Supporting France's ban on the basis of being anti-religion is like supporting the KKK hanging a black guy from a tree, just because you're pro-death penalty.
The government of France is a paramilitary terrorist militia with a vague religiously-motivated genocidal agenda?
I'll bite the bullet and assert that states have a legitimate authority in shaping the nature of national, religious and cultural identity if the democratic polity so decides; obviously, the decisionmaking process should exercise caution, and the measures taken minimally intrusive where possible, but I think the legitimacy of any resulting relevant legislation here should not be considered invalid on the sole grounds of individual liberty.
To sketch the argument in principle, and I should emphasize that I do not wish to draw any far-fetched analogies here - modern states are complicated institutions that implicitly require that cultural expression fall within certain bounds; capitalism requires a carefully inculcated alienation and submission to private authority, secularism requires a maintained dissonance over how certain your religious convictions really are, welfare requires an moral identification with your poorer brethren, etc. It wasn't so terribly long ago that one's inherited career was a fundamental part of one's identity and self-conception but obviously modern economies would have a great deal of trouble working with this.
I don't think that the examples you use actually have any traction. After all, it is allowed in our society that one might reject the capitalist paradigm and move to a commune, and, further, that is exactly the sort of freedom the liberal writers cherish. It may be the case that were we not to have certain compassion, then we could not sustain a welfare program, but, fortunately, we do have such compassion, and as such we are willing to sustain a welfare program: as such a welfare program is consistent with our autonomous choice. Furthermore, far from family careers being dead and gone, many people do in fact take pride in their careers, and especially in careers that are familial, but this is perfectly consistent with liberalism and personal autonomy. What would be inconsistent with liberalism would be enforcing a caste system wherein labor options are closed off by birth: however, simply allowing people to make their family traditions, including the career, a central part of their lives is most certainly allowable. It is, again, exactly the sort of diversity in modes of life that liberal writers cherish.
There are a number of rationales for why we should have this sort of personal autonomy, and why your expansive view of state power must be wrong. The first, and perhaps most practical, is that people never actually agree on what the good life is, let alone which religion is correct. So if we want to live together in peace and never repeat the bloodbaths of the wars of religion, then we've got to figure out how to live and let live as much as possible. Second, and still rather practical, whatever the good life is, we do not really trust the state to figure it out--this is especially true if the good life varies from person to person. The best way of living possible is better left to the discovery of a marketplace of ideas where radically different conceptions are allowed to freely compete and prove themselves. Finally, perhaps a bit more abstractly, autonomy itself is valuable. Living the very best human life involves making free choices among competing conceptions of the good.
I think that, in fact, all of these arguments are good. So there is a superabundance of reasons to be a liberal political theorist, and as such, there is a superabundance of reasons to take the state to be limited in its legitimate intrusions into the individual's pursuit of happiness.
To pick an easy example - consider India. It is a deeply embedded cultural practice for families to favor sons; in a background where sons no longer die rapidly to conflict and disease, this is a problem. Infanticide is easy to ban but ultrasounds and sex-selective abortions are harder technologies to seal away. Obviously this doesn't weigh in favor of any imaginable intrusive intervention, but if the democratic government of an Indian state decided to punish sex-selective abortions, subsidize having daughters, or bombard new couples with progressive propaganda, I daresay it has every legitimate authority in doing so. We have some knowledge of what the institutions of a modern liberal state should look like. Why wait?
As far as I see, there are two ways to go for the liberal theorist.
1) The sex imbalance literally threatens the continued ability of the state to provide for the needs of its citizens. If this is so, then certain liberal values may have to give. John Stuart Mill and Rousseau, for instance, both think that there are certain populations which are simply not governable by liberal social systems--they are too conflict-torn, barbaric, intolerant, and ignorant to benefit from a liberal political framework. It may be that the population of India is one such population. That would be the case if the cultural value on having boys were such that it would literally destroy their society were it allowed to go on uninterfered with.
2) Sex-selective abortions should be legal. This, I have to say, strikes me as more plausible.
On the first point - yes, it is acceptable in the liberal developed world to reject the capitalist paradigm; my sense that this acceptability arises from the fact that doing so is resolutely fringe and likely to remain so. But being that our material welfare is dependent on people being amenable toward the capitalist mode of economic production, were this to threaten to become widespread, states that fail to reinforce an inculcated acquiescence would fare much worse than states that do, and I have no doubt that a post hoc popular outlook would condemn the former.
We associate recessions and depressions with great suffering but even very damaging recessions can entail only a few percentage points of national income lost. Normal unemployment is somewhere around 4%, 8% is a political crisis, 12% would be a national emergency - we are, as a society, materially sensitive to failures of modern institutions to deliver. In practice such failures are rare, of course, but this would be because liberal states have become extremely effective at acculturating their people into accepting the restrictions necessary for this to be the case. The social acceptance of the phenomenon of industrial unemployment and job search is hardly a natural instinct. Neither is alienation of labor. Nor mass compulsory education, at that. We do, in fact, close off some options at birth: you are not allowed to abandon formal education at the age of ten to apprentice yourself to your family career, even if you and your family are unanimous in this desire.
We willingly romanticize the inherited career but when labor demands that economic change halt so that an important element of their personal identity may continue to support their lifestyle - itself likely an element of their personal identity - society collectively shrugs and suggests a job search while on the dole; we may identify with our careers but by societal judgment we are not owed it. Our career is not, in fact, ours. Mass acceptance that one is entitled to an unemployment check but not employment is an engineered result of decades of bitter political strife, not self-evident natural law. We celebrate the historically ethnic neighborhood but when residents demand the right to manage who their new neighbors may acceptably be, we deny them that right, and instead demand that they accept that their neighborhood identity may be irrevocably altered through demographic shift and there is nothing there that is owed to them.
Inculcating the acceptance of all this - that these are things that you may consider yours or your individual perogative or responsibility, and those are not, regardless of their impact on your lifestyle or identity - is very much an artificial practice and the scope of said things has changed before and will probably change again. Don't make the mistake of internalizing this inculcation to the point where you mistake for the state of nature!
