British public back a ban on burqa by two to one, poll finds - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Radical_ed;51007726]the idea is that a criminal would wear them or a wanted person, pretty fucking obviously, I might add.[/QUOTE] This is why I support ban on full face clothing, any kind, be it masks or burqas or anything else that conceals entire face.

This is one of the things I loathe most about society: there is absolutely no attempt by the masses to see the world through other people's eyes. What do you really expect to happen to the muslim women who are already oppressed by being forced to adhere to modesty doctrines? Are they suddenly going to rebel against their families or are they more likely to become even more reclusive than they already are? Does the burqa offend you? Good; it should. It's a symbol of an oppressive, medieval religious practice with no place in a progressive society. It's upsetting that people are so devoid of empathy that they can't spare a minute to think about how banning a woman from wearing the only clothing she can in public would reduce them to a life of total exclusion. That's sure to help muslim women integrate with their wider communities! GREAT JOB!

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51007620]Lol, the literal definition of a secular society says that there should be complete religious freedom, and beliefs should not be subject to legal or social sanctions. That includes wearing a knife as part of your religious beliefs.[/QUOTE] does that include ritual human sacrifice for the aztec faith? You dont understand what secularism stands for... as i exemplified. If wearing knives on your person is legal its legal for everyone no matter their beliefs in a secular society.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51008039]does that include ritual human sacrifice for the aztec faith? You dont understand what secularism stands for... as i exemplified. If wearing knives on your person is legal its legal for everyone no matter their beliefs in a secular society.[/QUOTE] You are routinely misunderstanding the whole concept of a 'defence' in criminal law. Murder should be illegal no matter what - what about defences of diminished responsibility or insanity? Theft should be illegal regardless of circumstances- what about duress, or mistaken belief of ownership? Carrying a knife should be illegal no matter what your beliefs - what about the examples I have already given, of Scots national dress or using a knife for work? The law admits exceptions where it has been legislated. There is no legislated excuse for murdering another person, only the partial defences I reference above. There ARE defences to carrying knives, and being a Sikh is one of them. Would you rather you were allowed to carry a knife for work, but NOT if you're a Sikh? Is that secular? Prohibiting the peaceful adherence to one's religion?

For anyone terrified by brown people in beards and turbans that can't be bothered to do their own research, Sikhism is fundamentally tolerant of other faiths and non-evangelical. The Sikhs I know are pretty chill, they don't even have to go to their temples regularly like most other religions mandate - they just go when they feel in need of spiritual guidance. Furthermore, strength and honour are a big part of the religion for some people - protecting and serving society at large, and defending the oppressed. That's why you see so many Sikhs in the police and army in the West. Their ceremonial dagger is a symbol of that belief, just as Catholics have their crucifixes - Not a means of intimidation or threat. Sikhism is, in fact, more tolerant than Christianity, than Islam, than Hinduism... I'd say on par with Buddhism. Of course there are assholes and extremists - every religion has them - but with Sikhism, I daresay they're more rare than other faiths. When Sikh men and women come of age, they adopt the last name "Singh" and "Kaur", which mean "Lion" and "Princess" respectively. I find that kind of poetic.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50983349]not sinning is religiously mandatory in the catholic church, marrying for life the same. (or was at some point... its a grey area but officially no pope said devorce is okay)[/QUOTE] What is baptism and confession? Catholicism revolves around you being born into sin. You clearly have no idea how the church functions and should probably stop hijacking it as a tool for your already erroneous argument.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51010060]For anyone terrified by brown people in beards and turbans that can't be bothered to do their own research, Sikhism is fundamentally tolerant of other faiths and non-evangelical. The Sikhs I know are pretty chill, they don't even have to go to their temples regularly like most other religions mandate - they just go when they feel in need of spiritual guidance. Furthermore, strength and honour are a big part of the religion for some people - protecting and serving society at large, and defending the oppressed. That's why you see so many Sikhs in the police and army in the West. Their ceremonial dagger is a symbol of that belief, just as Catholics have their crucifixes - Not a means of intimidation or threat. Sikhism is, in fact, more tolerant than Christianity, than Islam, than Hinduism... I'd say on par with Buddhism. Of course there are assholes and extremists - every religion has them - but with Sikhism, I daresay they're more rare than other faiths. When Sikh men and women come of age, they adopt the last name "Singh" and "Kaur", which mean "Lion" and "Princess" respectively. I find that kind of poetic.[/QUOTE] Sikhism is a really lovely religion. I was wondering this yesterday; how come it's not larger? Obviously there's a myriad of political reasons explaining the genealogy/transmission of religion but it's so upsetting that it's generally the less tolerant ones that see the widest adherence.

