, and a lie that you consistently try, and consistently fail as I consistently point it out.

When your willful victimhood fails, and your lies fail, you resort to attempting to label my highlighting your lies and your willful victimhood as something other than what they are.  

That's dishonest.

And, although I am used to your style, that does not mean I will change _my_ style to accomodate your thin skin.

C'est la vie; c'est ma maniere.


----------



## Ravi

Mr.Fitnah said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> kalam beats women. fess up terrorist.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think he ever  broke ones arm  falling  off a ladder while pissing on one.
> Can you say the same?
Click to expand...


----------



## ConHog

so kalam, why no answer? It's a simple question.

Have your ever hit a woman? Yes or no?


----------



## Ravi

I just went to Staples and back and on the way passed a landscape crew wearing bandanas and hats that covered everything but their eyes.

I wonder what landscape crews in France will be able to wear?


----------



## Ravi

ConHog said:


> so kalam, why no answer? It's a simple question.
> 
> Have your ever hit a woman? Yes or no?


I'm 99.9% sure he answered your question before you dishonest lying asshole.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

ConHog said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, I can not. However I don't think an industrial accident that occurred on a woman's job site can be compared to systematic willful abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of abuse on Kalams part, on the other hand there is evidence you are  an  asshole , who has no room to talk when it comes to the treatment of  women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO evidence? Do you know ANYTHING about Islam? Mistreatment of women is SOP.
> 
> Other than an industrial accident, I have never hurt a woman.
Click to expand...


Falling off a ladder while pissing on a woman and breaking her arm is not an industrial accident, it is evidence of a  personality disorder as is your description of it.

I know  what Islam says , that  doesn't mean  a muslim cannot act like a human being in spite of Islam rather than because of it.


----------



## Valerie

Ravi said:


> I just went to Staples and back and on the way passed a landscape crew wearing bandanas and hats that covered everything but their eyes.
> 
> I wonder what landscape crews in France will be able to wear?





From the article I posted earlier:


"_
The legislation adopted Tuesday by the Senate, the upper house of the French Parliament, forbids people from concealing their faces in public. It makes no reference to Islam, and *includes exceptions for people who need to cover up for work reasons, such as riot police and surgeons.*_"


----------



## ConHog

Mr.Fitnah said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of abuse on Kalams part, on the other hand there is evidence you are  an  asshole , who has no room to talk when it comes to the treatment of  women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO evidence? Do you know ANYTHING about Islam? Mistreatment of women is SOP.
> 
> Other than an industrial accident, I have never hurt a woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Falling off a ladder while pissing on a woman and breaking her arm is not an industrial accident, it is evidence of a  personality disorder as is your description of it.
> 
> I know  what Islam says , that  doesn't mean  a muslim cannot act like a human being in spite of Islam rather than because of it.
Click to expand...


It isn't an industrial accident? Is stripping an industry? I think it is. So you're contention is that I did it on purpose? That I JUMPED off the ladder on purpose? I look forward to you attempting to prove THAT. 

Oh, and I think if Muslims were acting like human beings 9/11 wouldn't be special to us, among other things.


----------



## Ravi

Valerie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just went to Staples and back and on the way passed a landscape crew wearing bandanas and hats that covered everything but their eyes.
> 
> I wonder what landscape crews in France will be able to wear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the article I posted earlier:
> 
> 
> "_
> The legislation adopted Tuesday by the Senate, the upper house of the French Parliament, forbids people from concealing their faces in public. It makes no reference to Islam, and *includes exceptions for people who need to cover up for work reasons, such as riot police and surgeons.*_"
Click to expand...

They don't need to cover up though, they just want to...


----------



## ConHog

Ravi said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just went to Staples and back and on the way passed a landscape crew wearing bandanas and hats that covered everything but their eyes.
> 
> I wonder what landscape crews in France will be able to wear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the article I posted earlier:
> 
> 
> "_
> The legislation adopted Tuesday by the Senate, the upper house of the French Parliament, forbids people from concealing their faces in public. It makes no reference to Islam, and *includes exceptions for people who need to cover up for work reasons, such as riot police and surgeons.*_"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't need to cover up though, they just want to...
Click to expand...


I imagine they can get a medical exemption Raivi, from a dr who says hey working out in the sun all day will fry their unexposed skin.... 

Anyway, stop pretending like the poor landscape workers are why you care about this.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

ConHog said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO evidence? Do you know ANYTHING about Islam? Mistreatment of women is SOP.
> 
> Other than an industrial accident, I have never hurt a woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Falling off a ladder while pissing on a woman and breaking her arm is not an industrial accident, it is evidence of a  personality disorder as is your description of it.
> 
> I know  what Islam says , that  doesn't mean  a muslim cannot act like a human being in spite of Islam rather than because of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't an industrial accident? Is stripping an industry? I think it is. So you're contention is that I did it on purpose? That I JUMPED off the ladder on purpose? I look forward to you attempting to prove THAT.
> 
> Oh, and I think if Muslims were acting like human beings 9/11 wouldn't be special to us, among other things.
Click to expand...


The events that lead up to you breaking a womens arm,  show a desire to  hurt  and degrade women .That was no accident , that is a personality  disorder you are trying to  turn into  a personality .

9/11 was muslims  just acting like  believers .People  die every time that happens.


----------



## rightwinger

Ozmar said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ozmar said:
> 
> 
> 
> In covering breasts, genitals, etc, we as a society are accepting a social norm, a standard relevant to the society we live in. In France, it has gotten to the point where it has become necessary to encode in law what is socially acceptable within their culture in regards to what can be worn. It's really unfortunate that it had to be taken to this extreme, but when you have a group of people who violate those social norms in a way that starts to threaten that society as a whole (with what they represent), then measures must be taken. Do you think if a bunch of westerners tried to immigrate to Saudi Arabia, with the women wearing scantily clad clothes, it would not be perceived as a threat, an attempted cultural usurpation? That's what this is really about. It's not really about "women's rights."
> 
> In America women have the right to wear almost anything they like, but they can't walk around naked.
> 
> In France women have the right to wear almost anything they like, but they can't walk around covered head to toe. I think it has to be a reasonable compromise for a society to remain cohesive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do not look to the Saudis to be our model for cultural tolerance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed. Imagine if a bunch of people with the level of cultural tolerance of the Saudis immigrated to another country and started trying to intimidate the original population with little trifles one by one such as demanding concessions to their dress code, their laws, their oppressive way of life, all in the name of religious freedom. The burka is probably one of the most symbolic representations of what's transgressing.
> 
> How far does cultural tolerance go? Do we tolerated stonings and beheadings in the name of permitting others to express their religious freedom? Do we allow the brainwashed oppression of women with the burka?
Click to expand...


I have never seen a woman in a burqa stone or behead someone..

They are just respecting the modesty their culture dictates


----------



## ConHog

Mr.Fitnah said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Falling off a ladder while pissing on a woman and breaking her arm is not an industrial accident, it is evidence of a  personality disorder as is your description of it.
> 
> I know  what Islam says , that  doesn't mean  a muslim cannot act like a human being in spite of Islam rather than because of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't an industrial accident? Is stripping an industry? I think it is. So you're contention is that I did it on purpose? That I JUMPED off the ladder on purpose? I look forward to you attempting to prove THAT.
> 
> Oh, and I think if Muslims were acting like human beings 9/11 wouldn't be special to us, among other things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The events that lead up to you breaking a womens arm,  show a desire to  hurt  and degrade women .That was no accident , that is a personality  disorder you are trying to  turn into  a personality .
> 
> 9/11 was muslims  just acting like  believers .People  die every time that happens.
Click to expand...


So now getting drunk and paying a woman so that you can consensually do something stupid and then having an accident = 9/11?

You're fucking pathetic.


----------



## Si modo

rightwinger said:


> Ozmar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not look to the Saudis to be our model for cultural tolerance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. Imagine if a bunch of people with the level of cultural tolerance of the Saudis immigrated to another country and started trying to intimidate the original population with little trifles one by one such as demanding concessions to their dress code, their laws, their oppressive way of life, all in the name of religious freedom. The burka is probably one of the most symbolic representations of what's transgressing.
> 
> How far does cultural tolerance go? Do we tolerated stonings and beheadings in the name of permitting others to express their religious freedom? Do we allow the brainwashed oppression of women with the burka?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never seen a woman in a burqa stone or behead someone..
> 
> They are just respecting the modesty their culture dictates
Click to expand...

I've never seen a stoning, either.  If I did, I'd have to whip out my jammy and flat blast all present.

But, they do happen in Muslim cultures.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

ConHog said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't an industrial accident? Is stripping an industry? I think it is. So you're contention is that I did it on purpose? That I JUMPED off the ladder on purpose? I look forward to you attempting to prove THAT.
> 
> Oh, and I think if Muslims were acting like human beings 9/11 wouldn't be special to us, among other things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The events that lead up to you breaking a womens arm,  show a desire to  hurt  and degrade women .That was no accident , that is a personality  disorder you are trying to  turn into  a personality .
> 
> 9/11 was muslims  just acting like  believers .People  die every time that happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now getting drunk and paying a woman so that you can consensually do something stupid and then having an accident = 9/11?
> 
> You're fucking pathetic.
Click to expand...


No, they are 2 separate things .

1.Islam.

2Your desire to degrade  women.

You have no room to criticize others on  their treatment of  women.
None.


----------



## Hot Wire

Ravi said:


> I can understand why they did it...but are they not condemning some women to choosing between their religious beliefs and their ability to leave the house?



The muslims can move to Iran and good riddance to them!


----------



## Valerie

Ravi said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just went to Staples and back and on the way passed a landscape crew wearing bandanas and hats that covered everything but their eyes.
> 
> I wonder what landscape crews in France will be able to wear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the article I posted earlier:
> 
> 
> "_
> The legislation adopted Tuesday by the Senate, the upper house of the French Parliament, forbids people from concealing their faces in public. It makes no reference to Islam, and *includes exceptions for people who need to cover up for work reasons, such as riot police and surgeons.*_"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't need to cover up though, they just want to...
Click to expand...




  Do you live in France???  






After reading more about the arguments made in the French senate it sounds like they were really more concerned with the complete covering of faces in public places, not so much as a public threat that women were hiding bombs or hiding their faces for anything sinister, but that the government authority was wanting to protect these women from oppression under the guise of some religious authority.  So the government authority is trying to distinguish itself from the religious authority in order to protect gender equality.





> Head-to-toe garments such as the niqab, thought to be worn by just 2,000 women in France, are seen by French critics as an affront to France's democratic values. Some politicians have said that* active citizenship requires face-to-face communication*. Others say full-body robes are a means of forcing women to be submissive.
> 
> Burqa Is Banned in France - WSJ.com






> The bill will make France the first European country to ban the veil, beating Belgium where a similar ban is still being debated  in the lower house. It will mostly effect France&#8217;s five million-strong Muslim population &#8212; the largest in Western Europe &#8212; of which about 2,000 are thought to wear a veil, niqab or burqa.
> 
> Offenders will be fined &#8364;150 and repeat offenders forced to take part in citizenship classes. *Men who force women to wear a veil could face fines of &#8364;30,000 and jail time. *However, some argue that the new laws will not be too draconian in practice. According to Le Monde, *the bill does not allow police to force a woman wearing the niqab or burqa to remove her veil. *
> 
> ...
> 
> French officials were adamant that the ban has nothing to do with religious discrimination and should inspire no terrorism. Al Jazeera noted that *the words &#8220;woman&#8221;, &#8220;veil&#8221; or &#8220;Islam&#8221; are not mentioned anywhere in the legislation.*
> 
> 
> *Justice Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said the ban was about &#8220;dignity and equality. It is a question of respect for our Republican principles&#8221;.*
> 
> Liberty, equality and sorority? | The Periscope Post


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

nia588 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nia588 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you are basing you facts on what? what you are saying is not a fact. it's a myth like i said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wearing the burqa is no easy task
> 
> By Sandra Milton Martelozzo
> The University of Wollongong
> 
> Published May 30, 2010
> ....
> 
> Malalai Joya, an Afghan MP and a devout Muslim, did not pack her burqa when visiting Australia recently.
> 
> Its not only oppressive, but more difficult to wear than you might think. You have no peripheral vision. And its hot and suffocating under there," she said.
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> in Afghanistan they wear burkha not niqab. with a burkha i could understand why she couldn't see but with a niqab you can see. but most women who cover their face wear the niqab. only in Afghanistan is the burka popular.
> 
> here is a niqab. notice the slit is open wide enough for peripheral vision
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here is a burkha. covers the eyes with net and slit is much more narrow
Click to expand...



Hadith - Bukhari 1:148

The wives of the Prophet   used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. 'Umar used to say to the Prophet "Let your wives be veiled," but Allah's Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam'a the wife of the Prophet   went out at 'Isha' time and she was a tall lady. 'Umar addressed her and said, "I have recognized you, O Sauda." He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of "Al-Hijab" (A complete body cover excluding the eyes).


The Noble Qur'an - Al-Ahzab 33:59

O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils)* all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way).  That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed.  And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

_*the arabic word here is Jalabeeb (plural of Jalbaab), which is the loose outer garment that covers all a woman's body.  It says here to use the Jalabeeb to cover all, and scholars say this means to use it to cover her head (agree upon by all scholars) and her face (agreed by many scholars, not all) and one or both eyes, in order for it to be known that she is a free woman and so not to be exposed to any harm._



Hadith - Bukhari 6:282

'Aisha   used to say: "When (the Verse): 'They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms,' was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces."


----------



## Ravi

Valerie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the article I posted earlier:
> 
> 
> "_
> The legislation adopted Tuesday by the Senate, the upper house of the French Parliament, forbids people from concealing their faces in public. It makes no reference to Islam, and *includes exceptions for people who need to cover up for work reasons, such as riot police and surgeons.*_"
> 
> 
> 
> They don't need to cover up though, they just want to...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you live in France???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After reading more about the arguments made in the French senate it sounds like they were really more concerned with the complete covering of faces in public places, not so much as a public threat that women were hiding bombs or hiding their faces for anything sinister, but that the government authority was wanting to protect these women from oppression under the guise of some religious authority.  So the government authority is trying to distinguish itself from the religious authority in order to protect gender equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Head-to-toe garments such as the niqab, thought to be worn by just 2,000 women in France, are seen by French critics as an affront to France's democratic values. Some politicians have said that active citizenship requires face-to-face communication. Others say full-body robes are a means of forcing women to be submissive.
> 
> Burqa Is Banned in France - WSJ.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bill will make France the first European country to ban the veil, beating Belgium where a similar ban is still being debated  in the lower house. It will mostly effect Frances five million-strong Muslim population  the largest in Western Europe  of which about 2,000 are thought to wear a veil, niqab or burqa.
> 
> Offenders will be fined 150 and repeat offenders forced to take part in citizenship classes. *Men who force women to wear a veil could face fines of 30,000 and jail time. *However, some argue that the new laws will not be too draconian in practice. According to Le Monde, *the bill does not allow police to force a woman wearing the niqab or burqa to remove her veil. *
> 
> ...
> 
> French officials were adamant that the ban has nothing to do with religious discrimination and should inspire no terrorism. Al Jazeera noted that *the words woman, veil or Islam are not mentioned anywhere in the legislation.*
> 
> 
> *Justice Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said the ban was about dignity and equality. It is a question of respect for our Republican principles.*
> 
> Liberty, equality and sorority? | The Periscope Post
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

An affront to France's democratic values leads them to do the undemocratic thing and write a law that forbids women from wearing a religious costume.


----------



## Ravi

It's a shame cornjob had to piss all over this thread...it was an interesting discussion before he chimed in.

And Fitnah is right...you're a disgusting asshole that has no right to question someone else's treatment of women cornjob.


----------



## Valerie

Ravi said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't need to cover up though, they just want to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you live in France???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After reading more about the arguments made in the French senate it sounds like they were really more concerned with the complete covering of faces in public places, not so much as a public threat that women were hiding bombs or hiding their faces for anything sinister, but that the government authority was wanting to protect these women from oppression under the guise of some religious authority.  So the government authority is trying to distinguish itself from the religious authority in order to protect gender equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bill will make France the first European country to ban the veil, beating Belgium where a similar ban is still being debated  in the lower house. It will mostly effect France&#8217;s five million-strong Muslim population &#8212; the largest in Western Europe &#8212; of which about 2,000 are thought to wear a veil, niqab or burqa.
> 
> Offenders will be fined &#8364;150 and repeat offenders forced to take part in citizenship classes. *Men who force women to wear a veil could face fines of &#8364;30,000 and jail time. *However, some argue that the new laws will not be too draconian in practice. According to Le Monde, *the bill does not allow police to force a woman wearing the niqab or burqa to remove her veil. *
> 
> ...
> 
> French officials were adamant that the ban has nothing to do with religious discrimination and should inspire no terrorism. Al Jazeera noted that *the words &#8220;woman&#8221;, &#8220;veil&#8221; or &#8220;Islam&#8221; are not mentioned anywhere in the legislation.*
> 
> 
> *Justice Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said the ban was about &#8220;dignity and equality. It is a question of respect for our Republican principles&#8221;.*
> 
> Liberty, equality and sorority? | The Periscope Post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An affront to France's democratic values leads them to do the undemocratic thing and write a law that forbids women from wearing a religious costume.
Click to expand...




  Sounds like they're saying citizenship requires face-to-face communication in public places, we won't physically force you to remove your face covering, but we retain the authority to fine you for doing it and send you to citizenship class...And they also establish their government authority supersedes any religious authority of men requiring women to do so.


----------



## Ravi

Valerie said:


> Sounds like they're saying citizenship requires face-to-face communication in public places, we won't physically force you to remove your face covering, but we retain the authority to fine you for doing it and send you to citizenship class...And they also establish their government authority supersedes any religious authority of men requiring women to do so.


I really can't argue with your last sentence...and yet...why make a law forbidding one group of people from demanding another group of people wear veils? It isn't a real crime, after all. Is it?


----------



## Charles_Main

Ravi said:


> I just went to Staples and back and on the way passed a landscape crew wearing bandanas and hats that covered everything but their eyes.
> 
> I wonder what landscape crews in France will be able to wear?



Where the hell do you live. lol


----------



## Liability

Charles_Main said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just went to Staples and back and on the way passed a landscape crew wearing bandanas and hats that covered everything but their eyes.
> 
> I wonder what landscape crews in France will be able to wear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where the hell do you live. lol
Click to expand...


The Staples was next to the bank where the "landscaping crew" was actually a bunch of bank robbers.  Ravi wouldn't notice that landscapers rarely carry sawed-off shotguns for gardening.


----------



## syrenn

Valerie said:


> And they also establish their government authority supersedes any religious authority of men requiring women to do so.




And that is the bottom line. Who's law has authority. 

Good for France


----------



## ConHog

Charles_Main said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just went to Staples and back and on the way passed a landscape crew wearing bandanas and hats that covered everything but their eyes.
> 
> I wonder what landscape crews in France will be able to wear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where the hell do you live. lol
Click to expand...


In her own imaginary world.


----------



## Ravi

Charles_Main said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just went to Staples and back and on the way passed a landscape crew wearing bandanas and hats that covered everything but their eyes.
> 
> I wonder what landscape crews in France will be able to wear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where the hell do you live. lol
Click to expand...

The blue part of Florida.


----------



## Ravi

syrenn said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they also establish their government authority supersedes any religious authority of men requiring women to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is the bottom line. Who's law has authority.
> 
> Good for France
Click to expand...

How do you feel about laws outlawing spanking?


----------



## ConHog

Ravi said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they also establish their government authority supersedes any religious authority of men requiring women to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is the bottom line. Who's law has authority.
> 
> Good for France
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you feel about laws outlawing spanking?
Click to expand...


They should stay out of my bedroom


----------



## syrenn

Ravi said:


> An affront to France's democratic values leads them to do the undemocratic thing and write a law that forbids women from wearing a religious costume.





Ive got a question for you ravi. My understanding of islam does not require woman to cover their faces.

Obviously some sects are more moderate then others and not all require you to cover you entire face.  The tenet i see is a head scarf. I am fine with head scarfs, mainly becasue both muslim men and women wear them.

I think France should back down on the head covering, so long as it does not cover the face and totally cover the body as well.


----------



## syrenn

Ravi said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they also establish their government authority supersedes any religious authority of men requiring women to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is the bottom line. Who's law has authority.
> 
> Good for France
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you feel about laws outlawing spanking?
Click to expand...



Public or private spankings?


----------



## Sheldon

I wonder if the women in those burqas or najibs wear anything underneath. Maybe they're just walking around commando. 

The only time I could see where wearing a burqa (the one with the mesh screen thing) should be illegal is when driving a car. That for sure is a danger to other people on the road and pedestrians and pets.

I think, at least in my state, you can't have anything hanging from your rear-view mirror that's larger than so-and-so. So like you couldn't have a big cross hanging from your mirror, because it can impede the driver's view.


----------



## Si modo

silkyeggsalad said:


> I wonder if the women in those burqas or najibs wear anything underneath. Maybe they're just walking around commando.
> 
> The only time I could see where wearing a burqa (the one with the mesh screen thing) should be illegal is when driving a car. That for sure is a danger to other people on the road and pedestrians and pets.
> 
> I think, at least in my state, you can't have anything hanging from your rear-view mirror that's larger than so-and-so. So like you couldn't have a big cross hanging from your mirror, because it can impede the driver's view.


Burqas are forbidden in any lab under my control.  Violates OSHA.


----------



## Sheldon

Si modo said:


> silkyeggsalad said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the women in those burqas or najibs wear anything underneath. Maybe they're just walking around commando.
> 
> The only time I could see where wearing a burqa (the one with the mesh screen thing) should be illegal is when driving a car. That for sure is a danger to other people on the road and pedestrians and pets.
> 
> I think, at least in my state, you can't have anything hanging from your rear-view mirror that's larger than so-and-so. So like you couldn't have a big cross hanging from your mirror, because it can impede the driver's view.
> 
> 
> 
> Burqas are forbidden in any lab under my control.  Violates OSHA.
Click to expand...


And that makes sense too.

I just thought of another thing about driving. You can't have the driver's-side window tinted to more than a certain percent (I think it's 40, but not sure). It's so cops can identify the driver without having to pull the car over first.

So by that logic, I think outlawing najibs while driving would also make sense. The cops need to be able to see the driver's face. That's the precedent, so it seems only fair to apply it to all.


----------



## Si modo

silkyeggsalad said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> silkyeggsalad said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the women in those burqas or najibs wear anything underneath. Maybe they're just walking around commando.
> 
> The only time I could see where wearing a burqa (the one with the mesh screen thing) should be illegal is when driving a car. That for sure is a danger to other people on the road and pedestrians and pets.
> 
> I think, at least in my state, you can't have anything hanging from your rear-view mirror that's larger than so-and-so. So like you couldn't have a big cross hanging from your mirror, because it can impede the driver's view.
> 
> 
> 
> Burqas are forbidden in any lab under my control.  Violates OSHA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that makes sense too.
> 
> I just thought of another thing about driving. You can't have the driver's-side window tinted to more than a certain percent (I think it's 40, but not sure). It's so cops can identify the driver without having to pull the car over first.
> 
> So by that logic, I think outlawing najibs while driving would also make sense. The cops need to be able to see the driver's face. That's the precedent, so it seems only fair to apply it to all.
Click to expand...

Good point.


----------



## Ravi

silkyeggsalad said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> silkyeggsalad said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the women in those burqas or najibs wear anything underneath. Maybe they're just walking around commando.
> 
> The only time I could see where wearing a burqa (the one with the mesh screen thing) should be illegal is when driving a car. That for sure is a danger to other people on the road and pedestrians and pets.
> 
> I think, at least in my state, you can't have anything hanging from your rear-view mirror that's larger than so-and-so. So like you couldn't have a big cross hanging from your mirror, because it can impede the driver's view.
> 
> 
> 
> Burqas are forbidden in any lab under my control.  Violates OSHA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that makes sense too.
> 
> I just thought of another thing about driving. You can't have the driver's-side window tinted to more than a certain percent (I think it's 40, but not sure). It's so cops can identify the driver without having to pull the car over first.
> 
> So by that logic, I think outlawing najibs while driving would also make sense. The cops need to be able to see the driver's face. That's the precedent, so it seems only fair to apply it to all.
Click to expand...

Yep...but unless you get pulled over a cop wouldn't need to see your face. So make it then.


----------



## saveliberty

Most strict muslims are not going to allow a women to drive a car.


----------



## Sheldon

Sometimes a picture says the most.








I like this one too.






Both of these were from googling "women dubai".


----------



## ConHog

here's what I think. Just as that asshiole from Mexico shouldn't have been commenting on our laws, we shouldn't be telling France what they should do.


----------



## Ozmar

Ravi said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just went to Staples and back and on the way passed a landscape crew wearing bandanas and hats that covered everything but their eyes.
> 
> I wonder what landscape crews in France will be able to wear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the article I posted earlier:
> 
> 
> "_
> The legislation adopted Tuesday by the Senate, the upper house of the French Parliament, forbids people from concealing their faces in public. It makes no reference to Islam, and *includes exceptions for people who need to cover up for work reasons, such as riot police and surgeons.*_"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't need to cover up though, they just want to...
Click to expand...


I don't need to walk around dressed like Winnie the pooh, I just want to. I'm sure if enough people did that on a regular basis, that too would be banned.


----------



## Ozmar

silkyeggsalad said:


> Sometimes a picture says the most.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like this one too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both of these were from googling "women dubai".



What would that be, Western tourists stared at by Muslim women?


----------



## Si modo

Ozmar said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the article I posted earlier:
> 
> 
> "_
> The legislation adopted Tuesday by the Senate, the upper house of the French Parliament, forbids people from concealing their faces in public. It makes no reference to Islam, and *includes exceptions for people who need to cover up for work reasons, such as riot police and surgeons.*_"
> 
> 
> 
> They don't need to cover up though, they just want to...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to walk around dressed like Winnie the pooh, I just want to. I'm sure if enough people did that on a regular basis, that too would be banned.
Click to expand...

Noooooooo.  Dammit, now I'm going to have to do some shopping for a new wardrobe.


----------



## Sunni Man

saveliberty said:


> Most strict muslims are not going to allow a women to drive a car.


Not true at all.

Only one country doesn't allow women to drive.

I have many friends from many countries that are what you would call "strict".

