I never understood the argument that the wearing of a veil in some way obstructs communication. If that were the case it wouldn't be as easy as it is to conduct business by phone. On top of that, I spent most of my time when outdoors during the UK's recent cold snap with my face covered. I didn't notice any particular difficulty getting anything done.
I won't deny that it is indicative of an oppressive culture, but it's a symptom, not a cause.
Just business business? Because it is much harder to communicate over a phone in regards to any kind of emotional topic then it is in person. We rely upon various subtle social clues that get lost over the phone or when your face is covered. I'm sure one of the sociologists here have a link on the effect.
Well, generally I was assuming we were talking about day-to-day stuff, not deep-emotional-connection kind of stuff. What sort of thing are you referring to?
Well, generally I was assuming we were talking about day-to-day stuff, not deep-emotional-connection kind of stuff. What sort of thing are you referring to?
Well even the very most basic elements. Let's say I make a joke, or say hi. It is much harder for me to know if the other person is smiling. It seems like such a silly thing, but it will throw you off.
Ha! Take that middle eastern French apologists! I've always known tying yourself to those racist idiots was a losing ticket.
What? There are Middle Eastern French apologists? That's like being a KKK Black Apologist
Does not fucking compute
I've always argued against the veil by just arguing against it. There many middle eastern liberals who argue against it, and argue for other good things, but for some reason can't help but add a "like the French, and Europeans" clause into every argument. "The freedom to do blah, like the French. And they're doing just fine!" How are those writers looking now, with all the choices that the French offer? They look like idiots. Who doesn't like an idiot? Elki, because Elki always shit on the French.
so, if the veil is a symbol of oppression, how does forcing them to remove it make them less oppressed?
wouldn't forcing them to violate their own religious beliefs actually just be another form of oppression?
if there are any genuine problems of sexism, misogyny, and the oppression of women in Islam and in Islamic nations - and there are - then how is this at all helpful, rather than a superficial gesture that is actually racist and intolerant?
The ban is wrong for a number of reasons (such as your aformentioned point about restricting services to muslim women), but lets not go around pretending they're anything but a terrible cultural practice.
Leitner isn't arguing for the ban.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Ha! Take that middle eastern French apologists! I've always known tying yourself to those racist idiots was a losing ticket.
What? There are Middle Eastern French apologists? That's like being a KKK Black Apologist
Does not fucking compute
I've always argued against the veil by just arguing against it. There many middle eastern liberals who argue against it, and argue for other good things, but for some reason can't help but add a "like the French, and Europeans" clause into every argument. "The freedom to do blah, like the French. And they're doing just fine!" How are those writers looking now, with all the choices that the French offer? They look like idiots. Who doesn't like an idiot? Elki, because Elki always shit on the French.
+1
Ohh yes, I'm liking this news now. Not because I argue anything related to this topic but I'm so sick of hearing the "in Europe..." argument.
so, if the veil is a symbol of oppression, how does forcing them to remove it make them less oppressed?
wouldn't forcing them to violate their own religious beliefs actually just be another form of oppression?
Well, sometimes to prevent oppression you have to stop people from engaging in behaviors that are clearly self-destructive - like a court putting a restraining order on an abused wife barring her from having any contact with her abusive husband - because of pseudo stockholm syndrome, people sympathizing with their oppressors, etc.
I'm not convinced in this case that this particular law does anything except fan the flames of an already perilous situation.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
so, if the veil is a symbol of oppression, how does forcing them to remove it make them less oppressed?
wouldn't forcing them to violate their own religious beliefs actually just be another form of oppression?
if there are any genuine problems of sexism, misogyny, and the oppression of women in Islam and in Islamic nations - and there are - then how is this at all helpful, rather than a superficial gesture that is actually racist and intolerant?
It makes more sense if you think less about the veil, and more about North Africans doing something The French really don't like.
So your solution is to...take away people's rights? Man, fuck education, if we get rid of the symptom the disease is cured?
Would you please point out where I argued that soldier boy?
I will say this as nicely as I fucking can
Do FUCKING NOT use my being in the military as a derogatory/belittling term
Just fucking don't
In any case, I apologize, I didn't read your first post thoroughly enough, and that was my bad
He couldn't possibly be using it as an insult, as the only insult allowed here is "retarded duck." It's really not very hard to figure out, soldier boy.