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;51009305]You are routinely misunderstanding the whole concept of a 'defence' in criminal law. Murder should be illegal no matter what - what about defences of diminished responsibility or insanity? Theft should be illegal regardless of circumstances- what about duress, or mistaken belief of ownership? Carrying a knife should be illegal no matter what your beliefs - what about the examples I have already given, of Scots national dress or using a knife for work? The law admits exceptions where it has been legislated. There is no legislated excuse for murdering another person, only the partial defences I reference above. There ARE defences to carrying knives, and being a Sikh is one of them. Would you rather you were allowed to carry a knife for work, but NOT if you're a Sikh? Is that secular? Prohibiting the peaceful adherence to one's religion?[/QUOTE] Id rather have objects be legal or not legal based on the secular merit, there is nothing inherently wrong with knives, so why should they be illegal? heck, they aren't illegal, carrying them openly is illegal... and the Sikhs shouldn't get a free pass on that based on religion.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51013331]Id rather have objects be legal or not legal based on the secular merit, there is nothing inherently wrong with knives, so why should they be illegal? heck, they aren't illegal, carrying them openly is illegal... and the Sikhs shouldn't get a free pass on that based on religion.[/QUOTE] But the Scots should, and warehouse workers should, and reenactors should?

It's really surprising when the CONSERVATIVE government of Britain is less conservative than its people. I guess Brexit showed this too. God help Britain. . .

So, basically, this poll's findings confirm that 2 out of 3 members of the British public are "feelings over facts" reactionaries when it comes to Muslims and extremism.

Who cares what you wear in public As long as it's not nothing or practically nothing I'm A-OK

[QUOTE=Bobie;51006232]its a long term decision, future generations would thank us for it.[/QUOTE] Really? Because I'm willing to bet future generations of Muslims would be more likely to resent the West for infringing on their religious expression and cause even more cultural division and violence than we have now. You cannot legislate away parts of a religion that you don't like.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;51015386]Really? Because I'm willing to bet future generations of Muslims would be more likely to resent the West for infringing on their religious expression and cause even more cultural division and violence than we have now. You cannot legislate away parts of a religion that you don't like.[/QUOTE] ya theres not many examples of it actually working, we got mormons and polygamy and some laws pertaining to Amish but thats about all i can think of outright. i still do think they should be banned in places with security concerns for the same reasons you cant wear certain things in those places as well, but im not for a full legislative ban even if i disagree with them

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;51015094]But the Scots should, and warehouse workers should, and reenactors should?[/QUOTE] no, no one should, if its illegal its illegal. if there are people that reasonably could have a use for it then it should be legal... no bullshit laws for one peoples and not for another.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51015435]no, no one should, if its illegal its illegal. if there are people that reasonably could have a use for it then it should be legal... no bullshit laws for one peoples and not for another.[/QUOTE] let me perform a logical extrapolation of your statement, here let's say the country has a law on the books where all people have to serve military [i]in combat duty[/i] (distinction from Israel for the sake of this hypothetical) said country has an exception for those who would not be properly capable of military combat duty if they applied your reasoning, the blind would have to pick up guns and serve on the front lines or face the repercussions of criminal behavior

You guys do know a hijab is a better alternative for something that doesnt cover your entire face? Some hardcore muslims might get offended but a hijab can do the same thing without hiding your identity. Stop with the "THAT'S RACIST" act because it's legit unneccessary.

[QUOTE=Robbobobobin;51007754]This is one of the things I loathe most about society: there is absolutely no attempt by the masses to see the world through other people's eyes. What do you really expect to happen to the muslim women who are already oppressed by being forced to adhere to modesty doctrines? Are they suddenly going to rebel against their families or are they more likely to become even more reclusive than they already are? Does the burqa offend you? Good; it should. It's a symbol of an oppressive, medieval religious practice with no place in a progressive society. It's upsetting that people are so devoid of empathy that they can't spare a minute to think about how banning a woman from wearing the only clothing she can in public would reduce them to a life of total exclusion. That's sure to help muslim women integrate with their wider communities! GREAT JOB![/QUOTE] your mistake here is that you think that banning the burka has any root in logic or thought at all - it's thinly veiled (no pun intended) xenophobia/islamaphobia and that's literally it - the fact that they're not suggesting we ban all clothing that could be used to hide your identity [I]but just the one that happens to be worn by a particular religion that is currently the political talking point of the decade[/I] is p.good evidence that the ban is motivated by the -phobias, not by any legitimate concerns [editline]8th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Ghost656;51019552] Stop with the "THAT'S RACIST" act because it's legit unneccessary.[/QUOTE] you know what's legit unnecessary banning an item of fucking clothing based on "security concerns" that just happen to never materialize with any other item of clothing if you think you're legitimately "liberating" muslim women, you're hamstrung by two basic facts 1) there are muslim women who choose to wear their religious clothing because [I]they want to[/I] 2) you think that you're going to solve the oppression of those women who [I]are[/I] being forced to wear it by a public ban, when the reality is that you're simply driving them further into seclusion because the source of that oppression IS STILL THERE (overly religious family/husband etc)

The idea that it's liberating Muslim women requires the idea that the majority of Muslim women in the west are oppressed by their husbands which requires the idea that just because a man is a Muslim then he is abusive to his wife. So yeah you're a bigot.