And they let their wives drive.

Heck, I even let my wife drive and I am very conservative in my religion.


----------



## Sheldon

Ravi said:


> silkyeggsalad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Burqas are forbidden in any lab under my control.  Violates OSHA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that makes sense too.
> 
> I just thought of another thing about driving. You can't have the driver's-side window tinted to more than a certain percent (I think it's 40, but not sure). It's so cops can identify the driver without having to pull the car over first.
> 
> So by that logic, I think outlawing najibs while driving would also make sense. The cops need to be able to see the driver's face. That's the precedent, so it seems only fair to apply it to all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep...but unless you get pulled over a cop wouldn't need to see your face. So make it then.
Click to expand...


I'm saying that there's already laws on the books that are based on the cops' need to identify a driver without having to pull the car over first. That rationale makes sense to me, but maybe we disagree on that. If there's precedent then it should be applied equally. The only exception with the tinted windows is if you have a documented medical condition where your sight and driving ability would be impaired without darkened windows. The cops can still pull you over at anytime; you just wouldn't get fined after you show them your medical-exemption papers.


----------



## Ozmar

Sunni Man said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most strict muslims are not going to allow a women to drive a car.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all.
> 
> Only one country doesn't allow women to drive.
> 
> I have many friends from many countries that are what you would call "strict".
> 
> And they let their wives drive.
> 
> Heck, I even *let my wife* drive and I am very conservative in my religion.
Click to expand...


Well aren't you a gentleman for granting her that privilege? 

It's not like she has a choice in your world, hey?


----------



## Sunni Man

Ozmar said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most strict muslims are not going to allow a women to drive a car.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all.
> 
> Only one country doesn't allow women to drive.
> 
> I have many friends from many countries that are what you would call "strict".
> 
> And they let their wives drive.
> 
> Heck, I even *let my wife* drive and I am very conservative in my religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well aren't you a gentleman for granting her that privilege?
> 
> It's not like she has a choice in your world, hey?
Click to expand...

I keep the car keys.

If she wants to take the car and go somewhere. 

She will ask my permission.

It is out of respect that she does this.   

I have never told her "No"


----------



## mal

Ozmar said:


> silkyeggsalad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes a picture says the most.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like this one too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both of these were from googling "women dubai".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would that be, Western tourists stared at by Muslim women?
Click to expand...


And gettin' all Stinky and Damp under those things...

Lookin' like they got Saddam Hussein in a Leglock! 



peace...


----------



## ConHog

Ozmar said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most strict muslims are not going to allow a women to drive a car.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all.
> 
> Only one country doesn't allow women to drive.
> 
> I have many friends from many countries that are what you would call "strict".
> 
> And they let their wives drive.
> 
> Heck, I even *let my wife* drive and I am very conservative in my religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well aren't you a gentleman for granting her that privilege?
> 
> It's not like she has a choice in your world, hey?
Click to expand...


Oops, guess he let the cat out of the burlap bag that time. I don't "let my wife" do anything. She's a grown person who does what she wants.


----------



## Ozmar

Sunni Man said:


> Ozmar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all.
> 
> Only one country doesn't allow women to drive.
> 
> I have many friends from many countries that are what you would call "strict".
> 
> And they let their wives drive.
> 
> Heck, I even *let my wife* drive and I am very conservative in my religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well aren't you a gentleman for granting her that privilege?
> 
> It's not like she has a choice in your world, hey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I keep the car keys.
> 
> If she wants to take the car and go somewhere.
> 
> She will ask my permission.
> 
> It is out of respect that she does this.
> 
> I have never told her "No"
Click to expand...

 But you ultimately think it's your privilege to grant her permission. Basically you feel that you rule her on some level. What about your respect for her? Why must it be about her respecting you? Getting permission from you? Isn't this all a little lopsided? 



ConHog said:


> Ozmar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all.
> 
> Only one country doesn't allow women to drive.
> 
> I have many friends from many countries that are what you would call "strict".
> 
> And they let their wives drive.
> 
> Heck, I even *let my wife* drive and I am very conservative in my religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well aren't you a gentleman for granting her that privilege?
> 
> It's not like she has a choice in your world, hey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oops, guess he let the cat out of the burlap bag that time. I don't "let my wife" do anything. She's a grown person who does what she wants.
Click to expand...


Yes.


----------



## Sunni Man

An Islamic marriage is based on respect for each other.

My wife asks permission even to go next door and visit our neighbor.

She knows I will "allow" her to go.

But she wants to honor me as her husband and head of the house by asking.


----------



## Charles_Main

syrenn said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> An affront to France's democratic values leads them to do the undemocratic thing and write a law that forbids women from wearing a religious costume.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ive got a question for you ravi. My understanding of islam does not require woman to cover their faces.
> 
> Obviously some sects are more moderate then others and not all require you to cover you entire face.  The tenet i see is a head scarf. I am fine with head scarfs, mainly becasue both muslim men and women wear them.
> 
> I think France should back down on the head covering, so long as it does not cover the face and totally cover the body as well.
Click to expand...



Ravi does not understand that is is Sharia that requires it, not Islam.


----------



## Si modo

Sunni Man said:


> Ozmar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all.
> 
> Only one country doesn't allow women to drive.
> 
> I have many friends from many countries that are what you would call "strict".
> 
> And they let their wives drive.
> 
> Heck, I even *let my wife* drive and I am very conservative in my religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well aren't you a gentleman for granting her that privilege?
> 
> It's not like she has a choice in your world, hey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I keep the car keys.
> 
> If she wants to take the car and go somewhere.
> 
> She will ask my permission.
> 
> It is out of respect that she does this.
> 
> I have never told her "No"
Click to expand...

Don't fool yourself; she is asking for the car because you have the keys, not out of respect.

It's possible that she may actually respect you in general, but that is not the reason she is asking for the car.

If one has to create a control situation to fool themselves into receiving respect, they are the pathetic ones.


----------



## ConHog

Sunni Man said:


> An Islamic marriage is based on respect for each other.
> 
> My wife asks permission even to go next door and visit our neighbor.
> 
> She knows I will "allow" her to go.
> 
> But she wants to honor me as her husband and head of the house by asking.



IOW she doesnt ask permission to do anything unless she knows you'll say yes because to hear no might mean a beating.


----------



## Sunni Man

ConHog said:


> IOW she doesnt ask permission to do anything unless she knows you'll say yes because to hear no might mean a beating.


Sounds more like your house; not mine.


----------



## ConHog

Sunni Man said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> IOW she doesnt ask permission to do anything unless she knows you'll say yes because to hear no might mean a beating.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds more like your house; not mine.
Click to expand...


I already told you. My wife doesn't ask to do anything. Quite the opposite actually, she is usually telling me what to do lol, and that's fine because my God doesn't command me to remind my wife every five minutes that she is just a woman.


----------



## Sunni Man

ConHog said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> IOW she doesnt ask permission to do anything unless she knows you'll say yes because to hear no might mean a beating.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds more like your house; not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already told you. My wife doesn't ask to do anything. Quite the opposite actually, she is usually telling me what to do lol, and that's fine because my God doesn't command me to remind my wife every five minutes that she is just a woman.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a personal problem.

My condolences


----------



## syrenn

Sunni Man said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds more like your house; not mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already told you. My wife doesn't ask to do anything. Quite the opposite actually, she is usually telling me what to do lol, and that's fine because my God doesn't command me to remind my wife every five minutes that she is just a woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like a personal problem.
> 
> My condolences
Click to expand...


I have a question for you suni man

do you ever ask your wife's permission to go and do anything out of respect for her? Before you go to drive anywhere do you ask her if it is alright to take the car and go? How about visiting neighbors, do you ask he permission first to go?


----------



## Charles_Main

syrenn said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already told you. My wife doesn't ask to do anything. Quite the opposite actually, she is usually telling me what to do lol, and that's fine because my God doesn't command me to remind my wife every five minutes that she is just a woman.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a personal problem.
> 
> My condolences
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a question for you suni man
> 
> do you ever ask your wife's permission to go and do anything out of respect for her? Before you go to drive anywhere do you ask her if it is alright to take the car and go? How about visiting neighbors, do you ask he permission first to go?
Click to expand...


Of course not, Because he has no respect for her.


----------



## Sheldon

So I'm trying to figure out why this is turning into a "let me diagnose your marital problems" Dr Phil thread.


----------



## ConHog

Sunni Man said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds more like your house; not mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already told you. My wife doesn't ask to do anything. Quite the opposite actually, she is usually telling me what to do lol, and that's fine because my God doesn't command me to remind my wife every five minutes that she is just a woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like a personal problem.
> 
> My condolences
Click to expand...


It's no problem for me. Unlike you, I am not ashamed of the size of my dick and don't feel I need to force my wife to acknowledge t hat I am the man of the house by asking for permission to take a shit to prove I'm a man.


----------



## mal

Charles_Main said:


> Ravi does not understand that is is Sharia that requires it, not Islam.





You will Confuse and Frustrate her!...



peace...


----------



## Sunni Man

syrenn said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already told you. My wife doesn't ask to do anything. Quite the opposite actually, she is usually telling me what to do lol, and that's fine because my God doesn't command me to remind my wife every five minutes that she is just a woman.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a personal problem.
> 
> My condolences
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a question for you suni man
> 
> do you ever ask your wife's permission to go and do anything out of respect for her? Before you go to drive anywhere do you ask her if it is alright to take the car and go? How about visiting neighbors, do you ask he permission first to go?
Click to expand...

No, why would I ???


----------



## ABikerSailor

Sunni Man said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a personal problem.
> 
> My condolences
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question for you suni man
> 
> do you ever ask your wife's permission to go and do anything out of respect for her? Before you go to drive anywhere do you ask her if it is alright to take the car and go? How about visiting neighbors, do you ask he permission first to go?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, why would I ???
Click to expand...


Ever hear of a thing called "mutual respect"?

I hear it's pretty popular in most relationships here in America.


----------



## Sunni Man

ConHog said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already told you. My wife doesn't ask to do anything. Quite the opposite actually, she is usually telling me what to do lol, and that's fine because my God doesn't command me to remind my wife every five minutes that she is just a woman.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a personal problem.
> 
> My condolences
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's no problem for me. Unlike you, I am not ashamed of the size of my *dick *and don't feel I need to force my wife to acknowledge t hat I am the man of the house by asking for permission to take a *shit* to prove I'm a man.
Click to expand...

Any man that feels the need to use the words "dick" and "shit" in the same sentence during a general discussion.

Has a deep psychological problem and needs professional help.  

Ever hear the term Freudian slip ConHog ???


----------



## ABikerSailor

Watch out Con Hog, Sunnidiot fancies himself to be a head case, I mean.......head shrinker.

But, he's about as much of a therapist as Yukon is a priest.


----------



## ConHog

Sunni Man said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a personal problem.
> 
> My condolences
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's no problem for me. Unlike you, I am not ashamed of the size of my *dick *and don't feel I need to force my wife to acknowledge t hat I am the man of the house by asking for permission to take a *shit* to prove I'm a man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any man that feels the need to use the words "dick" and "shit" in the same sentence during a general discussion.
> 
> Has a deep psychological problem and needs professional help.
> 
> Ever hear the term Freudian slip ConHog ???
Click to expand...


Ever heard the term spousal abuse ? I'm sure that much like your buddy Kalam you consider your wife to be your property and thus available for you to treat anyway you like, but that isn't the case.


----------



## Sunni Man

ABikerSailor said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question for you suni man
> 
> do you ever ask your wife's permission to go and do anything out of respect for her? Before you go to drive anywhere do you ask her if it is alright to take the car and go? How about visiting neighbors, do you ask he permission first to go?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, why would I ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever hear of a thing called "mutual respect"?
> 
> I hear it's pretty popular in most relationships here in America.
Click to expand...

I respect her greatly and think she is the best and most beautiful woman in the world.


----------



## ConHog

ABikerSailor said:


> Watch out Con Hog, Sunnidiot fancies himself to be a head case, I mean.......head shrinker.
> 
> But, he's about as much of a therapist as Yukon is a priest.



I aint worried about Sunni. I'm not a 5'4" 120 lbs Muslim woman who has been raised to allow some douchebag to abuse her. So like most cowards Sunni will recognize that I am not a target he wants to tangle with.


----------



## Sunni Man

ConHog said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watch out Con Hog, Sunnidiot fancies himself to be a head case, I mean.......head shrinker.
> 
> But, he's about as much of a therapist as Yukon is a priest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I aint worried about Sunni. I'm not a 5'4" 120 lbs Muslim woman who has been raised to allow some douchebag to abuse her. So like most cowards Sunni will recognize that I am not a target he wants to tangle with.
Click to expand...

Well, I can see this is going down hill fast.

When CornHole starts over compensating with macho rants to cover up his gay tendencies.


----------



## ConHog

Sunni Man said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watch out Con Hog, Sunnidiot fancies himself to be a head case, I mean.......head shrinker.
> 
> But, he's about as much of a therapist as Yukon is a priest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I aint worried about Sunni. I'm not a 5'4" 120 lbs Muslim woman who has been raised to allow some douchebag to abuse her. So like most cowards Sunni will recognize that I am not a target he wants to tangle with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I can see this is going down hill fast.
> 
> When CornHole starts over compensating with macho rants to cover up his gay tendencies.
Click to expand...


I'm obviously not gay; but that does bring up another question I have about your cult. Why is there such a renowned epidemic of homosexuality among the Taliban who claim to be the strictest and most spiritual of all the Muslims?


----------



## uptownlivin90

ConHog said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I aint worried about Sunni. I'm not a 5'4" 120 lbs Muslim woman who has been raised to allow some douchebag to abuse her. So like most cowards Sunni will recognize that I am not a target he wants to tangle with.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I can see this is going down hill fast.
> 
> When CornHole starts over compensating with macho rants to cover up his gay tendencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm obviously not gay; but that does bring up another question I have about your cult. Why is there such a renowned epidemic of homosexuality among the Taliban who claim to be the strictest and most spiritual of all the Muslims?
Click to expand...


On a strange side note, yes actually, I've heard that about the Taliban and about the Janjaweed as well in Sudan. 

Odd. But has absolutely nothing to do with Burqas in France.


----------



## Sunni Man

ConHog said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I aint worried about Sunni. I'm not a 5'4" 120 lbs Muslim woman who has been raised to allow some douchebag to abuse her. So like most cowards Sunni will recognize that I am not a target he wants to tangle with.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I can see this is going down hill fast.
> 
> When CornHole starts over compensating with macho rants to cover up his gay tendencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm obviously not gay; but that does bring up another question I have about your cult. Why is there such a renowned epidemic of homosexuality among the Taliban who claim to be the strictest and most spiritual of all the Muslims?
Click to expand...

I never heard anything about it.

But, obviously it is a major topic of discussion between you and and your very close friends.

CornHole, thinking about joining the Taliban since you found out that you both have a shared interest?


----------



## uptownlivin90

On the topic at hand though, I find it offensive that those women who choose to wear burka's as a matter of their faith for the reason of modesty are called "brainwashed". 

You can walk down the street and see women wearing almost nothing and nobody calls them "brainwashed".

I grew up Apostolic and the women in my family all as a matter of faith all wear skirts and dresses that usually go down to the ankle, instead of pants. They've been called brainwashed and "oppressed" as well. It's just as demeaning to force a woman to do something as it is to accuse women who make a conscious choice to wear a certain item of clothing "brainwashed". As if they can't think for themselves.

Fact is we all have our relgious convictions. Life is easier when we accept people's convictions and move on with our lives. The Burka is no more dangerous then a random guy in a trench coat. Truth be told the ONLY reason this is even being supported by the so-called "constitutionalist" neo-cons is because of their serious disdain for Muslims.

Like I said we could never have a law like this in America, because it's America, and the fact that rights triumph the silly fear of women in burkas. Unfortunetly there are still those hear that would have it that those rights be taken. Thank God most Americans don't think like them.


----------



## ConHog

uptownlivin90 said:


> On the topic at hand though, I find it offensive that those women who choose to wear burka's as a matter of their faith for the reason of modesty are called "brainwashed".
> 
> You can walk down the street and see women wearing almost nothing and nobody calls them "brainwashed".
> 
> I grew up Apostolic and the women in my family all as a matter of faith all wear skirts and dresses that usually go down to the ankle, instead of pants. They've been called brainwashed and "oppressed" as well. It's just as demeaning to force a woman to do something as it is to accuse women who make a conscious choice to wear a certain item of clothing "brainwashed". As if they can't think for themselves.
> 
> Fact is we all have our relgious convictions. Life is easier when we accept people's convictions and move on with our lives. The Burka is no more dangerous then a random guy in a trench coat. Truth be told the ONLY reason this is even being supported by the so-called "constitutionalist" neo-cons is because of their serious disdain for Muslims.
> 
> Like I said we could never have a law like this in America, because it's America, and the fact that rights triumph the silly fear of women in burkas. Unfortunetly there are still those hear that would have it that those rights be taken. Thank God most Americans don't think like them.



I think you're wrong about that. I bet a law against Burkas would win in a landslide. Their is a legitimate safety concern.


----------



## Sunni Man

uptownlivin90 said:


> Odd. But has absolutely nothing to do with Burqas in France.


You are correct Uptownliving90

The subject of this thread is Burqas in France.

And not CornHole's latent homosexuality.


----------



## uptownlivin90

ConHog said:


> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the topic at hand though, I find it offensive that those women who choose to wear burka's as a matter of their faith for the reason of modesty are called "brainwashed".
> 
> You can walk down the street and see women wearing almost nothing and nobody calls them "brainwashed".
> 
> I grew up Apostolic and the women in my family all as a matter of faith all wear skirts and dresses that usually go down to the ankle, instead of pants. They've been called brainwashed and "oppressed" as well. It's just as demeaning to force a woman to do something as it is to accuse women who make a conscious choice to wear a certain item of clothing "brainwashed". As if they can't think for themselves.
> 
> Fact is we all have our relgious convictions. Life is easier when we accept people's convictions and move on with our lives. The Burka is no more dangerous then a random guy in a trench coat. Truth be told the ONLY reason this is even being supported by the so-called "constitutionalist" neo-cons is because of their serious disdain for Muslims.
> 
> Like I said we could never have a law like this in America, because it's America, and the fact that rights triumph the silly fear of women in burkas. Unfortunetly there are still those hear that would have it that those rights be taken. Thank God most Americans don't think like them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're wrong about that. I bet a law against Burkas would win in a landslide. Their is a legitimate safety concern.
Click to expand...


Believe me, it will never even be brought before our congress. There's no reason. Maybe in a state legislature in a state like Kansas or North Dakota to make a silly point, but nowhere were there are actually muslims to piss off.

And no, there isn't a legitimate safety concern. Even if there was the fact is life is dangerous the law cannot step on our civil liberties in the name of "security". That's lunacy and if you take one right in the name of "security" it creates a precedent through which more can be taken. We can't say what the government will draw the line at if they can decide what we can wear Mr. Conservative.


----------



## ConHog

uptownlivin90 said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the topic at hand though, I find it offensive that those women who choose to wear burka's as a matter of their faith for the reason of modesty are called "brainwashed".
> 
> You can walk down the street and see women wearing almost nothing and nobody calls them "brainwashed".
> 
> I grew up Apostolic and the women in my family all as a matter of faith all wear skirts and dresses that usually go down to the ankle, instead of pants. They've been called brainwashed and "oppressed" as well. It's just as demeaning to force a woman to do something as it is to accuse women who make a conscious choice to wear a certain item of clothing "brainwashed". As if they can't think for themselves.
> 
> Fact is we all have our relgious convictions. Life is easier when we accept people's convictions and move on with our lives. The Burka is no more dangerous then a random guy in a trench coat. Truth be told the ONLY reason this is even being supported by the so-called "constitutionalist" neo-cons is because of their serious disdain for Muslims.
> 
> Like I said we could never have a law like this in America, because it's America, and the fact that rights triumph the silly fear of women in burkas. Unfortunetly there are still those hear that would have it that those rights be taken. Thank God most Americans don't think like them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're wrong about that. I bet a law against Burkas would win in a landslide. Their is a legitimate safety concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe me, it will never even be brought before our congress. There's no reason. Maybe in a state legislature in a state like Kansas or North Dakota to make a silly point, but nowhere were there are actually muslims to piss off.
> 
> And no, there isn't a legitimate safety concern. Even if there was the fact is life is dangerous the law cannot step on our civil liberties in the name of "security". That's lunacy and if you take one right in the name of "security" it creates a precedent through which more can be taken. We can't say what the government will draw the line at if they can decide what we can wear Mr. Conservative.
Click to expand...


Got news for you. It's already been done. Care to guess what you can and can not wear or possess if you want to fly? The door is open.


----------



## uptownlivin90

ConHog said:


> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're wrong about that. I bet a law against Burkas would win in a landslide. Their is a legitimate safety concern.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe me, it will never even be brought before our congress. There's no reason. Maybe in a state legislature in a state like Kansas or North Dakota to make a silly point, but nowhere were there are actually muslims to piss off.
> 
> And no, there isn't a legitimate safety concern. Even if there was the fact is life is dangerous the law cannot step on our civil liberties in the name of "security". That's lunacy and if you take one right in the name of "security" it creates a precedent through which more can be taken. We can't say what the government will draw the line at if they can decide what we can wear Mr. Conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got news for you. It's already been done. Care to guess what you can and can not wear or possess if you want to fly? The door is open.
Click to expand...


Flying is one thing. Walking outside is another. Wanna try again?


I still think that practice is rediculous now too, especially since we've got those "full body scanners" now.


----------



## ConHog

uptownlivin90 said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe me, it will never even be brought before our congress. There's no reason. Maybe in a state legislature in a state like Kansas or North Dakota to make a silly point, but nowhere were there are actually muslims to piss off.
> 
> And no, there isn't a legitimate safety concern. Even if there was the fact is life is dangerous the law cannot step on our civil liberties in the name of "security". That's lunacy and if you take one right in the name of "security" it creates a precedent through which more can be taken. We can't say what the government will draw the line at if they can decide what we can wear Mr. Conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got news for you. It's already been done. Care to guess what you can and can not wear or possess if you want to fly? The door is open.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Flying is one thing. Walking outside is another. *Wanna try again?
> 
> 
> I still think that practice is rediculous now too, especially since we've got those "full body scanners" now.
Click to expand...



That may be so,but an open door is an open door.


----------



## Valerie

Ravi said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like they're saying citizenship requires face-to-face communication in public places, we won't physically force you to remove your face covering, but we retain the authority to fine you for doing it and send you to citizenship class...And they also establish their government authority supersedes any religious authority of men requiring women to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> I really can't argue with your last sentence...and yet...*why make a law forbidding one group of people from demanding another group of people wear veils?* It isn't a real crime, after all. Is it?
Click to expand...





I've seen several references today that there are only around two thousand out of approximately five million French Muslims who actually wear this type of face covering in public places.  Even though I have seen some quotes by one or two of them stating they will defy this law and cover their faces anyway, I can imagine there may be hundreds if not thousands or even millions of Muslim women around the world who may be relieved to see a government authority assert itself in this manner.


Basically France is saying hey, as a free country we're not going to just standby and allow people to be oppressed in the name of religion...Citizenship requires face-to-face communication in public places for all equally.


----------



## syrenn

Sunni Man said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a personal problem.
> 
> My condolences
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question for you suni man
> 
> do you ever ask your wife's permission to go and do anything out of respect for her? Before you go to drive anywhere do you ask her if it is alright to take the car and go? How about visiting neighbors, do you ask he permission first to go?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, why would I ???
Click to expand...


Try really hard and think about that one.


----------



## uptownlivin90

Valerie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like they're saying citizenship requires face-to-face communication in public places, we won't physically force you to remove your face covering, but we retain the authority to fine you for doing it and send you to citizenship class...And they also establish their government authority supersedes any religious authority of men requiring women to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> I really can't argue with your last sentence...and yet...*why make a law forbidding one group of people from demanding another group of people wear veils?* It isn't a real crime, after all. Is it?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen several references today that there are only around two thousand out of approximately five million French Muslims who actually wear this type of face covering in public places.  Even though I have seen some quotes by one or two of them stating they will defy this law and cover their faces anyway, *I can imagine there may be hundreds if not thousands or even millions of Muslim women around the world who may be relieved to see a government authority assert itself in this manner*.
Click to expand...


I highly doubt it. This isn't an attack on people being forced on doing things this is a measure to make silly people feel safer because muslims can't wear burkas, which means nothing... remember the shoe bomber? Thank God that didn't happen in France or Muslims wouldn't be allowed to wear shoes.

Truth be told if they'd have passed a law against all clothing that covers the face and full body it'd be a different issue, they banned the burka, it was directly aimed at the religion so there won't be alot of happy campers within the muslim world period, for the burka or not.



Valerie said:


> Basically France is saying hey, as a free country we're not going to just standby and *allow people to be oppressed in the name of religion*...Citizenship requires face-to-face communication in public places for all equally.



Look you can say this is for security reasons and that argument might hold some water, but it's a huge insult to the intelligence of those women who do wear burkas out of religious conviction to say that your passing a law because it's oppressive. 

Again, should we pass a law against women dressing modestly because they follow ANY religion?

No. It's so sad that conservatives becomes liberals when people they don't like are threatened.


----------



## Jack Fate

Bottom line is this.  All you muslims and useful idiots for Islam are not going to push civilization any further.  Enough.  Either come into the 21st century or go to some other hell hole that has Sharia law.


----------



## Valerie

uptownlivin90 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really can't argue with your last sentence...and yet...*why make a law forbidding one group of people from demanding another group of people wear veils?* It isn't a real crime, after all. Is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen several references today that there are only around two thousand out of approximately five million French Muslims who actually wear this type of face covering in public places.  Even though I have seen some quotes by one or two of them stating they will defy this law and cover their faces anyway, *I can imagine there may be hundreds if not thousands or even millions of Muslim women around the world who may be relieved to see a government authority assert itself in this manner*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I highly doubt it. This isn't an attack on people being forced on doing things this is a measure to make silly people feel safer because muslims can't wear burkas, which means nothing... remember the shoe bomber? Thank God that didn't happen in France or Muslims wouldn't be allowed to wear shoes.
> 
> Truth be told if they'd have passed a law against all clothing that covers the face and full body it'd be a different issue, they banned the burka, it was directly aimed at the religion so there won't be alot of happy campers within the muslim world period, for the burka or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically France is saying hey, as a free country we're not going to just standby and *allow people to be oppressed in the name of religion*...Citizenship requires face-to-face communication in public places for all equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look you can say this is for security reasons and that argument might hold some water, but *it's a huge insult to the intelligence of those women who do wear burkas out of religious conviction to say that your passing a law because it's oppressive*.
Click to expand...