On the second - society does not need to be literally destroyed for there to be perceptibly undesirable changes, surely! Societies can tolerate a great deal of suffering before being plausibly said to be destroyed. And states can certainly continue to provide for their citizens despite said suffering simply by diminishing to a minimum level of provision. But if you would tolerate this over submitting to state-led cultural engineering, I daresay your requirement for giving up classical liberalism is too strict. Liberals make good citizens of a classically liberal state, but people are not generally born classically liberal; sometimes you will have to force the issue.
(My own tolerance for such illiberal paternalism is, I admit, probably higher than yours. I do think yours is implausibly low compared to what might be considered reasonable, though. We're both making ambitious extrapolations from some underlying instincts here, albeit in opposite directions)
This thread is depressing me; violation of individual rights for reasons of religious fundamentalism and bigotry are suprisingly widespread. "You're wrong, so I'm fine with the state forcing you to conform to what I know is right" is not a viewpoint I would expect to see so commonly.
We're talking about a pointless restriction of individual expression that does nothing to address serious social issues and will have a profoundly negative impact - and some people are fine with that because it attacks a religion, and fuck them? Seriously?
AR's views are pretty abhorrent, and I would guess I agree with large parts of his worldview. I wonder if 'everyday' Christians feel about the Westboro folks kind of how I feel about AR?
JihadJesus on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
AR's views are pretty abhorrent, and I would guess I agree with large parts of his worldview. I wonder if 'everyday' Christians feel about the Westboro folks kind of how I feel about AR?
Which parts are specifically abhorrent? Let's talk it out.
Atomika on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
You know, I was going to write a long diatribe, essentially focusing on cultural relativism and how a state has an inherent right to control the societal view of its people, provided that such a position was overwhelming the view of the populace and had no negative impact on a minority (I don't feel restricting a dress code in this instance would constitute a material negative impact in this instance).
That's not a path we want to go down. The state has the power to outlaw certain behaviors that impinge on the rights of others. Your statement implies that the state has the legitimate power to pass laws to change peoples' opinions, rather than just the power to punish people for acting on those beliefs in such a way that impinges on the rights of others.
In the case of women wearing a burqa, I'm hard-pressed to see how their beliefs regarding modesty and their expressions of such beliefs in any way impinge on the rights of others. The fact that someone lives their life in a manner that the majority disapproves of is not, in of itself, a legitimate reason for government to regulate said lifestyle. Plenty of people find things like homosexuality icky, and for a long time this discomfort with said lifestyle was the basis for legal restrictions on homosexuality.
Honestly, this is the exact sort of Big Government bullshit that people should be worried about. Banning the burqa because it's a symbol that may be a symptom of potential harm to a possible group of people (when the government banning it has already has serious problems with Islamophobia and xenophobia) just does not seem like a good idea. You ban shit that's actually harmful, not what might be harmful in a hypothetical context.
You know, I was going to write a long diatribe, essentially focusing on cultural relativism and how a state has an inherent right to control the societal view of its people, provided that such a position was overwhelming the view of the populace and had no negative impact on a minority (I don't feel restricting a dress code in this instance would constitute a material negative impact in this instance).
That's not a path we want to go down. The state has the power to outlaw certain behaviors that impinge on the rights of others. Your statement implies that the state has the legitimate power to pass laws to change peoples' opinions, rather than just the power to punish people for acting on those beliefs in such a way that impinges on the rights of others.
In the case of women wearing a burqa, I'm hard-pressed to see how their beliefs regarding modesty and their expressions of such beliefs in any way impinge on the rights of others. The fact that someone lives their life in a manner that the majority disapproves of is not, in of itself, a legitimate reason for government to regulate said lifestyle. Plenty of people find things like homosexuality icky, and for a long time this discomfort with said lifestyle was the basis for legal restrictions on homosexuality.
Honestly, this is the exact sort of Big Government bullshit that people should be worried about. Banning the burqa because it's a symbol that may be a symptom of potential harm to a possible group of people (when the government banning it has already has serious problems with Islamophobia and xenophobia) just does not seem like a good idea. You ban shit that's actually harmful, not what might be harmful in a hypothetical context.
Yes tyranny of the majority opinion is exactly why we have the first amendment in the US. Its not to protect popular speech or beliefs, quite the opposite actually. Also for the atheists on the board you should be glad that the current majority belief structure in america doesn't view the freedom of belief in the same way you currently do.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Also for the atheists on the board you should be glad that the current majority belief structure in america doesn't view the freedom of belief in the same way you currently do.
If the devout Christians majority believed in the immorality of trangenerational coercive thought, they probably wouldn't still be Christians.
Shockingly, if you don't single out a group they end up assimilating pretty well and then your general cultural values project onto theirs and replace the home culture.
Of course, if you do single out a group, you get problems and frequently radicalization.
Which is why I've quite openly been opposed throughout this thread to just about any special protection afforded to extreme religious expression, regardless of specific faith. Since my first post.
No you just prefer laws to persecute them.
Not "them," just their religions.
Faith *is* identity. Just like your non-faith is a key part of your identity, seeing as how you are the single most tribal person on these boards.
It may have something with me being an atheist as well (and effectively one from childhood, which is not as uncommon where I'm born), and my lousy insistence on bring up "past events" over and over, but I am reminded of Ross' part in the "isms in film" thread, when he so lovely summarized hundreds of years of Chinese culture in a few short sentences.
In my defense, I did preface the comment with the caveat, "As a jingoist Westerner,"
It was terse juxtaposition of cultural norms, not intended as an authoritative thesis.
Also for the atheists on the board you should be glad that the current majority belief structure in america doesn't view the freedom of belief in the same way you currently do.
If the devout Christians majority believed in the immorality of trangenerational coercive thought, they probably wouldn't still be Christians.
I doubt if anyone really believes in "the immorality of transgenerational coercive thought." If your kid came home from school and said, "Gays are yucky, they should make them leave the country" or "blacks are dumber than whites", wouldn't you correct the kid and teach him differently?
I remember a couple years back Turkey (I think it was Turkey) did something similar. And we had someone in the thread who was actually from Turkey come in and defend the ban basically saying "Turkey isn't America, you don't know what it's like here and trying to apply the same standards is asinine. This is the government's only option to try and push equality forward."
I want to agree with that sentiment, but at the same time I personally think the only thing that will be accomplished by the burqa ban is that muslim women will be forced by their husbands and male family members to stay in their houses at all times.
What I'm saying is, I don't know enough about the situation in France that led to the ban to speak intelligently about whether or not it's necessary, but I still wanted to post something.
