April 12, 2011

Under the new French law, there's a fine of $216 for wearing a full-face veil, and a $43,000 fine and 1-year jail sentence for forcing someone else to wear one.

The fine is doubled for forcing a minor to cover up. You can see from the structure of the punishment that the government's intent is to protect women from subordination by private citizens. The premise — is it proved? — is that a woman is highly unlikely to freely choose this form of religious garb for herself. The freedom of women who choose the veil is counted at nothing compared to the supposed great evil in coercing women to wear it. If the coercion involved is so terrible, why not only outlaw coercion?

But is intrafamily coercion really that bad when what we're talking about is clothing? Would you be willing to accept a generally applicable law that imposed a 1-year jail sentence for forcing someone to wear clothing they don't like? Don't parents and spouses do that all the time? Would you double the sentence — on a generally applicable law — for parents who force their daughters to wear something other than what they want to wear?

Once you start asking questions like this, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the French law is anti-Muslim.

202 comments:

1 – 200 of 202   Newer›   Newest»
Oligonicella said...

Once you start looking a the totality of Sharia edicts, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Islam is anti-female. How easy to beat the woman at home so that she says it was her choice outside.

Seven Machos said...

France is very into its France, and blood and soil Frenchness will always trump mere rights.

Meanwhile, consider this as evidence for the ban.

TWM said...

You say "anti-Muslim" like it is a bad thing.

I kid, really I do . . .

TosaGuy said...

NTTIATWWT

Baronger said...

I know plenty of kids who want a ban on tight, itchy and uncomfortable clothing.

TMink said...

I think it is anti-Islamist. That is different. Christopher Hitchens talks about Christianists, believers in Christ who wish to form a theocracy in America. I know hundreds of Christians and no Christianists, yet Hitch still worries.

There are entire sects, large groups of Muslims who seek to impose Sharia on the world, and Sharia is not compatible with a modern view of women or a secular state.

France has had a wose time with these 9th century throwbacks and are pushing back. I think that is appropriate.

Trey

AllenS said...

France has a problem with it's immigrant population. This is only a starting point. France is trying to say is that if you don't like the rules, leave. Now! More rules will follow.

iqvoice said...

Ohio has existing law on the books that bans face masks, absent a weather-related reason for wearing one. It's hardly anti-muslim.

But even if it was, I wouldn't care! When it's legal to own a Bible in Saudi Arabia, then I'll worry about "clothing rights" in the west.

Jennifer said...

France is pretty anti-muslim, at least compared to the assumed redneck but actually extremely tolerant general US attitudes.

Maybe that's because Islam has a bigger effect on the average French citizen's daily life than those of Americans. Spend any time in any French city of size and you'll notice it sure seems like there are less French people than Africans and Middle Easterners.

tim maguire said...

Is segregation really that bad when we're talking about separate but equal? After all, they do get their own water fountains, their own seats on the train, their own schools.

Once you start asking questions like this, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that "equal rights" is anti-white.

Shouting Thomas said...

Once you start asking questions like this, it is hard to get avoid the conclusion that the French law is anti-Muslim.

I haven't been to France in a few years, and when I go there I don't visit the Banlieue, but I think that the issue for the French is something besides abstract legal principle.

Islam is definitely anti-French. In particular, my reading of Mark Steyn leads me to believe that French culture cannot survive Islam.

Self-defense and survival trump abstract legal principle every time. The West is at war with Islam because the two are incompatible.

cubanbob said...

Anti-clericalism is ingrained in the French State. This ban did not come out of the blue.

Dose of Sanity said...

Well said. I love the french, but guys like Le Pen make me sad.

It's a pity Sarkozy went down that road.

Seven Machos said...

guys like Le Pen make me sad

Then you don't really love the French. Or, more likely, you don't know anything about the French. But don't let your lack of knowledge stop you from opining. Free speech after all.

paminwi said...

I say yeah for the French! We have to wait to really see if this has any impact on Muslim women and if they take the initiative to follow the law and deal with the consequences of it in their own homes. You know where a husband can beat his wife but he should beat her below the shoulders or some weird crap like that. This is a religion that wants to move any country it can get a toehold in and move it backward. France it saying we will take you on where we can.

chickelit said...

Why apply American law to French law?

American law doesn't trump Sharia law.

This clash more like a quiet war than civil procedure.

Sloanasaurus said...

It is anti-muslim, but it attacks the culture rather than the religion. Wearing that garb predates Islam.

People are still free to go worship in a Mosque, etc...

I think the Muslim culture poses a danger to French culture. The clothing is an expression of that culture. It brings with it totalitarian government, opressions, etc...

We have similar groups in America that express their culture through clothing - such as the Omish. But they pose no threat at all to the American way of life. In fact, they are America, just a little old fashioned. Muslims in France are not pretending to be old fashioned.

gerry said...

If the coercion involved is so terrible, why not only outlaw coercion?

I must try to find it, an account by a Muslim woman living in France, who shunned the veil until she became self-conscious about being so different from all her neighbors (who wore varying degrees of the veil). Her experience and assertion was that the practice of wearing the veil was itself coercive.

So why not outlaw the coercion?

AllenS said...

A bolder step for France would have been the banning of the practice of Islam.

The Drill SGT said...

France has a huge problem with "youths". (aka Muslim rioters).

There are major sections of most every French city where the Fire department will not respond without police protection.

The French talk about equality and thus don't track religion of ethnicity very well, but after ignoring the problem of non-assimilation, they are now perhaps over reacting. as for the anti-clericism point, I agree.

France is going to get very ugly in the next few years as is Germany. I wonder if they are beyond the tipping point.

I hope Canada takes some refugees when the country ultimately burns.

Cato Renasci said...

The French have been dealing with aggressive Muslims France since the days of Charles Martel - if this some 1279-odd years experience suggests to them they need to ban the badges of Sharia, who are we to think we know better.

Islam is different in its professed desire to impose its rule and its caliphate on everyone else in the world. When Islam ceases to be subversive of Western values, we can talk seriously about "anti-Muslim" -- until then, it's just self-preservation.

MadisonMan said...

Does the French Constitution guarantee freedom of religion or expresssion? (I don't know, it's an honest question!)

The Drill SGT said...

Sloan said...Muslims in France are not pretending to be old fashioned.

They also aren't pretending to be French.

It may have been Steyn or somebody else that said:

The Muslims in Europe are not immigrants, they are colonizers

James Wigderson said...

So what should be the penalty for forcing men to wear pants instead of shorts?

AllenS said...

James --

Public shame and ridicule.

Ken said...

France has lots of laws on secularism. Most are or were directed at the RC church. France has for a century or more agressively tried to keep the public sphere secular. This is more of the same. So to call it anti-muslim is wrong. It might be anti-Islam (which is not the same), and it might be anti-public-religion.

AJ Lynch said...

They can't do this to the religion of whackjobs er I meant religion of peace [yikes I sound like Bill Maher].

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Would you be willing to accept a generally applicable law that imposed a 1-year jail sentence for forcing someone to wear clothing they don't like? Don't parents and spouses do that all the time?

How about taking children away from their parents who name them unacceptable names or tattoo Hispanic gang symbols on them. I come to the conclusion that American laws are anti-Hispanic or anti-personal choice. (actual incidents).

Furthermore, we can propose that American laws are anti-Christian, since you we are routinely forbidden from displaying OUR religious symbols or expressing our religion by saying prayers, even just a moment of silence, in many public places...Schools come to mind here.

If we are going to throw stones at France, we might not want to stand in our own glass house. Let us not by hypocrites.

It isn't anti- Muslim. The law, in France, is anti veil/burka or whatever the latest name for hiding your identity in a cloth body condom is.

Society cannot function when part of its population is hiding their idenity, whether by choice or by force. Laws are to promote a orderly, peaceful and cohesive society.