They are still free to talk about it at Citizen class!    I bet there will always be an avenue for women to ultimately express their freedom in France.


----------



## uptownlivin90

Jack Fate said:


> Bottom line is this.  *All you muslims and useful idiots for Islam are not going to push civilization any further*.  Enough.  Either come into the 21st century or go to some other hell hole that has Sharia law.



Hmmm... I feel like in my gut there's something terribly wrong with this statement. It's eerily frightening. Like I heard odd statements like it before and it led to something horrific and undeniably disturbing. 

Maybe I was a Jew born in Germany in the 1920s in a past life?


----------



## syrenn

uptownlivin90 said:


> Again, should we pass a law against women dressing modestly because they follow ANY religion?



Is this all about modesty? Are you sure?  I would think that a pair of jeans, a blouse with long sleeves, and a small scarf would just about be the same as, a muslim sanctioned as modest enough to swim in, a brukini. And this is a far cry from a walking coffin they call a burka.


----------



## ConHog

uptownlivin90 said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line is this.  *All you muslims and useful idiots for Islam are not going to push civilization any further*.  Enough.  Either come into the 21st century or go to some other hell hole that has Sharia law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... I feel like in my gut there's something terribly wrong with this statement. It's eerily frightening. Like I heard odd statements like it before and it led to something horrific and undeniably disturbing.
> 
> Maybe I was a Jew born in Germany in the 1920s in a past life?
Click to expand...


If France starts throwing Muslims into the ovens, I will join your protests. ..... Eventually.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

syrenn said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already told you. My wife doesn't ask to do anything. Quite the opposite actually, she is usually telling me what to do lol, and that's fine because my God doesn't command me to remind my wife every five minutes that she is just a woman.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a personal problem.
> 
> My condolences
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a question for you suni man
> 
> do you ever ask your wife's permission to go and do anything out of respect for her? Before you go to drive anywhere do you ask her if it is alright to take the car and go? How about visiting neighbors, do you ask he permission first to go?
Click to expand...


The wife has no right to object to her husband owning female slaves or to his having intercourse with them.


----------



## Sunni Man

Mr.Fitnah said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a personal problem.
> 
> My condolences
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question for you suni man
> 
> do you ever ask your wife's permission to go and do anything out of respect for her? Before you go to drive anywhere do you ask her if it is alright to take the car and go? How about visiting neighbors, do you ask he permission first to go?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wife has no right to object to her husband owning female slaves or to his having intercourse with them.
Click to expand...

Ok, so what's the problem??


----------



## Jack Fate

uptownlivin90 said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line is this.  *All you muslims and useful idiots for Islam are not going to push civilization any further*.  Enough.  Either come into the 21st century or go to some other hell hole that has Sharia law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... I feel like in my gut there's something terribly wrong with this statement. It's eerily frightening. Like I heard odd statements like it before and it led to something horrific and undeniably disturbing.
> 
> Maybe I was a Jew born in Germany in the 1920s in a past life?
Click to expand...


You're confused.  It's the voice of freedom and you heard it in 1776 when our founding fathers refused tyranny and chose freedom.  It probably scares you.


----------



## Jack Fate

ConHog said:


> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line is this.  *All you muslims and useful idiots for Islam are not going to push civilization any further*.  Enough.  Either come into the 21st century or go to some other hell hole that has Sharia law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... I feel like in my gut there's something terribly wrong with this statement. It's eerily frightening. Like I heard odd statements like it before and it led to something horrific and undeniably disturbing.
> 
> Maybe I was a Jew born in Germany in the 1920s in a past life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If France starts throwing Muslims into the ovens, I will join your protests. ..... Eventually.
Click to expand...


If they start throwing muslims in the ovens, I'l just say..."Hey, their not all like that".  If it's good enough for muslims to tell us that then it's good enough to tell them that.


----------



## rikules

AllieBaba said:


> No. It's the choice of those people to stay in the house rather than leave based upon their insane religious beliefs. Nobody is forcing them to do anything.
> 
> France obviously regrets embracing Islam. What a shame it's too late for them to undo it.




I'm truly sorry to hear you say these things, allie....

as an apathetic (atheist?)
I find pretty much all religious adherences/beliefs/traditions to be a little silly
(though I don't actually go around saying that to my religious friends)
but.....

I would NEVER support laws against ANY persons practice of their religion

in fact I would oppose them.

I know (believe) that you are a christian so I would hope/expect you to be more sympathetic with other peoples' religious beliefs.

On the other hand, should your desire for litigation really be more inclined in the direction of EXTREMIST muslims (the america-hating/blaming type) then I can more readily understand.

and ask only that you understand MY fear of BOTH islamic extremists AND christian extemists (or even zoroastrian extremists, if they exist)

we both have a rational fear of EXTREMIST MUSLIMS openly declaring their hatred for America (and Americans) and their desire to cause physical harm and punish us for our "crimes"


perhaps you can understand my fear of EXTREMIST CHRISTIANS who say similiar things about liberals, atheists, homosexuals.....?


----------



## uptownlivin90

syrenn said:


> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, should we pass a law against women dressing modestly because they follow ANY religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Is this all about modesty? Are you sure?*  I would think that a pair of jeans, a blouse with long sleeves, and a small scarf would just about be the same as, a muslim sanctioned as modest enough to swim in, a brukini. And this is a far cry from a walking coffin they call a burka.
Click to expand...


No, I'm not sure at all. That's not for me to be sure about. 

I'm not a muslim or a woman. So therefore I can't decide for myself what is modest dress for a muslim woman according to my own interpretation to my own religion.

My religion as I understand it modest dress for women requires them to wear skirts. Some go further and say that they have to be ankle length, some say past the knee. I've been to Apostolic churches where they'd freak out if a woman wasn't wearing a head covering in church. I've been in others where the women could wear pants and not have their heads covered. My mom would always wear a ankle-length dress and a head covering visiting other churches just in case.

Back to the topic though, it's a personal decision. One that government has no business getting into "it's a security risk", just like they have no business getting into the business of a Koran burning pastor because of the "security risk". I think there's a serious question about the role of government here.


----------



## uptownlivin90

ConHog said:


> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line is this.  *All you muslims and useful idiots for Islam are not going to push civilization any further*.  Enough.  Either come into the 21st century or go to some other hell hole that has Sharia law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... I feel like in my gut there's something terribly wrong with this statement. It's eerily frightening. Like I heard odd statements like it before and it led to something horrific and undeniably disturbing.
> 
> Maybe I was a Jew born in Germany in the 1920s in a past life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If France starts throwing Muslims into the ovens, I will join your protests. ..... Eventually.
Click to expand...


France doesn't have the balls to put anyone in ovens.

I'm talking about the rhetoric about Islamic people being a threat to "civilization". It was the same propoganda that was spewed out about the Jews by Hitler. It is DANGEROUS whenever one group of people is consider a threat to civilization as whole by the masses.

Especially when your f-ing with my health care, my doctor is a muslim and he's pretty damn good at his job. He's hardly a threat to anyone.


----------



## Jack Fate

uptownlivin90 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, should we pass a law against women dressing modestly because they follow ANY religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Is this all about modesty? Are you sure?*  I would think that a pair of jeans, a blouse with long sleeves, and a small scarf would just about be the same as, a muslim sanctioned as modest enough to swim in, a brukini. And this is a far cry from a walking coffin they call a burka.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not sure at all. That's not for me to be sure about.
> 
> I'm not a muslim or a woman. So therefore I can't decide for myself what is modest dress for a muslim woman according to my own interpretation to my own religion.
> 
> My religion as I understand it modest dress for women requires them to wear skirts. Some go further and say that they have to be ankle length, some say past the knee. I've been to Apostolic churches where they'd freak out if a woman wasn't wearing a head covering in church. I've been in others where the women could wear pants and not have their heads covered. My mom would always wear a ankle-length dress and a head covering visiting other churches just in case.
> 
> Back to the topic though, it's a personal decision. One that government has no business getting into "it's a security risk", just like they have no business getting into the business of a Koran burning pastor because of the "security risk". I think there's a serious question about the role of government here.
Click to expand...


When a western non-muslim woman is in Saudi Arabia or Iran, she has to cover her head.  If you were a woman would you cover your head in those countries?


----------



## uptownlivin90

Jack Fate said:


> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line is this.  *All you muslims and useful idiots for Islam are not going to push civilization any further*.  Enough.  Either come into the 21st century or go to some other hell hole that has Sharia law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... I feel like in my gut there's something terribly wrong with this statement. It's eerily frightening. Like I heard odd statements like it before and it led to something horrific and undeniably disturbing.
> 
> Maybe I was a Jew born in Germany in the 1920s in a past life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're confused.  It's the voice of freedom and you heard it in 1776 when our founding fathers refused tyranny and chose freedom.  It probably scares you.
Click to expand...


Yea which is why you support government making decisions about what it's citizens wear. It's the voice of irrational fear of an entire group of people that might live right next door to you. That's never worked out well in the past... Uganda, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, the Holocaust, etc.


----------



## Jack Fate

uptownlivin90 said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... I feel like in my gut there's something terribly wrong with this statement. It's eerily frightening. Like I heard odd statements like it before and it led to something horrific and undeniably disturbing.
> 
> Maybe I was a Jew born in Germany in the 1920s in a past life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If France starts throwing Muslims into the ovens, I will join your protests. ..... Eventually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> France doesn't have the balls to put anyone in ovens.
> 
> I'm talking about the rhetoric about Islamic people being a threat to "civilization". It was the same propoganda that was spewed out about the Jews by Hitler. It is DANGEROUS whenever one group of people is consider a threat to civilization as whole by the masses.
> 
> Especially when your f-ing with my health care, my doctor is a muslim and he's pretty damn good at his job. He's hardly a threat to anyone.
Click to expand...


Jews were not threatening the German people with violence if they didn't get their way.  Are you really this confused or just desparate to make a point?  Either way, you're missing the point entirely.


----------



## Jack Fate

uptownlivin90 said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... I feel like in my gut there's something terribly wrong with this statement. It's eerily frightening. Like I heard odd statements like it before and it led to something horrific and undeniably disturbing.
> 
> Maybe I was a Jew born in Germany in the 1920s in a past life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're confused.  It's the voice of freedom and you heard it in 1776 when our founding fathers refused tyranny and chose freedom.  It probably scares you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea which is why you support government making decisions about what it's citizens wear. It's the voice of irrational fear of an entire group of people that might live right next door to you. That's never worked out well in the past... Uganda, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, the Holocaust, etc.
Click to expand...


Iran tells the women what to wear.  Are they the voice of "irrational fear"?


----------



## uptownlivin90

Jack Fate said:


> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Is this all about modesty? Are you sure?*  I would think that a pair of jeans, a blouse with long sleeves, and a small scarf would just about be the same as, a muslim sanctioned as modest enough to swim in, a brukini. And this is a far cry from a walking coffin they call a burka.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not sure at all. That's not for me to be sure about.
> 
> I'm not a muslim or a woman. So therefore I can't decide for myself what is modest dress for a muslim woman according to my own interpretation to my own religion.
> 
> My religion as I understand it modest dress for women requires them to wear skirts. Some go further and say that they have to be ankle length, some say past the knee. I've been to Apostolic churches where they'd freak out if a woman wasn't wearing a head covering in church. I've been in others where the women could wear pants and not have their heads covered. My mom would always wear a ankle-length dress and a head covering visiting other churches just in case.
> 
> Back to the topic though, it's a personal decision. One that government has no business getting into "it's a security risk", just like they have no business getting into the business of a Koran burning pastor because of the "security risk". I think there's a serious question about the role of government here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When a western non-muslim woman is in Saudi Arabia or Iran, she has to cover her head.  If you were a woman would you cover your head in those countries?
Click to expand...


I wouldn't go, quite frankly.

I don't believe in governments forcing standards (or lack of standards) on people, period.


----------



## uptownlivin90

Jack Fate said:


> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're confused.  It's the voice of freedom and you heard it in 1776 when our founding fathers refused tyranny and chose freedom.  It probably scares you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea which is why you support government making decisions about what it's citizens wear. It's the voice of irrational fear of an entire group of people that might live right next door to you. That's never worked out well in the past... Uganda, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, the Holocaust, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran tells the women what to wear.  Are they the voice of "irrational fear"?
Click to expand...


Yes, and an oppressive dictatorship.


----------



## Jack Fate

uptownlivin90 said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not sure at all. That's not for me to be sure about.
> 
> I'm not a muslim or a woman. So therefore I can't decide for myself what is modest dress for a muslim woman according to my own interpretation to my own religion.
> 
> My religion as I understand it modest dress for women requires them to wear skirts. Some go further and say that they have to be ankle length, some say past the knee. I've been to Apostolic churches where they'd freak out if a woman wasn't wearing a head covering in church. I've been in others where the women could wear pants and not have their heads covered. My mom would always wear a ankle-length dress and a head covering visiting other churches just in case.
> 
> Back to the topic though, it's a personal decision. One that government has no business getting into "it's a security risk", just like they have no business getting into the business of a Koran burning pastor because of the "security risk". I think there's a serious question about the role of government here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a western non-muslim woman is in Saudi Arabia or Iran, she has to cover her head.  If you were a woman would you cover your head in those countries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't go, quite frankly.
> 
> I don't believe in governments forcing standards (or lack of standards) on people, period.
Click to expand...


How about a muslim woman who covers her face when her picture is taken for a driver's licence?  How about a muslim woman who covers her face when she is called to testify in court?  

You okay with all that?


----------



## Liability

France could be making a mistake....


----------



## Valerie

uptownlivin90 said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... I feel like in my gut there's something terribly wrong with this statement. It's eerily frightening. Like I heard odd statements like it before and it led to something horrific and undeniably disturbing.
> 
> Maybe I was a Jew born in Germany in the 1920s in a past life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're confused.  It's the voice of freedom and you heard it in 1776 when our founding fathers refused tyranny and chose freedom.  It probably scares you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea which is why *you support government making decisions about what it's citizens wear. *It's the voice of irrational fear of an entire group of people that might live right next door to you. That's never worked out well in the past... Uganda, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, the Holocaust, etc.
Click to expand...




As opposed to supporting a religion that does the same..and worse?   

Maybe you have an irrational fear of the French government upholding public standards.


----------



## uptownlivin90

Jack Fate said:


> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> 
> When a western non-muslim woman is in Saudi Arabia or Iran, she has to cover her head.  If you were a woman would you cover your head in those countries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't go, quite frankly.
> 
> I don't believe in governments forcing standards (or lack of standards) on people, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about a muslim woman who covers her face when her picture is taken for a driver's licence?  How about a muslim woman who covers her face when she is called to testify in court?
> 
> You okay with all that?
Click to expand...


Of course not. Here's the issue. A drivers licence isn't a right. If you don't want to do what it takes to get a licence because it's against your religion... walk. But women should have the freedom to make that decision to do so if they feel its THAT SERIOUS.

As for testifying in court, nobody has that right, not a muslim woman or a Jewish woman. That's not a specific attack on the Muslim religion it's a general law. I can't testify with a paper bag with two eyeholes cut into it. I can walk out in the street with one. Same concept. This is about rights not privilages.


----------



## rikules

Valerie said:


> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're confused.  It's the voice of freedom and you heard it in 1776 when our founding fathers refused tyranny and chose freedom.  It probably scares you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea which is why *you support government making decisions about what it's citizens wear. *It's the voice of irrational fear of an entire group of people that might live right next door to you. That's never worked out well in the past... Uganda, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, the Holocaust, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to supporting a religion that does the same..and worse?
> 
> Maybe you have an irrational fear of the French government upholding public standards.
Click to expand...


public standards?


nudity, yes...

sex in the park...of course....

but...wearing burkas?.....c'mon...

personally
when I see a muslim woman wearking a burka I think...."what the hell is wrong with that woman?  why would she willingly subject herself to such nonsense?"

but laws?

naw......

let the primitives have their traditions.....


----------



## uptownlivin90

Valerie said:


> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're confused.  It's the voice of freedom and you heard it in 1776 when our founding fathers refused tyranny and chose freedom.  It probably scares you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea which is why *you support government making decisions about what it's citizens wear. *It's the voice of irrational fear of an entire group of people that might live right next door to you. That's never worked out well in the past... Uganda, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, the Holocaust, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *As opposed to supporting a religion that does the same..and worse*?
> 
> Maybe you have an irrational fear of the French government upholding public standards.
Click to expand...


Who's supporting a religion? All religions have their own standards on how to dress. Nobody in France is forced to muslim, so if you chose to be muslim in a free democratic society your forcing Muslim standards upon yourself as you see fit and that's your business.

As for MUSLIM STATES I most certainly do not support ANY state forcing religious standards on ANYONE. That goes for MUSLIM STATES as much as any other.

My problem is France claiming to be a democracy and picking and chosing what religious standards are acceptable in public and which ones are not.


----------



## ConHog

uptownlivin90 said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't go, quite frankly.
> 
> I don't believe in governments forcing standards (or lack of standards) on people, period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about a muslim woman who covers her face when her picture is taken for a driver's licence?  How about a muslim woman who covers her face when she is called to testify in court?
> 
> You okay with all that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not. Here's the issue. A drivers licence isn't a right. If you don't want to do what it takes to get a licence because it's against your religion... walk. But women should have the freedom to make that decision to do so if they feel its THAT SERIOUS.
> 
> As for testifying in court, nobody has that right, not a muslim woman or a Jewish woman. That's not a specific attack on the Muslim religion it's a general law. I can't testify with a paper bag with two eyeholes cut into it. I can walk out in the street with one. Same concept. This is about rights not privilages.
Click to expand...


incorrect. you DO have a right to testify in court if the need arises. 

You also do not have the right to walk around with a brown bag over your head in France. See it's  not religious, it's just a safety measure, all the security cameras do know good if the operators can't see your face.


----------



## uscitizen

Ravi said:


> I can understand why they did it...but are they not condemning some women to choosing between their religious beliefs and their ability to leave the house?



and right wingers in America long to be like France.


----------



## uscitizen

Freedom Fries forever!


----------



## uptownlivin90

ConHog said:


> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about a muslim woman who covers her face when her picture is taken for a driver's licence?  How about a muslim woman who covers her face when she is called to testify in court?
> 
> You okay with all that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. Here's the issue. A drivers licence isn't a right. If you don't want to do what it takes to get a licence because it's against your religion... walk. But women should have the freedom to make that decision to do so if they feel its THAT SERIOUS.
> 
> As for testifying in court, nobody has that right, not a muslim woman or a Jewish woman. That's not a specific attack on the Muslim religion it's a general law. I can't testify with a paper bag with two eyeholes cut into it. I can walk out in the street with one. Same concept. This is about rights not privilages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> incorrect. *you DO have a right to testify in court if the need arises*.
> 
> You also do not have the right to walk around with a brown bag over your head in France. See it's  not religious, it's just a safety measure, all the security cameras do know good if the operators can't see your face.
Click to expand...


I meant nobody has the right to testify with their face covered.


----------



## chesswarsnow

Sorry bout that,


1. Oh wow, France is getting wise banning burkas.
2. Call me when they ban islam, when they really wise up.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## Sunni Man

uptownlivin90 said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. Here's the issue. A drivers licence isn't a right. If you don't want to do what it takes to get a licence because it's against your religion... walk. But women should have the freedom to make that decision to do so if they feel its THAT SERIOUS.
> 
> As for testifying in court, nobody has that right, not a muslim woman or a Jewish woman. That's not a specific attack on the Muslim religion it's a general law. I can't testify with a paper bag with two eyeholes cut into it. I can walk out in the street with one. Same concept. This is about rights not privilages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> incorrect. *you DO have a right to testify in court if the need arises*.
> 
> You also do not have the right to walk around with a brown bag over your head in France. See it's  not religious, it's just a safety measure, all the security cameras do know good if the operators can't see your face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I meant nobody has the right to testify with their face covered.
Click to expand...

Not true.

There has been people who have been allowed to hid their identity by covering their face when testifying against mafia defendants at government trials.


----------



## Dr Grump

All I say is well done France...


----------



## Sunni Man

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 1. Oh wow, France is getting wise banning burkas.
> 2. Call me when they ban islam, when they really wise


Yes, go set by the phone and we will call you when it happens.


----------



## Valerie

uptownlivin90 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea which is why *you support government making decisions about what it's citizens wear. *It's the voice of irrational fear of an entire group of people that might live right next door to you. That's never worked out well in the past... Uganda, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, the Holocaust, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *As opposed to supporting a religion that does the same..and worse*?
> 
> Maybe you have an irrational fear of the French government upholding public standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's supporting a religion? All religions have their own standards on how to dress. Nobody in France is forced to muslim, so if you chose to be muslim in a free democratic society your forcing Muslim standards upon yourself as you see fit and that's your business.
> 
> As for MUSLIM STATES I most certainly do not support ANY state forcing religious standards on ANYONE. That goes for MUSLIM STATES as much as any other.
> 
> My problem is France claiming to be a democracy and picking and chosing what religious standards are acceptable in public and which ones are not.
Click to expand...




What's so wrong about choosing this standard ?






> The bill was passed by 246 votes to 1, which will be reviewed by the Constitutional Council and approved by President Nicolas Sarkozy.
> 
> 
> The text makes no mention of Islam, but the France government promoted the law as a means to protect women from being forced to wear niqab.
> 
> Once in force, *woman who chooses to defy the ban will receive a fine of $200 or a course of citizenship lessons. Also a man who compel woman to go veiled will be fined ($41,000) and serve a jail term.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Many Muslims believe the new law is one more blow of stereotype to France's government and risks raising the level of Islamophobia in the country.
> 
> However, the vast majority behind the measure say, it will preserve the nation's singular values and identity.
> 
> http://news.oneindia.in/2010/09/15/france-senate-passes-bill-on-burqa-ban.html


----------



## Sunni Man

France is just creating an apartheid system against the muslims.

Much like the Nazis did with the Jews.

Or the south towards blacks before 1861


----------



## chesswarsnow

Sorry bout that,






Sunni Man said:


> France is just creating an apartheid system against the muslims.
> 
> Much like the Nazis did with the Jews.
> 
> Or the south towards blacks before 1861





1. France is just sayin, "You are not welcome here muslims".
2. Why don't the fucking muslims just take the hint and get the fuck out!
3. No one wants muslims all up in thier country!
4. They being the dredges of humanity.
5. If you want to call muslims humans, its debatable.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## ConHog

Sunni Man said:


> France is just creating an apartheid system against the muslims.
> 
> Much like the Nazis did with the Jews.
> 
> Or the south towards blacks before 1861



Good

Did you punish your wife while gone? Wife? It is wife right? Or is it wives?


----------



## Sunni Man

ConHog said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> France is just creating an apartheid system against the muslims.
> 
> Much like the Nazis did with the Jews.
> 
> Or the south towards blacks before 1861
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wife? It is wife right? Or is it wives?
Click to expand...

           Yes, as a matter of fact, I am currently seeking a second wife.


----------



## manifold

true story


----------



## ConHog

Sunni Man said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> France is just creating an apartheid system against the muslims.
> 
> Much like the Nazis did with the Jews.
> 
> Or the south towards blacks before 1861
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wife? It is wife right? Or is it wives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, as a matter of fact, I am currently seeking a second wife.
Click to expand...


I notice you totally jumped over the question of hitting your wife , again. Why can't you answer that simple question for us?


----------



## syrenn

Sunni Man said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> France is just creating an apartheid system against the muslims.
> 
> Much like the Nazis did with the Jews.
> 
> Or the south towards blacks before 1861
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wife? It is wife right? Or is it wives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, as a matter of fact, I am currently seeking a second wife.
Click to expand...




You want conjob as a second wife?


----------



## Sunni Man

ConHog said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wife? It is wife right? Or is it wives?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, as a matter of fact, I am currently seeking a second wife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice you totally jumped over the question of hitting your wife , again. Why can't you answer that simple question for us?
Click to expand...

CornHole, I answered that question for you many posts ago.

Just because you only have 2 brain cells isn't my fault.


----------



## Sunni Man

syrenn said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wife? It is wife right? Or is it wives?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, as a matter of fact, I am currently seeking a second wife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want conjob as a second wife?
Click to expand...

Even though CornHole is Gay.

The Sunni Man don't swing that way.


----------



## ConHog

Sunni Man said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, as a matter of fact, I am currently seeking a second wife.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you totally jumped over the question of hitting your wife , again. Why can't you answer that simple question for us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CornHole, I answered that question for you many posts ago.
> 
> Just because you only have 2 brain cells isn't my fault.
Click to expand...


"I have never treated my wife unlovingly" is not an answer to "have you hit her?" just yes or no, have you?


----------



## Ringel05

Okay ladies!  Time for a good old fashioned burka burning.  Free yourselves from slavery!  Let your hair down, your jowls hang loose, your beards and mustaches breath the free air!
(Add your bras to the fires if you're so inclined..... if you're wearing one, two, three, padded, extra padded......)


----------



## Charles_Main

Sunni Man said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, as a matter of fact, I am currently seeking a second wife.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you totally jumped over the question of hitting your wife , again. Why can't you answer that simple question for us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CornHole, I answered that question for you many posts ago.
> 
> Just because you only have 2 brain cells isn't my fault.
Click to expand...


Any one else get the impression this guy is so full of shit you can smell it through Cyber space. I think he is completely faking it all. Listen to the way he talks. Like some punk kid in Chicago lol. 

I trust his claim to even be a Sunni Muslim man about as far as I can throw my car across the yard.


----------



## lizzie

rightwinger said:


> It all comes down to intollerance of other cultures. A woman wears a burka because she is not supposed to reveal herself to other men. We think it is stupid....so we ban it


 
That's not the problem, and unless you are being intentionally dishonest, or really don't understand the reasoning behind the ban, you certainly know this. It's not about religion and its not about women not revealing themselves to other men.