I think ultimately this should be about identifing people. You need to see the face to identify someone, which in my opinion, is the only reason to want to restrict this. Otherwise, it's her choice whether to wear it or not. It's not as if the veil is affecting others forcibly (the way human sacrifice would).
I say "her choice" but I'm not sure how far that goes. She's forced to wear it because of her religion, which I think is the real issue here. But by the same token, she's not in a country that is forcing her into any one religion, so she could just stop practicing. But her religion forbids that and her family would probably shun her so...it's a vicious cycle. A woman who is going to want to be loyal to her religion, her family, and her country is going to be between a rock and a couple hard places.
My thinking is basically that, firstly, describing the wearing of a veil as "radical religious practice" is setting a pretty freaking low bar. Where does circumcision fit on this continuum? Or the feeding of wine to children and telling them it's blood? Or refusing to cut one's hair and instead binding it around one's head with a strip of cloth?
These don't affect day to day communication in even approaching the same way. And nor are they deeply, deeply sexist in the same way.
The ban is wrong for a number of reasons (such as your aformentioned point about restricting services to muslim women), but lets not go around pretending they're anything but a terrible cultural practice.
I never understood the argument that the wearing of a veil in some way obstructs communication. If that were the case it wouldn't be as easy as it is to conduct business by phone. On top of that, I spent most of my time when outdoors during the UK's recent cold snap with my face covered. I didn't notice any particular difficulty getting anything done.
I won't deny that it is indicative of an oppressive culture, but it's a symptom, not a cause.
Yeah, if you have trouble communicating with someone whose mouth you cannot see never travel to the Midwest during the winter because that what scarves are for. Well, covering your nose really, but that just comes along with it.
I'm all for banning all pervasive symbols of religion. This includes people who wear huge gold chains with crosses on them and silly hats the pope wears.
This seems fair to me.
I actually don't mind them banning the full-face niqab. If not for their reasons than for the possible result. It's pretty draconian to keep your women in an executioners hood, it will take several generations but having a face to display as a normal human being is the best shot Islam has at being taken seriously by the rest of the world as a religion, and not as a crazy bombers cult that has some shit to do with virgins in there somewhere.
I'm pretty much against all religion as a whole, but something that may let them integrate better into society at large (if not today, then in a few generations) may have some merit.
France is still stupid and doing this for the wrong reasons though.
edit: That first rule excludes Mr. T his gold jewelry is all that is keeping him alive right now, if we were to remove it, he would go into shock and die.
I think ultimately this should be about identifing people. You need to see the face to identify someone, which in my opinion, is the only reason to want to restrict this. Otherwise, it's her choice whether to wear it or not. It's not as if the veil is affecting others forcibly (the way human sacrifice would).
I say "her choice" but I'm not sure how far that goes. She's forced to wear it because of her religion, which I think is the real issue here. But by the same token, she's not in a country that is forcing her into any one religion, so she could just stop practicing. But her religion forbids that and her family would probably shun her so...it's a vicious cycle. A woman who is going to want to be loyal to her religion, her family, and her country is going to be between a rock and a couple hard places.
I'm all for banning all pervasive symbols of religion. This includes people who wear huge gold chains with crosses on them and silly hats the pope wears.
This seems fair to me.
I actually don't mind them banning the full-face niqab. If not for their reasons than for the possible result. It's pretty draconian to keep your women in an executioners hood, it will take several generations but having a face to display as a normal human being is the best shot Islam has at being taken seriously by the rest of the world as a religion, and not as a crazy bombers cult that has some shit to do with virgins in there somewhere.
I'm pretty much against all religion as a whole, but something that may let them integrate better into society at large (if not today, then in a few generations) may have some merit.
France is still stupid and doing this for the wrong reasons though.
edit: That first rule excludes Mr. T his gold jewelry is all that is keeping him alive right now, if we were to remove it, he would go into shock and die.
Does that mean various tropical countries can ban shirts, and Ireland pants?
so, if the veil is a symbol of oppression, how does forcing them to remove it make them less oppressed?
wouldn't forcing them to violate their own religious beliefs actually just be another form of oppression?
if there are any genuine problems of sexism, misogyny, and the oppression of women in Islam and in Islamic nations - and there are - then how is this at all helpful, rather than a superficial gesture that is actually racist and intolerant?
It makes more sense if you think less about the veil, and more about North Africans doing something The French really don't like.