Full face veiling is a practice that promotes the opposite and breaks down the social aspect of sociey and creates the opportunity for faceless (literally) people to commit crimes and terrorism.

Not anti-muslim. Pro society and to protect the rest of the population.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

sigh....let us not BE hypocrites.

Kevin said...

Ever seen a woman in a burka walking down the street?

You can't imagine a more graphic and real demonstration of female subordination.

traditionalguy said...

So what is an honor killing all about? It is a control issue. That control of women is Islam's weakest point, and they know it. So Sarkosy has boldly issued an emancipation proclamation for all controlled Muslim women in the boundaries of France. That is not anti-Muslim anymore than laws against armed robbery of liquor stores are anti-black.

SGT Ted said...

Actually, what we are seeing is the response to an Islam that is completely anti-Western in nature.

It is an Islam that will happily use the civil right of "freedom of religion" to promolgate and force acceptance of violations of other individual liberties so that Islam is accomodated and defacto supreme to other secular western traditions of liberty, such as freedom of conscience, free speech and equal rights for women.

Ironclad said...

The intent of the law is two fold: 1) to prevent women from being "separated" from society by wearing a total face covering and 2) to directly address family coercion that is a integral part of Arab/Muslim culture.

Whether by choice or by force, anyone wearing a garment that fully covers the face and body cannot communicate the non-verbal signals we use to determine intent in interactions. In the extreme case, it also signals that the wearer has deliberately separated themselves from society that they view as corrupt and indicates that they may only been seen by those they consider "pure". From the religious perspective it also telegraphs a belief that the woman is a temptress and the garment shields her from her base instincts to corrupt others (from her beauty) or from the uncontrollable lust that will overcome a male that sees her. This is certainly not the French idea of how society should interact.

The second and more serious thrust of this law is to address the smothering effect of family pressure to conform to protect "honor". Arab/Muslim culture is shame based - and this leads to the need to control family behavior to insure that no one deviates in a way that brings "dishonor" on the family. Avoidance or penance for shame leads to beatings or honor killings to preserve family dignity. Again, the French cherish the right of the individual to be unique - and the Arab/Muslim culture view of women is very much opposite to this premise.

I've seen the level of pressure that results from these societies - children not allowed to play with others because their mother is "wicked" (does not cover) or religious police screaming curses at women for not conforming to their view that women should not be seen by others. The French law strikes at this part of the veil - the pressure to conform.

Veiling the face is a radical Wahabi interpretation of the modesty verse for women. Women theoretically should only cover their hair so their face and hands are exposed. The French law is a response to the political expression of the Muslim Sharia that is creeping into French society and trying to set up an alternate society. I hope the French succeed in this endeavor.

The Crack Emcee said...

Once you start asking questions like this, it is hard to get avoid the conclusion that the French law is anti-Muslim.

So what's your point?

And, while you've proven you're all gun-ho for the myriad of insane and unfair laws and restrictions that have advanced the cause of women, can you now explain why other laws, telling women what to do, are wrong? What's good for the goose,...

Maguro said...

Yes, it's anti-Muslim and no, there's nothing wrong with that. Their country, their rules. If the Muslims don't like it, there are plenty of Muslim countries they can move to.

Bender said...

The French have been dealing with aggressive Muslims France since the days of Charles Martel

When Muslim armies invade and advance halfway into your country before they are stopped and turned back, and then only to the border of Spain, where the invaders subjugated that country for several hundred years, you can pass whatever anti-veil law you want, especially since many modern-day Muslims have expressed no desire to assimilate into the French nation.

Sofa King said...

Her experience and assertion was that the practice of wearing the veil was itself coercive.

What a bunch of crap. Peer pressure is not the same as coercion.

Here's the bottom line why this is happening: the PROPER liberal (in the classical sense) response is to apply varying degrees of social approbation and pressure; shaming, ridicule, shunning, and the like, to people causing cultural friction. With enough friction, over time, the hard edges wear away and you're left with a smoothly functioning society.

However, political correctness of a particularly ridiculous European variety has labored mightily to make the slightest criticism of any "minority" culture totally unacceptable. This means that most of those abrasive elements of social culture mixing are taken away from people and assimilation fails to occur.

So now that this dynamic has been at work for several decades, you wake up to the fact that you need some social pressure, but your dominant culture has completely lost the ability to apply it. So you are forced to use the next best thing, legal pressure.

MadisonMan said...

or expressing our religion by saying prayers, even just a moment of silence, in many public places...Schools come to mind here.

I know of no school -- even here in Madison -- that bans individuals from praying, or taking a moment of silence. Before a test, for example.

The only rules are from organized prayers directed by school employees, as far as I know (for the public schools).

Terry said...

From the Wikipedia:

"Only in 1993 were French parents given the freedom to name their child without any constraint whatsoever.[4] However, if the birth registrar thinks that the chosen names (alone or in association with the last name) may be detrimental to the child's interests, or to the right of other families to protect their own family name, the registrar may refer the matter to the local prosecutor, who may choose to refer the matter to the local court."

Sofa King said...

Unfortunately using legal pressure to solve a social problem is decidedly *anti*-liberal. So you've ended up in a situation where you now must sacrifice liberty and morality, or sacrifice your culture.

All thanks to multiculturalism.

bagoh20 said...

There is no compromise possible between Islam and our values of freedom and equality. That is the problem, which leaves you picking a side. It may be unfortunate for our value of religious tolerance but the alternative is unacceptable, legally and I would hope morally.

Get over it, we have to choose, and it should be obvious how it goes if you respect our highest values. You can only be consistent in one direction. Islam is what is incompatible and needs reformed. That's not disrespect, it's clarity.

Sofa King said...

The only rules are from organized prayers directed by school employees, as far as I know (for the public schools).

MadMan, have a look at Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Dow.

Luke Lea said...

"But is intrafamily coercion really that bad when what we're talking about is clothing?"

So masks are ok too, right? Define your terms.

FloridaSteve said...

A little off topic but isn't there a security aspect to this law?

that-xmas said...

How can it be anti-muslim? As plenty of people will point out, the burqas, veils, and headscarves are cultural not religious.

Seriously though, it's well within the rights of the state to determine which cultural or religious practices it finds unacceptable. America is fairly unique in our explicit right to freedom of religion. But even that freedom ends in practices that harm yourself or others. (What? No tasty virgin hearts for me and my god, Ysarl'flart! You trample my first amendment rights!)

Lem said...

It seems to me that both the French and the more orthodox Muslims are fighting the same thing.

An encroaching complexity brought on by the very thing they fear the most.. the extinction of faith and the banishment of ethos.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Madison Man:

The only rules are from organized prayers directed by school employees, as far as I know (for the public schools).

ACLU has successfully sued school districts that allow student-initiated prayers only at optional events like graduation and ball games.

bagoh20 said...

"your dominant culture has completely lost the ability to apply it. So you are forced to use the next best thing, legal pressure."

Yes, exactly, and that explains a lot of problems arising on both sides of the Atlantic. State imposed censorship is probably the most intrusive that's been for centuries right now.

Freedom is every bit as hard to hang on to as the founders warned it would be. Those guys were really smart for old long-haired white guys.

A.Worthing said...

yes, Ann, a burqa has no more significance than a pair of jeans.

*stares at you*

the burqa renders a woman a non-entity. it dehumanizes her. its a little different in implications than most fashion choices.

craig said...

Sofa King is right. All the social pressure comes from the Islamist side now, while rich Westerners meekly acquiesce and even celebrate their self-hatred. They provide zero social support for people who actually want to resist the Islamist tide.

Pacifism in the war of ideas is the way to cultural suicide.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


There is no compromise possible between Islam and our values of freedom and equality.