----------



## Ringel05

lizzie said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It all comes down to intollerance of other cultures. A woman wears a burka because she is not supposed to reveal herself to other men. We think it is stupid....so we ban it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the problem, and unless you are being intentionally dishonest, or really don't understand the reasoning behind the ban, you certainly know this. It's not about religion and its not about women not revealing themselves to other men.
Click to expand...


Don't know his real reasoning here.  He's been grasping at straws and diverting since the thread started.


----------



## Sheldon

Ringel05 said:


> Okay ladies!  Time for a good old fashioned burka burning.  Free yourselves from slavery!  Let your hair down, your jowls hang loose, your beards and mustaches breath the free air!
> (Add your bras to the fires if you're so inclined..... if you're wearing one, two, three, padded, extra padded......)



I support your right to hold a burqa and bra burning, although I don't agree with it. Think of all the carbon you'll be adding to the air. Before you go through with this ask yourself, What Would Algore Do?


----------



## ConHog

silkyeggsalad said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay ladies!  Time for a good old fashioned burka burning.  Free yourselves from slavery!  Let your hair down, your jowls hang loose, your beards and mustaches breath the free air!
> (Add your bras to the fires if you're so inclined..... if you're wearing one, two, three, padded, extra padded......)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I support your right to hold a burqa and bra burning, although I don't agree with it. Think of all the carbon you'll be adding to the air. Before you go through with this ask yourself, What Would Algore Do?
Click to expand...


Al Gore would jump on his jet and just fly away from the whole mess.


----------



## loosecannon

racist!

The exile of 8000 Roma Gypsies is more significant in my humble opinion.

It reeks of complicity with the holocaust.


----------



## syrenn

manifold said:


> true story



Generally if i see someone running around with a ski mask i think they are some kind of criminal up to no good.


----------



## Gunny

Ravi said:


> I can understand why they did it...but are they not condemning some women to choosing between their religious beliefs and their ability to leave the house?



Laws are laws.  There's a practical reason for not letting people wear masks.  

I suppose you aren't for separation of church and state for this particular argument?


----------



## Gatekeeper

lizzie said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It all comes down to intollerance of other cultures. A woman wears a burka because she is not supposed to reveal herself to other men. We think it is stupid....so we ban it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the problem, and unless you are being intentionally dishonest, or really don't understand the reasoning behind the ban, you certainly know this. It's not about religion and its not about women not revealing themselves to other men.
Click to expand...


I was going to post this same partial quote from Rightwinger myself. It certainly seems to me that the:
 Many Muslims are the ones that have NO * Religious Intolerance*

It's either "Their way or they want to terminate you" That's what many of their actions demonstrate.

 What is needed is those Muslims desiring real peace, or at the least tolerance of, with other beliefs, is for them to stand up and be counted. I do not see that occurring, which leads one to believe that they are in favor of violence and domination of others by the 'radical ones', including their own wives.


----------



## Ravi

Sunni Man said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a personal problem.
> 
> My condolences
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question for you suni man
> 
> do you ever ask your wife's permission to go and do anything out of respect for her? Before you go to drive anywhere do you ask her if it is alright to take the car and go? How about visiting neighbors, do you ask he permission first to go?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, why would I ???
Click to expand...

This is why Islam will never catch on in the general population. Maybe with other fundies...


----------



## Ravi

Valerie said:


> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen several references today that there are only around two thousand out of approximately five million French Muslims who actually wear this type of face covering in public places.  Even though I have seen some quotes by one or two of them stating they will defy this law and cover their faces anyway, *I can imagine there may be hundreds if not thousands or even millions of Muslim women around the world who may be relieved to see a government authority assert itself in this manner*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I highly doubt it. This isn't an attack on people being forced on doing things this is a measure to make silly people feel safer because muslims can't wear burkas, which means nothing... remember the shoe bomber? Thank God that didn't happen in France or Muslims wouldn't be allowed to wear shoes.
> 
> Truth be told if they'd have passed a law against all clothing that covers the face and full body it'd be a different issue, they banned the burka, it was directly aimed at the religion so there won't be alot of happy campers within the muslim world period, for the burka or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically France is saying hey, as a free country we're not going to just standby and *allow people to be oppressed in the name of religion*...Citizenship requires face-to-face communication in public places for all equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look you can say this is for security reasons and that argument might hold some water, but *it's a huge insult to the intelligence of those women who do wear burkas out of religious conviction to say that your passing a law because it's oppressive*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are still free to talk about it at Citizen class!    I bet there will always be an avenue for women to ultimately express their freedom in France.
Click to expand...

Yes...let them bake tarte tatin!


----------



## Ravi

uscitizen said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand why they did it...but are they not condemning some women to choosing between their religious beliefs and their ability to leave the house?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and right wingers in America long to be like France.
Click to expand...

Ironic, no?


----------



## Ringel05

silkyeggsalad said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay ladies!  Time for a good old fashioned burka burning.  Free yourselves from slavery!  Let your hair down, your jowls hang loose, your beards and mustaches breath the free air!
> (Add your bras to the fires if you're so inclined..... if you're wearing one, two, three, padded, extra padded......)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I support your right to hold a burqa and bra burning, although I don't agree with it. Think of all the carbon you'll be adding to the air. Before you go through with this ask yourself, *What Would Algore Do*?
Click to expand...

My first (and last) suggestion would be get an enema........


----------



## Valerie

Ravi said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I highly doubt it. This isn't an attack on people being forced on doing things this is a measure to make silly people feel safer because muslims can't wear burkas, which means nothing... remember the shoe bomber? Thank God that didn't happen in France or Muslims wouldn't be allowed to wear shoes.
> 
> Truth be told if they'd have passed a law against all clothing that covers the face and full body it'd be a different issue, they banned the burka, it was directly aimed at the religion so there won't be alot of happy campers within the muslim world period, for the burka or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Look you can say this is for security reasons and that argument might hold some water, but *it's a huge insult to the intelligence of those women who do wear burkas out of religious conviction to say that your passing a law because it's oppressive*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are still free to talk about it at Citizen class!    I bet there will always be an avenue for women to ultimately express their freedom in France.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...let them bake tarte tatin!
Click to expand...





 http://www.discoverfrance.com/library/uploads/tarte-tatin-recette.jpg




Yes, it took a few pages but once we got past all our knee jerk reactions to defend personal liberty and our preconceived notions about veiled threats, we realize this law was really conceived in order to serve as a legal mechanism for Muslim women to actually have more freedom...an avenue for them to break away from religious authority...French society wants to look them in the eye and say we respect the individual dignity of all citizens and thus hereby establish our authority to require face-to-face communication in public places regardless of any religious authority.  






> "Given the damage it produces on those rules which allow the life in community, ensure the dignity of the person and equality between sexes, this practice, even if it is voluntary, cannot be tolerated in any public place," the French government said when it sent the measure to parliament in May.
> 
> The law imposes a fine of 150 euros ($190) and/or a citizenship course as punishment for wearing a face-covering veil. Forcing a woman to wear a niqab or a burqa will be punishable by a year in prison or a 15,000-euro ($19,000) fine, the government said, calling it "a new form of enslavement that the republic cannot accept on its soil."
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> The ban pertains to the burqa, a full-body covering that includes a mesh over the face, and the niqab, a full-face veil that leaves an opening only for the eyes. The hijab, which covers the hair and neck but not the face, and the chador, which covers the body but not the face, apparently are not banned by the law.
> 
> French senate approves burqa ban - CNN






> In June of 2009, President Nicholas Sarkozy announced his opposition of full-face veils in a speech to a joint session of the French Parliament saying, "The burqa is not welcome in French territory...In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity."
> 
> Feminist Wire Daily Newsbriefs: U.S. and Global News Coverage


----------



## Ravi

Valerie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are still free to talk about it at Citizen class!    I bet there will always be an avenue for women to ultimately express their freedom in France.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...let them bake tarte tatin!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.discoverfrance.com/library/uploads/tarte-tatin-recette.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it took a few pages but once we got past all our knee jerk reactions to defend personal liberty and our preconceived notions about veiled threats, we realize this law was really conceived in order to serve as a legal mechanism for Muslim women to actually have more freedom...an avenue for them to break away from religious authority...French society wants to look them in the eye and say we respect the individual dignity of all citizens and thus hereby establish our authority to require face-to-face communication in public places regardless of any religious authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Given the damage it produces on those rules which allow the life in community, ensure the dignity of the person and equality between sexes, this practice, even if it is voluntary, cannot be tolerated in any public place," the French government said when it sent the measure to parliament in May.
> 
> The law imposes a fine of 150 euros ($190) and/or a citizenship course as punishment for wearing a face-covering veil. Forcing a woman to wear a niqab or a burqa will be punishable by a year in prison or a 15,000-euro ($19,000) fine, the government said, calling it "a new form of enslavement that the republic cannot accept on its soil."
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> The ban pertains to the burqa, a full-body covering that includes a mesh over the face, and the niqab, a full-face veil that leaves an opening only for the eyes. The hijab, which covers the hair and neck but not the face, and the chador, which covers the body but not the face, apparently are not banned by the law.
> 
> French senate approves burqa ban - CNN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In June of 2009, President Nicholas Sarkozy announced his opposition of full-face veils in a speech to a joint session of the French Parliament saying, "The burqa is not welcome in French territory...In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity."
> 
> Feminist Wire Daily Newsbriefs: U.S. and Global News Coverage
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

What ever lofty aims they claim and you believe, they are "protecting" women by punishing them. Women should be able to choose what they wear, period.


----------



## saveliberty

Where is the liberal argument that we need to stay out of foreign nation's politics?  This is why other countries hate us right?  We think we have a right to tell them what to do?  Applying our standards to their lives?


----------



## Ravi

saveliberty said:


> Where is the liberal argument that we need to stay out of foreign nation's politics?  This is why other countries hate us right?  We think we have a right to tell them what to do?  Applying our standards to their lives?


What? We aren't allowed to comment on what other countries do?


----------



## saveliberty

Ravi said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the liberal argument that we need to stay out of foreign nation's politics?  This is why other countries hate us right?  We think we have a right to tell them what to do?  Applying our standards to their lives?
> 
> 
> 
> What? We aren't allowed to comment on what other countries do?
Click to expand...


Oh we can, but then they hate us.  You want them to like us right?  You need to consider the feelings and needs of the people of France.


----------



## Ravi

saveliberty said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the liberal argument that we need to stay out of foreign nation's politics?  This is why other countries hate us right?  We think we have a right to tell them what to do?  Applying our standards to their lives?
> 
> 
> 
> What? We aren't allowed to comment on what other countries do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh we can, but then they hate us.  You want them to like us right?  You need to consider the feelings and needs of the people of France.
Click to expand...

The French love me...not so sure about you.


----------



## Sunni Man

Valerie said:


> Yes, it took a few pages but once we got past all our knee jerk reactions to defend personal liberty and our preconceived notions about veiled threats, we realize this law was really conceived in order to serve as a legal mechanism for Muslim women to actually have more freedom...an avenue for them to break away from religious authority...French society wants to look them in the eye and say we respect the individual dignity of all citizens and thus hereby establish our authority to require face-to-face communication in public places regardless of any religious authority.


French society is extremely racist and xenophobic.

This ban is going to backfire on them in the near future.

It's kind of funny how so many people like you Valerie think you are somehow liberating muslim women.

But have never personally ask a burqa wearing muslimah (muslim woman) how she feels or why she puts it on to go out in public.

Just more arrogance from the West and their "we know what's best for you" hubris.


----------



## saveliberty

Ravi said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? We aren't allowed to comment on what other countries do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh we can, but then they hate us.  You want them to like us right?  You need to consider the feelings and needs of the people of France.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The French love me...not so sure about you.
Click to expand...


You got me!


----------



## ConHog

Ravi said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? We aren't allowed to comment on what other countries do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh we can, but then they hate us.  You want them to like us right?  You need to consider the feelings and needs of the people of France.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The French love me...not so sure about you.
Click to expand...


well, the French DO love smelly, unshaven women.


----------



## Valerie

Ravi said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...let them bake tarte tatin!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.discoverfrance.com/library/uploads/tarte-tatin-recette.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it took a few pages but once we got past all our knee jerk reactions to defend personal liberty and our preconceived notions about veiled threats, we realize this law was really conceived in order to serve as a legal mechanism for Muslim women to actually have more freedom...an avenue for them to break away from religious authority...French society wants to look them in the eye and say we respect the individual dignity of all citizens and thus hereby establish our authority to require face-to-face communication in public places regardless of any religious authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In June of 2009, President Nicholas Sarkozy announced his opposition of full-face veils in a speech to a joint session of the French Parliament saying, "The burqa is not welcome in French territory...In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity."
> 
> Feminist Wire Daily Newsbriefs: U.S. and Global News Coverage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What ever lofty aims they claim and you believe, they are "protecting" women by punishing them. Women should be able to choose what they wear, period.
Click to expand...





I agree _ideally_ we are all free to wear whatever we want.  Then there is the_ reality _of the way Muslims men treat Muslim women and the _reality_ of the dilemma of rapidly increasing Muslim populations in free societies, and the _reality_ that often times women are _not_ free to wear whatever they want to wear when they are held under such strict religious authority, and _even if _some apparently choose to hold themselves there, a society that values individual freedom, finding itself under these circumstances and seeking to establish a public standard for all citizens to communicate face-to-face in public places, is _not_ an oppressive government trying to punish people for what they wear...They are merely trying to establish that government authority supersedes the religious authority in order to provide an avenue _out of_ oppressive dress codes.


----------



## Valerie

Sunni Man said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it took a few pages but once we got past all our knee jerk reactions to defend personal liberty and our preconceived notions about veiled threats, we realize this law was really conceived in order to serve as a legal mechanism for Muslim women to actually have more freedom...an avenue for them to break away from religious authority...French society wants to look them in the eye and say we respect the individual dignity of all citizens and thus hereby establish our authority to require face-to-face communication in public places regardless of any religious authority.
> 
> 
> 
> French society is extremely racist and xenophobic.
> 
> This ban is going to backfire on them in the near future.
> 
> It's kind of funny how* so many people like you Valerie think you are somehow liberating muslim women*.
> 
> But have never personally ask a burqa wearing muslimah (muslim woman) how she feels or why she puts it on to go out in public.
> 
> Just more arrogance from the West and their "we know what's best for you" hubris.
Click to expand...





I don't live in France Sunni Mouse, I'm just trying to understand the real story beyond the knee-jerk rhetoric.


----------



## Ravi

Valerie said:


> I agree _ideally_ we are all free to wear whatever we want.  Then there is the_ reality _of the way Muslims men treat Muslim women and the _reality_ of the dilemma of rapidly increasing Muslim populations in free societies, and the _reality_ that often times women are _not_ free to wear whatever they want to wear when they are held under such strict religious authority, and _even if _some apparently choose to hold themselves there, a society that values individual freedom, finding itself under these circumstances and seeking to establish a public standard for all citizens to communicate face-to-face in public places, is _not_ an oppressive government trying to punish people for what they wear...They are merely trying to establish that government authority supersedes the religious authority in order to provide an avenue _out of_ oppressive dress codes.



Isn't abuse already illegal? Why yes it is...in fact France has the strictest laws on spousal abuse that I've ever seen.


----------



## Valerie

Ravi said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree _ideally_ we are all free to wear whatever we want.  Then there is the_ reality _of the way Muslims men treat Muslim women and the _reality_ of the dilemma of rapidly increasing Muslim populations in free societies, and the _reality_ that often times women are _not_ free to wear whatever they want to wear when they are held under such strict religious authority, and _even if _some apparently choose to hold themselves there, a society that values individual freedom, finding itself under these circumstances and seeking to establish a public standard for all citizens to communicate face-to-face in public places, is _not_ an oppressive government trying to punish people for what they wear...They are merely trying to establish that government authority supersedes the religious authority in order to provide an avenue _out of_ oppressive dress codes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't abuse already illegal? Why yes it is...in fact France has the strictest laws on spousal abuse that I've ever seen.
Click to expand...




See?  France has no desire to oppress women, indeed it's quite the opposite.


----------



## Sunni Man

Valerie said:


> They are merely trying to establish that government authority supersedes the religious authority in order to provide an avenue _out of_ oppressive dress codes.


So let me get this straight.

You want to help these women get out of an alleged oppressive religious dress code.

By enforcing an oppressive government dress code that's against what these women want to wear.


Face it Valerie, you just don't like the way these muslim women dress.

Just more Western, "we know what's best for you" so you have to obey us, colonial mindset and attitude.


----------



## Ravi

Valerie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree _ideally_ we are all free to wear whatever we want.  Then there is the_ reality _of the way Muslims men treat Muslim women and the _reality_ of the dilemma of rapidly increasing Muslim populations in free societies, and the _reality_ that often times women are _not_ free to wear whatever they want to wear when they are held under such strict religious authority, and _even if _some apparently choose to hold themselves there, a society that values individual freedom, finding itself under these circumstances and seeking to establish a public standard for all citizens to communicate face-to-face in public places, is _not_ an oppressive government trying to punish people for what they wear...They are merely trying to establish that government authority supersedes the religious authority in order to provide an avenue _out of_ oppressive dress codes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't abuse already illegal? Why yes it is...in fact France has the strictest laws on spousal abuse that I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See?  France has no desire to oppress women, indeed it's quite the opposite.
Click to expand...

But they are with this law.


----------



## Si modo

Sunni Man said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are merely trying to establish that government authority supersedes the religious authority in order to provide an avenue _out of_ oppressive dress codes.
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight.
> 
> You want to help these women get out of an alleged oppressive religious dress code.
> 
> By enforcing an oppressive government dress code that's against what these women want to wear.
> 
> 
> Face it Valerie, you just don't like the way these muslim women dress.
> 
> Just more Western, "we know what's best for you" so you have to obey us, colonial mindset and attitude.
Click to expand...

Although I agree a bit with you, I find your last sentence superbly ironic in its hypocrisy.


----------



## Valerie

Sunni Man said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are merely trying to establish that government authority supersedes the religious authority in order to provide an avenue _out of_ oppressive dress codes.
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight.
> 
> You want to help these women get out of an alleged oppressive religious dress code.
> 
> By enforcing an oppressive government dress code that's against what these women want to wear.
> 
> 
> Face it Valerie, you just don't like the way these muslim women dress.
> 
> Just more Western, "we know what's best for you" so you have to obey us, colonial mindset and attitude.
Click to expand...





  It's not an "oppressive government dress code" to establish a requirement that all citizens communicate face-to-face in public places.  It seems to me to be a fair way to establish an avenue to help women regain their individual identities.


----------



## Sunni Man

Valerie said:


> See?  France has no desire to oppress women, indeed it's quite the opposite.



Unless you are a muslim.

Then you are a second class citizen.

And have special laws enacted just for you.


Kind of reminds me of pre war Nazi Germany and their special laws to "Help" their Jewish citizens....


----------



## saveliberty

Sunni Man said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are merely trying to establish that government authority supersedes the religious authority in order to provide an avenue _out of_ oppressive dress codes.
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight.
> 
> You want to help these women get out of an alleged oppressive religious dress code.
> 
> By enforcing an oppressive government dress code that's against what these women want to wear.
> 
> 
> Face it Valerie, you just don't like the way these muslim women dress.
> 
> Just more Western, "we know what's best for you" so you have to obey us, colonial mindset and attitude.
Click to expand...


Actually FRANCE had a colonial mind set and passed this law.  Just saying.


----------



## Valerie

Ravi said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't abuse already illegal? Why yes it is...in fact France has the strictest laws on spousal abuse that I've ever seen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See?  France has no desire to oppress women, indeed it's quite the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they are with this law.
Click to expand...




I disagree.  People are still free to wear whatever they choose to wear in most places, but now a legal standard has been set for showing your face in public places...That is not oppressive, IMO, it is fair and values individual dignity.  Otherwise by what legal authority would the French government be able to reach out to these women when suddenly it's not just thousands but millions of them living faceless and voiceless in their "free society" ?


----------



## Sunni Man

Si modo said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are merely trying to establish that government authority supersedes the religious authority in order to provide an avenue _out of_ oppressive dress codes.
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight.
> 
> You want to help these women get out of an alleged oppressive religious dress code.
> 
> By enforcing an oppressive government dress code that's against what these women want to wear.
> 
> 
> Face it Valerie, you just don't like the way these muslim women dress.
> 
> Just more Western, "we know what's best for you" so you have to obey us, colonial mindset and attitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Although I agree a bit with you, I find your last sentence superbly ironic in its hypocrisy.
Click to expand...


I grew up on Oklahoma among Native Americans. (mainly Comanchee, Kiowa, Apache)

So I have personally seen the aftermath of the, "we know what's best for you" european mind set and superior attitude.

But, I am not sure what you mean by "hypocrisy" on my part?


----------



## Sunni Man

Valerie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> See?  France has no desire to oppress women, indeed it's quite the opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> But they are with this law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  People are still free to wear whatever they choose to wear in most places, but now a legal standard has been set for showing your face in public places...That is not oppressive, IMO, it is fair and values individual dignity.  Otherwise by what legal authority would the French government be able to reach out to these women when suddenly it's not just thousands but millions of them living faceless and voiceless in their "free society" ?
Click to expand...

Obviously, you don't know any Burqa wearing Muslimah's or you would NOT be making these blanket statements like you do.

Many of these women are highly educated and are far from "voiceless"

They view wearing the burqa as adding to their dignity and personal values.

But forcing them to uncover is both demeaning and degrading to them as muslim women.


----------



## Si modo

Sunni Man said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight.
> 
> You want to help these women get out of an alleged oppressive religious dress code.
> 
> By enforcing an oppressive government dress code that's against what these women want to wear.
> 
> 
> Face it Valerie, you just don't like the way these muslim women dress.
> 
> Just more Western, "we know what's best for you" so you have to obey us, colonial mindset and attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> Although I agree a bit with you, I find your last sentence superbly ironic in its hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I grew up on Oklahoma among Native Americans. (mainly Comanchee, Kiowa, Apache)
> 
> So I have personally seen the aftermath of the, "we know what's best for you" european mind set and superior attitude.
> 
> But, I am not sure what you mean by "hypocrisy" on my part?
Click to expand...

No doubt.


----------



## Ravi

Valerie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> See?  France has no desire to oppress women, indeed it's quite the opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> But they are with this law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  People are still free to wear whatever they choose to wear in most places, but now a legal standard has been set for showing your face in public places...That is not oppressive, IMO, it is fair and values individual dignity.  Otherwise by what legal authority would the French government be able to reach out to these women when suddenly it's not just thousands but millions of them living faceless and voiceless in their "free society" ?
Click to expand...

If France really meant what you claim they mean, they would have simply written a law to the effect that no one can compel anyone to cover their face or part of their face in public.


----------



## Ravi

I wonder if Valarie would support a law that disallows Orthodox Jewish women from shaving their heads and wearing wigs?


----------



## Valerie

Sunni Man said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> See?  France has no desire to oppress women, indeed it's quite the opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you are a muslim.
> 
> Then you are a second class citizen.
> 
> And *have special laws enacted just for you*.
> 
> 
> Kind of reminds me of pre war Nazi Germany and their special laws to "Help" their Jewish citizens....
Click to expand...





  The law actually goes out of it's way to _not_ mention gender or religion.


----------



## Sunni Man

Valerie said:


> The law actually goes out of it's way to _not_ mention *gender* or *religion*.


LOL you would have made a good nazi Valerie   

Do men wear burqas?    No

Do christians, hindus, buddhists wear burqas?  No

Then I feel it would be safe to assume that the law is direct towards women (gender) who are muslim (religion)


----------



## Valerie

Sunni Man said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law actually goes out of it's way to _not_ mention *gender* or *religion*.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you would have made a good nazi Valerie
> 
> Do men wear burqas?    No
> 
> Do christians, hindus, buddhists wear burqas?  No
> 
> Then I feel it would be safe to assume that the law is direct towards women (gender) who are muslim (religion)
Click to expand...





  Too bad the law didn't mention burqas either.  



What's the matter, Sunni Mouse...?  You can't afford the hefty fine for forcing your woman to dress in this manner...?  Your authority feeling threatened, is it...?


----------



## Sunni Man

Valerie said:


> What's the matter, Sunni Mouse...?  You can't afford the hefty fine for forcing your woman to dress in this manner...?  Your authority feeling threatened, is it...?



Nope, not at all.


----------



## Valerie

Ravi said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they are with this law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  People are still free to wear whatever they choose to wear in most places, but now a legal standard has been set for showing your face in public places...That is not oppressive, IMO, it is fair and values individual dignity.  Otherwise by what legal authority would the French government be able to reach out to these women when suddenly it's not just thousands but millions of them living faceless and voiceless in their "free society" ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *If France really meant what you claim they mean*, they would have simply written a law to the effect that no one can compel anyone to cover their face or part of their face in public.
Click to expand...





It's not like I made it up, Ravi...I went and sought out the rationale behind this legislation so I could have an informed opinion.  The French government is facing a complex issue where religious freedom and individual freedom clash with public standards of safety and citizenship.  You might notice the proposed fine for a veiled face in public places is _not_ prohibitive and the Citizenship class "punishment" offers an avenue for further communication and reconciliation...a public service probably paid for by the fine itself...Whereas the penalty for forcing anyone to veil their face in public places _is_ both prohibitive and punitive.


----------



## Ravi

Valerie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  People are still free to wear whatever they choose to wear in most places, but now a legal standard has been set for showing your face in public places...That is not oppressive, IMO, it is fair and values individual dignity.  Otherwise by what legal authority would the French government be able to reach out to these women when suddenly it's not just thousands but millions of them living faceless and voiceless in their "free society" ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If France really meant what you claim they mean*, they would have simply written a law to the effect that no one can compel anyone to cover their face or part of their face in public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not like I made it up, Ravi...I went and sought out the rationale behind this legislation so I could have an informed opinion.  The French government is facing a complex issue where religious freedom and individual freedom clash with public standards of safety and citizenship.  You might notice the proposed fine for a veiled face in public places is _not_ prohibitive and the Citizenship class "punishment" offers an avenue for further communication and reconciliation...a public service probably paid for by the fine itself...Whereas the penalty for forcing anyone to veil their face in public places _is_ both prohibitive and punitive.
Click to expand...

I didn't say you made it up...and what you've posted in no way negates what I said.


