Bavaria plans burqa ban

522 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Harold Beckwith said:

So it is now a purely religions garments and as such, a choice.

 

The question is not whether it is a "choice" or otherwise.  From the perspective of the believer, it is not a choice, unless you believe that conscience ought to be fully changeable with the circumstances -- a very odd ethical position to take, indeed!  But that is not the problem, of course one is physically capable of believing something else.

 

The problem is the social outcome of the policy:

 

1. A hijab-wearer in a society that is hijab-hostile is presented with two choices: stop wearing the hijab and gain (indeterminate) better access to the job market, or follow one's conscience and accept your fate, which may simply mean being more likely to have to accept a life as an economic dependent.  Sure, that's a choice, but it has social consequences.

 

2. A hijab-wearer in a society that is hijab-indifferent or actively encourages hijab-wearers to enter the job market even with hijab is more likely to become economically independent, by definition almost.

 

The outcome of policy (2) seems to me to be a better outcome.  So why not choose policy (2)?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is public nudity forbidden by law?

If yes, well, now companies can do the same with religious symbols.

Good that we have got around to things being equal right?

Although comparing a 'want' - to go out topless with a need 'to have to wear something or not be able to leave the house' is really a stretching things to a absurd level.

To do the same with drugs, you are saying that an drug users need is the same as a person deciding to take vitamin pills, or a protein shake.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

The question is not whether it is a "choice" or otherwise.  From the perspective of the believer, it is not a choice, unless you believe that conscience ought to be fully changeable with the circumstances -- a very odd ethical position to take, indeed!  But that is not the problem, of course one is physically capable of believing something else.

Much like a drug addict?

To say that no choice is involved makes it involuntary, which makes it at best indoctrination. 

Are you saying being made do something you have no choice about is a good thing?

Put a person with religious dietary requirements on an island with only what they are not allowed to eat as food - with their children and see how conscience can change with circumstances.

If it doesn't, they are in with those crazy religious people who will let their kids die rather than have a blood transfusion/operation. 
I have never heard one sane person defend them (outside of lawyer being paid to do it) on that,

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Eupathic Impulse There is no free lunch, and no one is entitled to a cakewalk entry into any profession. Leading Western European Nations have far lower entry barrier for uneducated Middle Easteners compared to educated Middle Class from Asia, who have demonsrably better integration records and socio-economic attainment. How about a bit of gratefulness for access into a Nation with 200 times Human development index ?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rohit_2543 said:

@Eupathic Impulse There is no free lunch, and no one is entitled to a cakewalk entry into any profession. Leading Western European Nations have far lower entry barrier for uneducated Middle Easteners compared to educated Middle Class from Asia, who have demonsrably better integration records and socio-economic attainment. How about a bit of gratefulness for access into a Nation with 200 times Human development index ?

 

These are in large number not immigrants we're talking about, nor necessarily uneducated.  Not everything has something to do with the (I agree) unfortunately capricious visa process for South Asians. 

 

No one in any case is asking for a "cakewalk entry", merely nondiscrimination for practicing a particular religious belief that principally affects the wearer and does not materially interfere with the execution of most work obligations.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Harold Beckwith said:

Although comparing a 'want' - to go out topless with a need 'to have to wear something or not be able to leave the house' is really a stretching things to a absurd level.

 

No. I am comparing "Forcing women to go out topless would be crazy" with "Forcing women to display their hair would be crazy".

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Krieg said:

But I think the past 15 pages were about discussing how Muslim women should not wear the hijab either.

Not for me.

The last discussion swing of this dicussion topic came after someone posted the decision of the EU to allow employers to ban religious symbols at work.

 

23 minutes ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

You stated that a woman who wears hijab and attractive make-up was negating the purpose of wearing the hijab. I took the position that you were just making an assumption that the purpose of wearing a hijab was to become unattractive, and that the actual purpose depended on the subjectivity of the wearer.  You insisted that you had complete insight as to the individual reasons for wearing a hijab, which you probably got from reading one or another post hoc justification on some web site somewhere, or talking to one or another particular individual, which you then generalized. 