I think people are misunderstanding why I keep mentioning that the law covers all garments covering the face and not just burqas. It is not meant as a defense of the law; rather, I am pointing out that rhetorically limiting the discussion to the burqa distorts the conversation.
There are many modes of veiling in Muslim communities, including the example I mentioned of professional women in Turkey veiling in public. That is done without outside pressure and provides these women safety and protection from the secular male gaze. This undermines the assertion that veiling is inherently repressive. In fact, it can be liberating.
Instead of imposing our reading of veiling on Muslim communities, we should join the dialogue within Muslim communities themselves. I know I'm repeating myself, but no one engaged on this point. Veiling is not a static concept; it is a point of dialogue between Muslim communities and modernity.
You ban shit that's actually harmful, not what might be harmful in a hypothetical context.
We ban things that are potentially harmful all the time and we also don't ban things that are harmful.
It is perfectly acceptable to be against the ban because you don't believe it will work, but to say countries that are not the US aren't allowed to on principle is just silly.
You ban shit that's actually harmful, not what might be harmful in a hypothetical context.
We ban things that are potentially harmful all the time and we also don't ban things that are harmful.
It is perfectly acceptable to be against the ban because you don't believe it will work, but to say countries that are not the US aren't allowed to on principle is just silly.
Name some, name something we ban that is equivelent to the face covering france is doing.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Also for the atheists on the board you should be glad that the current majority belief structure in america doesn't view the freedom of belief in the same way you currently do.
If the devout Christians majority believed in the immorality of trangenerational coercive thought, they probably wouldn't still be Christians.
There's a significant difference between raising your kids Southern Baptist, and the government requiring you to do so.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I think people are misunderstanding why I keep mentioning that the law covers all garments covering the face and not just burqas. It is not meant as a defense of the law; rather, I am pointing out that rhetorically limiting the discussion to the burqa distorts the conversation.
There are many modes of veiling in Muslim communities, including the example I mentioned of professional women in Turkey veiling in public. That is done without outside pressure and provides these women safety and protection from the secular male gaze. This undermines the assertion that veiling is inherently repressive. In fact, it can be liberating.
Instead of imposing our reading of veiling on Muslim communities, we should join the dialogue within Muslim communities themselves. I know I'm repeating myself, but no one engaged on this point. Veiling is not a static concept; it is a point of dialogue between Muslim communities and modernity.
There seems something intrinsically illiberal to suggest that if the problem is a male gaze, then the solution is for women to cover themselves up.
Dialogue does not, of course, mean that all perspectives are going to be equally valid.
ronya on
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
And I was just bringing this up because some people seem to think this is a case of muslimhate instead of the good old fashioned french religion-hate.
Maybe it's generic religion-hate to you. It's definitely Muslim-hate and immigrant-hate to the people supporting the ban in France. And France's habit of xenophobia is just as prolific their habit of being anti-religious. Just last year Sarkozy proposed stripping citizenship of any foreign-born French citizen convicted of a serious crime.
And such a measure isn't xenophobic by definition. I don't see why someone who comes to your country, commits some serious crime and is convicted shouldn't be kicked out of the country. The person has no inherent right to that citizenship, it's actually just a contract. (note that such proposals talk about people who already have citizenship of the country they were born in.)
Obviously there is also anti-immigrant sentiment behind it but different motivations supporting the same thing happens all the time and taking that into account isn't really helping.
I'm sure it's been said already, but I liken this to banning swimsuits that cover anything above the waist.
So, since there's some analogy-hate going on in this thread, I'll try to clarify.
Women in many cultures always keep their chest covered in public, while men aren't always expected to. I could throw out some reasons why women engage in the practice. It's just part of the culture they were raised in and so it feels appropriate and comfortable; on the same token, it would feel inappropriate and uncomfortable if they didn't. Many also probably are concerned about unwelcomed attention that they think they'd get if they flaunted the tradition.
You can also say that's it's nothing more than a result of men in their lives forcing them to feel shame about their gender and bodies, and thus oppressing them and causing them psychological harm.
I'm pretty sure that all of the above are equally as true or false, and for the same reasons, whether you're talking about a burqa or a woman's swimsuit. Which doesn't necessarily prove a point, but it makes me wonder how people (or Than) would feel about banning swimsuits that go above the navel.
You ban shit that's actually harmful, not what might be harmful in a hypothetical context.
We ban things that are potentially harmful all the time and we also don't ban things that are harmful.
It is perfectly acceptable to be against the ban because you don't believe it will work, but to say countries that are not the US aren't allowed to on principle is just silly.
Name some, name something we ban that is equivelent to the face covering france is doing.
It should be noted that a number of states in the US have similar laws banning the wearing of masks in public. They came about as anti-KKK laws. But, those laws can't Constitutionally be used to prevent someone from wearing a face covering for religious reasons (though this exception doesn't cover all circumstances, such as testifying in court).
The 1st Amendment requires reasonable accomodation for religious practices that might otherwise violate the law.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Supporting France's ban on the basis of being anti-religion is like supporting the KKK hanging a black guy from a tree, just because you're pro-death penalty.
The government of France is a paramilitary terrorist militia with a vague religiously-motivated genocidal agenda?
The government of France is using "anti-religion" as an element in part of a larger xenophobic movement. You're latching on to the anti-religion element as a basis for supporting the ban, as if that were what this was all about.
It's not.
If this were just about religion, then Sarkozy wouldn't be trying to strip French citizens of their rights on the basis of them being foreign-born. If this were just about religion, France wouldn't be raiding and deporting Romanian and Hungarian gypsies who are in the country legally. If this were just about religion, France wouldn't be talking about being overrun by "Polish plumbers" should Poland be allowed into the EU.
This ban isn't just about France being opposed to religion.
The KKK lynching blacks wasn't just about them supporting capital punishment.
You ban shit that's actually harmful, not what might be harmful in a hypothetical context.
We ban things that are potentially harmful all the time and we also don't ban things that are harmful.
It is perfectly acceptable to be against the ban because you don't believe it will work, but to say countries that are not the US aren't allowed to on principle is just silly.
Name some, name something we ban that is equivelent to the face covering france is doing.
It should be noted that a number of states in the US have similar laws banning the wearing of masks in public. They came about as anti-KKK laws. But, those laws can't Constitutionally be used to prevent someone from wearing a face covering for religious reasons (though this exception doesn't cover all circumstances, such as testifying in court).