----------



## Valerie

Ravi said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If France really meant what you claim they mean*, they would have* simply written a law* to the effect that no one can compel anyone to cover their face or part of their face in public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not like I made it up, Ravi...I went and sought out the rationale behind this legislation so I could have an informed opinion.  The French government is facing a complex issue where religious freedom and individual freedom clash with public standards of safety and citizenship.  You might notice the proposed fine for a veiled face in public places is _not_ prohibitive and the Citizenship class "punishment" offers an avenue for further communication and reconciliation...a public service probably paid for by the fine itself...Whereas the penalty for forcing anyone to veil their face in public places _is_ both prohibitive and punitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say you made it up...and what you've posted in no way negates what I said.
Click to expand...




It's just not as simple as you seem to think, is all I'm saying...


----------



## Ravi

Valerie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not like I made it up, Ravi...I went and sought out the rationale behind this legislation so I could have an informed opinion.  The French government is facing a complex issue where religious freedom and individual freedom clash with public standards of safety and citizenship.  You might notice the proposed fine for a veiled face in public places is _not_ prohibitive and the Citizenship class "punishment" offers an avenue for further communication and reconciliation...a public service probably paid for by the fine itself...Whereas the penalty for forcing anyone to veil their face in public places _is_ both prohibitive and punitive.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say you made it up...and what you've posted in no way negates what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just not as simple as you seem to think, is all I'm saying...
Click to expand...

 Actually, it is.


----------



## Sunni Man

Valerie said:


> It's not like I made it up, Ravi...I went and sought out the rationale behind this legislation so I could have an informed opinion.  The French government is facing a complex issue where religious freedom and individual freedom clash with *public standards of safety and citizenship*.  You might notice the proposed fine for a veiled face in public places is _not_ prohibitive and the Citizenship class "punishment" offers an avenue for further communication and reconciliation...a public service probably paid for by the fine itself...Whereas the penalty for forcing anyone to veil their face in public places _is_ both prohibitive and punitive.


The pre war Nazis also had a similar program for their second class citizens in the name public safety and national security.

A man who initially didn't wear the yellow Star of David was fined.

Later it was upped to a prison sentence if he or his family members were caught without one sewed onto their clothes.

Different country, different century.

Same type of people and mindset.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You know.......the only sects of Islam that require women to cover their faces are the radical ones like Wahabism.

All the others only require them to cover their hair and their body, the face is left exposed.

If you can't see a person's face, generally, they're up to no good.


----------



## ConHog

Ravi said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they are with this law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  People are still free to wear whatever they choose to wear in most places, but now a legal standard has been set for showing your face in public places...That is not oppressive, IMO, it is fair and values individual dignity.  Otherwise by what legal authority would the French government be able to reach out to these women when suddenly it's not just thousands but millions of them living faceless and voiceless in their "free society" ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If France really meant what you claim they mean, they would have simply written a law to the effect that no one can compel anyone to cover their face or part of their face in public.
Click to expand...


Holy damn you are stupid. They don't want anyone's face covered in public whether they choose to do it to themselves OR they have it forced upon them



Ravi said:


> I wonder if Valarie would support a law that disallows Orthodox Jewish women from shaving their heads and wearing wigs?



More stupidity from Ravi. Does shaving your head and wearing a wig obscure your face in ANY way?

Good Lord you are an idiot. You can't possibly really be this stupid?


----------



## Sunni Man

ABikerSailor said:


> If you can't see a person's face, generally, they're up to no good.


Batman and Robin covered their faces and they were always doing good and helping people.


----------



## Sheldon

Valerie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  People are still free to wear whatever they choose to wear in most places, but now a legal standard has been set for showing your face in public places...That is not oppressive, IMO, it is fair and values individual dignity.  Otherwise by what legal authority would the French government be able to reach out to these women when suddenly it's not just thousands but millions of them living faceless and voiceless in their "free society" ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If France really meant what you claim they mean*, they would have simply written a law to the effect that no one can compel anyone to cover their face or part of their face in public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not like I made it up, Ravi...I went and sought out the rationale behind this legislation so I could have an informed opinion.  The French government is facing a complex issue where religious freedom and individual freedom clash with public standards of safety and citizenship.  You might notice the proposed fine for a veiled face in public places is _not_ prohibitive and the Citizenship class "punishment" offers an avenue for further communication and reconciliation...a public service probably paid for by the fine itself...Whereas the penalty for forcing anyone to veil their face in public places _is_ both prohibitive and punitive.
Click to expand...


I actually agree with the part of the law that says it's a $41k fine or jail time if the woman is forced to wear one. That I think is clearly oppressive to a woman's rights. No woman should be made to wear a burqa or whatever against her will. And "forced" could be in some cases the threat of getting beaten.


----------



## saveliberty

What are they concealing under the wigs.  Wicked wit probably, not bombs.


----------



## lizzie

Sunni Man said:


> The pre war Nazis also had a similar program for their second class citizens in the name public safety and national security.
> 
> A man who initially didn't wear the yellow Star of David was fined.
> 
> Later it was upped to a prison sentence if he or his family members were caught without one sewed onto their clothes.
> 
> Different country, different century.
> 
> Same type of people and mindset.


 
For someone whom I guessing doesn't like Jews, you seem to be coming their defense. Just a guess on my part.

There is a fairly stark difference between the pre-war Germans and the current day French. Germans were nationalistic and defensive, basically scape-goating the Jews for their own problems. The French are typically very liberal and tolerant, welcoming anyone into the secular society who desires to be there.


----------



## Ravi

silkyeggsalad said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If France really meant what you claim they mean*, they would have simply written a law to the effect that no one can compel anyone to cover their face or part of their face in public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not like I made it up, Ravi...I went and sought out the rationale behind this legislation so I could have an informed opinion.  The French government is facing a complex issue where religious freedom and individual freedom clash with public standards of safety and citizenship.  You might notice the proposed fine for a veiled face in public places is _not_ prohibitive and the Citizenship class "punishment" offers an avenue for further communication and reconciliation...a public service probably paid for by the fine itself...Whereas the penalty for forcing anyone to veil their face in public places _is_ both prohibitive and punitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually agree with the part of the law that says it's a $41k fine or jail time if the woman is forced to wear one. That I think is clearly oppressive to a woman's rights. No woman should be made to wear a burqa or whatever against her will. And "forced" could be in some cases the threat of getting beaten.
Click to expand...

I wonder what the fine for beating one's wife is in France?


----------



## lizzie

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't see a person's face, generally, they're up to no good.
> 
> 
> 
> Batman and Robin covered their faces and they were always doing good and helping people.
Click to expand...

 
Ummm, correlating myth and comic book superheroes to reality?


----------



## saveliberty

lizzie said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't see a person's face, generally, they're up to no good.
> 
> 
> 
> Batman and Robin covered their faces and they were always doing good and helping people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ummm, correlating myth and comic book superheroes to reality?
Click to expand...


But they were on TV and TV is almost exclusively reality.


----------



## Sheldon

Ravi said:


> silkyeggsalad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not like I made it up, Ravi...I went and sought out the rationale behind this legislation so I could have an informed opinion.  The French government is facing a complex issue where religious freedom and individual freedom clash with public standards of safety and citizenship.  You might notice the proposed fine for a veiled face in public places is _not_ prohibitive and the Citizenship class "punishment" offers an avenue for further communication and reconciliation...a public service probably paid for by the fine itself...Whereas the penalty for forcing anyone to veil their face in public places _is_ both prohibitive and punitive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually agree with the part of the law that says it's a $41k fine or jail time if the woman is forced to wear one. That I think is clearly oppressive to a woman's rights. No woman should be made to wear a burqa or whatever against her will. And "forced" could be in some cases the threat of getting beaten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wonder what the fine for beating one's wife is in France?
Click to expand...


No idea. But if you compound that with the fine or time of forcing your wife to wear a burqa, and it sounds like it'd be a serious crime over there.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't see a person's face, generally, they're up to no good.
> 
> 
> 
> Batman and Robin covered their faces and they were always doing good and helping people.
Click to expand...


  I suppose that you think the Green Lantern and Iron Man are real as well, don't you Sunnidiot?

Probably about as real as your supposed wife, which is to say, you're single and stupid.


----------



## rightwinger

If you outlaw burqas.....only outlaws will have burqas


----------



## saveliberty

rightwinger said:


> If you outlaw burqas.....only outlaws will have burqas



Burkas don't kill people, opposing sects do.


----------



## ConHog

saveliberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you outlaw burqas.....only outlaws will have burqas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Burkas don't kill people, opposing sects do.
Click to expand...


2nd one from the left is Del.

True story


----------



## ekrem

silkyeggsalad said:


> And to think this is the same country that gave us the Statue of Liberty.



Look at the Roma deportations in France. Sarkozy's public ratings are down with several corruption scandals which were made public in last months including illegal campaign raisers by L'Oreal femal inheritor in 2007 during Sarkozy's president candidacy campaign. Another scandal which was made public is from 1995, when Sarkozy was finance Minister, the judiciary is investaigating about weapon sales to Pakistan which included corruption-commission back to the Government for its re-election campaign, which was in same year and Sarkozy was Finance MInister of it.  The money was likely transferred via Luxembourg.
I read German press, it's their neighbours. They report about such things.
He's trying to appease voters from the camp of Le Pen.


----------



## Sunni Man

lizzie said:


> The French are typically very liberal and tolerant, welcoming anyone into the secular society who desires to be there.


Obviously, you have never been to France and spoke to a waiter or asked directions in english.


----------



## syrenn

Sunni Man said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not like I made it up, Ravi...I went and sought out the rationale behind this legislation so I could have an informed opinion.  The French government is facing a complex issue where religious freedom and individual freedom clash with *public standards of safety and citizenship*.  You might notice the proposed fine for a veiled face in public places is _not_ prohibitive and the Citizenship class "punishment" offers an avenue for further communication and reconciliation...a public service probably paid for by the fine itself...Whereas the penalty for forcing anyone to veil their face in public places _is_ both prohibitive and punitive.
> 
> 
> 
> The pre war Nazis also had a similar program for their second class citizens in the name public safety and national security.
> 
> A man who initially didn't wear the yellow Star of David was fined.
> 
> Later it was upped to a prison sentence if he or his family members were caught without one sewed onto their clothes.
> 
> Different country, different century.
> 
> Same type of people and mindset.
Click to expand...



According to muslims, what happened to the jews during WWII in germany, it is all a lie. It never happened remember?


----------



## Valerie

syrenn said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not like I made it up, Ravi...I went and sought out the rationale behind this legislation so I could have an informed opinion.  The French government is facing a complex issue where religious freedom and individual freedom clash with *public standards of safety and citizenship*.  You might notice the proposed fine for a veiled face in public places is _not_ prohibitive and the Citizenship class "punishment" offers an avenue for further communication and reconciliation...a public service probably paid for by the fine itself...Whereas the penalty for forcing anyone to veil their face in public places _is_ both prohibitive and punitive.
> 
> 
> 
> The pre war Nazis also had a similar program for their second class citizens in the name public safety and national security.
> 
> A man who initially didn't wear the yellow Star of David was fined.
> 
> Later it was upped to a prison sentence if he or his family members were caught without one sewed onto their clothes.
> 
> Different country, different century.
> 
> Same type of people and mindset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> According to muslims, what happened to the jews during WWII in germany, it is all a lie. It never happened remember?
Click to expand...





Yes, I remember Sunni Mouse posting all that crap.


----------



## Valerie

rightwinger said:


> If you outlaw burqas.....only outlaws will have burqas





Burqas are not _outlawed_...ALL citizens are expected to show their faces while in public places, regardless of religion, gender or choice of clothing.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Sunni Man said:


> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The French are typically very liberal and tolerant, welcoming anyone into the secular society who desires to be there.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, you have never been to France and spoke to a waiter or asked directions in english.
Click to expand...


Depends on your attitude and your location Sunnidiot.

If you're in the tourist areas, yeah.......it can be like that for people that don't have a phrase book and start talking to them in their language.  They're tired of the Ugly Americans that automatically assume everyone should speak English.

Interestingly enough, if you go outside of the tourist areas, most of the little villages and the like are HAPPY to see you.  Why?  Because they are looking for a chance to practice speaking English (80 percent of Europe speaks it as a second or more language), and, if you don't act like an arrogant douchebag, the people over there are pretty darn friendly.

Learned that when I signed up for a ceremonial detail to go to on of the WWII cemeteries where US troops were buried.  The people at that town were FANTASTIC towards us.


----------



## saveliberty

Update, in an attempt to create equality in France, a law is proposed banning Americans from France.  It isn't specifically against Americans, just people who wear unfashionable jogging suits on vacation.  Oh heck, face it, its against Americans.


----------



## Ravi

Valerie said:


> Burqas are not _outlawed_...


Really???


----------



## Valerie

Ravi said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Burqas are not _outlawed_...
> 
> 
> 
> Really???
Click to expand...




Really.  





Assemblée nationale - Société : interdiction de la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public





> French to English translation
> 
> National Assembly delegation for women's rights and equality of opportunity between men and women
> Information report filed by the delegation of the National Assembly on women's rights and equality of opportunity between men and women on the bill prohibiting the concealment of the face in public spaces (No. 2520) No. 2646 filed June 23, 2010 (online since 24 June 2010 in 5:45 p.m.) by Bérengère Poletti
> 
> French to English translation
> Preparatory work
> National Assembly 1st reading - Senate first reading - Constitutional Council
> 
> National Assembly - 1st reading
> 
> Bill banning the concealment of the face in public space, No. 2520, filed May 19, 2010 (online since May 19, 2010 6:30 p.m.)
> and referred to the Committee on Constitutional laws, legislation and general administration of the republic
> 
> Impact Study
> 
> Amendments
> - Amendments tabled on the text n ° 2648
> - Multi-Search
> 
> 
> Committee work
> 
> - Legislation Committee
> The concerned committee has appointed Mr. Jean-Paul Garraud reporter May 26, 2010
> 
> Amendments tabled in committee
> 
> Auditon minister during the meeting on 16 June 2010 10:00
> Examination of the text during the meeting on 23 June 2010 11:30
> Consideration of amendments (Article 88) during the meeting on 6 July 2010 at 9:15 p.m.
> Report No. 2648 filed June 23, 2010 (posted 25 June 2010 to 18 hours):
> Appendix 0 - Text of the commission (put online 23 June 2010 at 5:45 p.m.)
> 
> Discussion in open session
> 3rd meeting of Tuesday, July 6, 2010
> 1st meeting of Wednesday, July 7, 2010
> 2nd meeting of Tuesday, July 13, 2010
> 
> Ballot No. 0595 on the entire bill prohibiting the concealment of the face in public space during the second meeting of Tuesday, July 13, 2010
> 
> Bill banning the concealment of the face in public, in 1st reading by the National Assembly July 13, 2010, TA No. 524
> 
> Video of the discussion in open session
> 
> Senate - 1st reading
> (File online at the Senate site)
> Bill, adopted by the National Assembly, prohibiting the covering of the face in public, No. 675, filed July 13, 2010
> and referred to the Committee on Constitutional laws, legislation, universal suffrage, the regulation and general administration
> 
> Committee work
> 
> - Legislation Committee
> The concerned committee has appointed Mr. Francis Christmas Buffet reporter June 2, 2010
> Report No. 699 filed September 8, 2010 by Mr. Francis Christmas Buffet
> 
> Text of the Commission filed No. 700 (2009-2010) filed September 8, 2010
> 
> Discussion in open session during the meeting of Tuesday, September 14, 2010
> Bill banning the concealment of the face in public, adopted without amendment the first reading by the Senate September 14, 2010, TA No. 161
> 
> Constitutional Council
> Referral to the Constitutional Council 14 September 2010 by the President of the Senate, pursuant to Article 61 paragraph 2 of the Constitution
> Referral to the Constitutional Council 14 September 2010 by the President of the National Assembly, pursuant to Article 61 paragraph 2 of the Constitution
> 
> More
> Useful links
> From the report of the Council of Ministers
> Main provisions of the text
> Major amendments commissions
> 
> 
> French to English translation
> Useful links
> 
> 
> Resolution on the commitment to respect for republican values against growing radical practices that could undermine it adopted May 11, 2010
> Mission of information on the practice of wearing the full veil in the national territory
> 
> From the report of the Council of Ministers of 19/05/10
> 
> 
> The Minister of State, Keeper of the Seals, Minister of Justice and freedoms, introduced a bill prohibiting the concealment of the face in public space.
> 
> The attire designed to conceal the face, especially the full veil, calls into question the rules that form the social compact. Given the damage it has for those rules that "living together" in the dignity and equality between the sexes, this practice, even if voluntary, can not be tolerated in any place public space. It is in this respect a very broad consensus, as was highlighted by the adoption of the National Assembly on 11 May, the resolution on the commitment to respect for republican values against growing radical practices that could undermine it.
> 
> Breach of this prohibition will be punished by a fine of not exceed 150 euros, a citizenship course can be substituted or added to this sentence.
> 
> The bill provides that the prohibition generally enter into force six months after the promulgation of the law. This period will be used to continue a process of dialogue and persuasion among women wearing the full veil voluntarily.
> 
> In addition, the bill punishes, under the outrages of the human person, compelling a person because of her sex to hide her face. By establishing a specific crime, punishable by one year imprisonment and fine of  15,000, it comes to fighting against this new form of enslavement of women, that the Republic could not agree on its ground.
> 
> 
> Main provisions of the text
> 
> 
> *Article 1
> Principle that "no person may, in public, wear clothing designed to conceal his face."*
> 
> Article 2
> Definition of the concept of public space as comprising public roads, public places and places affected by a utility.
> Definition of the four *exceptions* to the prohibition:
> - Uniforms prescribed by statute or by regulation (helmets for motorcycles);
> - Uniforms authorized to protect the anonymity of the individual (status of certain witnesses in criminal trials);
> - Uniforms justified by medical reasons (masks in case of epidemic, respiratory masks, bandages) or professional reasons (officers law enforcement, welding, sandblasting, asbestos removal, rat control, pest of vessels);
> - *Outfits* that are part of festivities (carnival costumes, Santa Claus) or artistic (film actors, circus and theater)* or traditional (processions, especially religious)*.
> 
> Article 3
> Sanction the violation of the prohibition of concealing his face in public space: second class ticket, punishable by a fine of a maximum of 150 euros, which may supplement or replace the requirement a probationary period of citizenship.
> 
> Article 4
> Creating the crime of incitement to hide his face, punishable by one year imprisonment and 15,000 euros fine.
> 
> Article 5
> Entry into force six months after the publication of the Act, sections 1 to 3 (in contrast, Article 4 on the instigation to conceal his face will become effective immediately).
> 
> Article 6
> Law enforcement throughout the territory of the Republic, both in France and overseas.
> 
> Article 7
> Transmission to Parliament of a report prepared by the Government taking stock of the implementation of the law after a period of 18 months after its promulgation.
> 
> Major amendments commissions
> 
> 
> WORK OF THE COMMISSION OF ACTS
> 
> Article 2
> - Merge the first two exceptions to the prohibition of concealment of the face (Provision introduced at the initiative of the Rapporteur)
> - The enlargement of the third exception, replacing the term "medical reasons" the term "health reasons" (Provision introduced at the initiative of the Rapporteur)
> - Extension of exceptions to the "sporting", when they need a hiding place on the face (Provision introduced at the initiative of the Rapporteur)
> 
> Article 4
> Increased from 15 000 to 30 000 euros the amount of the fine for the crime of enforced concealment of the face (imprisonment maintained at 1 year) increase in penalties (two years in prison and 60,000 euros fine) when Persons under stress are minor at the relevant time (Provision introduced at the initiative of Jean Glavany, CBC, Hautes-Pyrenees, and members of the group CBC)
> 
> Article 7
> Extending the scope of the report, so it also reflects the quantitative assessment of the number of violations and the current state of the practice of wearing the full veil in public spaces (provision introduced at the initiative Rapporteur)
> 
> 
> 
> See Report No. 72 of the commission.
> 
> © National Assembly


----------



## lizzie

Valerie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Burqas are not _outlawed_...
> 
> 
> 
> Really???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assemblée nationale - Société : interdiction de la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public
Click to expand...

But, but, but, I thought this was a burqa ban, aimed at Muslims because of religious intolerance. You mean I can't wear a ski mask in public when I travel there? Egads! ()


----------



## Ozmar

Sunni Man said:


> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The French are typically very liberal and tolerant, welcoming anyone into the secular society who desires to be there.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, you have never been to France and spoke to a waiter or asked directions in english.
Click to expand...


Nor has a Frenchman come to an English speaking country and ordered in French.


----------



## Ozmar

lizzie said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assemblée nationale - Société : interdiction de la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But, but, but, I thought this was a burqa ban, aimed at Muslims because of religious intolerance. You mean I can't wear a ski mask in public when I travel there? Egads! ()
Click to expand...


No shit eh?


----------



## lizzie

Sunni Man said:


> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The French are typically very liberal and tolerant, welcoming anyone into the secular society who desires to be there.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, you have never been to France and spoke to a waiter or asked directions in english.
Click to expand...

 
"When in Rome, do as the Romans do...."


----------



## Ozmar

lizzie said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The French are typically very liberal and tolerant, welcoming anyone into the secular society who desires to be there.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, you have never been to France and spoke to a waiter or asked directions in english.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "When in Rome, do as the Romans do...."
Click to expand...


Unless it was Rome during Caligula's time!


----------



## Kalam

syrenn said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not like I made it up, Ravi...I went and sought out the rationale behind this legislation so I could have an informed opinion.  The French government is facing a complex issue where religious freedom and individual freedom clash with *public standards of safety and citizenship*.  You might notice the proposed fine for a veiled face in public places is _not_ prohibitive and the Citizenship class "punishment" offers an avenue for further communication and reconciliation...a public service probably paid for by the fine itself...Whereas the penalty for forcing anyone to veil their face in public places _is_ both prohibitive and punitive.
> 
> 
> 
> The pre war Nazis also had a similar program for their second class citizens in the name public safety and national security.
> 
> A man who initially didn't wear the yellow Star of David was fined.
> 
> Later it was upped to a prison sentence if he or his family members were caught without one sewed onto their clothes.
> 
> Different country, different century.
> 
> Same type of people and mindset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> According to muslims, what happened to the jews during WWII in germany, it is all a lie. It never happened remember?
Click to expand...


That's a tenet of Islam, is it?


----------



## Ozmar

Kalam said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pre war Nazis also had a similar program for their second class citizens in the name public safety and national security.
> 
> A man who initially didn't wear the yellow Star of David was fined.
> 
> Later it was upped to a prison sentence if he or his family members were caught without one sewed onto their clothes.
> 
> Different country, different century.
> 
> Same type of people and mindset.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to muslims, what happened to the jews during WWII in germany, it is all a lie. It never happened remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a tenet of Islam, is it?
Click to expand...


Are suicide bombings a tenet of Islam? The way they occur, one would think so...


----------



## lizzie

Ozmar said:


> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, you have never been to France and spoke to a waiter or asked directions in english.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "When in Rome, do as the Romans do...."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless it was Rome during Caligula's time!
Click to expand...

 
Hell, they may have thought they were having a good time.


----------



## nia588

syrenn said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not like I made it up, Ravi...I went and sought out the rationale behind this legislation so I could have an informed opinion.  The French government is facing a complex issue where religious freedom and individual freedom clash with *public standards of safety and citizenship*.  You might notice the proposed fine for a veiled face in public places is _not_ prohibitive and the Citizenship class "punishment" offers an avenue for further communication and reconciliation...a public service probably paid for by the fine itself...Whereas the penalty for forcing anyone to veil their face in public places _is_ both prohibitive and punitive.
> 
> 
> 
> The pre war Nazis also had a similar program for their second class citizens in the name public safety and national security.
> 
> A man who initially didn't wear the yellow Star of David was fined.
> 
> Later it was upped to a prison sentence if he or his family members were caught without one sewed onto their clothes.
> 
> Different country, different century.
> 
> Same type of people and mindset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> According to muslims, what happened to the jews during WWII in germany, it is all a lie. It never happened remember?
Click to expand...


not according to Muslims but according to extremist and ignoramuses that the holocaust didn't happen. i was born and raised a muslim i never denied what happened to the jews in WWII.

the problem is again the media only focuses on the small percentage of Muslims who deny it.


----------



## syrenn

nia588 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pre war Nazis also had a similar program for their second class citizens in the name public safety and national security.
> 
> A man who initially didn't wear the yellow Star of David was fined.
> 
> Later it was upped to a prison sentence if he or his family members were caught without one sewed onto their clothes.
> 
> Different country, different century.
> 
> Same type of people and mindset.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to muslims, what happened to the jews during WWII in germany, it is all a lie. It never happened remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not according to Muslims but according to extremist and ignoramuses that the holocaust didn't happen. i was born and raised a muslim i never denied what happened to the jews in WWII.
> 
> the problem is again the media only focuses on the small percentage of Muslims who deny it.
Click to expand...



Agreed, that was a broad generalization and i apologize.