Puh-Leeeze….the same thing was said of Judaism and Catholicism 100 years ago…funny we serve fish sticks on Friday in scholls all over America and the Pope doesn’t run the place…..

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


the burqa renders a woman a non-entity. it dehumanizes her. its a little different in implications than most fashion choices.


The same can be said of halter tops or bikini’s…they dehumanize womyn, they “objectify” womyn…See all the silly thing we say of Burqua’s can be said of ourselves.

bagoh20 said...

If you knew a job applicant at your company abused his wife and children, would you hire him, i.e.,give him a very valuable opportunity that you can only give to one person?

Conrad Bibby said...

I think the veil is nearly the equivalent of a KKK robe. It's not just "clothing," but a public pronouncement that the wearer doesn't accept the legitimacy of civil authorities, doesn't recognize the civil rights of certain groups, and practices or at least support the use of violence as a means of undermining the established legal order. All of these beliefs, btw, are at least nominally based on the wearer's religious convictions.

Imagine if a substantial and growing portion of white folks in a U.S. town, a city, or a state took to wearing KKK sheets as their everyday clothing. I think you'd sense that this represented not simply a harmless exercise of free-speech or -religious rights, but rather an existential threat to the kind of civilized society that's supposed to exist here.

Therein lies the rub: Freedom of speech and religion are fundamental pillars of our society. However, groups whose objectives are to TEAR DOWN those pillars cannot logically be permitted to do so merely out of deference to their own rights. If the Klansmen or the Islamists win, then there's no freedom of speech or religion for anyone. It's the same problem Lincoln faced when he decided that the preservation of the Union was actually MORE fundamental than the civil/legal rights of the insurrectionists.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


Here's the bottom line why this is happening: the PROPER liberal (in the classical sense) response is to apply varying degrees of social approbation and pressure; shaming, ridicule, shunning, and the like, to people causing cultural friction. With enough friction, over time, the hard edges wear away and you're left with a smoothly functioning society.

However, political correctness of a particularly ridiculous European variety has labored mightily to make the slightest criticism of any "minority" culture totally unacceptable. This means that most of those abrasive elements of social culture mixing are taken away from people and assimilation fails to occur.


Sofa King has it here….Because we will not be “judgmental” we must be LEGAL…in other times we’d have shamed, lampooned and ridiculed the group, until some equilibrium was achieved. NOW, we can’t do that…and yet we still see things that offend our sense of right and wrong, but now we make them crimes, rather than social strictures.

Conrad Bibby said...

I think the veil is nearly the equivalent of a KKK robe. It's not just "clothing," but a public pronouncement that the wearer doesn't accept the legitimacy of civil authorities, doesn't recognize the civil rights of certain groups, and practices or at least support the use of violence as a means of undermining the established legal order. All of these beliefs, btw, are at least nominally based on the wearer's religious convictions.

Imagine if a substantial and growing portion of white folks in a U.S. town, a city, or a state took to wearing KKK sheets as their everyday clothing. I think you'd sense that this represented not simply a harmless exercise of free-speech or -religious rights, but rather an existential threat to the kind of civilized society that's supposed to exist here.

Therein lies the rub: Freedom of speech and religion are fundamental pillars of our society. However, groups whose objectives are to TEAR DOWN those pillars cannot logically be permitted to do so merely out of deference to their own rights. If the Klansmen or the Islamists win, then there's no freedom of speech or religion for anyone. It's the same problem Lincoln faced when he decided that the preservation of the Union was actually MORE fundamental than the civil/legal rights of the insurrectionists.

bagoh20 said...

"See all the silly thing we say of Burqua’s can be said of ourselves."

How about this one?: The woman is forced to wear it under penalty of violence.

Ken said...

Imagine gangs of white men in KK hoods at night in black neighborhoods. Imagine single men in masks hanging around playgrounds. Still feel a ban on face covering can ONLY be motivated by "anti-muslim" feeling?

Julius said...

"anti-Muslim"??? Yes, it is! And there's good reason for that. They have culture and tradition over there, and a relatively cohesive society. All of that is put at risk by Islam. A line in the sand needed to be drawn, with some honorable European government saying that we'll accept Islam in our society this far but no further.

Patrick said...

Well, Madison Man, I truly doubt there are any atheists in test-taking situations!

Up here int he Twin Cities, there was a "Charter School," run by an independent board, but funded by the state that had employees run prayers during school time, and had not quite mandatory after school prayer and religious activity, that was pretty much universally attended. Nearly all of the teachers were outwardly religious, and the school was sponsored by a fundamentalist religious group. This actually went on for quite some time before the ACLU got hold of it.

Of course, people seem to bend over backwards for the religious up here, so it went on for a few years. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that it was an Islamic school. A Christian school would, of course have been given the same latitude.

Sofa King said...

However, groups whose objectives are to TEAR DOWN those pillars cannot logically be permitted to do so merely out of deference to their own rights.

I disagree. They MUST be logically permitted to do so - if our "pillars" are not strong enough to withstand nonviolent defiance, then they *should* fall.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


If you knew a job applicant at your company abused his wife and children, would you hire him, i.e.,give him a very valuable opportunity that you can only give to one person?


You might ask Althouse, LEGALLY you could be in a bit of sticky wicket here…as to the prospective employee it could be argued you are “discriminating” against him/her…does the abuse affect their work product? Your hiring decisions have to be based on that, not age, sex, or the prospect of pregnancy or the like…only job qualifications. Next, HOW did you come by this knowledge? Have you violated the prospective employees “privacy?” AND how do you know it’s true? Aren’t you “punishing” the prospective employee without “due process?”

BUT, if you “know” child abuse is occurring you may have a legal obligation to report it, depending on your industry…..

Modern Society has made things very “complex.” Again in the “old days” you had a moral conundrum, now you have a LEGAL one.

dbp said...

Sofa King has the right idea I think.

I imagine in an earlier time a lot of social pressure could have been applied.

Back then it would have been, "Hey Amad, here in France we encourage our wives to ease-up on the croissant and get some exercise, not have them wear a tent when they become enbonpoint." "Dude, you go out with her wearing that and you are a laughing stock".

Pastabagel said...

If you read the text of the law it isn't specific to any religion, which reveals that this isn't a law about religion. France wants to increase the number of security cameras in public spaces to 60,000 by 2012. This law is about making sure that those cameras can see everyone's face. That means no niqabs, but it also means no ski masks.

As to the second part of the law--about coercing minors--there is no way to enforce this.

But when you write "for parents who force their daughters to wear something other than what they want to wear" you are correctly identifying the the motivation for forcing girls to wear the veil as being the same as western mothers not wanting their daughters to wear "what they want to wear".

Both are an attempt to control the sexuality of the teenage girl, which is (a) very weird when you think about it, and (b) something that is almost never done with boys.

dbp said...

What is really perverse is that the old methods of creating social cohesion are often illegal.

The ribbing and other pressure applied which promoted a healthy conformity would now likely be prosecutable offenses under harassment laws.

See Canada and the prosecution of Mark Steyn.

bagoh20 said...

Joe, I believe you can discriminate on anything EXCEPT the protected classes. Anything. Now it is true that people will say you did it on the basis of one of the forbidden reasons, regardless of your actual reason.

The question is I know a man beats his wife and forces her to wear the veil (all according to Islam), and therefore refuse to hire him, am I doing it on the basis of religion?

How will he treat his fellow female employees, subordinates and superiors?

ruthm said...

It is not anti-Muslim it is anti Sharia. There are at minimum about 5000 women a year murdered by beheading, burning or maiming in other manners in "honor" killings. Rarely is the act they do that brings on this horror more than a mild act of human freedom--often the simple act of choosing western clothing. If this issue is simply "choice" of clothing, why would death be so necessary to stamp out their ability to make that choice. The veil is not a simple clothing issue. It is a symbol of enforced submission. That some few females would still choose if they had the freedom to choose does not alter the fact, fact, that they are in Sharia dominated families, communities, and countries, not free to choose. The symbol is extremely important to the Sharia supporter; the French and othe Western European nations are simply waking up to its importance. Importing your ridiculous clothing choice analysis from the comfort of your United States Constitutionally protected situation is stupidity.

