Full face veil

[MisterTinkles]

I can't help but wonder why people are so opposed to immigrants bringing their customs with them to new countries as long as they don't break any existing laws and, in regards to Mistertinkles' post, what we're to make of Americans who convert to Islam or muslims who are born as American citizens. Why does it matter if a certain practice is unamerican as long as it's not harming anyone? If an American citizen converts to Islam, is that suddenly an unamerican and unpatriotic decision?

There are many examples of things we should not tolerate from muslims. Halal slaughter, for example, is unforgivable animal cruelty and even discussing the use of such products in schools is disgusting. As far as I'm concerned that kind of practice is incompatible with Western society and our moral obligations towards animals. It doesn't matter how fundamental it is within Islam; it can't be tolerated.

Then again, if muslims wish to pray 5 times a day, participate in muslim holidays, wear veils, gather together for religious purposes and praise their God, they're not breaking any laws or disturbing anyone. When you move to a new country you have certain obligations to adapt to new laws, but it's ridiculous to propose that you also have to abandon your identity for the sake of adapting to your new cultural norms.

Some of the things people keep bringing up in this thread such as loud and disrespectful immigrants are so completely irrelevant. If your neighbours are blasting loud music out of speakers in the middle of the night you shouldn't accept that whether they come from Iraq or America. Nobody's suggesting that immigrants ought to get away with rude things, we're just defending their rights to maintain some of their peaceful values and practices without being interrupted by bigots who fail to differentiate between threatening behaviour and cultural behaviour.

By saying that immigrants who come to the U.S have to Americanize their behaviour hints at a complete lack of knowledge as to how the nation even came to be and frankly some of the comments here scare me.

The issue isnt religion and I never mentioned religion.

Unless these people came over here to steal, rape, and pillage....which a lot have done.....then I would take the logic of the others who come over here as meaning that they are coming here to GET AWAY from where they are BECAUSE THEY HATE IT.

So WHY waste time, money, and effort and go destroy another country by bringing that hate, lethargy, and bad attitudes to it? Youre just dragging your shit with you, you arent getting away from anything...you are just making things worse. Not only for you, but for the people in the new country you moved too.

I mean really, use your brains. If you move someplace different to get away, then GET AWAY...dont drag it with you! You are not doing yourself any favors by NOT adapting to the new country you move too.

There was an eastern Indian family who opened and ran a small convenience shop in the mall I used to work in. They were friendly and happy. They got away from a bad situation where they were at. The mother and father still dressed in traditional garb, but his mother stopped wearing a vale over her face, because she had finally become American and was free to do so. They were very excited when they got their Americanship, and all the people in the mall who knew them were happy to have them here. They were good people and very hard workers.

When 9-11 happened, they got scared. They closed down their little store and move to a state where they felt safer. From what happened in the country they came from, they were scared shitless someone would kill them after 9-11.

I felt bad for them. They did so much to become a part of us, only to be scared off by something like that tragedy.

This thread has become racist itself, and I for one am tired of it.

[VileKyle]

The issue isnt religion and I never mentioned religion.

Unless these people came over here to steal, rape, and pillage....which a lot have done.....then I would take the logic of the others who come over here as meaning that they are coming here to GET AWAY from where they are BECAUSE THEY HATE IT.

So WHY waste time, money, and effort and go destroy another country by bringing that hate, lethargy, and bad attitudes to it? Youre just dragging your shit with you, you arent getting away from anything...you are just making things worse. Not only for you, but for the people in the new country you moved too.

I mean really, use your brains. If you move someplace different to get away, then GET AWAY...dont drag it with you! You are not doing yourself any favors by NOT adapting to the new country you move too.

There was an eastern Indian family who opened and ran a small convenience shop in the mall I used to work in. They were friendly and happy. They got away from a bad situation where they were at. The mother and father still dressed in traditional garb, but his mother stopped wearing a vale over her face, because she had finally become American and was free to do so. They were very excited when they got their Americanship, and all the people in the mall who knew them were happy to have them here. They were good people and very hard workers.

When 9-11 happened, they got scared. They closed down their little store and move to a state where they felt safer. From what happened in the country they came from, they were scared shitless someone would kill them after 9-11.

I felt bad for them. They did so much to become a part of us, only to be scared off by something like that tragedy.

This thread has become racist itself, and I for one am tired of it.

You're making the assumption that culture is about where someone lives. Culture is more about who someone is, which doesn't change when they change locations. A person's country and their culture are not the same thing. By forcing them to be like you when they move to your country, you are both erasing who they are and showing your own intolerance and bigotry. If you are tired of racism in this thread, you might want to read back through your post again.