Which is, according to the French, being those dirty illegals breaking into their country and stealing all of their jobs and causing a ruckus and living off the public dole being lazy bastards and whenever they try and make em civilized with just a coupla minor changes in their behavior oh suddenly they gotta go burn some cars down
I'm all for banning all pervasive symbols of religion. This includes people who wear huge gold chains with crosses on them and silly hats the pope wears.
This seems fair to me.
I actually don't mind them banning the full-face niqab. If not for their reasons than for the possible result. It's pretty draconian to keep your women in an executioners hood, it will take several generations but having a face to display as a normal human being is the best shot Islam has at being taken seriously by the rest of the world as a religion, and not as a crazy bombers cult that has some shit to do with virgins in there somewhere.
I'm pretty much against all religion as a whole, but something that may let them integrate better into society at large (if not today, then in a few generations) may have some merit.
France is still stupid and doing this for the wrong reasons though.
edit: That first rule excludes Mr. T his gold jewelry is all that is keeping him alive right now, if we were to remove it, he would go into shock and die.
Does that mean various tropical countries can ban shirts, and Ireland pants?
Is there some shirt and pant religion I don't know about?
I think ultimately this should be about identifing people. You need to see the face to identify someone, which in my opinion, is the only reason to want to restrict this. Otherwise, it's her choice whether to wear it or not. It's not as if the veil is affecting others forcibly (the way human sacrifice would).
...they aren't banning 'articles of clothing that obscure the face' they are banning 'the niqab'.
This is just like the arguments in the Swiss minaret ban thread.
the best shot Islam has at being taken seriously by the rest of the world as a religion, and not as a crazy bombers cult that has some shit to do with virgins in there somewhere.
I'm all for banning all pervasive symbols of religion. This includes people who wear huge gold chains with crosses on them and silly hats the pope wears.
This seems fair to me.
Why the hell would you be for that? I don't get how so many people seem so comfortable just using the naked power of the state to ban things they don't like. It is such a terrible idea and you would think history would have demonstrated that by now. But here we go again.
I actually don't mind them banning the full-face niqab. If not for their reasons than for the possible result. It's pretty draconian to keep your women in an executioners hood, it will take several generations but having a face to display as a normal human being is the best shot Islam has at being taken seriously by the rest of the world as a religion, and not as a crazy bombers cult that has some shit to do with virgins in there somewhere.
No, the best shot is to actually try to integrate them into larger society and not insitutionalize discrimination. That way they might actually just abandon the most oppressive aspects of their religion when they realize they aren't necessary and as they blend their culture with that of the existing culture.
I'm all for banning all pervasive symbols of religion. This includes people who wear huge gold chains with crosses on them and silly hats the pope wears.
This seems fair to me.
I actually don't mind them banning the full-face niqab. If not for their reasons than for the possible result. It's pretty draconian to keep your women in an executioners hood, it will take several generations but having a face to display as a normal human being is the best shot Islam has at being taken seriously by the rest of the world as a religion, and not as a crazy bombers cult that has some shit to do with virgins in there somewhere.
I'm pretty much against all religion as a whole, but something that may let them integrate better into society at large (if not today, then in a few generations) may have some merit.
France is still stupid and doing this for the wrong reasons though.
edit: That first rule excludes Mr. T his gold jewelry is all that is keeping him alive right now, if we were to remove it, he would go into shock and die.
the best shot Islam has at being taken seriously by the rest of the world as a religion, and not as a crazy bombers cult that has some shit to do with virgins in there somewhere.
Wow.
Just, wow.
Don't be a silly goose. You can quote the entire sentence or nothing at all.
"It's pretty draconian to keep your women in an executioners hood, it will take several generations but having a face to display as a normal human being is the best shot Islam has at being taken seriously by the rest of the world as a religion, and not as a crazy bombers cult that has some shit to do with virgins in there somewhere."
dispatch.o on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
edited February 2010
Most people in this thread don't seem to understand: Most Muslims living in France are African immigrants, with a huge percentage of those being illegals
Basically the situation with them in France is very analogous to Mexicans in California, except a whole lot worse in a lot of different ways
Would you be okay with a ban in California for overtly Catholic paraphernalia (such as crosses with Jesus on them, etc)?
the best shot Islam has at being taken seriously by the rest of the world as a religion, and not as a crazy bombers cult that has some shit to do with virgins in there somewhere.