Almost Ali said...

Once you start asking questions like this, it is hard to get avoid the conclusion that the French law is anti-Muslim.

What does that mean?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


Joe, I believe you can discriminate on anything EXCEPT the protected classes. Anything. Now it is true that people will say you did it on the basis of one of the forbidden reasons, regardless of your actual reason.

The question is I know a man beats his wife and forces her to wear the veil (all according to Islam), and therefore refuse to hire him, am I doing it on the basis of religion?

How will he treat his fellow female employees, subordinates and superiors?


No Employment Law has gotten more complex…there are things you may not ask ANYONE or things upon which you may not decide employment for ANYONE….

As to your “example” well you open yourself up to a Religious/Racial Discrimination suit, possibly, depending on if the Muslim is a White Guy-they exist-AND you open yourself up to questions, I believe simply because you made a decision based on a person’s RACE/RELIGION not their résumé and its relation to the job requirements.

Again, what you used to get to wrestle with in your conscience, you now get to wrestle with your lawyer.

Seven Machos said...

It is not anti-Muslim it is anti Sharia.

I got no problem with this French law in France but I have seen this not-anti-Muslim-but-anti-Sharia idea expressed here in this thread a few times and it's just foolish.

The whole rationale between the Establishment Clause was to prevent political discrimination against certain sects of religion (at the federal level, but that's an argument me and Althouse can take up at a different time).

This not-Muslim-but-Sharia thing is akin to saying that some American law isn't aimed at Christians, only Lutherans. It's exactly the kind of distinction our Constitution aims to prevent.

PrincetonAl said...

It is anti a certain cultural form of expression practiced by certain Muslins - it is not anti-Islam per se. Turkey has an engoing debate and historically has had the head garb ban in government offices. That is a debate that happens between Muslims, and thus can't be anti-muslim. Many US schools have dress codes. Before the head garb ban, Ataturk banned the fez. There are limits to what you can reveal in the streets of the US too in the name of decency. There are other reasons why the full-face veil might be inappropriate in public in areas where you have security cameras. All of this is not to say there isn't a very clear and specific objective here related to cultural assimilation. But I don't think the issue is as black-and-white as Ann says. And given the level of harrassment related to veil that occurs in some places, perhaps as difficult as the law seems in the context of the US today, there is something to be explored here as well.

Sofa King said...

Back then it would have been, "Hey Amad, here in France we encourage our wives to ease-up on the croissant and get some exercise, not have them wear a tent when they become enbonpoint." "Dude, you go out with her wearing that and you are a laughing stock".

And it's not just about wearing people down through nagging and pestering - the simple fact that people had pride in their culture, and worked together to enhance it, and fought together to preserve it; all those things made other people *want* to assimilate, to *want* to be a part of that vibrant culture.

Now, pride has turned to apathy, or even antipathy. Cultural pride, particularly among the elite, is officially and socially suspect. Multiculturalism stabs at the heart of any notion of cultural betterment by denying that any culture *can* be better. In many ways, Islam is filling the vacuum left by the retreat of western culture. It provides the sense of shared purpose and identity that western culture once did.

bagoh20 said...

If any group started wearing face covering and forcing women to wear them, we would probably have the same issues with it.

It's only seems anti-Muslim because that's the group choosing to do the thing we that we naturally and sensibly object to. The fear that we are being intolerant to them gives them extra power that another group would not have. The French are finally abandoning that self-imposed and discriminatory restraint.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


It is not anti-Muslim it is anti Sharia. There are at minimum about 5000 women a year murdered by beheading, burning or maiming in other manners in "honor" killings.


Were they wearing a Burqua when it happened? How about simply prosecuting honour killings and skip banning Burqa’s? Again yesterday I mentioned that the Swiss banning minarets was looking and worrying about the WRONG thing. IF you’re worried about “radical Islam” , tap ‘phones, plant agents in mosques, and put a strong Gendarme presence in Muslim districts…and by “gendarme” I mean it in it term of art sense…a well-armed and equipped paramilitary force. If you ban Burqua’s and minarets, you are only focusing on the outward manifestations of the problem. Eretz Ysrael doesn’t ban Burqua’s, IIRC, but they sure as H3ll monitor their Internal Security, closely.

A.Worthing said...

Joe

> The same can be said of halter tops or bikini’s…they dehumanize womyn, they “objectify” womyn…See all the silly thing we say of Burqua’s can be said of ourselves.

Right, so suddenly you can’t tell the difference between Pamela Anderson and Tina Fey, the argument is equally valid? Give me a break.

I hate the “but they can say the same thing” argument. Guess what? They can say whatever they want. It’s a free country. But what is accurate and legitimate is another matter.\

Seriously, what is wrong with liberals that they can’t even sense their mortal enemies?

A.Worthing said...

Conrad

you will like this post, mentioning how technically veils are already banned in many states under their KKK laws.

http://patterico.com/2011/04/11/veiled-threats-to-freedom-of-expression/

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


Seriously, what is wrong with liberals that they can’t even sense their mortal enemies?.


Who says:
1) I’m a “liberal”-in the political sense; and
2) That I can’t sense my enemies.
My point would be that what was said of Bruqua’s is and has been said of other womyn’s clothing? Please tell me why that argument was untrue? Or if it IS true, why cannot then ban Halter Tops and Bikini’s? Saudi Arabia does, for just the same sort of reason.

Islam is not a threat…100 years ago the Irish, Polish, Italian, Jewish immigrants and THEIR “foreign” ways were the threat. Gee did the Italian Saints Festivals-which were NOT loved by the WASP’s lead to Papal Control of America? As I’ve said fish sticks in lent at school, is that Papal Control? People worried that the Y!ds, the D@gos, the Bog-trotters were NEVER going to fit into America! What do you thik Margaret Sanger was “on about” and why do you think she helped found Planned Parenthood.

roesch-voltaire said...

France might also have this reason, taken from an essay on the topic" "During militant struggles for independence, such as that against the French in Algeria or the British in Egypt, some women purposely kept the veil in defiance of western styles. It meant they also could take part in veiled and silent demonstrations, or could hide weapons under long robes." Banning women from walking around topless, as they do in some cultures, must also be anti-something, or is it just recognizing the limits of personal freedom within a society?

Seven Machos said...

Joe -- It's France. While I am probably a little more Wilsonian and about growing the American franchise than most people, I still say that you can't go arguing for your own beliefs in other societies. Down that road are many fresh hells.

rhhardin said...

$216 must be metric.

Quaestor said...

Seven Machos wrote: France is very into its France, and blood and soil Frenchness will always trump mere rights.

Spot on. The law isn't anti-Muslim as much as it is anti-foreign culture, in this case fundamentalist Muslim culture. As 7M and I have said elsewhere, the French are very protective of their culture, which they hold to be the pinnacle of civilization, and they aren't embarrassed to take action when they decide it is under threat.

Back in the 70's les immortels got steamed over English (and especially American English) words worming into French, words like le hotdog and la drugstore, they put the pressure on until the municipal arrondissement passed ordinances to curb "franglais" in hotels, shops and restaurant menus.

BTW, the full-body burka is also illegal in Turkey, and has been since Atatürk's regime. Lately, the islamist-leaning AK government doesn't enforce those laws, however.

bagoh20 said...

What's hidden in a bikini can be dangerous and explosive, but it's no bomb, and only the guilty get hurt.

William said...

