Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not at all, I'm defending Religious Freedom, and so should you.You prove the left love to treat women as lower than animals like Islam teaches.You can be disguised, that still legal, as long as it isn't with a Muslim garment. See the problem, yet?No need for a ban, she is not disguised.I see you are a big supporter of religious freedom, AKA, not even remotely supportive.Where is the requirement for Christians to wear a cross around their necks, Jews to cover their hair with a Kippah? Where does either faith require their believers to read the holy books? Can they not ban all three things? They aren't required, right?
Keep them in the house of religion or in the home. Want to wear a cross, put it on a longer chain and wear under your clothes.
Banned. Not required by the Bible, looks weird...
First, learn what self initiated means.First search result with the word "Islam" What is the attraction of Islam? | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion ForumStill waiting for you to link to a post you self initiated denouncing Islam.That's still legal, as long as it isn't with a Muslim garment. See the problem yet?The don't obscure people's faces.Yamaka's are not a requirement of Judaism or the Torah.Burkas are not a requirement of Islam or the quran.
No reason for it not to banned.
By your logic they should also be banned. .....
Is there not even one in the 39,986 posts you've made? I doubt there is.
There are plenty of Muslims, often female, who support the ban of face coverings. Are they islamophobic.Some, and the ones that passed this law are Islamophobic.Islamophobic...Racist Bastards.
The Swiss are muslims ?
I don't make threads beating on Muslims or the Taliban. They aren't my problem here, you and the American Taliban are, and I don't make a lot of threads on that either.First, learn what self initiated means.First search result with the word "Islam" What is the attraction of Islam? | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion ForumStill waiting for you to link to a post you self initiated denouncing Islam.That's still legal, as long as it isn't with a Muslim garment. See the problem yet?The don't obscure people's faces.Yamaka's are not a requirement of Judaism or the Torah.
By your logic they should also be banned. .....
Is there not even one in the 39,986 posts you've made? I doubt there is.
Nope, even though Jewish women wear the same kind of thing at times. The clothing of only one religion is banned.The law doesn't say that, not does it? it bans what Muslim women wear, and nothing else...You seem to be missing the point. You have the freedom to hide your face, as long as you don't do it the way Muslim women do...Winter in Minnesota, North Dakota and Alaska there are good reason for hoodies and face socks, but not in florida in the summer.
Indoors there is not reason to be covered and unrecognizable. In harsh weather it is protection from frostbite.
Halloween, stage and screen costumes for work and special occasions but not everyday. If stopped or questioned there is no protection and the make-up and masks have to be removed.
So, a jewish man could wear a burqua ?
No, they oppose religious freedom. And why only Muslim garments? Can't be a security issue, you can still dress like this is you want to.There are plenty of Muslims, often female, who support the ban of face coverings. Are they islamophobic.Some, and the ones that passed this law are Islamophobic.Islamophobic...Racist Bastards.
The Swiss are muslims ?
You're an idiot stooge who thinks women should be forced to wear Burqas.Not at all, I'm defending Religious Freedom, and so should you.You prove the left love to treat women as lower than animals like Islam teaches.You can be disguised, that still legal, as long as it isn't with a Muslim garment. See the problem, yet?No need for a ban, she is not disguised.I see you are a big supporter of religious freedom, AKA, not even remotely supportive.Keep them in the house of religion or in the home. Want to wear a cross, put it on a longer chain and wear under your clothes.
Banned. Not required by the Bible, looks weird...
Nope, but it's their option, not yours.Nope, even though Jewish women wear the same kind of thing at times. The clothing of only one religion is banned.The law doesn't say that, not does it? it bans what Muslim women wear, and nothing else...You seem to be missing the point. You have the freedom to hide your face, as long as you don't do it the way Muslim women do...
Halloween, stage and screen costumes for work and special occasions but not everyday. If stopped or questioned there is no protection and the make-up and masks have to be removed.
So, a jewish man could wear a burqua ?
A tiny group that have lived for generation among muslims. Cultural choice, not a religious mandate.
If one non-muslim wears a burka you assume all do or should?
Nope. Like the nun above that is their call, only now they can't make it, legally.You're an idiot stooge who thinks women should be forced to wear Burqas.Not at all, I'm defending Religious Freedom, and so should you.You prove the left love to treat women as lower than animals like Islam teaches.You can be disguised, that still legal, as long as it isn't with a Muslim garment. See the problem, yet?No need for a ban, she is not disguised.I see you are a big supporter of religious freedom, AKA, not even remotely supportive.
Banned. Not required by the Bible, looks weird...
But you make threads beating on Christianity.I don't make threads beating on Muslims or the Taliban. They aren't my problem here, you and the American Taliban are, and I don't make a lot of threads on that either.First, learn what self initiated means.First search result with the word "Islam" What is the attraction of Islam? | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion ForumStill waiting for you to link to a post you self initiated denouncing Islam.That's still legal, as long as it isn't with a Muslim garment. See the problem yet?The don't obscure people's faces.
Is there not even one in the 39,986 posts you've made? I doubt there is.
Here and there. Here the Christians are the problem.But you make threads beating on Christianity.I don't make threads beating on Muslims or the Taliban. They aren't my problem here, you and the American Taliban are, and I don't make a lot of threads on that either.First, learn what self initiated means.First search result with the word "Islam" What is the attraction of Islam? | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion ForumStill waiting for you to link to a post you self initiated denouncing Islam.That's still legal, as long as it isn't with a Muslim garment. See the problem yet?
Is there not even one in the 39,986 posts you've made? I doubt there is.
My point exactly.