Wow.
Just, wow.
Don't be a silly goose. You can quote the entire sentence or nothing at all.
"It's pretty draconian to keep your women in an executioners hood, it will take several generations but having a face to display as a normal human being is the best shot Islam has at being taken seriously by the rest of the world as a religion, and not as a crazy bombers cult that has some shit to do with virgins in there somewhere."
Repeating it in whole doesn't make it less stupid.
Just to be sure, though, is your primary problem with Hamas truly not its corruption of religion, but its fashion sense?
Most people in this thread don't seem to understand: Most Muslims living in France are African immigrants, with a huge percentage of those being illegals
Basically the situation with them in France is very analogous to Mexicans in California, except a whole lot worse in a lot of different ways
Would you be okay with a ban in California for overtly Catholic paraphernalia (such as crosses with Jesus on them, etc)?
Most people in this thread don't seem to understand: Most Muslims living in France are African immigrants, with a huge percentage of those being illegals
Basically the situation with them in France is very analogous to Mexicans in California, except a whole lot worse in a lot of different ways
Would you be okay with a ban in California for overtly Catholic paraphernalia (such as crosses with Jesus on them, etc)?
No, because Jesus on a cross on a necklace isn't oppressive or making it difficult for law enforcement to do their fucking job.
Most people in this thread don't seem to understand: Most Muslims living in France are African immigrants, with a huge percentage of those being illegals
Basically the situation with them in France is very analogous to Mexicans in California, except a whole lot worse in a lot of different ways
Would you be okay with a ban in California for overtly Catholic paraphernalia (such as crosses with Jesus on them, etc)?
Well the thing is most Californians don't really care. At least up north, I don't know about the LA area.
the best shot Islam has at being taken seriously by the rest of the world as a religion, and not as a crazy bombers cult that has some shit to do with virgins in there somewhere.
Wow.
Just, wow.
Don't be a silly goose. You can quote the entire sentence or nothing at all.
"It's pretty draconian to keep your women in an executioners hood, it will take several generations but having a face to display as a normal human being is the best shot Islam has at being taken seriously by the rest of the world as a religion, and not as a crazy bombers cult that has some shit to do with virgins in there somewhere."
My response is still pretty much "Wow". You honestly think that Islam is a craxy bombers cult?
There are plenty of other religions that do far wackier stuff than wear veils, but they get a pass?
I think ultimately this should be about identifing people. You need to see the face to identify someone, which in my opinion, is the only reason to want to restrict this. Otherwise, it's her choice whether to wear it or not. It's not as if the veil is affecting others forcibly (the way human sacrifice would).
I say "her choice" but I'm not sure how far that goes. She's forced to wear it because of her religion, which I think is the real issue here. But by the same token, she's not in a country that is forcing her into any one religion, so she could just stop practicing. But her religion forbids that and her family would probably shun her so...it's a vicious cycle. A woman who is going to want to be loyal to her religion, her family, and her country is going to be between a rock and a couple hard places.
You mean you don't identify women by their boobs?
You're right, there are several ways to identify a person. Most governments use the face though. If she gets pulled over for speeding, they are going to want her license and the pic on there can't be her in the veil, nor should she have it on while driving for the same reason (that and it kinda looks like it would restrict your sight in some places).
Actually, this brings up a good point, how do they do identifying in countires that require women to wear the veil?
Most people in this thread don't seem to understand: Most Muslims living in France are African immigrants, with a huge percentage of those being illegals
Basically the situation with them in France is very analogous to Mexicans in California, except a whole lot worse in a lot of different ways
Would you be okay with a ban in California for overtly Catholic paraphernalia (such as crosses with Jesus on them, etc)?
There are also a lot of Slavic muslims in Western/Central Europe now thanks to Schengen and all that, and its not like anti-slavism doesn't have a rich history of fucked up-ness as well.
I'm all for banning all pervasive symbols of religion. This includes people who wear huge gold chains with crosses on them and silly hats the pope wears.
This seems fair to me.
In what possible sense is that fair?
In regards to the OP's question of "where does circumcision fall on this scale" my answer is that it's an utterly fucking barbaric practise that should have been banned a century ago.