The 1st Amendment requires reasonable accomodation for religious practices that might otherwise violate the law.
So not equivelent because there is a religious exemption. Ok thanks.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Also for the atheists on the board you should be glad that the current majority belief structure in america doesn't view the freedom of belief in the same way you currently do.
If the devout Christians majority believed in the immorality of trangenerational coercive thought, they probably wouldn't still be Christians.
There's a significant difference between raising your kids Southern Baptist, and the government requiring you to do so.
I think the proper analogous end to that sentence would be "the government preventing you from doing so."
We're not talking about a government condoning lop-sided religious coercion, we're talking about them getting in-between the religious and their self-expression.
I think people are misunderstanding why I keep mentioning that the law covers all garments covering the face and not just burqas. It is not meant as a defense of the law; rather, I am pointing out that rhetorically limiting the discussion to the burqa distorts the conversation.
There are many modes of veiling in Muslim communities, including the example I mentioned of professional women in Turkey veiling in public. That is done without outside pressure and provides these women safety and protection from the secular male gaze. This undermines the assertion that veiling is inherently repressive. In fact, it can be liberating.
Instead of imposing our reading of veiling on Muslim communities, we should join the dialogue within Muslim communities themselves. I know I'm repeating myself, but no one engaged on this point. Veiling is not a static concept; it is a point of dialogue between Muslim communities and modernity.
There seems something intrinsically illiberal to suggest that if the problem if a male gaze, then the solution is for women to cover themselves up.
Dialogue does not, of course, mean that all perspectives are going to be equally valid.
Theoretically and idealistically, I agree with you. However, think about how the male gaze permeates American society. Is it more realistic in the short-term to change male behavior or to allow women to protect themselves in comfortable ways?
Women do this in a variety of culturally specific ways. Veiling is, in this context, little different than wearing a big sweatshirt and no makeup.
As for your point about dialogue, France is rendering the Muslim community speechless. The government is shutting off all discussion and using the force of the state to persecute a minority for its mode of dress. The majority is imposing its own reading of a particular custom, a terribly flawed reading imho, and using said reading to justify an equally flawed law. If France's ultimate goal is to incorporate Muslims into greater French society, it is shooting itself in the foot. Persecution does not create integration, it creates alienation.
You ban shit that's actually harmful, not what might be harmful in a hypothetical context.
We ban things that are potentially harmful all the time and we also don't ban things that are harmful.
It is perfectly acceptable to be against the ban because you don't believe it will work, but to say countries that are not the US aren't allowed to on principle is just silly.
Name some, name something we ban that is equivelent to the face covering france is doing.
It should be noted that a number of states in the US have similar laws banning the wearing of masks in public. They came about as anti-KKK laws. But, those laws can't Constitutionally be used to prevent someone from wearing a face covering for religious reasons (though this exception doesn't cover all circumstances, such as testifying in court).
The 1st Amendment requires reasonable accomodation for religious practices that might otherwise violate the law.
So not equivelent because there is a religious exemption. Ok thanks.
That's correct. This French law is pretty clearly aimed at a particular minority group, rather than being a neutral, secular public safety law with reasonable exemptions for religion.
IIRC, doesn't this law exempt things like carnival masks?
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Also for the atheists on the board you should be glad that the current majority belief structure in america doesn't view the freedom of belief in the same way you currently do.
If the devout Christians majority believed in the immorality of trangenerational coercive thought, they probably wouldn't still be Christians.
I doubt if anyone really believes in "the immorality of transgenerational coercive thought." If your kid came home from school and said, "Gays are yucky, they should make them leave the country" or "blacks are dumber than whites", wouldn't you correct the kid and teach him differently?
This makes the assumption that tolerance is a two-way street, which is isn't.
Tolerance isn't coercive unless the contested party/act is also coercive. The only thing tolerance doesn't tolerate is intolerance, which is what coercive religious thought generally is.
That's correct. This French law is pretty clearly aimed at a particular minority group, rather than being a neutral, secular public safety law with reasonable exemptions for religion.
IIRC, doesn't this law exempt things like carnival masks?
Wouldn't surprise me, France has been pretty anti muslim, its not like these changes have occured in the vaccum that supporters would want to believe. Its not even directly about being muslim, more about immigrants.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Also for the atheists on the board you should be glad that the current majority belief structure in america doesn't view the freedom of belief in the same way you currently do.
If the devout Christians majority believed in the immorality of trangenerational coercive thought, they probably wouldn't still be Christians.
...I'm not even sure what you're responding to here.
He's saying you've shown a tendancy to be completely fine with using the power of the state to restrict freedom of religious expression, even without any pressing direct need in response to violation of more basic rights, as long as it's religious expression you don't agree with.
He's also saying that this is incredibly ironic, because there's basically no more reviled religious minority in the US than atheists - you know, you. And that as a corollary, you're damn lucky that public opinion towards minority religious expression that they don't personally agree with differs widely from your own or the very basic views you hold and your ability to express them would almost certainly be severly constrained.
This is also, incidentally, what I find reprehensible about your views in this thread. You're prefectly okay with using the state to restrict beliefs that aren't yours simply because you don't hold them and you're right so fuck them. That's a far, far more harmful belief for a liberal society than thinking that the Almighty Sky Father loves us.
JihadJesus on
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
You ban shit that's actually harmful, not what might be harmful in a hypothetical context.
We ban things that are potentially harmful all the time and we also don't ban things that are harmful.
It is perfectly acceptable to be against the ban because you don't believe it will work, but to say countries that are not the US aren't allowed to on principle is just silly.
Name some, name something we ban that is equivelent to the face covering france is doing.
Why the fuck would it have to be equivalent? But guns and drugs come to mind for example. And safety-belt laws and bans on public indecency and thousands of other things that are not necessarily harmful.
You can argue that the burqa isn't harmful but that's something completely different from saying that even if it could be harmful it shouldn't be banned because we never do that.
Also for the atheists on the board you should be glad that the current majority belief structure in america doesn't view the freedom of belief in the same way you currently do.
If the devout Christians majority believed in the immorality of trangenerational coercive thought, they probably wouldn't still be Christians.
...I'm not even sure what you're responding to here.