Isn't wearing the veil anti-secular? Isn't France a secular nation?.....When western women visit most Muslim countries they are expected to wear long sleeved shirts and modest clothing in deference to the host country. Why shouldn't Muslims be asked to show respect to the customs of France?......Instead of casual Fridays, how about religious Fridays. On Friday, you can wear whatever.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Joe -- It's France.


Yes I’m well aware of it…I wrote yesterday:
That France:
1) Lacks a 1st Amendment; and
2) Has a long history of anti-clericalism and public secularism.
Therefore, IN FRANCE, this is an acceptable Public Policy. Not so much in the US. Though, I stand by the argument that if you ban Burqua’s but aren’t doing all the other things I mentioned, PLUS providing jobs and a growing economy and assimilation France or Switzerland, OR the US are missing the point and the boat…..

Milwaukee said...

The French have struggled with the role of faith and religion since the French Revolution. Too many of them have faith in nothing. In the long run the Mohammedans will outlast, out breed and out live the nihilist. Replacing something with nothing is difficult. Yet, the French have been fairly successful in marginalizing the Catholic Church.

In parts of Africa where violence is not involved, people prefer to become Christian rather than becoming Muslim. When the contest is Christian v. Muslim, I would pick the Christian community to win. But if the contest is nihilism v. Islam, then Islam will probably win.

Dark Eden said...

In Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book "Infidel" she describes the Muslim Brotherhood's rise in Somalia, a process which mirrors what's going on in Egypt and Libya and so many other places to a disturbing degree.

In it, and this really shocked me and was difficult for me to accept, she says it was the women of Somalia who embraced radical Islam first, they who demanded to wear these burqas and hijabs and whatever else they have.

She describes her own eager acceptance of it, and how it made her feel. She definitely did not feel oppressed by it, she felt empowered in a weird way I don't think I can ever understand.

In a way its a very sexual and feminine thing. "My sexual power is so great that the only way to protect you from it is to cover every inch of my body." That's a pretty intense thing to be reminded of every second you're wearing the thing.

The psychology of it seemed very much like an American teen wearing skimpy clothes her parents hate, just in reverse. Her parents hated the outfit she wore and didn't want her to do it. No one was forcing her, she was doing it completely on her own against resistance.

My mind sort of recoils against that reality. I don't want that to be true. I want the girls wearing these to be poor oppressed victims and I think most of the time they aren't, except on a very ... what's the word? esoteric? level.

I hate these things and see them as sort of mobile cloth prisons of the mind. I don't want anyone anywhere to ever wear them.

The libertarian in me though, recoils at the thought of forbidding someone to wear them just because it bothers me so much. Who am I to fine someone or put them in prison over a piece of cloth?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

What's hidden in a bikini can be dangerous and explosive, but it's no bomb, and only the guilty get hurt.


Yeah and Gloria Steinem and Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (Hai’a) say the same thing about the Bikini. May we not ban them? If not why not?

Again you ban the symbol, but ignore the SUBSTANCE…

edutcher said...

This is the obverse of Angie Merkel declaring multi-culti and diversity don't work.

La Madeleine imported Moslems by the millions from the old Empire to do all the dirty jobs, but didn't want anything else to do with them and pushed the line that assimilation wasn't necessary; just shove them off into the banlieues and let them do their thing.

The result is 2 separate entities at each others' throats.

The PC crowd pushes the same idea with bilingualism, etc., here, so this is something of a cautionary tale. Saying that all cultures are the same and we have no right to impose our values on immigrants is what the French tried.

It's been a flop.

kwood said...

A burqua is a mask, pure and simple. If I can't walk into a jewelry store with a rubber Evil Klown mask on, or have my drivers license picture taken while wearing one, then the same should apply to a burqua.

Alex said...

You say "anti-Muslim" like it is a bad thing.

This. If we want to protect our culture, then we BETTER be anti-Muslim.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Yet, the French have been fairly successful in marginalizing the Catholic Church.


The Church ALLOWED itself to be marginalized…the problems with any church, C of E in the United Kingdom or Catholicism in Italy and France as compared to the “church” in America, is that the European churches accepted the easy path, of becoming arms of the state, accepting state pay. In America the ‘church” chose the harder path, attracting money on its own.

The result: in America there are vibrant “churches/parishes/synagogues/mosques/Shambolic prayer temples” because if you can’t attract a crowd; you die…In Europe the “church” didn’t care if you attended or not, they got “paid” just the same. There the “church” and the laity became divorced, as the church was associated with the excesses of the state (Vichy or Fascist Italy), and/or became more divorced from the needs of its Flock, as an example, the C of E and the line of Archbishops that seem only milquetoasts and poltroons.

Alex said...

Don't go wobbly on us now Ann.

AllenS said...

Walk into your local bank with a Nixon mask on, and see what happens.

Seven Machos said...

A burqua is a mask, pure and simple. If I can't walk into a jewelry store with a rubber Evil Klown mask on, or have my drivers license picture taken while wearing one, then the same should apply to a burqua.

Dude, really. What is your point? France outlawed the full burqa in public. Period. You can wear an evil clown mask in the United States and a full burqa most places in the United States all day, every day without fear of harassment.

Quaestor said...

I wouldn't characterize the French culture or the French generally as nihilist.

PatCA said...

"The premise — is it proved?" In 2004 many Muslim women testified in secret (for fear of reprisal) that they were indeed forced to wear the veil.

I have to agree with TMink. This is anti-Islamist, not anti-Muslim. In fact many Muslims say that the veil is not in the Koran at all but is cultural. And I think that culture is wrong--female autonomy is a universal right, IMHO.

Seven Machos said...

France is much more open about at and better at nakedly protecting and projecting its national interest at foreign policy. That's for Goddamn sure.

The United States is terrible in this regard. We are either ham-handed (like George W. Bush, and I'm a big fan): Fuck you. We are taking over. Or we are like Obama: Please, if you don't mind, we are going to bomb you a bit. Please don't be mad.

The French don't mess around. But they are very suave about it all. It's impressive, really.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

A burqua is a mask, pure and simple. If I can't walk into a jewelry store with a rubber Evil Klown mask on, or have my driver’s license picture taken while wearing one, then the same should apply to a burqua.


Compelling State Interest, please….How many Burqua-clad jewelry store robberies have there been? How many robberies where someone was wearing the Evil Klown mask? How many people have the Evil Klown mask as a symbol of their religion? It plays out that Burqua’s have a religious significance that Evil Klown Masks don’t and that the number of Burqua-Burglaries is about 0, ergo there is no Compelling Interest in banning them-in the US, due to the 1st Amendment.

There IS a Compelling Interest in using driver’s licenses as ID, and therefore, NO, you may not wear a Burqua for a driver’s license photo, we MUST be able to see your face, AND we can ask you to lift the veil at traffic stops, in order to examine your face in the license and in IRL.

It is not, No Burqua’s any time, anywhere, but there are some limitations on their wear….

Seven Machos said...

Joe -- You can't wear an evil clown mask in my jewelry store. Sorry.

LakeLevel said...

I don't want to cause any trouble but, Minnesota has had a law since Jessie James that you can't walk around with something covering your face. It was actually recently enforced and upheld in repeal.

LakeLevel said...

appeal

edutcher said...

Seven Machos said...

France is much more open about at and better at nakedly protecting and projecting its national interest at foreign policy. That's for Goddamn sure.

Of course, this is why French roads are lined with trees.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Joe -- You can't wear an evil clown mask in my jewelry store. Sorry.


You have :
1) Mis-addressed that; or
2) Mis-read my post.
For that is EXACTLy my point….you CAN’T wear an Evil Klown mask in a jewelry store, but you CAN wear a Burqua.

Seven Machos said...

Edutcher -- I'm just calling it like I see it. France is a minor global player that exerts quite an influence.

Seven Machos said...

Joe -- Just trying to add some levity.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Joe -- Just trying to add some levity.