Tube on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
Most people in this thread don't seem to understand: Most Muslims living in France are African immigrants, with a huge percentage of those being illegals
Basically the situation with them in France is very analogous to Mexicans in California, except a whole lot worse in a lot of different ways
Would you be okay with a ban in California for overtly Catholic paraphernalia (such as crosses with Jesus on them, etc)?
Well the thing is most Californians don't really care. At least up north, I don't know about the LA area.
I'm from Cali too, but yeah the situation isn't exactly the same, but it's similar (however we Californians, thankfully, haven't aligned the religion as an inexorable part of the problem- still a lot of racism tho)
I think ultimately this should be about identifing people. You need to see the face to identify someone, which in my opinion, is the only reason to want to restrict this. Otherwise, it's her choice whether to wear it or not. It's not as if the veil is affecting others forcibly (the way human sacrifice would).
I say "her choice" but I'm not sure how far that goes. She's forced to wear it because of her religion, which I think is the real issue here. But by the same token, she's not in a country that is forcing her into any one religion, so she could just stop practicing. But her religion forbids that and her family would probably shun her so...it's a vicious cycle. A woman who is going to want to be loyal to her religion, her family, and her country is going to be between a rock and a couple hard places.
You mean you don't identify women by their boobs?
You're right, there are several ways to identify a person. Most governments use the face though. If she gets pulled over for speeding, they are going to want her license and the pic on there can't be her in the veil, nor should she have it on while driving for the same reason (that and it kinda looks like it would restrict your sight in some places).
Actually, this brings up a good point, how do they do identifying in countires that require women to wear the veil?
They require them to take off the veil when being photographed as an ID, if necessary using a female agent to do so. I mean, this isn't that hard. If I am wearing a scarf in winter it doesn't somehow turn me into a master criminal that the police cannot possibly catch. They would just ask me to remove the scarf, and then compare that with my scarf-less ID picture.
Posts
Well, generally I was assuming we were talking about day-to-day stuff, not deep-emotional-connection kind of stuff. What sort of thing are you referring to?
Would you please point out where I argued that soldier boy?
Well even the very most basic elements. Let's say I make a joke, or say hi. It is much harder for me to know if the other person is smiling. It seems like such a silly thing, but it will throw you off.
I've always argued against the veil by just arguing against it. There many middle eastern liberals who argue against it, and argue for other good things, but for some reason can't help but add a "like the French, and Europeans" clause into every argument. "The freedom to do blah, like the French. And they're doing just fine!" How are those writers looking now, with all the choices that the French offer? They look like idiots. Who doesn't like an idiot? Elki, because Elki always shit on the French.
+1
You're advocating regulation the types of clothing women are allowed to wear.
I will say this as nicely as I fucking can
Do FUCKING NOT use my being in the military as a derogatory/belittling term
Just fucking don't
In any case, I apologize, I didn't read your first post thoroughly enough, and that was my bad
Please point out to me where I am doing this?
wouldn't forcing them to violate their own religious beliefs actually just be another form of oppression?
if there are any genuine problems of sexism, misogyny, and the oppression of women in Islam and in Islamic nations - and there are - then how is this at all helpful, rather than a superficial gesture that is actually racist and intolerant?
Leitner isn't arguing for the ban.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Ohh yes, I'm liking this news now. Not because I argue anything related to this topic but I'm so sick of hearing the "in Europe..." argument.
Well, sometimes to prevent oppression you have to stop people from engaging in behaviors that are clearly self-destructive - like a court putting a restraining order on an abused wife barring her from having any contact with her abusive husband - because of pseudo stockholm syndrome, people sympathizing with their oppressors, etc.
I'm not convinced in this case that this particular law does anything except fan the flames of an already perilous situation.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It makes more sense if you think less about the veil, and more about North Africans doing something The French really don't like.
He couldn't possibly be using it as an insult, as the only insult allowed here is "retarded duck." It's really not very hard to figure out, soldier boy.
I think ultimately this should be about identifing people. You need to see the face to identify someone, which in my opinion, is the only reason to want to restrict this. Otherwise, it's her choice whether to wear it or not. It's not as if the veil is affecting others forcibly (the way human sacrifice would).
I say "her choice" but I'm not sure how far that goes. She's forced to wear it because of her religion, which I think is the real issue here. But by the same token, she's not in a country that is forcing her into any one religion, so she could just stop practicing. But her religion forbids that and her family would probably shun her so...it's a vicious cycle. A woman who is going to want to be loyal to her religion, her family, and her country is going to be between a rock and a couple hard places.