He's saying you've shown a tendancy to be completely fine with using the power of the state to restrict freedom of religious expression, even without any pressing direct need in response to violation of more basic rights, as long as it's religious expression you don't agree with.
He's also saying that this is incredibly ironic, because there's basically no more reviled religious minority in the US than atheists - you know, you. And that as a corollary, you're damn lucky that public opinion towards minority religious expression that they don't personally agree with differs widely from your own or the very basic views you hold and your ability to express them would almost certainly be severly constrained.
This is also, incidentally, what I find reprehensible about your views in this thread. You're prefectly okay with using the state to restrict beliefs that aren't yours simply because you don't hold them and you're right so fuck them. That's a far, far more harmful belief for a liberal society than thinking that the Almighty Sky Father loves us.
Further irony: This is the kind of atheism that Christians demonize. "War on Christmas" and whatnot. Oh, and how fantastically intolerant this virulent strain of atheism is.
Happily, America protects expression of religious belief and non-belief. If AR's repressive paradise actually happened, it is atheists (myself included) who would bear the worst of it.
Also for the atheists on the board you should be glad that the current majority belief structure in america doesn't view the freedom of belief in the same way you currently do.
If the devout Christians majority believed in the immorality of trangenerational coercive thought, they probably wouldn't still be Christians.
There's a significant difference between raising your kids Southern Baptist, and the government requiring you to do so.
I think the proper analogous end to that sentence would be "the government preventing you from doing so."
We're not talking about a government condoning lop-sided religious coercion, we're talking about them getting in-between the religious and their self-expression.
From the perspective of infringing on religious rights, there's no real difference between government forcing you to raise your kids Baptist and forbidding same.
This is an old and ugly road. Governments have been banning/forcing various religions and religious expression as long as there have been governments and religions. We're fortunate that we live in a time and place where such power has mostly been taken away from government. Often, at gunpoint.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Also for the atheists on the board you should be glad that the current majority belief structure in america doesn't view the freedom of belief in the same way you currently do.
If the devout Christians majority believed in the immorality of trangenerational coercive thought, they probably wouldn't still be Christians.
...I'm not even sure what you're responding to here.
He's saying you've shown a tendancy to be completely fine with using the power of the state to restrict freedom of religious expression, even without any pressing direct need in response to violation of more basic rights, as long as it's religious expression you don't agree with.
He's also saying that this is incredibly ironic, because there's basically no more reviled religious minority in the US than atheists - you know, you. And that as a corollary, you're damn lucky that public opinion towards minority religious expression that they don't personally agree with differs widely from your own or the very basic views you hold and your ability to express them would almost certainly be severly constrained.
This is also, incidentally, what I find reprehensible about your views in this thread. You're prefectly okay with using the state to restrict beliefs that aren't yours simply because you don't hold them and you're right so fuck them. That's a far, far more harmful belief for a liberal society than thinking that the Almighty Sky Father loves us.
I don't feel I can in good faith continue arguing these points if you are insistant upon labeling the large umbrella of anti-theists as members of a religion.
And I don't think I've explicitly stated a desire for any specific belief to be restricted here any moreso than hurtful outward expressions. I'm not advocating the abolishment of religious belief nor one's self-expression of it. Only public displays of misogyny/abuse are the things I vaguely advocate restricting, and that on a specfically case-by-case basis.
Don't get worked up by oversimplifying my position. I've got a little nuance in my rhetoric, and it's purposeful.
You ban shit that's actually harmful, not what might be harmful in a hypothetical context.
We ban things that are potentially harmful all the time and we also don't ban things that are harmful.
It is perfectly acceptable to be against the ban because you don't believe it will work, but to say countries that are not the US aren't allowed to on principle is just silly.
Name some, name something we ban that is equivelent to the face covering france is doing.
Why the fuck would it have to be equivalent? But guns and drugs come to mind for example. And safety-belt laws and bans on public indecency and thousands of other things that are not necessarily harmful.
You can argue that the burqa isn't harmful but that's something completely different from saying that even if it could be harmful it shouldn't be banned because we never do that.
Because that's patently false.
So guns which can kill, drugs which can also kill, safety belts which prevent loss of life or increased injury, and public indeceny which isn't banning clothing but the opposite. So none of your examples come close to this one nor are they directly targetting one religious or immigrant group over others (save nudists possibly with indeceny laws).
And I literally can not understand the bolded sentence, like I understand the words, but I have no idea what you are trying to say there.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Why the fuck would it have to be equivalent? But guns and drugs come to mind for example. And safety-belt laws and bans on public indecency and thousands of other things that are not necessarily harmful.
All of those involve clear physical harm being prevented that have nothing to do with reasons for doing drugs or using guns.
The KKK law is an example of a law clearly aimed at fighting a violent terrorist organization that used masks to hide the identity of its members instead of as part of nonviolent speech. There was a clear connection between the ban and the harm.
I'm sure it's been said already, but I liken this to banning swimsuits that cover anything above the waist.
So, since there's some analogy-hate going on in this thread, I'll try to clarify.
Women in many cultures always keep their chest covered in public, while men aren't always expected to. I could throw out some reasons why women engage in the practice. It's just part of the culture they were raised in and so it feels appropriate and comfortable; on the same token, it would feel inappropriate and uncomfortable if they didn't. Many also probably are concerned about unwelcomed attention that they think they'd get if they flaunted the tradition.
You can also say that's it's nothing more than a result of men in their lives forcing them to feel shame about their gender and bodies, and thus oppressing them and causing them psychological harm.
I'm pretty sure that all of the above are equally as true or false, and for the same reasons, whether you're talking about a burqa or a woman's swimsuit. Which doesn't necessarily prove a point, but it makes me wonder how people (or Than) would feel about banning swimsuits that go above the navel.
I would also add that there are a lot of old Arabic poems is which characters talk about how beautiful aspects of other characters' wives or sisters with exactly the same implication as there would be in a modern western movie that featured one character telling another character how soft the latter wife's breasts are.
And I was just bringing this up because some people seem to think this is a case of muslimhate instead of the good old fashioned french religion-hate.
Maybe it's generic religion-hate to you. It's definitely Muslim-hate and immigrant-hate to the people supporting the ban in France. And France's habit of xenophobia is just as prolific their habit of being anti-religious. Just last year Sarkozy proposed stripping citizenship of any foreign-born French citizen convicted of a serious crime.