About 40 seconds ago I began to suspect I had missed the point of your post…sorry I’m humour-impaired today. What IF I come in wearing the Evil Klown Mask, but leave a $10,000 deposit at the door?

edutcher said...

Seven Machos said...

Edutcher -- I'm just calling it like I see it. France is a minor global player that exerts quite an influence.

It has a lot of intel contacts in the old Empire.

Beyond that, not much.

Rialby said...

There will be a civil war in Europe. I am putting the date at 2027.

kwood said...

Compelling State Interest, please….How many Burqua-clad jewelry store robberies have there been? How many robberies where someone was wearing the Evil Klown mask? How many people have the Evil Klown mask as a symbol of their religion? It plays out that Burqua’s have a religious significance that Evil Klown Masks don’t and that the number of Burqua-Burglaries is about 0, ergo there is no Compelling Interest in banning them-in the US, due to the 1st Amendment.

If you want to wax legalistic, I'd say you're asking the wrong question.

The correct question is this:

"How many jewelry store robberies have been committed in which the perpetrator was wearing a mask?"

Quite a few, I think you'll find, and strips of cloth have been used much more than my figurative clown mask.

And where / when was it decided that 'religious significance' trumps the rule of law? Do things that are of 'secular significance' to me hold any weight in this regard?

bagoh20 said...

"Joe -- You can't wear an evil clown mask in my jewelry store. Sorry."

How about his bikini? I bet he could just take what he wants with that on.

Seven Machos said...

And where / when was it decided that 'religious significance' trumps the rule of law? Do things that are of 'secular significance' to me hold any weight in this regard?

Dude, the entire point of the Establishment Clause and its (often unfortunate) progeny in federal court is that religious significance trumps the rule of law. By God, you nailed it!

Joe -- If you tell me it's you beforehand, you can wear an evil clown mask and a burqa.

AllenS said...

What IF I come in wearing the Evil Klown Mask, but leave a $10,000 deposit at the door?

Would you like to buy a used tractor? You'll know it's me, I'll have the Nixon mask on.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

And where / when was it decided that 'religious significance' trumps the rule of law? Do things that are of 'secular significance' to me hold any weight in this regard?

Might want to have taken that up with the Founders….”Secular significance” gets trumped by the US Constitution, quite often.

Now I’m “l”ibertarian enough to say, SURE you can ban Burqua’s in your store, it’s your property, but there are some Federal complications with that, and it would be unconstitutional to ban the wearing of Burqua’s in stores, without showing some compelling interest in doing so. OTOH, depending where you are and your clientele I might ban the wearing of Western clothes, IF it would bring in more Saudi womyn and their credit cards….

Dan said...

"anti-Islam" would be a more plausible charge than "anti-Muslim." (One might think the law is pro-Muslim, qua human being.) Even then, it's probably not anti-Islam per se, as much as it is anti- a certain kind of system of values and behavior etc., which Islam fosters (at least in the eyes of certain Muslims, at least in certain places, etc. qualifications etc.). Suppose another religion arose that differed greatly from Islam but was identical on the understanding of the role of women. The law would then affect them too. The question is whether the values underpinning the law are good or not. If they are, then to the extent that a religion clashes with them, the problem is with that religion and not the law. Was the U.S. "anti-Mormon" in outlawing polygamy? Not in any objectionable sense.

AllenS said...

I don't know about anyone else, but did the mask that the Lone Ranger wore, fool anybody?

Milwaukee said...

Joe:

The Church ALLOWED itself to be marginalized…the problems with any church, C of E in the United Kingdom or Catholicism in Italy and France as compared to the “church” in America, is that the European churches accepted the easy path, of becoming arms of the state, accepting state pay. In America the ‘church” chose the harder path, attracting money on its own.

The result: in America there are vibrant “churches/parishes/synagogues/mosques/Shambolic prayer temples” because if you can’t attract a crowd; you die…In Europe the “church” didn’t care if you attended or not, they got “paid” just the same. There the “church” and the laity became divorced, as the church was associated with the excesses of the state (Vichy or Fascist Italy), and/or became more divorced from the needs of its Flock, as an example, the C of E and the line of Archbishops that seem only milquetoasts and poltroons.


Spot on assessment. To veer off thread, the same has happened to our schools. Too many public schools aren't worth a damn. A local school reflects it's community. A homogeneous community, with many shared values, will produce a more productive school than a fragmented community. Teachers have willingly said "send us your kids, we'll teach 'em all." and parents too willingly complied. Now teachers say "Dang, we have to teach everybody who shows up, not like those private schools that can turn kids away."

The Communist know that turning children away from their parents on matters of religion can happen at schools.

Conrad Bibby said...

There will be a civil war in Europe. I am putting the date at RIGHT NOW.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Would you like to buy a used tractor? You'll know it's me, I'll have the Nixon mask on.

Sure and how will I know if it’s you or Keanu Reeves or Patrick Swayze or Gary Busey? Nixon masks mean “crime” I saw Point Break.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

I don't know about anyone else, but did the mask that the Lone Ranger wore, fool anybody?

Or how no one thought Diana Prince looked an awful lot like Wonder Woman? Or did people just never look at Wonder Woman’s face?

The Drill SGT said...

7M siad...The French don't mess around. But they are very suave about it all. It's impressive, really.

Just walk into the Paris airport and see the CRS guys strolling around with big dogs and H&K MP5 submachineguns

edutcher said...
Of course, this is why French roads are lined with trees.


Is that a Napoleon shade tree reference?

Napoleon insisted that the new roads being built all have trees planted along side, "to provide shade for my troops as they march". The engineers replied, "your Majesty, that will take years for the trees to grow high enough..", Napoleon is said to have replied, "yes, that is why you must begin at once".

Kirk Parker said...

Crypto-Joe:

"Islam is not a threat"

Wow, glad you cleared that up! But what took you so long? We could have used this information years ago...

Milwaukee said...

How about a gang of cross-dressing thieves, all wearing burkas? Only after the heist they dump their outfits? I think there is a movie in there. Then the bad guys are chased by the Feds and by outraged Mohammedans, angry at being mocked. The bad guys end up seeking the protection of the Feds, and turn themselves in, but not before there is a shoot out between Mohammedans and bad guys, where the Feds are protecting the bad guys, and the Hero Special Agent is senselessly murdered. He thinks the Mohammedans have put down their arms, and a sneaky one gets off one last shot. Of course, one of the bad "guys" is a girl friend of their leader, but in the course of the investigation she falls in love with the Special Agent. Maybe Mel Gibson could be the Hero Special Agent, on his last case before retirement. His politically correct bosses keep getting in the way, and prevent him from taking all necessary precautions, which contribute to his death. (Sorry Mel, either you a Bruce Willis.) Naturally, when their leader is taken out, the Feds go berserk and wipe out the Mohammedans, but they have relatives, and the Special Agent has a son, hence the sequel.

Remember folks, you read this story plot here first.

rednesc: my confirmation word. Lots of blood, lots of rednesc

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Wow, glad you cleared that up! But what took you so long? We could have used this information years ago...

Was Catholicism? One hundred years ago all the WASPS feared it! All those Catholics came from poor, authoritarian countries, full of corruption and superstition…they have lotsa of kids, who’ll grow up corrupt and superstitious, and vote the Tammany Ticket, soon they’ll displace US and America will be OVER!

Funny that was the fear, did it happen? So was Catholicism a threat or just a bug-a-boo of WASPS?

I don’t deny the evil of Mohamed Atta or the threat that Islamo-Fascist represent, I simply don’t believe that is “Islam” any more than Eric Rudolf or any of a number of abortion killers have been “Christians.” Or that they represent Christianity. Does Fred Phelps represent Intolerant and Bigoted Christianity? Did Meir Kahane represent the Jews?