[Pix]

I once found a dvd at the library I used to go to (IIRC, it was this) that had some brilliant if sometimes naive cartoon clips. This is just one of those I loved:




I imagine there would be howling if that were to start playing again today. :frown:

[TimeSage]

Freedom of choice and all that. I expect people to not force my life choices, such as my choice in who I want to spend my life with, how the hell is fair for me to judge based on something small like clothing.

[tavi]

Its NOT something small like clothing its the full face veil, its Islam, and its UK, I notice everyone keep generalising, particularly you solemnboy who mentions immigration and customs and country's, you got no say as you got no experience, its not REAL to you, just shut up.

[SolemnBoy]

Its NOT something small like clothing its the full face veil, its Islam, and its UK, I notice everyone keep generalising, particularly you solemnboy who mentions immigration and customs and country's, you got no say as you got no experience, its not REAL to you, just shut up.

Tavi, you know very well that I'm not gonna shut up and you know very well that I don't want to speak to you after things you've said in both comments and PM's. Stop addressing me, experience isn't by default a virtue that deserves more recognition in debate. Many adults have spent their time too stupidly for general rules like that to exist.

[OrphanPip]

The empirical research on multiculturalism policies and integration suggest that countries which promote more accommodation have the greatest success in integrating new immigrants. Anyway the work of religious philosopher Charles Taylor is relevant to this debate in the UK.

"Must a regime based on open secularism allow government employees to wear
religious signs? Does the neutrality of public institutions demand the prohibition of such signs? To answer these questions, we must consider the type of neutrality that it is to be expected of the public service. We naturally hope that public servants will perform their duties loyally and impartially. Would they relinquish these qualities simply because they wear a religious sign? We do not
think so. By prohibiting the wearing in the public service of any religious sign, we would prevent the faithful from certain religions from engaging in careers in the public service, which would contravene freedom of conscience and religion (second principle) and would largely complicate the task of building a public service that reflects Québec’s population, which is becoming increasingly diversified. This would also infringe the equality of citizens (first principle).

We do not believe that a general prohibition concerning the wearing by all government employees of religious signs is warranted. However, we acknowledge that certain duties may imply a duty of self-restraint. In the brief that it submitted to the Commission, the Bloc Québécois noted that certain
functions “by their very nature embody the State and its essential neutrality." This is true, in particular, of judges, Crown prosecutors, police officers and the President of the National Assembly. Individuals who occupy these positions could be required to relinquish their right to display their religious affiliation in order to preserve the appearance of impartiality that their function requires. "

The same basic principles would apply in the UK, as long as the proper execution of their duties are not impeded by religious accommodation.

[tavi]

Muslims trying to impose sharia law (in london)

Very scary, its just getting worse.

[VileKyle]

The empirical research on multiculturalism policies and integration suggest that countries which promote more accommodation have the greatest success in integrating new immigrants. Anyway the work of religious philosopher Charles Taylor is relevant to this debate in the UK.

"Must a regime based on open secularism allow government employees to wear
religious signs? Does the neutrality of public institutions demand the prohibition of such signs? To answer these questions, we must consider the type of neutrality that it is to be expected of the public service. We naturally hope that public servants will perform their duties loyally and impartially. Would they relinquish these qualities simply because they wear a religious sign? We do not
think so. By prohibiting the wearing in the public service of any religious sign, we would prevent the faithful from certain religions from engaging in careers in the public service, which would contravene freedom of conscience and religion (second principle) and would largely complicate the task of building a public service that reflects Québec’s population, which is becoming increasingly diversified. This would also infringe the equality of citizens (first principle).

We do not believe that a general prohibition concerning the wearing by all government employees of religious signs is warranted. However, we acknowledge that certain duties may imply a duty of self-restraint. In the brief that it submitted to the Commission, the Bloc Québécois noted that certain
functions “by their very nature embody the State and its essential neutrality." This is true, in particular, of judges, Crown prosecutors, police officers and the President of the National Assembly. Individuals who occupy these positions could be required to relinquish their right to display their religious affiliation in order to preserve the appearance of impartiality that their function requires. "

The same basic principles would apply in the UK, as long as the proper execution of their duties are not impeded by religious accommodation.

I think you make a great point with that. I don't know much about Charles Taylor, but I like him already. As long as religious symbols aren't getting in the way, why should they be banned? I also agree that in certain authoritative jobs, you need to remain impartial. Other than that, who should really care? The symbols are just about faith. Nothing more. Everybody has the right to faith or the lack of faith.

[davearoo]

Muslims trying to impose sharia law (in london)

Very scary, its just getting worse.

There are crackpots all over the world trying to impose sharia law, and likely always will be.

They have to be watched and, if they seem ready to commit any crime, arrested.