 

I pointed out that there are many ritual obligations in Semitic religion that have non-material justification. You yourself gave an example of one (an odd one, that one has stronger materialistic grounding, but whatever): washing your feet before prayer. 

 

But then, you continue to insist that you have insight into the One True Purpose of wearing a hijab.  It is illogical to accuse me of making baseless claims or demand evidence from me, when your claim is the more sweeping and tendentious, whereas I have only relied on well-known counterexamples.

So no proof then, just the recap of the disussion in order to say something. :)

 

You don't seem to understand what ritual is. Wearing a hijab is not a ritual. If it was, then every Muslim woman would wear it.

Wearing a hijab is an interpretation of the command that a woman should dress modest.

If someone else chooses to wear hijab for other reasons, that does not mean that the real reason should be ignored when it is so obviously contradicted.

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Eupathic Impulse It has nothing to do with my ethnic group, which I have often addressed on this forum. Nice deflection strategy.

Muslim Middle Easterners are far lower integration records than every other Asian migrant group.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, klubbnika said:

 

You don't seem to understand what ritual is. Wearing a hijab is not a ritual. If it was, then every Muslim woman would wear it.

 

No, not every Muslim believes in or practices the same set of rituals, the same with Jews, different sects of Christianity, etc.

 

1 minute ago, klubbnika said:

Wearing a hijab is an interpretation of the command that a woman should dress modest.

 

That is one way to understand hijab, but clearly that is not how all hijab-wearers understand it.  The evidence for this is that some women wear hijab with attractive makeup and fashionable clothes!

 

1 minute ago, klubbnika said:

If someone else chooses to wear hijab for other reasons, that does not mean that the real reason should be ignored when it is so obviously contradicted.

 

 

As the reasons for wearing the hijab are necessarily subjective (ie, based on individual religious understandings, among other things), the concept of a "real reason", as in an authoritative reason binding on all hijab-wearers, is meaningless unless all hijab-wearers consider themselves so bound.  You were trying to push the burden of proof onto me, but it resides with you.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Harold Beckwith said:



To say that no choice is involved makes it involuntary, which makes it at best indoctrination. 

Are you saying being made do something you have no choice about is a good thing?

 

 

I am saying that the voluntary/involuntary choice is a false dichotomy and the wrong way to think about the issue.  We are talking about matters of belief and conscience.  It is strange to me to argue that feeling ethically bound by one's conscience is merely "indoctrination".  We have consciences in order that we be bound by them -- that is not "indoctrination", that is holding to an ethic.

 

33 minutes ago, Harold Beckwith said:

Put a person with religious dietary requirements on an island with only what they are not allowed to eat as food - with their children and see how conscience can change with circumstances.

 

Both halal and kosher recognize "bare survival" exceptions to the ritual law.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is OK. Here in the west we are all "indoctrinated" to not to show our genitals all the time. Some should free us all from such oppression.

Of course the rebuttal to that is "But that's different".

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Krieg said:

It is OK. Here in the west we are all "indoctrinated" to not to show our genitals all the time. Some should free us all from such oppression.

Of course the rebuttal to that is "But that's different".

 

No no, please go ahead and flash in front the people on the streets. Tell us how it went.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument is not that I want to do it. It is the craziness on the government making laws to force me to do it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Krieg said:

It is OK. Here in the west we are all "indoctrinated" to not to show our genitals all the time.

 

7 minutes ago, Krieg said:

The argument is not that I want to do it.

 

Error 404, correlation not found. So do you think that it's YOUR personal choice (deleting all the "Indoctrination") to run around nude or not? If not, why bring up the argument?

 

If the women were not indoctrinated into believing that covering the hair is the best way to go, they will definitely make other life choices...Mainly in the way they dress.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, rohit_2543 said:

@Eupathic Impulse It has nothing to do with my ethnic group, which I have often addressed on this forum. Nice deflection strategy.

Muslim Middle Easterners are far lower integration records than every other Asian migrant group.

 

The people in question are often not themselves migrants.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ruling itself is purposefully about religious, philosophical and political symbols. This ruling does put itself into the pointless position of discussing what is what for whom, which ends up as a very basic violation of human subjectivity. The problem is not what hijab is, the ban considers this as a religious, philosophical, political symbol. Wearers also agree with this definition in addition to the fact that obviously all these things are inevitably cultural. The two sides do not have a definition problem. They have a rights problem. With the acceptance that this thing is this thing. It seems that it is some supporters of this ban that have a conceptual problem which is lagging behind the logic of the ruling they are supporting.  