Lincolntf said...

Here's a short article on how the ban on being masked has gone in the U.S. when the object was to discourage the KKK. Mixed reults.

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=14516

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)



Milwaukee, I’d go with Bruce Willis:
1) He’s less controversial than Mel.
2) Willis won’t demand that HE produce and direct the movie; and
3) He plays the “doomed hero” better.
Let me know when you have the script treatment together…we’ll flog it and become RICH…like the Wachowski Brothers, but I, at least, won’t be under-going sex re-assignment surgery. NTTAWWT

knox said...

Once you start asking questions like this, it is hard to get avoid the conclusion that the French law is anti-Muslim.

Mmm, not really. It's anti-extremist.

Radical muslims have systematically trained us, through terrorism and violence, to fear Islam. Unfortunately, and inexplicably, the moderates, who outnumber radicals by millions (if not billions), have done nothing to reign them in.

And they never will, until we start making it too unpleasant for them *not* to.

The PC notion that this = bigotry is silly.

edutcher said...

AllenS said...

I don't know about anyone else, but did the mask that the Lone Ranger wore, fool anybody?

It really wasn't supposed to fool anybody, as long as they couldn't recognize John Reid (who, of course, was dead) underneath.

The Drill SGT said...

edutcher said...
Of course, this is why French roads are lined with trees.

Is that a Napoleon shade tree reference?


I thought it was an Otto von Bismarck reference:)

knox said...

My aunt lives in Brooklyn. She said the Hasidic neighborhood tried to ban women in shorts on their streets.

So a bunch of women had a parade through the area, all wearing shorts, natch. Many of them were Jews.

This is exactly the sort of intervention I would like to see from moderate Muslims. Something, anything resembling public push-back. I don't think that's asking too much.

A.Worthing said...

Joe

> Who says:...I’m a “liberal”-in the political sense

For starters, if you call women “womyn”...

> Who says... That I can’t sense my enemies.

The evidence is in your comment already.

> My point would be that what was said of Bruqua’s is and has been said of other womyn’s clothing?

Yeah, and in 1861, it was said that freeing slave was the act of a tyrant. This is what Lincoln said to that:

> The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails to-day among us human creatures, even in the North, and all professing to love liberty. Hence we behold the processes by which thousands are daily passing from under the yoke of bondage, hailed by some as the advance of liberty, and bewailed by others as the destruction of all liberty. Recently, as it seems, the people of Maryland have been doing something to define liberty; and thanks to them that, in what they have done, the wolf’s dictionary, has been repudiated.

Burqas are not about freedom.

> Islam is not a threat…

Radical islam is.

> 100 years ago the Irish, Polish, Italian, Jewish immigrants and THEIR “foreign” ways were the threat.

Right and remember when 19 italian catholics blew up the WTC?

Yeah, neither do I.

> Compelling State Interest, please….How many Burqua-clad jewelry store robberies have there been?

You only need a compelling state interest when the regulation is not content neutral. Do pay attention.

And I love how you think that laws like the Klan Acts should be read to have a religious exemption that most do not in fact have based on your stereotypes about burqa-clad women.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Right and remember when 19 italian catholics blew up the WTC?

Yeah, neither do I.


Do you remember the Fenians attacking Canada from New York State? Do you remember Sacco and Venzetti? Learn some history, get back to me. Also check up on “Anarchists”, “The Black hand” and the like…..Also, see the Haymarket affair (also known as the Haymarket massacre or Haymarket riot).

And I believe the State has to show a compelling interest in ANY infringement of the 1st or the like.

kwood said...

Thanks all for the input. Clearly the mask angle is not as clear-cut as I thought it was. Good points (and a swell movie plot to boot) all around.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

The evidence is in your comment already..

Really have I spoken out against Afghanistan, Gitmo or Military Commissions, warrantless wiretapping or the SWIFT program…because IF I have it’s news to me.

Radical islam is.

And radical Islamicists only wear Burqua’s…have you told anyone this?

Burqas are not about freedom.

Funny if Hirsan Ali CHOSE to don one, in the beginning, I’d say it WAS about “freedom” wouldn’t you? *WOW* We’re going to “liberate” devout Muslim womyn, from their religion, I’m sure that will win friends and make allies in the Muslim Community! Who you gonna save from their “oppressive and wrong-headed religion” next Mr. Hitchens, I mean why stop at Muslims?

Paul said...

"Once you start asking questions like this, it is hard to get avoid the conclusion that the French law is anti-Muslim."

So what Ann? Muslim law is anti-everyone else! And you are getting the vapors over this?

Why the Saudies CAIN people for such transgressions. The IRANIANS HANG people for such transgressions. Other Muslim nations behead them. And you are worried about French law?

Keep in mind 99 percent of the terrorist ARE Muslim. And remember the riots in France are mostly Muslim. So I don't blame the French, I blame the MUSLIMS.

Conrad Bibby said...

@Crypto Jew:

Isn't it faulty logic to assert, in effect, that because "x" group in the past was FALSELY labeled a threat, ergo "y" group is similarly not a genuine threat?

Is it your contention that no religious group can ever constitute a threat? Or is it perhaps your contention that no threatening group can ever be truly religious?

Seems to me that various European nations are being slowly suffocated and taken over by Muslims who are establishing their own exclusive enclaves that are governed by Sharia and operate completely outside the jurisdiction of native legal and political institutions. Left alone, these enclaves will grow both in population and geographical scope and will make more and more demands on the supposedly "dominant" culture and society. Once a tipping point is achieved, the Europeans will flee or have to conform to Islamic culture, and countries like France will no longer be "Western," democratic, or free. This process is underway. It may take 30 years to run it's course, but it's happening already.

My point being: the situation I'm describing is gravely threatening, even if it doesn't necessarily depend on overt acts of terrorism. Islam (or at least the fundamentalist brand of Islam that we've seen since the Iranian Revolution) IS a mortal threat to the West. If you want to preserve the freedoms and human rights that we now consider the centerpiece of Western Civilization, then you eventually need to stand up against the encroachment of fundamentalist Islam into Western countries.

kwood said...

This is exactly the sort of intervention I would like to see from moderate Muslims. Something, anything resembling public push-back. I don't think that's asking too much.

Isn't there a mosque in NYC somewhere that wanted to ban dog-walkers from it's sidewalk? Might be a place to start. I wouldn't wait for moderate Muslims to do it, though.

It's more important, I think, for the secular crowd to make a stand of this sort. These lines need to be drawn by everyday, ordinary American people.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Isn't it faulty logic to assert, in effect, that because "x" group in the past was FALSELY labeled a threat, ergo "y" group is similarly not a genuine threat?

Well it isn’t a “logical” question for one, is it? Not a question of axioms and propositions, major and minor…it’s a discussion of UNKNOWABLE’S. And I am saying one hundred years ago Jews and Catholics were a “threat” to this nation. One hundred years later, no one, seemingly, can remember that “we” were a threat. I’m simply saying that the same can be true for Muslims. Margaret Sanger and the Social Darwinists and Progressives were convinced of the Coming Apocalypse brought on by the “uncontrolled breeding’ of mongrels, like the Jews and Catholics! Somehow, that apocalypse failed to materialize, we might want to take a step back from our rhetoric and take note of that.

Is it your contention that no religious group can ever constitute a threat? Or is it perhaps your contention that no threatening group can ever be truly religious?

Nope, but I just ask you to remember that two very mainstream religions, today, were viewed as the End of the World as many knew it 100 years ago.

Seems to me that various European nations are being slowly suffocated and taken over by Muslims who are establishing their own exclusive enclaves that are governed by Sharia and operate completely outside the jurisdiction of native legal and political institutions. Left alone, these enclaves will grow both in population and geographical scope and will make more and more demands on the supposedly "dominant" culture and society.