And such a measure isn't xenophobic by definition. I don't see why someone who comes to your country, commits some serious crime and is convicted shouldn't be kicked out of the country. The person has no inherent right to that citizenship, it's actually just a contract. (note that such proposals talk about people who already have citizenship of the country they were born in.)
It's xenophobic when the same stripping of citizenship is not proposed for native-born French who commit the same crimes. These are not simply legal immigrants we're talking about, these are full French citizens.
The ideals of the French Revolution held that ALL French were equal. In fact, this is the exact reason Sarkozy gives for opposing affirmative action measures, that all French are equal and none should get special privileges.
And then he turns right around and says that native-born French criminals should have the special privilege of not having their citizenship stripped, while foreign-born French criminals should not possess the same.
And I don't think I've explicitly stated a desire for any specific belief to be restricted here any moreso than hurtful outward expressions. I'm not advocating the abolishment of religious belief nor one's self-expression of it. Only public displays of misogyny/abuse are the things I vaguely advocate restricting, and that on a specfically case-by-case basis.
The thing is you can't seem capable of comprehending that these things aren't inherently abusive.
Anyway right or wrong aside, the law will do jack shit to actually solve a problem.
Styrofoam Sammich on
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
You ban shit that's actually harmful, not what might be harmful in a hypothetical context.
We ban things that are potentially harmful all the time and we also don't ban things that are harmful.
It is perfectly acceptable to be against the ban because you don't believe it will work, but to say countries that are not the US aren't allowed to on principle is just silly.
Name some, name something we ban that is equivelent to the face covering france is doing.
It should be noted that a number of states in the US have similar laws banning the wearing of masks in public. They came about as anti-KKK laws. But, those laws can't Constitutionally be used to prevent someone from wearing a face covering for religious reasons (though this exception doesn't cover all circumstances, such as testifying in court).
The 1st Amendment requires reasonable accomodation for religious practices that might otherwise violate the law.
So not equivelent because there is a religious exemption. Ok thanks.
That's correct. This French law is pretty clearly aimed at a particular minority group, rather than being a neutral, secular public safety law with reasonable exemptions for religion.
IIRC, doesn't this law exempt things like carnival masks?
Exceptions to the ban include the covering of one's face with a motorcycle helmet, sunglasses, a bandage, a welding mask, a fencing mask or a fancy dress mask.
Which includes carnival masks. Also one woman has already been freed from oppression via the fine. Being $250 poorer will surely make her feel that much more free.
Sarkozy does support support the traditional "secularism" crap.
In 2004 Sarkozy co-authored a book, La République, les religions, l'espérance (The Republic, Religions, and Hope),[103] in which he argued that the young should not be brought up solely on secular or republican values. He advocated reducing the separation of church and state, arguing for the government subsidy of mosques in order to encourage Islamic integration into French society.[104] He opposes financing of religious institutions with funds from outside France. After meeting with Tom Cruise, Sarkozy was criticised by some for meeting with a member of the Church of Scientology, which is classified as a cult (secte translates to "cult") in France (see Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France).[105] Sarkozy stated that "the roots of France are essentially Christian" at December 2007 speech in Rome. He called Islam "one of the greatest and most beautiful civilizations the world has known" at a speech in Riyadh in January 2008. Both comments drew criticism from Christians.[106]
His new found appreciation for France's secular culture is a load of shit.
Last week, a debate on the place of Islam in a secular France failed to produce any tangible results, besides sparking outrage among moderates. Intolerant remarks on immigration made by Interior Minister Claude Gueant, who said that French people "no longer feel at home" and that immigration is "out of control," suggest that the president's party is pushing a right-wing agenda to retain its supporters and counter the rise of the extreme right Front National.
IBT: Is Sarkozy somehow trying to consolidate his support among France’s far-right ahead of next year’s presidential elections?
ACHILOV: Yes, indeed. Undoubtedly, Islam and immigration will be two key issues in the French Presidential elections of 2012. Sarkozy and his center-right (UMP) party are not doing well. According to recent polls, Sarkozy’s party is losing ground to a far-right National Front party. Therefore, Sarkozy has brought more debates on Islam to appeal to French voters.
Couscous on
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
You ban shit that's actually harmful, not what might be harmful in a hypothetical context.
We ban things that are potentially harmful all the time and we also don't ban things that are harmful.
It is perfectly acceptable to be against the ban because you don't believe it will work, but to say countries that are not the US aren't allowed to on principle is just silly.
Name some, name something we ban that is equivelent to the face covering france is doing.
Why the fuck would it have to be equivalent? But guns and drugs come to mind for example. And safety-belt laws and bans on public indecency and thousands of other things that are not necessarily harmful.
You can argue that the burqa isn't harmful but that's something completely different from saying that even if it could be harmful it shouldn't be banned because we never do that.
Because that's patently false.
So guns which can kill, drugs which can also kill, safety belts which prevent loss of life or increased injury, and public indeceny which isn't banning clothing but the opposite. So none of your examples come close to this one nor are they directly targetting one religious or immigrant group over others (save nudists possibly with indeceny laws).
Seriously, this is the second time that someone starts asking for examples without actually understanding the point I was making.
The point is that potential harm is good enough reason to ban something. Drugs don't kill people all the time, or even most of the time, but they are still banned because they can cause harm to some people.
Those who use drugs without a problem have to sacrifice to protect those who can't use drugs without problem.
Now the fact that these examples aren't totally equivalent because they're all far more harmful than a burqa is utterly and completely besides the point.
Now if Fencingsax had said: "The decision to ban something is based on a complex process where we take into account various things and such a thing can't really be explained by a simple rule of harmful vs non-harmful"
then I would've said nothing.
Posts
The government of France is a paramilitary terrorist militia with a vague religiously-motivated genocidal agenda?
On the first point - yes, it is acceptable in the liberal developed world to reject the capitalist paradigm; my sense that this acceptability arises from the fact that doing so is resolutely fringe and likely to remain so. But being that our material welfare is dependent on people being amenable toward the capitalist mode of economic production, were this to threaten to become widespread, states that fail to reinforce an inculcated acquiescence would fare much worse than states that do, and I have no doubt that a post hoc popular outlook would condemn the former.