Yeah, if you have trouble communicating with someone whose mouth you cannot see never travel to the Midwest during the winter because that what scarves are for. Well, covering your nose really, but that just comes along with it.
This seems fair to me.
I actually don't mind them banning the full-face niqab. If not for their reasons than for the possible result. It's pretty draconian to keep your women in an executioners hood, it will take several generations but having a face to display as a normal human being is the best shot Islam has at being taken seriously by the rest of the world as a religion, and not as a crazy bombers cult that has some shit to do with virgins in there somewhere.
I'm pretty much against all religion as a whole, but something that may let them integrate better into society at large (if not today, then in a few generations) may have some merit.
France is still stupid and doing this for the wrong reasons though.
edit: That first rule excludes Mr. T his gold jewelry is all that is keeping him alive right now, if we were to remove it, he would go into shock and die.
You mean you don't identify women by their boobs?
Does that mean various tropical countries can ban shirts, and Ireland pants?
Which is, according to the French, being those dirty illegals breaking into their country and stealing all of their jobs and causing a ruckus and living off the public dole being lazy bastards and whenever they try and make em civilized with just a coupla minor changes in their behavior oh suddenly they gotta go burn some cars down
Is there some shirt and pant religion I don't know about?
...they aren't banning 'articles of clothing that obscure the face' they are banning 'the niqab'.
This is just like the arguments in the Swiss minaret ban thread.
Part 1
Part 2
He finishes by interviewing a young woman who wears the veil, here.
Just to clarify, this is one of the veils being banned.
Wow.
Just, wow.
Why the hell would you be for that? I don't get how so many people seem so comfortable just using the naked power of the state to ban things they don't like. It is such a terrible idea and you would think history would have demonstrated that by now. But here we go again.
No, the best shot is to actually try to integrate them into larger society and not insitutionalize discrimination. That way they might actually just abandon the most oppressive aspects of their religion when they realize they aren't necessary and as they blend their culture with that of the existing culture.
dot, dot, dot
Don't be a silly goose. You can quote the entire sentence or nothing at all.
"It's pretty draconian to keep your women in an executioners hood, it will take several generations but having a face to display as a normal human being is the best shot Islam has at being taken seriously by the rest of the world as a religion, and not as a crazy bombers cult that has some shit to do with virgins in there somewhere."
Basically the situation with them in France is very analogous to Mexicans in California, except a whole lot worse in a lot of different ways
Would you be okay with a ban in California for overtly Catholic paraphernalia (such as crosses with Jesus on them, etc)?
Some of the comments in here give me a serious 1930s Germany vibe.
Repeating it in whole doesn't make it less stupid.
Just to be sure, though, is your primary problem with Hamas truly not its corruption of religion, but its fashion sense?
Yep.
No, because Jesus on a cross on a necklace isn't oppressive or making it difficult for law enforcement to do their fucking job.
Well the thing is most Californians don't really care. At least up north, I don't know about the LA area.
Oh man I thought it was a monkey for the longest time
Like
Years
My response is still pretty much "Wow". You honestly think that Islam is a craxy bombers cult?
There are plenty of other religions that do far wackier stuff than wear veils, but they get a pass?
You're right, there are several ways to identify a person. Most governments use the face though. If she gets pulled over for speeding, they are going to want her license and the pic on there can't be her in the veil, nor should she have it on while driving for the same reason (that and it kinda looks like it would restrict your sight in some places).
Actually, this brings up a good point, how do they do identifying in countires that require women to wear the veil?
There are also a lot of Slavic muslims in Western/Central Europe now thanks to Schengen and all that, and its not like anti-slavism doesn't have a rich history of fucked up-ness as well.
In what possible sense is that fair?
In regards to the OP's question of "where does circumcision fall on this scale" my answer is that it's an utterly fucking barbaric practise that should have been banned a century ago.
I'm from Cali too, but yeah the situation isn't exactly the same, but it's similar (however we Californians, thankfully, haven't aligned the religion as an inexorable part of the problem- still a lot of racism tho)
They require them to take off the veil when being photographed as an ID, if necessary using a female agent to do so. I mean, this isn't that hard. If I am wearing a scarf in winter it doesn't somehow turn me into a master criminal that the police cannot possibly catch. They would just ask me to remove the scarf, and then compare that with my scarf-less ID picture.