----------



## Ravi

Valerie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Burqas are not _outlawed_...
> 
> 
> 
> Really???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assemblée nationale - Société : interdiction de la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> French to English translation
> 
> National Assembly delegation for women's rights and equality of opportunity between men and women
> Information report filed by the delegation of the National Assembly on women's rights and equality of opportunity between men and women on the bill prohibiting the concealment of the face in public spaces (No. 2520) No. 2646 filed June 23, 2010 (online since 24 June 2010 in 5:45 p.m.) by Bérengère Poletti
> 
> French to English translation
> Preparatory work
> National Assembly 1st reading - Senate first reading - Constitutional Council
> 
> National Assembly - 1st reading
> 
> Bill banning the concealment of the face in public space, No. 2520, filed May 19, 2010 (online since May 19, 2010 6:30 p.m.)
> and referred to the Committee on Constitutional laws, legislation and general administration of the republic
> 
> Impact Study
> 
> Amendments
> - Amendments tabled on the text n ° 2648
> - Multi-Search
> 
> 
> Committee work
> 
> - Legislation Committee
> The concerned committee has appointed Mr. Jean-Paul Garraud reporter May 26, 2010
> 
> Amendments tabled in committee
> 
> Auditon minister during the meeting on 16 June 2010 10:00
> Examination of the text during the meeting on 23 June 2010 11:30
> Consideration of amendments (Article 88) during the meeting on 6 July 2010 at 9:15 p.m.
> Report No. 2648 filed June 23, 2010 (posted 25 June 2010 to 18 hours):
> Appendix 0 - Text of the commission (put online 23 June 2010 at 5:45 p.m.)
> 
> Discussion in open session
> 3rd meeting of Tuesday, July 6, 2010
> 1st meeting of Wednesday, July 7, 2010
> 2nd meeting of Tuesday, July 13, 2010
> 
> Ballot No. 0595 on the entire bill prohibiting the concealment of the face in public space during the second meeting of Tuesday, July 13, 2010
> 
> Bill banning the concealment of the face in public, in 1st reading by the National Assembly July 13, 2010, TA No. 524
> 
> Video of the discussion in open session
> 
> Senate - 1st reading
> (File online at the Senate site)
> Bill, adopted by the National Assembly, prohibiting the covering of the face in public, No. 675, filed July 13, 2010
> and referred to the Committee on Constitutional laws, legislation, universal suffrage, the regulation and general administration
> 
> Committee work
> 
> - Legislation Committee
> The concerned committee has appointed Mr. Francis Christmas Buffet reporter June 2, 2010
> Report No. 699 filed September 8, 2010 by Mr. Francis Christmas Buffet
> 
> Text of the Commission filed No. 700 (2009-2010) filed September 8, 2010
> 
> Discussion in open session during the meeting of Tuesday, September 14, 2010
> Bill banning the concealment of the face in public, adopted without amendment the first reading by the Senate September 14, 2010, TA No. 161
> 
> Constitutional Council
> Referral to the Constitutional Council 14 September 2010 by the President of the Senate, pursuant to Article 61 paragraph 2 of the Constitution
> Referral to the Constitutional Council 14 September 2010 by the President of the National Assembly, pursuant to Article 61 paragraph 2 of the Constitution
> 
> More
> Useful links
> From the report of the Council of Ministers
> Main provisions of the text
> Major amendments commissions
> 
> 
> French to English translation
> Useful links
> 
> 
> Resolution on the commitment to respect for republican values against growing radical practices that could undermine it adopted May 11, 2010
> Mission of information on the practice of wearing the full veil in the national territory
> 
> From the report of the Council of Ministers of 19/05/10
> 
> 
> The Minister of State, Keeper of the Seals, Minister of Justice and freedoms, introduced a bill prohibiting the concealment of the face in public space.
> 
> The attire designed to conceal the face, especially the full veil, calls into question the rules that form the social compact. Given the damage it has for those rules that "living together" in the dignity and equality between the sexes, this practice, even if voluntary, can not be tolerated in any place public space. It is in this respect a very broad consensus, as was highlighted by the adoption of the National Assembly on 11 May, the resolution on the commitment to respect for republican values against growing radical practices that could undermine it.
> 
> Breach of this prohibition will be punished by a fine of not exceed 150 euros, a citizenship course can be substituted or added to this sentence.
> 
> The bill provides that the prohibition generally enter into force six months after the promulgation of the law. This period will be used to continue a process of dialogue and persuasion among women wearing the full veil voluntarily.
> 
> In addition, the bill punishes, under the outrages of the human person, compelling a person because of her sex to hide her face. By establishing a specific crime, punishable by one year imprisonment and fine of  15,000, it comes to fighting against this new form of enslavement of women, that the Republic could not agree on its ground.
> 
> 
> Main provisions of the text
> 
> 
> *Article 1
> Principle that "no person may, in public, wear clothing designed to conceal his face."*
> 
> Article 2
> Definition of the concept of public space as comprising public roads, public places and places affected by a utility.
> Definition of the four *exceptions* to the prohibition:
> - Uniforms prescribed by statute or by regulation (helmets for motorcycles);
> - Uniforms authorized to protect the anonymity of the individual (status of certain witnesses in criminal trials);
> - Uniforms justified by medical reasons (masks in case of epidemic, respiratory masks, bandages) or professional reasons (officers law enforcement, welding, sandblasting, asbestos removal, rat control, pest of vessels);
> - *Outfits* that are part of festivities (carnival costumes, Santa Claus) or artistic (film actors, circus and theater)* or traditional (processions, especially religious)*.
> 
> Article 3
> Sanction the violation of the prohibition of concealing his face in public space: second class ticket, punishable by a fine of a maximum of 150 euros, which may supplement or replace the requirement a probationary period of citizenship.
> 
> Article 4
> Creating the crime of incitement to hide his face, punishable by one year imprisonment and 15,000 euros fine.
> 
> Article 5
> Entry into force six months after the publication of the Act, sections 1 to 3 (in contrast, Article 4 on the instigation to conceal his face will become effective immediately).
> 
> Article 6
> Law enforcement throughout the territory of the Republic, both in France and overseas.
> 
> Article 7
> Transmission to Parliament of a report prepared by the Government taking stock of the implementation of the law after a period of 18 months after its promulgation.
> 
> Major amendments commissions
> 
> 
> WORK OF THE COMMISSION OF ACTS
> 
> Article 2
> - Merge the first two exceptions to the prohibition of concealment of the face (Provision introduced at the initiative of the Rapporteur)
> - The enlargement of the third exception, replacing the term "medical reasons" the term "health reasons" (Provision introduced at the initiative of the Rapporteur)
> - Extension of exceptions to the "sporting", when they need a hiding place on the face (Provision introduced at the initiative of the Rapporteur)
> 
> Article 4
> Increased from 15 000 to 30 000 euros the amount of the fine for the crime of enforced concealment of the face (imprisonment maintained at 1 year) increase in penalties (two years in prison and 60,000 euros fine) when Persons under stress are minor at the relevant time (Provision introduced at the initiative of Jean Glavany, CBC, Hautes-Pyrenees, and members of the group CBC)
> 
> Article 7
> Extending the scope of the report, so it also reflects the quantitative assessment of the number of violations and the current state of the practice of wearing the full veil in public spaces (provision introduced at the initiative Rapporteur)
> 
> 
> 
> See Report No. 72 of the commission.
> 
> © National Assembly
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I tell you what, Val...you go over there next spring and wear a burka and then come back and tell us bukas aren't outlawed.


----------



## Valerie

Ravi said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assemblée nationale - Société : interdiction de la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> French to English translation
> 
> National Assembly delegation for women's rights and equality of opportunity between men and women
> Information report filed by the delegation of the National Assembly on women's rights and equality of opportunity between men and women on the bill prohibiting the concealment of the face in public spaces (No. 2520) No. 2646 filed June 23, 2010 (online since 24 June 2010 in 5:45 p.m.) by Bérengère Poletti
> 
> French to English translation
> Preparatory work
> National Assembly 1st reading - Senate first reading - Constitutional Council
> 
> National Assembly - 1st reading
> 
> Bill banning the concealment of the face in public space, No. 2520, filed May 19, 2010 (online since May 19, 2010 6:30 p.m.)
> and referred to the Committee on Constitutional laws, legislation and general administration of the republic
> 
> Impact Study
> 
> Amendments
> - Amendments tabled on the text n ° 2648
> - Multi-Search
> 
> 
> Committee work
> 
> - Legislation Committee
> The concerned committee has appointed Mr. Jean-Paul Garraud reporter May 26, 2010
> 
> Amendments tabled in committee
> 
> Auditon minister during the meeting on 16 June 2010 10:00
> Examination of the text during the meeting on 23 June 2010 11:30
> Consideration of amendments (Article 88) during the meeting on 6 July 2010 at 9:15 p.m.
> Report No. 2648 filed June 23, 2010 (posted 25 June 2010 to 18 hours):
> Appendix 0 - Text of the commission (put online 23 June 2010 at 5:45 p.m.)
> 
> Discussion in open session
> 3rd meeting of Tuesday, July 6, 2010
> 1st meeting of Wednesday, July 7, 2010
> 2nd meeting of Tuesday, July 13, 2010
> 
> Ballot No. 0595 on the entire bill prohibiting the concealment of the face in public space during the second meeting of Tuesday, July 13, 2010
> 
> Bill banning the concealment of the face in public, in 1st reading by the National Assembly July 13, 2010, TA No. 524
> 
> Video of the discussion in open session
> 
> Senate - 1st reading
> (File online at the Senate site)
> Bill, adopted by the National Assembly, prohibiting the covering of the face in public, No. 675, filed July 13, 2010
> and referred to the Committee on Constitutional laws, legislation, universal suffrage, the regulation and general administration
> 
> Committee work
> 
> - Legislation Committee
> The concerned committee has appointed Mr. Francis Christmas Buffet reporter June 2, 2010
> Report No. 699 filed September 8, 2010 by Mr. Francis Christmas Buffet
> 
> Text of the Commission filed No. 700 (2009-2010) filed September 8, 2010
> 
> Discussion in open session during the meeting of Tuesday, September 14, 2010
> Bill banning the concealment of the face in public, adopted without amendment the first reading by the Senate September 14, 2010, TA No. 161
> 
> Constitutional Council
> Referral to the Constitutional Council 14 September 2010 by the President of the Senate, pursuant to Article 61 paragraph 2 of the Constitution
> Referral to the Constitutional Council 14 September 2010 by the President of the National Assembly, pursuant to Article 61 paragraph 2 of the Constitution
> 
> More
> Useful links
> From the report of the Council of Ministers
> Main provisions of the text
> Major amendments commissions
> 
> 
> French to English translation
> Useful links
> 
> 
> Resolution on the commitment to respect for republican values against growing radical practices that could undermine it adopted May 11, 2010
> Mission of information on the practice of wearing the full veil in the national territory
> 
> From the report of the Council of Ministers of 19/05/10
> 
> 
> The Minister of State, Keeper of the Seals, Minister of Justice and freedoms, introduced a bill prohibiting the concealment of the face in public space.
> 
> The attire designed to conceal the face, especially the full veil, calls into question the rules that form the social compact. Given the damage it has for those rules that "living together" in the dignity and equality between the sexes, this practice, even if voluntary, can not be tolerated in any place public space. It is in this respect a very broad consensus, as was highlighted by the adoption of the National Assembly on 11 May, the resolution on the commitment to respect for republican values against growing radical practices that could undermine it.
> 
> Breach of this prohibition will be punished by a fine of not exceed 150 euros, a citizenship course can be substituted or added to this sentence.
> 
> The bill provides that the prohibition generally enter into force six months after the promulgation of the law. This period will be used to continue a process of dialogue and persuasion among women wearing the full veil voluntarily.
> 
> In addition, the bill punishes, under the outrages of the human person, compelling a person because of her sex to hide her face. By establishing a specific crime, punishable by one year imprisonment and fine of  15,000, it comes to fighting against this new form of enslavement of women, that the Republic could not agree on its ground.
> 
> 
> Main provisions of the text
> 
> 
> *Article 1
> Principle that "no person may, in public, wear clothing designed to conceal his face."*
> 
> Article 2
> Definition of the concept of public space as comprising public roads, public places and places affected by a utility.
> Definition of the four *exceptions* to the prohibition:
> - Uniforms prescribed by statute or by regulation (helmets for motorcycles);
> - Uniforms authorized to protect the anonymity of the individual (status of certain witnesses in criminal trials);
> - Uniforms justified by medical reasons (masks in case of epidemic, respiratory masks, bandages) or professional reasons (officers law enforcement, welding, sandblasting, asbestos removal, rat control, pest of vessels);
> - *Outfits* that are part of festivities (carnival costumes, Santa Claus) or artistic (film actors, circus and theater)* or traditional (processions, especially religious)*.
> 
> Article 3
> Sanction the violation of the prohibition of concealing his face in public space: second class ticket, punishable by a fine of a maximum of 150 euros, which may supplement or replace the requirement a probationary period of citizenship.
> 
> Article 4
> Creating the crime of incitement to hide his face, punishable by one year imprisonment and 15,000 euros fine.
> 
> Article 5
> Entry into force six months after the publication of the Act, sections 1 to 3 (in contrast, Article 4 on the instigation to conceal his face will become effective immediately).
> 
> Article 6
> Law enforcement throughout the territory of the Republic, both in France and overseas.
> 
> Article 7
> Transmission to Parliament of a report prepared by the Government taking stock of the implementation of the law after a period of 18 months after its promulgation.
> 
> Major amendments commissions
> 
> 
> WORK OF THE COMMISSION OF ACTS
> 
> Article 2
> - Merge the first two exceptions to the prohibition of concealment of the face (Provision introduced at the initiative of the Rapporteur)
> - The enlargement of the third exception, replacing the term "medical reasons" the term "health reasons" (Provision introduced at the initiative of the Rapporteur)
> - Extension of exceptions to the "sporting", when they need a hiding place on the face (Provision introduced at the initiative of the Rapporteur)
> 
> Article 4
> Increased from 15 000 to 30 000 euros the amount of the fine for the crime of enforced concealment of the face (imprisonment maintained at 1 year) increase in penalties (two years in prison and 60,000 euros fine) when Persons under stress are minor at the relevant time (Provision introduced at the initiative of Jean Glavany, CBC, Hautes-Pyrenees, and members of the group CBC)
> 
> Article 7
> Extending the scope of the report, so it also reflects the quantitative assessment of the number of violations and the current state of the practice of wearing the full veil in public spaces (provision introduced at the initiative Rapporteur)
> 
> 
> 
> See Report No. 72 of the commission.
> 
> © National Assembly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I tell you what, Val...you go over there next spring and wear a burka and then come back and tell us bukas aren't outlawed.
Click to expand...






Watch it, Rav...lest you be accused of compelling me to conceal my face in public places!


----------



## Ravi

Valerie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assemblée nationale - Société : interdiction de la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public
> 
> 
> 
> I tell you what, Val...you go over there next spring and wear a burka and then come back and tell us bukas aren't outlawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch it, Rav...lest you be accused of compelling me to conceal my face in public places!
Click to expand...

 I'll blame it on the wine.


----------



## chanel

> PARIS &#8211; France is on alert for possible terrorism after intelligence suggested that attackers might target a public gathering place, with one lead pointing to a female suicide bomber, a counterterrorism official said Monday.
> 
> The scare came as five French workers and two African colleagues were kidnapped in Niger, part of the African turf of al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. On Sept. 14, there was a false bomb alert at the Eiffel Tower.
> 
> Last week, the Senate voted to ban burqa-style Islamic veils in France, a subject that has prompted warnings by al-Qaida's Maghreb group.
> 
> Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux said Monday that "the terrorist threat is real, and today our vigilance, therefore, is reinforced." Speaking during a visit to the Seine-et-Marne region east of Paris, he did not elaborate on the additional security measures taken.



France raises terror security, new threat reported - Yahoo! News


----------



## Ravi

It looks like France is letting the terrorists win.


----------



## islam4ever

Muslims in France should ignore the drivel coming from the French lawmakers.

French law is even more flimsy than the case that the American Terrorists made to attack Iraq.


----------



## islam4ever

Ravi said:


> It looks like France is letting the terrorists win.



You are confusing who the real terrorists are. Start with the USA !!!!


----------



## Ravi

islam4ever said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like France is letting the terrorists win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing who the real terrorists are. Start with the USA !!!!
Click to expand...

Fuck off troll.


----------



## islam4ever

Ravi said:


> islam4ever said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like France is letting the terrorists win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing who the real terrorists are. Start with the USA !!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck off troll.
Click to expand...


You sound like a Hindu. Go and pray to your cow god, whilst I enjoy my beefburger.


----------



## Jack Fate

islam4ever said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> islam4ever said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing who the real terrorists are. Start with the USA !!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck off troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like a Hindu. Go and pray to your cow god, whilst I enjoy my beefburger.
Click to expand...


I think I'll bury a pig at Ground Zero.  Let them build their mosque on top of that.


----------



## ABikerSailor

islam4ever said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> islam4ever said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing who the real terrorists are. Start with the USA !!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck off troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like a Hindu. Go and pray to your cow god, whilst I enjoy my beefburger.
Click to expand...


Hey Islam4ever, what say we force feed you a pulled pork sandwich while you're sitting on a dog?


----------



## Jack Fate

I think we should outlaw thongs on fat people.


----------



## Kalam

islam4ever said:


> ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> islam4ever said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are confusing who the real terrorists are. Start with the usa !!!!
> 
> 
> 
> fuck off troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you sound like a hindu. Go and pray to your cow god, whilst i enjoy my beefburger.
Click to expand...


&#1575;&#1604;&#1587;&#1604;&#1575;&#1605; &#1593;&#1604;&#1610;&#1603;&#1605; &#1608; &#1585;&#1581;&#1605;&#1577; &#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1607; &#1608; &#1576;&#1585;&#1603;&#1575;&#1578;&#1607;

&#1571;&#1606;&#1578; &#1605;&#1587;&#1604;&#1605; &#1610;&#1575; &#1571;&#1582;&#1610;&#1567;


----------



## chanel

From the Huffington Post no less.   French president debates "moderate" Muslim on the moratorium OF STONING!!!!!  



> Read the transcript provided by Berman of Ramadan's televised debate with Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of France, on the issue of whether a moratorium is need to stop women from being stoned for adultery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _ Sarkozy: A moratorium... Mr. Ramadan, are you serious?
> Ramadan: Wait, let me finish.
> Sarkozy: A moratorium, that is to say, we should, for a while, hold back from stoning women?
> Ramadan: No, no, wait.... What does a moratorium mean? A moratorium would mean that we absolutely end the application of all of those penalties, in order to have a true debate. And my position is that if we arrive at a consensus among Muslims, it will necessarily end. But you cannot, you know, when you are in a community... Today on television, I can please the French people who are watching by saying, "Me, my own position."* But my own position doesn't count. What matters is to bring about an evolution in Muslim mentalities, *Mr. Sarkozy. It's necessary that you understand....
> Sarkozy: But, Mr. Ramadan...
> Ramadan: Let me finish.
> Sarkozy: Just one point. I understand you, but Muslims are human beings who live in 2003 in France, since we are speaking about the French community, and you have just said something particularly incredible, which is that the stoning of women, yes, the stoning is a bit shocking, but w*e should simply declare a moratorium, and then we are going to think about it in order to decide if it is good*... But that's monstrous--to stone a woman because she is an adulterer! It's necessary to condemn it!
> Ramadan: Mr. Sarkozy, listen well to what I am saying. What I say, my own position, is that the law is not applicable--that's clear. But today, I speak to Muslims around the world and I take part, even in the United States, in the Muslim world.... You should have a pedagogical posture that makes people discuss things. You can decide all by yourself to be a progressive in the communities. That's too easy. Today my position is, that is to say, "We should stop."
> Sarkozy: Mr. Ramadan, if it is regressive not to want to stone women, I avow that I am a regressive.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A moratorium? To discuss stoning women? That way Ramadan can almost be against the practice without actually condemning it and thus defying Sharia law.
> 
> Welcome to the wonderful world of Muslim moderation. And this is exactly the tact taken by Imam Rauf with his interfaith center. It will be a place for dialogue, he promises, for discussion, for the coming together of different religions and ways of life. But at the end of the day all of the dialogue and moratoriums lead to nothing so much as the adoption of Sharia law, however incremental, within a Western secular democracy that preaches the freedom of religion Sharia law would destroy.
Click to expand...


Michael Conniff: Con Games: Moderate Muslim Double-Talk

It's so unpleasant to discuss such matters.  We should just shut the fuck up and stop being so Islamophobic and judgmental.  It's their culture.


----------



## Colin

islam4ever said:


> Muslims in France should ignore the drivel coming from the French lawmakers.
> 
> French law is even more flimsy than the case that the American Terrorists made to attack Iraq.



Hey! Dick brain! Perhaps you'd better tell muslims in Turkey to ignore the laws regarding face covering and veils before lambasting the French! Turkey, an Islamic country, implemented such laws decades ago. Fucking moron!


----------



## chanel

I was just checking out the website of an Islamic school in Villanova, PA.  This is from their FAQ:



> What is the dress code for Muslims?
> 
> Islam emphasizes modesty. No person should be perceived as a sex object. There are certain guidelines both for men and women that their dress should neither be too thin nor too tight to reveal body forms. For men, they must at least cover the area from the knee to navel and *for women, their dress should cover all areas except the hands and face.* The veil is not essential.



:: Welcome to the Foundation for Islamic Education ::

I saw a Muslim couple at an amusement park a few years ago.  The guy had on shorts and a short sleeved top (it was about 100 degrees out) and the woman was in a burka (not covering her face).  All I could think was "how is this fair"?


----------



## syrenn

chanel said:


> I was just checking out the website of an Islamic school in Villanova, PA.  This is from their FAQ:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the dress code for Muslims?
> 
> Islam emphasizes modesty. No person should be perceived as a sex object. There are certain guidelines both for men and women that their dress should neither be too thin nor too tight to reveal body forms. For men, they must at least cover the area from the knee to navel and *for women, their dress should cover all areas except the hands and face.* The veil is not essential.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :: Welcome to the Foundation for Islamic Education ::
> 
> I saw a Muslim couple at an amusement park a few years ago.  The guy had on shorts and a short sleeved top (it was about 100 degrees out) and the woman was in a burka (not covering her face).  All I could think was "how is this fair"?
Click to expand...



I see the same thing all the time. The men in western clothing and the women smothered in what they are wearing. 

What i always think is how would they like wearing clothing like that.


----------



## Sunni Man

syrenn said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just checking out the website of an Islamic school in Villanova, PA.  This is from their FAQ:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the dress code for Muslims?
> 
> Islam emphasizes modesty. No person should be perceived as a sex object. There are certain guidelines both for men and women that their dress should neither be too thin nor too tight to reveal body forms. For men, they must at least cover the area from the knee to navel and *for women, their dress should cover all areas except the hands and face.* The veil is not essential.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :: Welcome to the Foundation for Islamic Education ::
> 
> I saw a Muslim couple at an amusement park a few years ago.  The guy had on shorts and a short sleeved top (it was about 100 degrees out) and the woman was in a burka (not covering her face).  All I could think was "how is this fair"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see the same thing all the time. The men in western clothing and the women smothered in what they are wearing.
> 
> What i always think is how would they like wearing clothing like that.
Click to expand...

You should ask a muslimah sometimes how she feels about it.

The material that makes up her hijab and abaya are very light and breathable.


----------



## syrenn

Sunni Man said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just checking out the website of an Islamic school in Villanova, PA.  This is from their FAQ:
> 
> 
> 
> :: Welcome to the Foundation for Islamic Education ::
> 
> I saw a Muslim couple at an amusement park a few years ago.  The guy had on shorts and a short sleeved top (it was about 100 degrees out) and the woman was in a burka (not covering her face).  All I could think was "how is this fair"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see the same thing all the time. The men in western clothing and the women smothered in what they are wearing.
> 
> What i always think is how would they like wearing clothing like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should ask a muslimah sometimes how she feels about it.
> 
> The material that makes up her hijab and abaya are very light and breathable.
Click to expand...



Then why don't you wear something similar ever day and see how you feel about it.


----------



## Kalam

syrenn said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see the same thing all the time. The men in western clothing and the women smothered in what they are wearing.
> 
> What i always think is how would they like wearing clothing like that.
> 
> 
> 
> You should ask a muslimah sometimes how she feels about it.
> 
> The material that makes up her hijab and abaya are very light and breathable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then why don't you wear something similar ever day and see how you feel about it.
Click to expand...


Like:

Al Hannah Islamic Clothing

?


----------



## syrenn

Kalam said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should ask a muslimah sometimes how she feels about it.
> 
> The material that makes up her hijab and abaya are very light and breathable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why don't you wear something similar ever day and see how you feel about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like:
> 
> Al Hannah Islamic Clothing
> 
> ?
Click to expand...



Yep that is exactly what i mean...along with the head scarf or hat. I don't see much of that going on.


----------



## Sunni Man

syrenn said:


> Then why don't you wear something similar ever day and see how you feel about it.


Why don't you stop a muslim woman and personally ask her how she feels about wearing hijab and abaya?

Instead of projecting your feelings onto these women. 

When you don't have a clue as to how they feel about wearing them.


----------



## syrenn

Sunni Man said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why don't you wear something similar ever day and see how you feel about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you stop a muslim woman and personally ask her how she feels about wearing hijab and abaya?
> 
> Instead of projecting your feelings onto these women.
> 
> When you don't have a clue as to how they feel about wearing them.
Click to expand...



I am not projectin my feelings onto the women. 

I am talking about the men. All the men accompanying these women i see in western clothing.


----------



## Sunni Man

syrenn said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why don't you wear something similar ever day and see how you feel about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you stop a muslim woman and personally ask her how she feels about wearing hijab and abaya?
> 
> Instead of projecting your feelings onto these women.
> 
> When you don't have a clue as to how they feel about wearing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am not projectin my feelings onto the women.
> 
> I am talking about the men. All the men accompanying these women i see in western clothing.
Click to expand...

So what


----------



## syrenn

Sunni Man said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you stop a muslim woman and personally ask her how she feels about wearing hijab and abaya?
> 
> Instead of projecting your feelings onto these women.
> 
> When you don't have a clue as to how they feel about wearing them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not projectin my feelings onto the women.
> 
> I am talking about the men. All the men accompanying these women i see in western clothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what
Click to expand...



As i said, you men should be wearing the same stuff.


----------



## Sunni Man

Our back yard has a high wooden fence.

Plus the neighbors houses are some distance away.

So she has my permission not to wear her hijab when in the back yard.


----------



## syrenn

Sunni Man said:


> Our back yard has a high wooden fence.
> 
> Plus the neighbors houses are some distance away.
> 
> So she has my permission not to wear her hijab when in the back yard.




WOW...the back yard. So what you are also saying is that she does NOT have  your permission to NOT wear it out into the public.

Again why don't you wear the same things out into public and feel free to take them off in the back yard. You have my permission.


----------



## chesswarsnow

Sorry bout that,


1. If he had a dog, he would treat it better.
2. His dog could go either in the back yard or front yard el-natural.
3. Crime what they do to muzzy women, shows you how they feel about thier mothers, worse than a dog.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## Sunni Man

syrenn said:


> Again why don't you wear the same things out into public and feel free to take them off in the back yard. *You have my permission*.
> [/COLOR]


Thanks, but I don't need it.


----------



## syrenn

Sunni Man said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again why don't you wear the same things out into public and feel free to take them off in the back yard. *You have my permission*.
> [/COLOR]
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, but I don't need it.
Click to expand...


Neither does your wife. 


Now think about this, how would YOU like it if you did need my permission?