We associate recessions and depressions with great suffering but even very damaging recessions can entail only a few percentage points of national income lost. Normal unemployment is somewhere around 4%, 8% is a political crisis, 12% would be a national emergency - we are, as a society, materially sensitive to failures of modern institutions to deliver. In practice such failures are rare, of course, but this would be because liberal states have become extremely effective at acculturating their people into accepting the restrictions necessary for this to be the case. The social acceptance of the phenomenon of industrial unemployment and job search is hardly a natural instinct. Neither is alienation of labor. Nor mass compulsory education, at that. We do, in fact, close off some options at birth: you are not allowed to abandon formal education at the age of ten to apprentice yourself to your family career, even if you and your family are unanimous in this desire.
We willingly romanticize the inherited career but when labor demands that economic change halt so that an important element of their personal identity may continue to support their lifestyle - itself likely an element of their personal identity - society collectively shrugs and suggests a job search while on the dole; we may identify with our careers but by societal judgment we are not owed it. Our career is not, in fact, ours. Mass acceptance that one is entitled to an unemployment check but not employment is an engineered result of decades of bitter political strife, not self-evident natural law. We celebrate the historically ethnic neighborhood but when residents demand the right to manage who their new neighbors may acceptably be, we deny them that right, and instead demand that they accept that their neighborhood identity may be irrevocably altered through demographic shift and there is nothing there that is owed to them.
Inculcating the acceptance of all this - that these are things that you may consider yours or your individual perogative or responsibility, and those are not, regardless of their impact on your lifestyle or identity - is very much an artificial practice and the scope of said things has changed before and will probably change again. Don't make the mistake of internalizing this inculcation to the point where you mistake for the state of nature!
On the second - society does not need to be literally destroyed for there to be perceptibly undesirable changes, surely! Societies can tolerate a great deal of suffering before being plausibly said to be destroyed. And states can certainly continue to provide for their citizens despite said suffering simply by diminishing to a minimum level of provision. But if you would tolerate this over submitting to state-led cultural engineering, I daresay your requirement for giving up classical liberalism is too strict. Liberals make good citizens of a classically liberal state, but people are not generally born classically liberal; sometimes you will have to force the issue.
(My own tolerance for such illiberal paternalism is, I admit, probably higher than yours. I do think yours is implausibly low compared to what might be considered reasonable, though. We're both making ambitious extrapolations from some underlying instincts here, albeit in opposite directions)
We're talking about a pointless restriction of individual expression that does nothing to address serious social issues and will have a profoundly negative impact - and some people are fine with that because it attacks a religion, and fuck them? Seriously?
AR's views are pretty abhorrent, and I would guess I agree with large parts of his worldview. I wonder if 'everyday' Christians feel about the Westboro folks kind of how I feel about AR?
Which parts are specifically abhorrent? Let's talk it out.
Honestly, this is the exact sort of Big Government bullshit that people should be worried about. Banning the burqa because it's a symbol that may be a symptom of potential harm to a possible group of people (when the government banning it has already has serious problems with Islamophobia and xenophobia) just does not seem like a good idea. You ban shit that's actually harmful, not what might be harmful in a hypothetical context.
Yes tyranny of the majority opinion is exactly why we have the first amendment in the US. Its not to protect popular speech or beliefs, quite the opposite actually. Also for the atheists on the board you should be glad that the current majority belief structure in america doesn't view the freedom of belief in the same way you currently do.
pleasepaypreacher.net
If the devout Christians majority believed in the immorality of trangenerational coercive thought, they probably wouldn't still be Christians.
So it wasn't intended to be a factual statement?
I doubt if anyone really believes in "the immorality of transgenerational coercive thought." If your kid came home from school and said, "Gays are yucky, they should make them leave the country" or "blacks are dumber than whites", wouldn't you correct the kid and teach him differently?
I want to agree with that sentiment, but at the same time I personally think the only thing that will be accomplished by the burqa ban is that muslim women will be forced by their husbands and male family members to stay in their houses at all times.
What I'm saying is, I don't know enough about the situation in France that led to the ban to speak intelligently about whether or not it's necessary, but I still wanted to post something.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
There are many modes of veiling in Muslim communities, including the example I mentioned of professional women in Turkey veiling in public. That is done without outside pressure and provides these women safety and protection from the secular male gaze. This undermines the assertion that veiling is inherently repressive. In fact, it can be liberating.
Instead of imposing our reading of veiling on Muslim communities, we should join the dialogue within Muslim communities themselves. I know I'm repeating myself, but no one engaged on this point. Veiling is not a static concept; it is a point of dialogue between Muslim communities and modernity.
We ban things that are potentially harmful all the time and we also don't ban things that are harmful.
It is perfectly acceptable to be against the ban because you don't believe it will work, but to say countries that are not the US aren't allowed to on principle is just silly.
Name some, name something we ban that is equivelent to the face covering france is doing.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Rigorous Scholarship
There seems something intrinsically illiberal to suggest that if the problem is a male gaze, then the solution is for women to cover themselves up.
Dialogue does not, of course, mean that all perspectives are going to be equally valid.
And such a measure isn't xenophobic by definition. I don't see why someone who comes to your country, commits some serious crime and is convicted shouldn't be kicked out of the country. The person has no inherent right to that citizenship, it's actually just a contract. (note that such proposals talk about people who already have citizenship of the country they were born in.)
Obviously there is also anti-immigrant sentiment behind it but different motivations supporting the same thing happens all the time and taking that into account isn't really helping.
Women in many cultures always keep their chest covered in public, while men aren't always expected to. I could throw out some reasons why women engage in the practice. It's just part of the culture they were raised in and so it feels appropriate and comfortable; on the same token, it would feel inappropriate and uncomfortable if they didn't. Many also probably are concerned about unwelcomed attention that they think they'd get if they flaunted the tradition.
You can also say that's it's nothing more than a result of men in their lives forcing them to feel shame about their gender and bodies, and thus oppressing them and causing them psychological harm.
I'm pretty sure that all of the above are equally as true or false, and for the same reasons, whether you're talking about a burqa or a woman's swimsuit. Which doesn't necessarily prove a point, but it makes me wonder how people (or Than) would feel about banning swimsuits that go above the navel.
The 1st Amendment requires reasonable accomodation for religious practices that might otherwise violate the law.
Rigorous Scholarship
The government of France is using "anti-religion" as an element in part of a larger xenophobic movement. You're latching on to the anti-religion element as a basis for supporting the ban, as if that were what this was all about.
