Pat Condell

[DanaC]

I was slightly irritated by his asertions that we've had Muslims refusing to do various bits of their jobs because of their 'precious faith'. We have also had Christians refusing to do various things because of their faith; and also insisting on doing inappropriate things because of their faith.

The problem isn't Islam, the problem is faith/religion. The difference being that we are nominally a Christian country so we don't get so het up when it's a Christian refusing to treat a homosexual/do the paperwork for an adoption by a homosexual couple. And if a Christian is being disciplined by their workplace for, for instance, insisting on giving religous advice to atheist parents of sick children, the tone of the news reports is on the shoddy treatment of said Christian, rather than the right of the parents not to have christianity rammed down their throats at an emotionally difficult time.

I have no love of Saudi Arabia. I agree with some of what this man says about that country and about the ludicrous nature of any complaint made by them about 'human rights'. But much of what he says is just Islamophobic and bigotted shit. There is an argument to say that Moslems are being denied religious freedom, in ways that would have Christians marching in the streets if it was applied to them. France is talking about banning the veil ffs. However much I despise that article of dress, it is as wrong to say they shouldn't be able to wear it, as it would be to say Hassidic Jews should be legally prevented from wearing gloves or that Sikhs should have to cut their hair.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by DanaC

There is an argument to say that Moslems are being denied religious freedom, in ways that would have
Christians marching in the streets if it was applied to them.

I agree it would have the christians marching, protesting ... not bombing. . .

France is talking about banning the veil ffs. However much I despise that article of dress, it is as wrong to say they shouldn't be able to wear it, as it would be to say Hassidic Jews should be legally prevented from wearing gloves or that Sikhs should have to cut their hair.

The issue is one of safety and known terrorists being able to conceal their faces behind the veil. Gloves? Cutting their hair? You are totally missing the point. C'mon.

Originally Posted by classicman

The issue is one of safety and known terrorists being able to conceal their faces behind the veil. Gloves? Cutting their hair? You are totally missing the point. C'mon.

A Sikh can hide a weapon in a turban. Orthodox Jews...probably not so much under a yarmulke, but a small vial of a deadly chemical?

It is not so easy to draw a line between personal protected freedoms that are at the very foundation of western society and national security, nor should it be. When we begin to tilt too much in the favor of national security, we threaten more personal liberties than just one religions practice.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

A Sikh can hide a weapon in a turban. Orthodox Jews...probably not so much under a yarmulke, but a small vial of a deadly chemical?

It is very easy - the law is based upon hiding ones face - period. That has been done repeatedly. Not anymore - Good for them.

This is akin to wearing a mask while going into a bank - what reaction does that person get?

Originally Posted by classicman

It is very easy - the law is based upon hiding ones face - period. That has been done repeatedly. Not anymore - Good for them.

This is akin to wearing a mask while going into a bank - what reaction does that person get?

Why is covering one's face more dangerous than the capacity to hide something under a turban?

In fact, it is probably easier for a man to hide a weapon under a turban than a woman to hide a weapon under a veil.

The first amendment to the Constitution- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... - is there to ensure that it is not easy. And there is a reason why it is the first amendment

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

Why is covering one's face more dangerous than the capacity to hide something under a turban?

I already answered this - It is to prevent know terrorists from keeping their identities hidden - it has NOTHING to do with concealment of a weapons.

The first amendment . . .

This is in Europe, not the US.

Originally Posted by classicman

I already answered this - It is to prevent know terrorists from keeping their identities hidden - it has NOTHING to do with concealment of a weapons.

If applied in a sweeping manner, you are including millions who are not know terrorist.

This is in Europe, not the US.

We hear calls from some on the right for similar restrictions in the US.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I was slightly irritated by his asertions that we've had Muslims refusing to do various bits of their jobs because of their 'precious faith'. We have also had Christians refusing to do various things because of their faith; and also insisting on doing inappropriate things because of their faith.

Pat's no fan of Christians either.