That nun outfit is no different than a fireman so outfit.Nope. Like the nun above that is their call, only now they can't make it, legally.You're an idiot stooge who thinks women should be forced to wear Burqas.Not at all, I'm defending Religious Freedom, and so should you.You prove the left love to treat women as lower than animals like Islam teaches.You can be disguised, that still legal, as long as it isn't with a Muslim garment. See the problem, yet?No need for a ban, she is not disguised.
People can't conceal themselves under a yarmulke or a bible.So if the majority want to ban the kippah or the Bible, it's all good.?The men above can walk around all day, in their masks, and they are perfectly legal to do so but this woman cannot wear this as an expression of faith?Masks are legal there, but not the expression of piety for Muslim women. And, it's only for Muslim women...Anyone with their face covered, apart from police/swat should show their face at security points and when asked by police.
Masks are a gimmick not permanent requirement. There is a time and place for them, but not to hide their whole lives.
Burkas are not a requirement of faith or piety, they are cultural costumes and not protected under religious freedom. There are many ways to dress modestly that does not require being a security risk. When there is a threat, security trump personal costume. When a costume or clothing is disruptive, dangerous or interferes with work and uniform requirements there is not protect or exemption for such clothing as a burka. Off work, in the mosque or at home it can be worn. In places with high security and frequent searches it has no place.
Please explain?
Are you so sure that is a woman and a muslim? She covers her her face but is not wearing gloves.
This is also a picture from the UK, not france or switzerland
The swiss choose to ban the burka by an overwhelming popular vote. If a muslim objects they are free to pay the $10,000 fine or leave
The burka is not a requirement of faith. No reason a woman must wear it in the west or most of the world.
How long before you look at the fucking OP and realize it's only illegal if you conceal yourself with Muslim garments?People can't conceal themselves under a yarmulke or a bible.So if the majority want to ban the kippah or the Bible, it's all good.?The men above can walk around all day, in their masks, and they are perfectly legal to do so but this woman cannot wear this as an expression of faith?Masks are legal there, but not the expression of piety for Muslim women. And, it's only for Muslim women...
Burkas are not a requirement of faith or piety, they are cultural costumes and not protected under religious freedom. There are many ways to dress modestly that does not require being a security risk. When there is a threat, security trump personal costume. When a costume or clothing is disruptive, dangerous or interferes with work and uniform requirements there is not protect or exemption for such clothing as a burka. Off work, in the mosque or at home it can be worn. In places with high security and frequent searches it has no place.
Please explain?
Are you so sure that is a woman and a muslim? She covers her her face but is not wearing gloves.
This is also a picture from the UK, not france or switzerland
The swiss choose to ban the burka by an overwhelming popular vote. If a muslim objects they are free to pay the $10,000 fine or leave
The burka is not a requirement of faith. No reason a woman must wear it in the west or most of the world.
You think these women are free not to wear those beekeeper costumes?Let's protect freedom by banning freedom. That'll work.
Burkas hide the bruises.That nun outfit is no different than a fireman so outfit.Nope. Like the nun above that is their call, only now they can't make it, legally.You're an idiot stooge who thinks women should be forced to wear Burqas.Not at all, I'm defending Religious Freedom, and so should you.You prove the left love to treat women as lower than animals like Islam teaches.You can be disguised, that still legal, as long as it isn't with a Muslim garment. See the problem, yet?
Fact remains no Burqas are worn in America because we don't tolerate women being beaten for showing her face.
The hell they aren't, dumbass: Muslims Get Their Way - Illinois Will Permit Wearing Burqas in Driving Licenses Photos ⋆ US HeraldFact remains no Burqas are worn in America because we don't tolerate women being beaten for showing her face.
There are no other religions in Sweden that conceal their faces under black cloths, black cloths which also have grills concealing their eyes. We have had criminals escaping by wearing such garb. It is not acceptable, and yes they should apply the same law or any item that conceals the face preventing identification. They are also a huge danger to women driving in them and other drivers as they can't see what the hell they are doing. BAN THEM, for sure.It doesn't matter whether it is a choice or not. It's a choice banned for just one religion. And it can't be a security issue because anyone can mask their identity, which isn't banned, just these garments, which Muslim women wear. That, little friend, is religious discrimination without a rational basis.Devout Muslims women are not allowed to show their faces to men unrelated to them. It's part of the faith.Where is the requirement for Christians to wear a cross around their necks, Jews to cover their hair with a Kippah? Where does either faith require their believers to read the holy books? Can they not ban all three things? They aren't required, right?Burkas are not a requirement of Islam or the quran.
No reason for it not to banned.
Like Saudi bans any show of other faiths and bibles in their country?
Why shouldn't france or western countries not ban burkas? Too many terrorist (men) have escaped under a burka. Too many weapons have been smuggled and transported under a burka. There are valid security reason for banning them.
Even a hijab might hide some distinguishing feature or an adam's apple. If ask to remove, it should be required to do so. They can put it back on afterwards if there is no objection.
It is cultural not religious. To think that it is a religious requirement is in error. If you believe it is required you don't know Islam or the quran.
Devout muslims woman around the world don't wear the burka, the majority have never worn nor would wear a burka. Not all muslim women even wear a hijab.
The idea if a requirement is false. It is required in certain countries because of culture not religion. Beyond those few countries it is a private choice.
Burkas hide the bruises.That nun outfit is no different than a fireman so outfit.Nope. Like the nun above that is their call, only now they can't make it, legally.You're an idiot stooge who thinks women should be forced to wear Burqas.Not at all, I'm defending Religious Freedom, and so should you.You prove the left love to treat women as lower than animals like Islam teaches.You can be disguised, that still legal, as long as it isn't with a Muslim garment. See the problem, yet?
Fact remains no Burqas are worn in America because we don't tolerate women being beaten for showing her face.
Hackneyed and so libtypical.First they came for the Socialists (Muslims), and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist (Muslim).
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