It's not.
If this were just about religion, then Sarkozy wouldn't be trying to strip French citizens of their rights on the basis of them being foreign-born. If this were just about religion, France wouldn't be raiding and deporting Romanian and Hungarian gypsies who are in the country legally. If this were just about religion, France wouldn't be talking about being overrun by "Polish plumbers" should Poland be allowed into the EU.
This ban isn't just about France being opposed to religion.
The KKK lynching blacks wasn't just about them supporting capital punishment.
So not equivelent because there is a religious exemption. Ok thanks.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I think the proper analogous end to that sentence would be "the government preventing you from doing so."
We're not talking about a government condoning lop-sided religious coercion, we're talking about them getting in-between the religious and their self-expression.
Theoretically and idealistically, I agree with you. However, think about how the male gaze permeates American society. Is it more realistic in the short-term to change male behavior or to allow women to protect themselves in comfortable ways?
Women do this in a variety of culturally specific ways. Veiling is, in this context, little different than wearing a big sweatshirt and no makeup.
As for your point about dialogue, France is rendering the Muslim community speechless. The government is shutting off all discussion and using the force of the state to persecute a minority for its mode of dress. The majority is imposing its own reading of a particular custom, a terribly flawed reading imho, and using said reading to justify an equally flawed law. If France's ultimate goal is to incorporate Muslims into greater French society, it is shooting itself in the foot. Persecution does not create integration, it creates alienation.
IIRC, doesn't this law exempt things like carnival masks?
Rigorous Scholarship
This makes the assumption that tolerance is a two-way street, which is isn't.
Tolerance isn't coercive unless the contested party/act is also coercive. The only thing tolerance doesn't tolerate is intolerance, which is what coercive religious thought generally is.
Wouldn't surprise me, France has been pretty anti muslim, its not like these changes have occured in the vaccum that supporters would want to believe. Its not even directly about being muslim, more about immigrants.
pleasepaypreacher.net
He's saying you've shown a tendancy to be completely fine with using the power of the state to restrict freedom of religious expression, even without any pressing direct need in response to violation of more basic rights, as long as it's religious expression you don't agree with.
He's also saying that this is incredibly ironic, because there's basically no more reviled religious minority in the US than atheists - you know, you. And that as a corollary, you're damn lucky that public opinion towards minority religious expression that they don't personally agree with differs widely from your own or the very basic views you hold and your ability to express them would almost certainly be severly constrained.
This is also, incidentally, what I find reprehensible about your views in this thread. You're prefectly okay with using the state to restrict beliefs that aren't yours simply because you don't hold them and you're right so fuck them. That's a far, far more harmful belief for a liberal society than thinking that the Almighty Sky Father loves us.
Why the fuck would it have to be equivalent? But guns and drugs come to mind for example. And safety-belt laws and bans on public indecency and thousands of other things that are not necessarily harmful.
You can argue that the burqa isn't harmful but that's something completely different from saying that even if it could be harmful it shouldn't be banned because we never do that.
Because that's patently false.
Further irony: This is the kind of atheism that Christians demonize. "War on Christmas" and whatnot. Oh, and how fantastically intolerant this virulent strain of atheism is.
Happily, America protects expression of religious belief and non-belief. If AR's repressive paradise actually happened, it is atheists (myself included) who would bear the worst of it.
This is an old and ugly road. Governments have been banning/forcing various religions and religious expression as long as there have been governments and religions. We're fortunate that we live in a time and place where such power has mostly been taken away from government. Often, at gunpoint.
Rigorous Scholarship
I don't feel I can in good faith continue arguing these points if you are insistant upon labeling the large umbrella of anti-theists as members of a religion.
And I don't think I've explicitly stated a desire for any specific belief to be restricted here any moreso than hurtful outward expressions. I'm not advocating the abolishment of religious belief nor one's self-expression of it. Only public displays of misogyny/abuse are the things I vaguely advocate restricting, and that on a specfically case-by-case basis.
Don't get worked up by oversimplifying my position. I've got a little nuance in my rhetoric, and it's purposeful.
So guns which can kill, drugs which can also kill, safety belts which prevent loss of life or increased injury, and public indeceny which isn't banning clothing but the opposite. So none of your examples come close to this one nor are they directly targetting one religious or immigrant group over others (save nudists possibly with indeceny laws).
And I literally can not understand the bolded sentence, like I understand the words, but I have no idea what you are trying to say there.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The KKK law is an example of a law clearly aimed at fighting a violent terrorist organization that used masks to hide the identity of its members instead of as part of nonviolent speech. There was a clear connection between the ban and the harm.
I would also add that there are a lot of old Arabic poems is which characters talk about how beautiful aspects of other characters' wives or sisters with exactly the same implication as there would be in a modern western movie that featured one character telling another character how soft the latter wife's breasts are.
It's xenophobic when the same stripping of citizenship is not proposed for native-born French who commit the same crimes. These are not simply legal immigrants we're talking about, these are full French citizens.
The ideals of the French Revolution held that ALL French were equal. In fact, this is the exact reason Sarkozy gives for opposing affirmative action measures, that all French are equal and none should get special privileges.
And then he turns right around and says that native-born French criminals should have the special privilege of not having their citizenship stripped, while foreign-born French criminals should not possess the same.
The thing is you can't seem capable of comprehending that these things aren't inherently abusive.
Anyway right or wrong aside, the law will do jack shit to actually solve a problem.
Which includes carnival masks. Also one woman has already been freed from oppression via the fine. Being $250 poorer will surely make her feel that much more free.
pleasepaypreacher.net
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110411-709092.html
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/134346/20110414/france-burqa-nijab-ban-veil.htm
Seriously, this is the second time that someone starts asking for examples without actually understanding the point I was making.
The point is that potential harm is good enough reason to ban something. Drugs don't kill people all the time, or even most of the time, but they are still banned because they can cause harm to some people.
Those who use drugs without a problem have to sacrifice to protect those who can't use drugs without problem.
Now the fact that these examples aren't totally equivalent because they're all far more harmful than a burqa is utterly and completely besides the point.
Now if Fencingsax had said: "The decision to ban something is based on a complex process where we take into account various things and such a thing can't really be explained by a simple rule of harmful vs non-harmful"
then I would've said nothing.