----------



## Kalam

syrenn said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why don't you wear something similar ever day and see how you feel about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you stop a muslim woman and personally ask her how she feels about wearing hijab and abaya?
> 
> Instead of projecting your feelings onto these women.
> 
> When you don't have a clue as to how they feel about wearing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am not projectin my feelings onto the women.
> 
> I am talking about the men. All the men accompanying these women i see in western clothing.
Click to expand...


I know brothers who wear tagiyahs and dishdashas all the time. I know sisters who wear clothing that would all be considered "Western" (jeans, etc.) except for their scarves. I don't think that what you describe is really a major trend...


----------



## Marc39

Kalam said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you stop a muslim woman and personally ask her how she feels about wearing hijab and abaya?
> 
> Instead of projecting your feelings onto these women.
> 
> When you don't have a clue as to how they feel about wearing them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not projectin my feelings onto the women.
> 
> I am talking about the men. All the men accompanying these women i see in western clothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know brothers who wear tagiyahs and dishdashas all the time. I know sisters who wear clothing that would all be considered "Western" (jeans, etc.) except for their scarves. I don't think that what you describe is really a major trend...
Click to expand...


Habib, the burqa is required under the barbaric shariah and is designed to humiliate women and render them irrelevant.

Islam says women are domestic animals who can be beaten

Islam is a scam invented by a misogynistic pedophile


----------



## Sunni Man

syrenn said:


> Now think about this, how would YOU like it if you did need my permission?



If we go camping in a secluded area.

She is allowed to take off her hijab around the campsite.

Or if we go fishing in the Gulf and are far away from other boats.

I will allow her to remove her hijab and even lay out on the deck and tan.


See syreen, I am a very lenient husband.


----------



## syrenn

Kalam said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you stop a muslim woman and personally ask her how she feels about wearing hijab and abaya?
> 
> Instead of projecting your feelings onto these women.
> 
> When you don't have a clue as to how they feel about wearing them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not projectin my feelings onto the women.
> 
> I am talking about the men. All the men accompanying these women i see in western clothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know brothers who wear tagiyahs and dishdashas all the time. I know sisters who wear clothing that would all be considered "Western" (jeans, etc.) except for their scarves. I don't think that what you describe is really a major trend...
Click to expand...


I dont have a problem at all with the scarves Kalam. I admire the for wearing it. 

I have a problem with the double standard of dress codes and enforcements.  If the men are wearing the same things as the women (you know what i mean) when i see then fair enough. I do have a problem when i see a family with the men in western clothing and the women in shrouds. 

I feel that muslim women can still conform to the modesty rules, just as you say, wearing western clothing. 

What i really think is bullshit is that the rules of dress for the women is based on MEN not being able to control their dicks.


----------



## Marc39

Sunni Man said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now think about this, how would YOU like it if you did need my permission?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we go camping in a secluded area.
> 
> She is allowed to take off her hijab around the campsite.
> 
> Or if we go fishing in the Gulf and are far away from other boats.
> 
> I will allow her to remove her hijab and even lay out on the deck and tan.
> 
> 
> See syreen, I am a very lenient husband.
Click to expand...


Do you beat your Muslima domestic animal wife when she doesn't want to fuck you, Muhammadan?


----------



## Sunni Man

syrenn said:


> What i really think is bullshit is that the rules of dress for the women is based on MEN not being able to control their dicks.


It is not about control of either men or womens behavior.

It's about modesty and obeying Allah (swt)

Muslim men find a woman who wears hijib to be the the most beautiful and attractive women on the planet.


----------



## syrenn

Sunni Man said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now think about this, how would YOU like it if you did need my permission?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we go camping in a secluded area.
> 
> She is allowed to take off her hijab around the campsite.
> 
> Or if we go fishing in the Gulf and are far away from other boats.
> 
> I will allow her to remove her hijab and even lay out on the deck and tan.
> 
> 
> See syreen, I am a very lenient husband.
Click to expand...


I think you would benefit greatly by a good cropping suni man.


----------



## Marc39

Sunni Man said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What i really think is bullshit is that the rules of dress for the women is based on MEN not being able to control their dicks.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not about control of either men or womens behavior.
> 
> It's about modesty and obeying Allah (swt)
> 
> Muslim men find a woman who wears hijib to be the the most beautiful and attractive women on the planet.
Click to expand...


The burqa is about controlling women and marginalizing women as the domestic animals Islam says they are.

Are you married to a 6 year old wife, like your pedophile prophet Mahomet?


----------



## chanel

Sunni Man said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now think about this, how would YOU like it if you did need my permission?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we go camping in a secluded area.
> 
> She is allowed to take off her hijab around the campsite.
> 
> Or if we go fishing in the Gulf and are far away from other boats.
> 
> I will allow her to remove her hijab and even lay out on the deck and tan.
> 
> 
> See syreen, I am a very lenient husband.
Click to expand...


You "allow" her?  So she is your subject; your property?  She is incapable of making her own decisions about when she would like to lay out on the deck?


----------



## Colin

Sunni Man said:


> Our back yard has a high wooden fence.
> 
> Plus the neighbors houses are some distance away.
> 
> *So she has my permission not to wear her hijab when in the back yard*.



So you don't deny that muslim men treat women as second class citizens, rather than equals.


----------



## Sunni Man

Colin said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our back yard has a high wooden fence.
> 
> Plus the neighbors houses are some distance away.
> 
> *So she has my permission not to wear her hijab when in the back yard*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't deny that muslim men treat women as second class citizens, rather than equals.
Click to expand...

How is helping to protect her and safe guard her.

Some how viewed as making her less equal of a marriage partner?


----------



## chanel

Yes sunni man.  Treating a grown woman as a child or a pet needing protection is making her less of a marriage partner.


----------



## Sunni Man

chanel said:


> Yes sunni man.  Treating a grown woman as a child or a pet needing protection is making her less of a marriage partner.


Even in marriages here in America.

The husband is primary protecter and guardian of his wife.


----------



## Colin

Sunni Man said:


> Colin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our back yard has a high wooden fence.
> 
> Plus the neighbors houses are some distance away.
> 
> *So she has my permission not to wear her hijab when in the back yard*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't deny that muslim men treat women as second class citizens, rather than equals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is helping to protect her and safe guard her.
> 
> Some how viewed as making her less equal of a marriage partner?
Click to expand...


How many other thing does she have to seek permission for?


----------



## chanel

Sunni Man said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes sunni man.  Treating a grown woman as a child or a pet needing protection is making her less of a marriage partner.
> 
> 
> 
> Even in marriages here in America.
> 
> The husband is primary protecter and guardian of his wife.
Click to expand...


Only when she needs protection.  Which is generally - never.

What protection does your wife need in her own backyard?


----------



## Sunni Man

chanel said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes sunni man.  Treating a grown woman as a child or a pet needing protection is making her less of a marriage partner.
> 
> 
> 
> Even in marriages here in America.
> 
> The husband is primary protecter and guardian of his wife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only when she needs protection.  Which is generally - never.
> 
> What protection does your wife need in her own backyard?
Click to expand...

This day and age you just never know.

But it is the man's duty to protect his family at ALL times.


----------



## syrenn

chanel said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes sunni man.  Treating a grown woman as a child or a pet needing protection is making her less of a marriage partner.
> 
> 
> 
> Even in marriages here in America.
> 
> The husband is primary protecter and guardian of his wife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only when she needs protection.  Which is generally - never.
> 
> What protection does your wife need in her own backyard?
Click to expand...


Mosquitoes and sun burn, so you would think that he would want her covered up in the back yard ya know.


----------



## Marc39

Sunni Man said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even in marriages here in America.
> 
> The husband is primary protecter and guardian of his wife.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only when she needs protection.  Which is generally - never.
> 
> What protection does your wife need in her own backyard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This day and age you just never know.
> 
> But it is the man's duty to protect his family at ALL times.
Click to expand...


And, it is a Muslim man's duty to treat his Muslima wife like a domestic animal and beat her when she doesn't spread her legs

The religion of misogyny


----------



## Marc39

Sunni Man said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes sunni man.  Treating a grown woman as a child or a pet needing protection is making her less of a marriage partner.
> 
> 
> 
> Even in marriages here in America.
> 
> The husband is primary protecter and guardian of his wife.
Click to expand...


The husband is the primary beater and honor killer.


----------



## Marc39

Sunni Man said:


> Colin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our back yard has a high wooden fence.
> 
> Plus the neighbors houses are some distance away.
> 
> *So she has my permission not to wear her hijab when in the back yard*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't deny that muslim men treat women as second class citizens, rather than equals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is helping to protect her and safe guard her.
> 
> Some how viewed as making her less equal of a marriage partner?
Click to expand...


Islam says women are mentally inferior to men.   Muhammad was a pedophile married to a 6 year old girl when in his 50s.


----------



## Sunni Man

syrenn said:


> I think you would benefit greatly by a good cropping suni man.


I am sure that you would enjoy it Syreen.

But the Sunni Man isn't into S & M


----------



## Marc39

Sunni Man said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you would benefit greatly by a good cropping suni man.
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure that you would enjoy it Syreen.
> 
> But the Sunni Man isn't into S & M
Click to expand...


The Muhammadan man is into beheading his Muslima wife...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/nyregion/18behead.html

The religion of pieces.


----------



## hipeter924

Marc39 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you would benefit greatly by a good cropping suni man.
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure that you would enjoy it Syreen.
> 
> But the Sunni Man isn't into S & M
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Muhammadan man is into beheading his Muslima wife...
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/nyregion/18behead.html
> 
> The religion of pieces.
Click to expand...

Don't mind him, he is just making fruit salad...he will pop in a Jew for extra flavor.


----------



## chanel

Here we go again.  



> Police evacuated tourists from the Eiffel Tower in Paris Tuesday after the second bomb alert this month at one of the world's most visited sites.
> 
> The latest alert came amid official warnings that France faces a serious threat of imminent terrorist attack and just a day after a major Paris train station was evacuated after a bomb alert that proved to be a false alarm
> 
> The incident echoes a September 14 scare when police evacuated around 2,000 people from the tower and the park surrounding it following a bomb alert that also turned out to be a false alarm.
> 
> The French national police chief said last week he was concerned about two types of threat by Islamist extremists -- an assassination bid on an important figure or an attack on a crowded area like a metro train or department store.
> Read more: Eiffel Tower evacuated after fresh bomb alert - NYPOST.com



I don't think they will stop.  Unless someone in Sweden draws a Mohammed cartoon or something.  (uh oh - hope I didn't give the French any crazy ideas)


----------



## Kalam

It sounds like restricting Muslims' free religious expression may have unintended consequences. Who could have guessed that?


----------



## syrenn

Kalam said:


> It sounds like restricting Muslims' free religious expression may have unintended consequences. Who could have guessed that?



Ah yes, that religion of peace.


----------



## Kalam

syrenn said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like restricting Muslims' free religious expression may have unintended consequences. Who could have guessed that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, that religion of peace.
Click to expand...


You people are the only ones who throw that term around. I still have no idea why the entire board acts as if it's something I've ever said...

With respect to inter-religious relations, it's more of a religion of "don't fuck with us and everybody will be happy."


----------



## syrenn

Kalam said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like restricting Muslims' free religious expression may have unintended consequences. Who could have guessed that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, that religion of peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people are the only ones who throw that term around. I still have no idea why the entire board acts as if it's something I've ever said...
> 
> With respect to inter-religious relations, it's more of a religion of "don't fuck with us and everybody will be happy."
Click to expand...




 I know its not just YOU saying anything..... it just points out what the religion is. 

oh really,"_it's more of a religion of "don't fuck with us and everybody will be happy_." "? That's rather rich Kalam. Its more of a religion where they push and push and push and when pushed back get all bent out of shape and destructive.


----------



## Marc39

Kalam said:


> With respect to inter-religious relations, it's more of a religion of "don't fuck with us and everybody will be happy."



Nonsense.  

Islam is more a religion of if you don't convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule, then, you die, infidel.  Jihad is the one way to get fast-tracked to virgin chasing in paradise.

Quran 9:111...


> Verily, Allâh has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. *They fight in Allâh's Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. *It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur'ân. And who is truer to his covenant than Allâh? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success.



Quran 9:29... 


> Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah[] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.




allah sucks.  muhammad was a pedophile


----------



## Sunni Man

Kalam said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like restricting Muslims' free religious expression may have unintended consequences. Who could have guessed that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, that religion of peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people are the only ones who throw that term around. I still have no idea why the entire board acts as if it's something I've ever said...
> 
> With respect to inter-religious relations, it's more of a religion of "don't fuck with us and everybody will be happy."
Click to expand...

I am on several other boards. 

And I hear that "Religion of Peace" bantered around all of the time.

Yes, we have a peaceful religion. 

But, make no mistake about it; we will also fight against injustice and those who try to abuse us and our religion.


----------



## Marc39

Sunni Man said:


> Yes, we have a peaceful religion.



The religion of pieces...

"Oh, Allah, Kill All Americans And Jews"
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7rls9eRKyo]YouTube - Islam: Oh Allah - Kill all Jews and Americans![/ame]


----------



## Marc39

Sunni Man said:


> [
> But, make no mistake about it; we will also fight against injustice and those who try to abuse us and our religion.



And, you will also kill your own women and children.

"We Desire Death Like You Desire Life"
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9B4fFyZ_1sQ]YouTube - Hamas boast of using civilians as human shields[/ame]

Allah sucks.  Muhammad was a pedophile.


----------



## Sunni Man

Marc39 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> But, make no mistake about it; we will also fight against injustice and those who try to abuse us and our religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, you will also kill your own women and children.
Click to expand...

Do you really care??


----------



## Kalam

Ah, Marc the bitter Jew makes his scheduled appearance. I don't actually read his posts anymore, but I assume they have something to do with how "evil" Islam and its followers are compared to the almighty chosen folk. That guy seems like he's always angry; I guess the mohel bit off too much of his penis and he's had a chip on his shoulder since. 

Communicable Disease : NYC DOHMH

_*"In metzitzah b'peh, the mohel places his mouth on the freshly circumcised penis to draw blood away from the cut.* If the mohel is infected with oral herpes (as most adults are), metzitzah b'peh can expose the infant to the herpes virus. While severe illness associated with this practice may be rare , there is a definite risk of infection."_ - NYC Dept. of Health

_Rav Pappa said, *"A mohel who does not perform metzitzah endangers the baby and is dismissed."* - Talmud Bavli, Tractate Shabbos 133b._​


----------



## Kalam

Sunni Man said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, that religion of peace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You people are the only ones who throw that term around. I still have no idea why the entire board acts as if it's something I've ever said...
> 
> With respect to inter-religious relations, it's more of a religion of "don't fuck with us and everybody will be happy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am on several other boards.
> 
> And I hear that "Religion of Peace" bantered around all of the time.
> 
> Yes, we have a peaceful religion.
> 
> But, make no mistake about it; we will also fight against injustice and those who try to abuse us and our religion.
Click to expand...


Agreed.


----------



## Marc39

Kalam said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people are the only ones who throw that term around. I still have no idea why the entire board acts as if it's something I've ever said...
> 
> With respect to inter-religious relations, it's more of a religion of "don't fuck with us and everybody will be happy."
> 
> 
> 
> I am on several other boards.
> 
> And I hear that "Religion of Peace" bantered around all of the time.
> 
> Yes, we have a peaceful religion.
> 
> But, make no mistake about it; we will also fight against injustice and those who try to abuse us and our religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.
Click to expand...


Agree to jihad, Muhammadan.  It's required in the shariah of all obedient slaves of allah suckers... 

Umdat al-Salik wa Uddat al-Nasik, Jihad--


> Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word "mujahada", signifying warfare to establish the religion.


----------



## Marc39

Kalam said:


> Ah, Marc the bitter Jew makes his scheduled appearance.



Shouldn't you be out committing jihad, slave of allah?  

The religion of pieces...

Quran 2:216...


> Jihâd (holy fighting in Allâh's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allâh knows but you do not know.


----------



## Marc39

Sunni Man said:


> Marc39 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> But, make no mistake about it; we will also fight against injustice and those who try to abuse us and our religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, you will also kill your own women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really care??
Click to expand...


Your allah doesn't give a shit.


----------



## Sunni Man

All muslims are in a constant state of jihad.


----------



## syrenn

Sunni Man said:


> All muslims are in a constant state of jihad.



as stated before, yes a lovely religion of peace. Jihad


----------



## Intense

Kalam said:


> No problem. A Muslim is under no obligation to follow laws that restrict her freedom of religious expression.



Where that applies to Burkas I actually agree with you, totally. Where that applies to Suicide Vests we may have a slight disagreement.


----------



## Intense

Sunni Man said:


> All muslims are in a constant state of jihad.



Some how it seems that you are on the wrong side of equation Sunni Man. Life is a constant state of reform because of who and what we are in relation to our Maker. Rash action complicates, presuming it is ordained is dangerous.


----------



## Sunni Man

syrenn said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All muslims are in a constant state of jihad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as stated before, yes a lovely religion of peace. Jihad
Click to expand...


There are 2 types of Jihad.

1) The inner spiritual struggle within a person.

2) The outward physical struggle.

This goes on 24/7 in everyone's life.

It's just that we have a name for this condition; "Jihad".


----------



## Marc39

Sunni Man said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All muslims are in a constant state of jihad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as stated before, yes a lovely religion of peace. Jihad
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 2 types of Jihad.
> 
> 1) The inner spiritual struggle within a person.
> 
> 2) The outward physical struggle.
> 
> This goes on 24/7 in everyone's life.
> 
> It's just that we have a name for this condition; "Jihad".
Click to expand...


Bullshit.  Your allah tells you what jihad is, Muhammadan. 

Quran 2.216...


> Jihâd (holy fighting in Allâh's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allâh knows but you do not know.


----------



## Intense

Sunni Man said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All muslims are in a constant state of jihad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as stated before, yes a lovely religion of peace. Jihad
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 2 types of Jihad.
> 
> 1) The inner spiritual struggle within a person.
> 
> 2) The outward physical struggle.
> 
> This goes on 24/7 in everyone's life.
> 
> It's just that we have a name for this condition; "Jihad".
Click to expand...


My personal term for that state of being is "Perpetual Surrender" or, "Perpetual Reconciliation", in context to God's awareness being Superior to Our's, and Us, being Human, seem to corrupt the most basic principles, almost instantaneously.  Sometimes when words have dual meanings, especially in translation, it gets confusing to others. Take the word "Fire" for instance. Some terms should be exclusive.


----------



## Marc39

Sunni Man said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All muslims are in a constant state of jihad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as stated before, yes a lovely religion of peace. Jihad
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 2 types of Jihad.
> 
> 1) The inner spiritual struggle within a person.
> 
> 2) The outward physical struggle.
> 
> This goes on 24/7 in everyone's life.
> 
> It's just that we have a name for this condition; "Jihad".
Click to expand...


Allah says those who do not commit violent jihad are beneath those who do.  Better get going, virgin chaser.   Chop chop!

Quran 4:95...


> Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allâh with their wealth and their lives. Allâh has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allâh has promised good (Paradise), but Allâh has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward


----------



## Valerie

Damn, I really like sitting at home.     Does this mean I'm going to hell ?


----------



## Kalam

Ok, I actually read some of Marc's posts for a change. Notice how the Jew ignores his religion's commandment to use the mouth for circumcisions. 

The full quote from 'Umdat as-Salik ("Reliance of the Traveler", a legal manual used by the Shafi'i school):

"_Jihad_ means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word _mujahada_, signifying warfare to establish the religion. *And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs)..."*​
And he goes on to quote a hadith saying as much.


----------



## Sunni Man

Intense said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> as stated before, yes a lovely religion of peace. Jihad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are 2 types of Jihad.
> 
> 1) The inner spiritual struggle within a person.
> 
> 2) The outward physical struggle.
> 
> This goes on 24/7 in everyone's life.
> 
> It's just that we have a name for this condition; "Jihad".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My personal term for that state of being is *"Perpetual Surrender"* or, *"Perpetual Reconciliation"*, in context to God's awareness being Superior to Our's, and Us, being Human, seem to corrupt the most basic principles, almost instantaneously.  Sometimes when words have dual meanings, especially in translation, it gets confusing to others. Take the word "Fire" for instance. Some terms should be exclusive.
Click to expand...

Very nice way of expressing it.


----------



## Marc39

Kalam said:


> Ok, I actually read some of Marc's posts for a change. Notice how the Jew ignores his religion's commandment to use the mouth for circumcisions



Shouldn't you be committing jihad, which is your religious duty?

Quran 9:5...


> Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the idolaters wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent, then leave their way free. Verily, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful


----------



## Marc39

Intense said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> as stated before, yes a lovely religion of peace. Jihad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are 2 types of Jihad.
> 
> 1) The inner spiritual struggle within a person.
> 
> 2) The outward physical struggle.
> 
> This goes on 24/7 in everyone's life.
> 
> It's just that we have a name for this condition; "Jihad".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My personal term for that state of being is "Perpetual Surrender" or, "Perpetual Reconciliation", in context to God's awareness being Superior to Our's, and Us, being Human, seem to corrupt the most basic principles, almost instantaneously.  Sometimes when words have dual meanings, especially in translation, it gets confusing to others. Take the word "Fire" for instance. Some terms should be exclusive.
Click to expand...


Your personal term for jihad and the pedophile prophet's personal term are not in-sync, making you an apostate for not following the sunnah of muhammad.  And, you know apostasy is a capital offense, don't you?

Sahih Bukhari V1B2N25: 



> Narrated Abu Huraira:
> 
> Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). *The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." *The questioner again asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" He replied, "To perform Hajj (Pilgrim age to Mecca) 'Mubrur, (which is accepted by Allah and is performed with the intention of seeking Allah's pleasure only and not to show off and without committing a sin and in accordance with the traditions of the Prophet).




Oh, dear.  You're in big trouble!


----------



## Valerie

I suppose if I just sit at home in my burqa then it's all good ?  

http://faculty.tamu-commerce.edu/kroggenkamp/AfghanistanTimeline_files/image005.jpg


----------



## Marc39

Valerie said:


> I suppose if I just sit at home in my burqa then it's all good ?
> 
> http://faculty.tamu-commerce.edu/kroggenkamp/AfghanistanTimeline_files/image005.jpg



Only, if you also spread your legs for your Muslim husband, who is sanctioned to beat you if you don't.


----------



## Valerie

Marc39 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose if I just sit at home in my burqa then it's all good ?
> 
> http://faculty.tamu-commerce.edu/kroggenkamp/AfghanistanTimeline_files/image005.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only, if you also spread your legs for your Muslim husband, who is sanctioned to beat you if you don't.
Click to expand...






I hear such primitive brutality is going out of fashion these days.


----------



## Marc39

Valerie said:


> Marc39 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose if I just sit at home in my burqa then it's all good ?
> 
> http://faculty.tamu-commerce.edu/kroggenkamp/AfghanistanTimeline_files/image005.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only, if you also spread your legs for your Muslim husband, who is sanctioned to beat you if you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear such primitive brutality is going out of fashion these days.
Click to expand...


The primitive cult of Islam and its barbarism never changes.  

Alexis de Toqueville...


> I studied the Koran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.


[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-America-Complete-Alexis-Toqueville/dp/1406822701/ref=sr_1_1?s=gateway&ie=UTF8&qid=1285716154&sr=8-1]Amazon.com: Democracy In America (Complete) (9781406822700): Alexis de Toqueville: Gateway[/ame]


----------



## Kalam

Marc39 said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I actually read some of Marc's posts for a change. Notice how the Jew ignores his religion's commandment to use the mouth for circumcisions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't you be committing jihad, which is your religious duty?
> 
> Quran 9:5...
> 
> 
> 
> Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the idolaters wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent, then leave their way free. Verily, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Why no comment about your mohel, Jew?


----------



## Marc39

Kalam said:


> Marc39 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I actually read some of Marc's posts for a change. Notice how the Jew ignores his religion's commandment to use the mouth for circumcisions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't you be committing jihad, which is your religious duty?
> 
> Quran 9:5...
> 
> 
> 
> Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the idolaters wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent, then leave their way free. Verily, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why no comment about your mohel, Jew?
Click to expand...


I trust your Muslima wife has been genitally mutilated, like all good Muslimas.


----------



## Liability

Why do Muslim women wear the veil?

Because Muslim men may be pig-dogs, but they aren't blind.


----------



## Kalam

Kalam said:


> Marc39 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I actually read some of Marc's posts for a change. Notice how the Jew ignores his religion's commandment to use the mouth for circumcisions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't you be committing jihad, which is your religious duty?
> 
> Quran 9:5...
> 
> 
> 
> Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the idolaters wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent, then leave their way free. Verily, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why no comment about your mohel, Jew?
Click to expand...


I guess my assumption was correct and the Jew was unable to offer proof to the contrary. That's what happens when blowing infants is a tenet of your religion, Marcy.


----------



## Marc39

Kalam said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marc39 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't you be committing jihad, which is your religious duty?
> 
> Quran 9:5...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why no comment about your mohel, Jew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess my assumption was correct and the Jew was unable to offer proof to the contrary. That's what happens when blowing infants is a tenet of your religion, Marcy.
Click to expand...


Can you post pics of hot clitorally mutilated Muslima women?


----------



## Kalam

Marc39 said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why no comment about your mohel, Jew?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess my assumption was correct and the Jew was unable to offer proof to the contrary. That's what happens when blowing infants is a tenet of your religion, Marcy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you post pics of hot clitorally mutilated Muslima women?
Click to expand...


Why are you trying to solicit new masturbation material from me, Jew? If you want to get off, head to your nearest mohel and watch him do his work. After all, the Talmud teaches us that certain sexual relations can begin with a girl when she's three and between a boy and a mohel when the boy is eight days old.


----------



## Marc39

Kalam said:


> Marc39 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess my assumption was correct and the Jew was unable to offer proof to the contrary. That's what happens when blowing infants is a tenet of your religion, Marcy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you post pics of hot clitorally mutilated Muslima women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you trying to solicit new masturbation material from me, Jew? If you want to get off, head to your nearest mohel and watch him do his work. After all, the Talmud teaches us that certain sexual relations can begin with a girl when she's three and between a boy and a mohel when the boy is eight days old.
Click to expand...