 

The problem however is not why people wear hijab. The problem is that wearing any of these things limits the presence of religious freedom in life to a degree, and this will affect some people and its implications. 

 

Argumentative traps we are falling into and undoing ourselves: 

 

Discussing what hijab is is actually something that makes this ruling even more absurd actually. A European Court does not ban something from an unclear position. That would be the dumbest thing ever. 

 

If this is not religious but cultural as suggested here, all the worse actually. How can you ban something cultural to provide secular equality? That is either maniacal or fascism or something. That logic would not be very different from Pauls, Marys, Johns, Ruths, Omars, Mohammeds, Abrahams, Sarahs from the workplace because you know what? These are both religious, cultural, historical, and all that, too. And then we can discuss why our parents called us something. Yes, it is a choice not to change your name and all that. Sheer absurdity. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Krieg said:

 

No. I am comparing "Forcing women to go out topless would be crazy" with "Forcing women to display their hair would be crazy".

Why would you do that?

They have nothing at all to do with each other, have you worked anywhere where the female dress code was topless?

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

Both halal and kosher recognize "bare survival" exceptions to the ritual law.

And... If they want to work in a company that does not allow religious stuff... The same rule should kick in right?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, zeino said:

The ruling itself is purposefully about religious, philosophical and political symbols. This ruling does put itself into the pointless position of discussing what is what for whom, which ends up as a very basic violation of human subjectivity. The problem is not what hijab is, the ban considers this as a religious, philosophical, political symbol. Wearers also agree with this definition in addition to the fact that obviously all these things are inevitably cultural. The two sides do not have a definition problem. They have a rights problem. With the acceptance that this thing is this thing. It seems that it is some supporters of this ban that have a conceptual problem which is lagging behind the logic of the ruling they are supporting.  

 

The problem however is not why people wear hijab. The problem is that wearing any of these things limits the presence of religious freedom in life to a degree, and this will affect some people and its implications. 

 

Argumentative traps we are falling into and undoing ourselves: 

 

Discussing what hijab is is actually something that makes this ruling even more absurd actually. A European Court does not ban something from an unclear position. That would be the dumbest thing ever. 

 

If this is not religious but cultural as suggested here, all the worse actually. How can you ban something cultural to provide secular equality? That is either maniacal or fascism or something. That logic would not be very different from Pauls, Marys, Johns, Ruths, Omars, Mohammeds, Abrahams, Sarahs from the workplace because you know what? These are both religious, cultural, historical, and all that, too. And then we can discuss why our parents called us something. Yes, it is a choice not to change your name and all that. Sheer absurdity. 

 

Thing is, the whole discussion is happening in bad faith.  The point here is that people think that the visibility of Muslim religious practices is a threat (you can fill in the reason), so they are looking for ways to coerce wearers into not wearing it.  ie, the employment discrimination is a bonus, even if it is pretended otherwise -- under the theory that that will cause women to take it off, eventually.  The larger issue is the role of "when in Rome", ie, whether cultural majorities have a right, or maybe even a duty, to require that minorities conform to their expectations -- and if so, why?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

I am saying that the voluntary/involuntary choice is a false dichotomy and the wrong way to think about the issue.  We are talking about matters of belief and conscience.  It is strange to me to argue that feeling ethically bound by one's conscience is merely "indoctrination".  We have consciences in order that we be bound by them -- that is not "indoctrination", that is holding to an ethic.

Bollocks.

 

What we are talking about is describing things different while it applies to your religion. 

Either people have the choice to follow a religion or they do not - which is it? Is it both, does it different according to circumstances?

I expect it does, as such, the rule levels all these kind of symbols. If the company does not allow it, do not apply there. Or are we going to start allowing vegetarians and vegans work in slaughter houses and then say 'well, I know I applied here, but can I not do the job I applied for'.

Here is the definition of indoctrination:

the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically

 

Seems to fit.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now