Your pedophile fake prophet Muhammad masturbated with his 6 year old wife when in his 50s as she was too young to have intercourse, so, he thighed her, the Islamic practice of rubbing his genitals against her to ejaculate.  As recorded in the hadith, the poor little girl had to wash Mo's semen-stained trousers.  Your "Perfect Man"  LOL

So, masturbating makes you a good Muhammadan.  LOL


----------



## Kalam

That sounds more like a Jewish sexual practice, considering it is nowhere to be found in the Qur'an or in the ahadith. 

Avoiding the subject of Jewish teachings again, I see. Why are you so embarrassed by your own religion's teachings, Heeb?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Marc39 said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marc39 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you post pics of hot clitorally mutilated Muslima women?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you trying to solicit new masturbation material from me, Jew? If you want to get off, head to your nearest mohel and watch him do his work. After all, the Talmud teaches us that certain sexual relations can begin with a girl when she's three and between a boy and a mohel when the boy is eight days old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your pedophile fake prophet Muhammad masturbated with his 6 year old wife when in his 50s as she was too young to have intercourse, so, he thighed her, the Islamic practice of rubbing his genitals against her to ejaculate.  As recorded in the hadith, the poor little girl had to wash Mo's semen-stained trousers.  Your "Perfect Man"  LOL
> 
> So, masturbating makes you a good Muhammadan.  LOL
Click to expand...


Masturbating makes you a good Muhammadan?  Really?  Wonder if that's why Christine O'Donnell is so against it?


----------



## Marc39

Kalam said:


> That sounds more like a Jewish sexual practice, considering it is nowhere to be found in the Qur'an or in the ahadith.
> 
> Avoiding the subject of Jewish teachings again, I see. Why are you so embarrassed by your own religion's teachings, Heeb?



According to the hadith, slave of allah...

Sahih Bukhari V1B4N229... 


> Narrated 'Aisha:
> 
> I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it (water spots were still visible).



Ha ha, hee hee, ho ho


----------



## Kalam

Why no mention of the sexual practice, which is what I actually referred to? And why no indication of 'Aishah's (RA) age at the time this was happening?

As usual, the Jew lies and spreads misinformation about Islam. He thinks he's clever and sneaky for avoiding the disgusting practices that are actually taught in his religion, blithely unaware that most goyim have learned to see past such crude attempts to conceal moral bankruptcy.


----------



## Marc39

Kalam said:


> Why no mention of the sexual practice, which is what I actually referred to? And why no indication of 'Aishah's (RA) age at the time this was happening?
> 
> As usual, the Jew lies and spreads misinformation about Islam. He thinks he's clever and sneaky for avoiding the disgusting practices that are actually taught in his religion, blithely unaware that most goyim have learned to see past such crude attempts to conceal moral bankruptcy.



Muhammad got semen on his pants from shooting his load while wearing them, slave of allah.

Your pedophile prophet confessed to fantasizing about pre-pubescent little girls, recorded in the hadith.  Oh, dear!

Sahih Bukhari V5B58N235: 


> Narrated 'Aisha:
> 
> That the Prophet said to her, "You have been shown to me twice in my dream. I saw you pictured on a piece of silk and some-one said (to me). 'This is your wife.' When I uncovered the picture, I saw that it was yours. I said, 'If this is from Allah, it will be done.



Oy vey!


----------



## Kalam

Keep dodging, Jew. I bet you're a mohel.


----------



## Marc39

Kalam said:


> Keep dodging, Jew. I bet you're a mohel.



I bet Muhammadans force their pre-adolescent wives to wash their semen-stained pants.  LOL

At least, Muhammad waited until his 6 year old wife turned 9 before "consuming" her.
What a guy, right?

Sahih Bukhari, V5B58N236... 


> Narrated Hisham's father:
> 
> Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.



Sick sick sick


----------



## Kalam

What's sick is mohels blowing baby boys, but we won't ever hear you say anything about that.


----------



## Marc39

Kalam said:


> Keep dodging, Jew. I bet you're a mohel.



Keep patterning your life after Muhammad, like an obedient Muhammadan... 

Sahih Bukhari 5, 58, 236... 



> Narrated Hisham's father:
> 
> Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.



Sick sick sick


----------



## Kalam

Kalam said:


> What's sick is mohels blowing baby boys, but we won't ever hear you say anything about that.



_


----------



## Marc39

Kalam said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's sick is mohels blowing baby boys, but we won't ever hear you say anything about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
Click to expand...


What's sick are religion of peace'ers boasting of killing their own children...

"We Desire Death Like You Desire Life"
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9B4fFyZ_1sQ]YouTube - Hamas boast of using civilians as human shields[/ame]

The religion of PIECES: KABOOM!


----------



## Kalam

Kalam said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's sick is mohels blowing baby boys, but we won't ever hear you say anything about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
Click to expand...


_


----------



## Marc39

Kalam said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's sick is mohels blowing baby boys, but we won't ever hear you say anything about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _
Click to expand...


What's sick is your false god telling the slaves of allah to go out and commit mass murder.

Quran 2:216...


> Jihâd (holy fighting in Allâh's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allâh knows but you do not know.



The religion of pieces: KABOOM!


----------



## Kalam

Kalam said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's sick is mohels blowing baby boys, but we won't ever hear you say anything about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _
Click to expand...


_


----------



## Marc39

Kalam said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _
Click to expand...


Allah says, "Blowing Up Babies Is A Good Thing"
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9B4fFyZ_1sQ]YouTube - Hamas boast of using civilians as human shields[/ame]


----------



## Kalam

Kalam said:


> What's sick is mohels blowing baby boys, but we won't ever hear you say anything about that.



_


----------



## Marc39

Kalam said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's sick is mohels blowing baby boys, but we won't ever hear you say anything about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
Click to expand...


What's sick are Muhammadans bragging about blowing up their own babies.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9B4fFyZ_1sQ]YouTube - Hamas boast of using civilians as human shields[/ame]


The religion of pieces: KABOOM!


----------



## Valerie

Liability said:


> Why do Muslim women wear the veil?
> 
> Because Muslim men may be pig-dogs, but they aren't blind.






Ya, Belushi, well why didn't they make the toga cover your ugly mug then, huh?


----------



## Marc39

Valerie said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Muslim women wear the veil?
> 
> Because Muslim men may be pig-dogs, but they aren't blind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, Belushi, well why didn't they make the toga cover your ugly mug then, huh?
Click to expand...


Too bad burqas don't have flat tops to put my beer on when a Muslima girl is giving me a BJ.


----------



## Valerie

Marc39 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Muslim women wear the veil?
> 
> Because Muslim men may be pig-dogs, but they aren't blind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, Belushi, well why didn't they make the toga cover your ugly mug then, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too bad burqas don't have flat tops to put my beer on when a Muslima girl is giving me a BJ.
Click to expand...





That's some fantasy you got there, big guy.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Marc39 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Muslim women wear the veil?
> 
> Because Muslim men may be pig-dogs, but they aren't blind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, Belushi, well why didn't they make the toga cover your ugly mug then, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too bad burqas don't have flat tops to put my beer on when a Muslima girl is giving me a BJ.
Click to expand...


You DO realize that they don't have mouth holes, just eye holes, right?

What are ya gonna do, skull fuck her to death?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Question........why is it that those full covering thingies DON'T have mouth holes?  What is she supposed to do, starve until she gets to a place where she can take it off?


----------



## syrenn

ABikerSailor said:


> Question........why is it that those full covering thingies DON'T have mouth holes?  What is she supposed to do, starve until she gets to a place where she can take it off?




Because i am sure a woman eating in public would somehow inflame the sexual desires of some passing man...who would have to kill her for it.


----------



## Sunni Man

syrenn said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question........why is it that those full covering thingies DON'T have mouth holes?  What is she supposed to do, starve until she gets to a place where she can take it off?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because i am sure a woman eating in public would somehow inflame the sexual desires of some passing man...who would have to kill her for it.
Click to expand...


Don't be silly Syreen.

The women either lifts the covering or unhooks it from the side in order to eat.   

That's what my wife does.


----------



## syrenn

Sunni Man said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question........why is it that those full covering thingies DON'T have mouth holes?  What is she supposed to do, starve until she gets to a place where she can take it off?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because i am sure a woman eating in public would somehow inflame the sexual desires of some passing man...who would have to kill her for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be silly Syreen.
> 
> The women either lifts the covering or unhooks it from the side in order to eat.
> 
> That's what my wife does.
Click to expand...


And how would that work out in public... in Afghanistan?


----------



## Sunni Man

syrenn said:


> And how would that work out in public... in Afghanistan?



How would I know or why should I care how women eat in Afghanistan??


----------



## Marc39

Sunni Man said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question........why is it that those full covering thingies DON'T have mouth holes?  What is she supposed to do, starve until she gets to a place where she can take it off?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because i am sure a woman eating in public would somehow inflame the sexual desires of some passing man...who would have to kill her for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be silly Syreen.
> 
> The women either lifts the covering or unhooks it from the side in order to eat.
> 
> That's what my wife does.
Click to expand...

No family


----------



## Kalam

Marc39 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because i am sure a woman eating in public would somehow inflame the sexual desires of some passing man...who would have to kill her for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly Syreen.
> 
> The women either lifts the covering or unhooks it from the side in order to eat.
> 
> That's what my wife does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> deleted
Click to expand...


Uncalled for, ape. Apologize.


----------



## Marc39

Kalam said:


> Marc39 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly Syreen.
> 
> The women either lifts the covering or unhooks it from the side in order to eat.
> 
> That's what my wife does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xx?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uncalled for, ape. Apologize.
Click to expand...


deleted

Read the Quran and hadith, slave of allah.


----------



## Kalam

Have it your way.


----------



## del

Marc39 said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marc39 said:
> 
> 
> 
> deleted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncalled for, ape. Apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allah says deleted
> 
> Read the Quran and hadith, slave of allah.
Click to expand...


enjoy your vacation


----------



## ABikerSailor

syrenn said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question........why is it that those full covering thingies DON'T have mouth holes?  What is she supposed to do, starve until she gets to a place where she can take it off?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because i am sure a woman eating in public would somehow inflame the sexual desires of some passing man...who would have to kill her for it.
Click to expand...


It would only inflame the sexual desires if she was eating a hotdog, banana, eclair, or popsicle.

Come to think of it........hot chicks eating those foods here in America are kinda stimulating....


----------



## ABikerSailor

Sunni Man said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how would that work out in public... in Afghanistan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would I know or why should I care how women eat in Afghanistan??
Click to expand...


Actually, Sunnidiot, you should.  Why?  Because if like the good Muslim you are, you go and complete your pilgrimage to Mecca, if your wife shows up wearing the full covered burka, she's going to be expected to wear it the whole time.

You ARE going to make your pilgrimage with your old lady, right?  If so, you should be concerned with how she's supposed to eat in Islamic lands.

Either that.........or be known for the soul less bastard that you are.


----------



## syrenn

ABikerSailor said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how would that work out in public... in Afghanistan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would I know or why should I care how women eat in Afghanistan??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, Sunnidiot, you should.  Why?  Because if like the good Muslim you are, you go and complete your pilgrimage to Mecca, if your wife shows up wearing the full covered burka, she's going to be expected to wear it the whole time.
> 
> You ARE going to make your pilgrimage with your old lady, right?  If so, you should be concerned with how she's supposed to eat in Islamic lands.
> 
> Either that.........or be known for the soul less bastard that you are.
Click to expand...


What he needs to worry about is if she would be beaten for showing skin and or her face in public.


----------



## Sunni Man

ABikerSailor said:


> Actually, Sunnidiot, you should.  Why?  Because if like the good Muslim you are, you go and complete your pilgrimage to Mecca, if your wife shows up wearing the full covered burka, she's going to be expected to wear it the whole time.


I know that ABikerSailor thinks he is a semi-expert on Islam; and you would like to be also Syreen.

But during the Haji (pilgrimage) to Mecca.

Women do not cover their face.


----------



## Kalam

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Sunnidiot, you should.  Why?  Because if like the good Muslim you are, you go and complete your pilgrimage to Mecca, if your wife shows up wearing the full covered burka, she's going to be expected to wear it the whole time.
> 
> 
> 
> I know that ABikerSailor thinks he is a semi-expert on Islam; and you would like to be also Syreen.
> 
> But during the Haji (pilgrimage) to Mecca.
> 
> Women do not cover their face.
Click to expand...


Exactly. It is Sunnah for women to keep their faces uncovered during Hajj and 'Umrah.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Wanna explain why I've seen chicks with full cover burkas during the broadcasts of Ramadan?

Fail.


----------



## Kalam

ABikerSailor said:


> Wanna explain why I've seen chicks with full cover burkas during the broadcasts of Ramadan?
> 
> Fail.



Because they weren't on Hajj or Umrah? 

Hajj isn't during the month of Ramadhan. It's during Dhu 'l-Hijjah.


----------



## Kalam

In case there was any doubt:

_Narrated 'Abdullah bin Umar: A person stood up and asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What clothes may be worn in the state of Ihram?" The Prophet replied, "Do not wear a shirt or trousers, or any headgear, or a hooded cloak -- but if somebody has no shoes he can wear leather stockings provided they are cut short off the ankles -- and also, do not wear anything perfumed with wars or saffron, *and the Muhrima should not cover her face or wear gloves.*_ - Sahih Bukhari​


----------



## ABikerSailor

Like I said........explain why some still do.

Oh yeah.....that's right......it's the radical Wahabists who wanna take over your religion.


----------



## Sunni Man

Ramadan is the month of fasting and happens before the pilgrimage to Mecca. 

Women stay covered during Ramadan

No muslim woman covers her face during the pilgrimage (Haji) to Mecca.


----------



## Kalam

ABikerSailor said:


> Like I said........explain why some still do.


I've heard the claim that some female companions of the Prophet (SAWS) lowered their garments over their faces when approached by certain unfamiliar men even when they were in ihram. I don't know if this is true or not or if it really matters. 



ABikerSailor said:


> Oh yeah.....that's right......it's the radical Wahabists who wanna take over your religion.


...And the world is funding them by buying their oil.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

as a non muslim, i dont understand the burka. I get the HIjab is it called?, similar to jews wearing kepas right (cant spell) but is the burka mentioned in the koran?


----------



## saveliberty

actsnoblemartin said:


> as a non muslim, i dont understand the burka. I get the HIjab is it called?, similar to jews wearing kepas right (cant spell) but is the burka mentioned in the koran?



Probably just implied actsnoblemartin.  Much like going on your own jihad of death, because of bigoted beliefs. (you, as in a person of Muslim faith)


----------



## actsnoblemartin

I am a NON muslim, sheesh



saveliberty said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> 
> as a non muslim, i dont understand the burka. I get the HIjab is it called?, similar to jews wearing kepas right (cant spell) but is the burka mentioned in the koran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably just implied actsnoblemartin.  Much like going on your own jihad of death, because of bigoted beliefs. (you, as in a person of Muslim faith)
Click to expand...


----------



## saveliberty

actsnoblemartin said:


> I am a NON muslim, sheesh
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> 
> as a non muslim, i dont understand the burka. I get the HIjab is it called?, similar to jews wearing kepas right (cant spell) but is the burka mentioned in the koran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably just implied actsnoblemartin.  Much like going on your own jihad of death, because of bigoted beliefs. (you, as in a person of Muslim faith)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I figured, but it sounded like I was referring to you as a jihadist without the disclaimer.


----------



## islam4ever

France is jealous, since it knows it will soon be Muslim.

When France becomes majority Muslim, whites must convert to Islam or they will be jailed.


----------



## saveliberty

islam4ever said:


> France is jealous, since it knows it will soon be Muslim.
> 
> When France becomes majority Muslim, whites must convert to Islam or they will be jailed.



I would find it amusing to hear your explanation of why France would be jealous of becoming Muslim.  Further, why you would be happy about puting peole in jail for differing beliefs?


----------



## ABikerSailor

islam4ever said:


> France is jealous, since it knows it will soon be Muslim.
> 
> When France becomes majority Muslim, whites must convert to Islam or they will be jailed.



That's when France calls in the Foreign Leigon.

Them dudes have a LOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNGGGG history with Muslims.  

They don't like 'em much.......


----------



## syrenn

ABikerSailor said:


> islam4ever said:
> 
> 
> 
> France is jealous, since it knows it will soon be Muslim.
> 
> When France becomes majority Muslim, whites must convert to Islam or they will be jailed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's when France calls in the Foreign Leigon.
> 
> Them dudes have a LOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNGGGG history with Muslims.
> 
> They don't like 'em much.......
Click to expand...


----------



## Sunni Man

ABikerSailor said:


> islam4ever said:
> 
> 
> 
> France is jealous, since it knows it will soon be Muslim.
> 
> When France becomes majority Muslim, whites must convert to Islam or they will be jailed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's when France calls in the Foreign Leigon.
> 
> Them dudes have a LOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNGGGG history with Muslims.
> 
> They don't like 'em much.......
Click to expand...

Yes, that used to be true.

But today it's a different story.

The French Foreign Legion is now comprised of about 15% - 20% Muslim soldiers.

That's why when there was riots in the Muslim suburbs a couple of years ago.

The authorities refused to send them in to restore order.

Because they felt they couldn't be trusted.


----------



## Jack Fate

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> islam4ever said:
> 
> 
> 
> France is jealous, since it knows it will soon be Muslim.
> 
> When France becomes majority Muslim, whites must convert to Islam or they will be jailed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's when France calls in the Foreign Leigon.
> 
> Them dudes have a LOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNGGGG history with Muslims.
> 
> They don't like 'em much.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that used to be true.
> 
> But today it's a different story.
> 
> The French Foreign Legion is now comprised of about 15% - 20% Muslim soldiers.
> 
> That's why when there was riots in the Muslim suburbs a couple of years ago.
> 
> The authorities refused to send them in to restore order.
> 
> Because they felt they couldn't be trusted.
Click to expand...


Gee, I wonder why?  Muslims are such honorable honest people.  Funny stuff.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> islam4ever said:
> 
> 
> 
> France is jealous, since it knows it will soon be Muslim.
> 
> When France becomes majority Muslim, whites must convert to Islam or they will be jailed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's when France calls in the Foreign Leigon.
> 
> Them dudes have a LOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNGGGG history with Muslims.
> 
> They don't like 'em much.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that used to be true.
> 
> But today it's a different story.
> 
> The French Foreign Legion is now comprised of about 15% - 20% Muslim soldiers.
> 
> That's why when there was riots in the Muslim suburbs a couple of years ago.
> 
> The authorities refused to send them in to restore order.
> 
> Because they felt they couldn't be trusted.
Click to expand...


Hey Sunnidiot......may wanna check the recruitment  and service figures of the Foreign Legion.

Why?  Wikipedia gives a breakdown of what countries and the number of people serving.

Muslims don't figure as prominently as you seem to believe.

French Foreign Legion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Marc39

Kalam said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wanna explain why I've seen chicks with full cover burkas during the broadcasts of Ramadan?
> 
> Fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they weren't on Hajj or Umrah?
> 
> Hajj isn't during the month of Ramadhan. It's during Dhu 'l-Hijjah.
Click to expand...


The burqa is required by shariah, especially on Muslima women with coarse facial hair.  Muhammad knew


----------



## Marc39

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> islam4ever said:
> 
> 
> 
> France is jealous, since it knows it will soon be Muslim.
> 
> When France becomes majority Muslim, whites must convert to Islam or they will be jailed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's when France calls in the Foreign Leigon.
> 
> Them dudes have a LOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNGGGG history with Muslims.
> 
> They don't like 'em much.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that used to be true.
> 
> But today it's a different story.
> 
> The French Foreign Legion is now comprised of about 15% - 20% Muslim soldiers.
> 
> That's why when there was riots in the Muslim suburbs a couple of years ago.
> 
> The authorities refused to send them in to restore order.
> 
> Because they felt they couldn't be trusted.
Click to expand...


France is the single biggest impediment to Turkey's and its Muslim trash's accession to the EU.


----------



## Anguille

silkyeggsalad said:


> And to think this is the same country that gave us the Statue of Liberty.


----------



## rightwinger

France needs to ban these stupid hats


----------



## Sunni Man

rightwinger said:


> France needs to ban these stupid hats



A guy would have to be some kind of a queer to wear one of those hats.  

Although, I hear that Marc39 owns and wears several.


----------



## Marc39

Sunni Man said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> France needs to ban these stupid hats
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A guy would have to be some kind of a queer to wear one of those hats.
> 
> Although, I hear that Marc39 owns and wears several.
Click to expand...


I hear Muslima women screaming from being beaten by their religion of peace husbands.


----------



## ABikerSailor

rightwinger said:


> France needs to ban these stupid hats



Only fruits and vegetables wear hats like that.........

See the stem on the top?


----------



## britishbulldog

People who wear burkas in France should be jailed for 5 years , stripped of their property and deported back to whichever terrorist dictatorship they came from.


----------



## Lucchese

Dismantle islam . . Relegate their diseased culture to the bonfire of history


----------



## ABikerSailor

Actually, Islam didn't become much of a problem until after the Wahabists took over in the late 70's.

Then......the fanatics were controlling the religion.

If Islam could disavow the Taliban and the Wahabis, they may be able to reclaim their religion.


----------



## Sunni Man

ABikerSailor said:


> Actually, Islam didn't become much of a problem until after the Wahabists took over in the late 70's.
> 
> Then......the fanatics were controlling the religion.
> 
> If Islam could disavow the Taliban and the Wahabis, they may be able to reclaim their religion.


Saudi Arabia is the only Wahhabi nation.

And they are our friends in the so called War on Terror.

So why would you want them to disavow their Wahhabi version of Islam???


----------



## ABikerSailor

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Islam didn't become much of a problem until after the Wahabists took over in the late 70's.
> 
> Then......the fanatics were controlling the religion.
> 
> If Islam could disavow the Taliban and the Wahabis, they may be able to reclaim their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Saudi Arabia is the only Wahhabi nation.
> 
> And they are our friends in the so called War on Terror.
> 
> So why would you want them to disavow their Wahhabi version of Islam???
Click to expand...


Bullshit.....the terrorists WERE fucking Saudi's (most of 'em) as well as FINANCED by them.

Try again Sunnidiot.


----------



## Sunni Man

ABikerSailor said:


> Bullshit.....the terrorists WERE fucking Saudi's (most of 'em) as well as FINANCED by them.


The Wahhabi's who control Saudia Arabia are our good friends, trading partners,  and comrads in the so called War on Terror.   

Why would you want to denigrate our close allies like that??


----------



## ABikerSailor

You are so full of shit Sunnidiot.

I bet you think that subjugation of women is a good thing as well?


----------



## Sunni Man

ABikerSailor said:


> You are so full of shit Sunnidiot.


A true American patriot would stand by our allies like Saudi Arabia.

And defend them when derogatory comments are directed towards them.


----------



## ABikerSailor

No, a true patriot enlists in the military and defends this country.

You just soak up the freedoms without doing anything to help out.


----------



## Sunni Man

ABikerSailor said:


> No, a true patriot enlists in the military and defends this country.
> 
> You just soak up the freedoms without doing anything to help out.


So how is your spewing hatred towards our Wahhabi friends in Saudi Arabia doing anything positive?

As an American Vet you should be helping to build friendship and trust between our allies the Saudi's and America.

Not be a fifth columnist and work to divide and defeat our country.


----------



## ABikerSailor

The Saudis financed the attack, as well as many of the terrorists doing the attack were Saudi.

What the fuck asshole?  Are you this stupid in real life or do you just play a retard on the boards?


----------



## Sunni Man

ABikerSailor said:


> The Saudis financed the attack, as well as many of the terrorists doing the attack were Saudi.
> 
> What the fuck asshole?  Are you this stupid in real life or do you just play a retard on the boards?


So sad that many deluded Americans work against our country without ever realizing it.

Here we have a true and trusted ally in Saudi Arabia.

Yet otherwise patriotic citizens keep trying to destroy a close friendship between two long time friends.


----------



## blu

ABikerSailor said:


> No, a true patriot enlists in the military and defends this country.
> 
> You just soak up the freedoms without doing anything to help out.



enlisting in the military only means you help ensure that this country will never be free and we will forever live in the police state base of an empire


----------



## blu

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Saudis financed the attack, as well as many of the terrorists doing the attack were Saudi.
> 
> What the fuck asshole?  Are you this stupid in real life or do you just play a retard on the boards?
> 
> 
> 
> So sad that many deluded Americans work against our country without ever realizing it.
> 
> Here we have a true and trusted ally in Saudi Arabia.
> 
> Yet otherwise patriotic citizens keep trying down a close friendship between a long time friend.
Click to expand...


are your posts sarcasm? saudi arabi should be nuked off the map


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Islam didn't become much of a problem until after the Wahabists took over in the late 70's.
> 
> Then......the fanatics were controlling the religion.
> 
> If Islam could disavow the Taliban and the Wahabis, they may be able to reclaim their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Saudi Arabia is the only Wahhabi nation.
> 
> And they are our friends in the so called War on Terror.
> 
> So why would you want them to disavow their Wahhabi version of Islam???
Click to expand...

Islam Question and Answer - Advice to those who do not recognize the Salafi scholars and call them Wahhaabis
Islam Question and Answer - Who are the Wahhaabis and what is their message?


----------



## britishbulldog

Once the oil runs out in Saudi Arabia, we should dismantle our bases their and nuke the fuckers. We should of course give safe haven to the Saudi Royal Family in London or New York, since they have been working for us all along.

The Saudi Arabian street is only our friend as long as they have oil.

We will have to put up with their Allah hu akbar bullshit until that day I suppose.

Once the oil runs out, we should commit ourselves to sending Saudi Arabia into the stone age, since the majority of em hate us.


----------



## britishbulldog

blu said:


> saudi arabi should be nuked off the map



No, not yet.

Only once our oil runs out there. Then nukes are fine.


----------



## britishbulldog

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Saudis financed the attack, as well as many of the terrorists doing the attack were Saudi.
> 
> What the fuck asshole?  Are you this stupid in real life or do you just play a retard on the boards?
> 
> 
> 
> So sad that many deluded Americans work against our country without ever realizing it.
> 
> Here we have a true and trusted ally in Saudi Arabia.
> 
> Yet otherwise patriotic citizens keep trying to destroy a close friendship between two long time friends.
Click to expand...


Sunni man.

Please go back to Saudi Arabia, once our oil runs out there.


----------