European nations are being crowded out by Muslims, because their own people don’t breed, due to a host of factors, but to include a nihilism, and the high cost of living and the cost of the Welfare State. The Muslims live in ghettoes because places like France, Germany, Sweden and Britain don’t have vibrant economies that can support them, so instead of working they squat in the ghettoes, and resent the “other.” Muslims squat in ghettoes and don’t integrate because good hearted Progressives and Multi-Culti’s want them to retain their “authentic culture” and to not bow to the “inauthentic” and “culturally Imperialistic” Western Culture they inhabit. In short, the problem in Europe isn’t MUSLIMS, it’s the EUROPEANS!

A.Worthing said...

Joe

> And I believe the State has to show a compelling interest in ANY infringement of the 1st or the like.

Read employment division v. smith, duh.

You don’t get to engage in whatever conduct you want to, just because you claim your faith demands it. by that logic, I can kill you because I belong to the Thug religion of India (from which we get the term “thug”).

> And radical Islamicists only wear Burqua’s…have you told anyone this?

The view that a woman must cover her flesh or be responsible for a man’s attack on her is from radical islam.

> Funny if Hirsan Ali CHOSE to don one, in the beginning, I’d say it WAS about “freedom” wouldn’t you?

And if David Duke wanted to wear a Klan hood, that would be freedom, too? Because that is illegal in most states.

Again, freedom of speech and religion doesn’t give you the right to DO whatever you want, only to say and think whatever you want.

Jess said...

BTW, Seven and Joe, while you're wearing your Nixon masks, be sure to avoid any and all dogs either trained or formerly owned by Hunter Thompson.

kwood said...

Muslims squat in ghettoes and don’t integrate because good hearted Progressives and Multi-Culti’s want them to retain their “authentic culture” and to not bow to the “inauthentic” and “culturally Imperialistic” Western Culture they inhabit. In short, the problem in Europe isn’t MUSLIMS, it’s the EUROPEANS!

Yes! This is exactly what I see as the worst form of racism. Either viewing and treating people as museum pieces that must be preserved, or writing them off with affirmative action type legislation which basically says and, worse, institutionalizes the idea that various ethnic and cultural groups must be treated with kid gloves because they're (unspoken, but passive-aggressively implied) too stupid or ignorant to be able to solve their problems on their own (and assimilate).

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Read employment division v. smith, duh.

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections. D’uh don’t see any mention of content neutrality or not, here….

The view that a woman must cover her flesh or be responsible for a man’s attack on her is from radical islam.

Is it, seems CENTURIES old to me…please define “Radical islam.”

And if David Duke wanted to wear a Klan hood, that would be freedom, too? Because that is illegal in most states.

Because the Klan had a HISTORY of violence. No one claims Islam has that sort of history. But thank you for playing……

kwood said...

These un-assimilated groups are then paid all sorts of lip-service to by progressives in return for votes for progressive causes. Yech.

Sofa King said...

In short, the problem in Europe isn’t MUSLIMS, it’s the EUROPEANS!

Exactly the point I was getting at earlier.

Scott M said...

Maybe I've not paid as close attention to this thread as I should, but...

Because the Klan had a HISTORY of violence. No one claims Islam has that sort of history. But thank you for playing……

...um, what?

Michael K said...

In it, and this really shocked me and was difficult for me to accept, she says it was the women of Somalia who embraced radical Islam first, they who demanded to wear these burqas and hijabs and whatever else they have.

The big problem is with Muslim women in western countries who want to assimilate. There was a young woman in Sweden who was a TV anchor. Her father threatened her and she was in hiding for a while but got homesick and went back. Her father and brother killed her. They were Kurds but still Islamist.

The women she was writing about were still in Somalia and had no contact with the modern world.

The French, unlike the British, still have a lot of cultural pride. I think they will be able to resist the Islamic pressure but I don't think the British will be able to. For one thing, modern British schools don't teach history. It's amazing how little the kids know about their history in spite of all the historical sites. In France, you can't visit a historic site with wading through school kids.

A couple of years ago, we were in Paris and my wife got talking to a young woman in a shop. It turns out she is Israeli and was very happy to be working in Paris. I've been worried about Muslim inspired anti-Semitism in France, which has an ugly history, but this girl was apparently quite comfortable.

Sigivald said...

Given the conflation of Islam and The Right Of Men To Force Women To Do What They Demand (if not absolutely in Islam, then definitely in the Muslim culture of France), can we even make a distinction between the two?

Sorry, but Oligonicella is pretty much right about this.

You can, in the case of France, either support a few women choosing to wear the veil, or oppose a large number being essentially coerced into it.

I choose the latter, because I'd rather oppose a lot of coercion than support a little freedom - and there's no way to do both, in terms of a law, since it's far too easy to coerce someone into pretending it's voluntary.

Without a firm culture of female independence (which as far as I can tell, French Muslim women do not have in the way that American women, or French non-Muslim women do), the "hidden coercion" problem is almost insoluble.

"But what about the poor oppressed Muslims" rings pretty damned hollow, sorry - somehow Muslims in, say, Indonesia don't feel that their religion requires them to wear a full face veil. Nor did or do Muslims women in a large number of places.

Islam itself requires nothing of the sort - the veil as a general requirement is, as far as I can tell, really and honestly primarily a modern extremist reaction.

And, well, I don't give a damn about their "freedom" to coerce women to wear it. Because they don't have any such freedom, in fact.

The "voluntary wearer of the veil" is damned near a myth - not nonexistent, but so rare in comparison as to be irrelevant.

Kerry said...

When this issue arises, I always picture in my mind what it would be like if everybody covered his/her face with a ski mask (for example) and we had the entire population walking around with their faces covered. What kind of society would that be?

Beep said...

When muslims claim that wearing a burka is a matter of personal choice and should be respected, they are lying to you.
Ask them if women in their muslim country would be respected for not wearing a cover, or if they respect women wearing western clothes.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)



Well ScottM I thought someone would go there…tell me about the HISTORY of violence of Islam. And for every hashisassin you find I’ll give you a Zealot or a Ben Koch Bar or a John Brown…and you can talk “Gates of Vienna” and I’ll talk Crusade.

Is Christianity violent? Is Judaism? Is Islam? Islam is more so, now? So is Judaism? What do you think the Revolt was in Palestine? How many folks, Jewish, Muslim, Native American/Pagan/Infidel, Catholic/Protestant, Albigensian have died at the hands of Christians? Who stated, “Kill them all, G*d will recognize His Own.” Who said, “If it contradicts the Q’uran we have no need of it and shall burn it, and if it confirms the Q’uran what need have we of it and shall burn it?”

It’s a different question to ask IS Qtub a violent Muslim, yeah probably…was Atta is Bin laden, yes, they are/were…but are they “Islam?”

Scott M said...

How many years of Klan violence are we talking about here? 100? Maybe 150 at the outside? And how many years of that span were they actually flourishing with tons of members and a real, plausible threat? Context is everything.

Lincolntf said...

Who cares about their history? They have a violent present.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Islam is not a threat…100 years ago the Irish, Polish, Italian, Jewish immigrants and THEIR “foreign” ways were the threat.

My recollection of turn of the century America may be a bit rusty but I don't recall much in the way of terrorist activities coming from the folks you labeled above.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

How many years of Klan violence are we talking about here? 100? Maybe 150 at the outside? And how many years of that span were they actually flourishing with tons of members and a real, plausible threat? Context is everything.

Well in 1964/68 they killed a Civil Rights Workers, MLK, and blew up a church with children in it…In between they were attempting to intimidate voters and jurors….and their civilian supporters were using fire hoses and attack dogs on MLK.

The Klan was FUNDAMENTALLY about oppressing Blacks, is Islam, and if it IS, cannot the same be said of Christianity? I wouldn’t want to compare body counts of the two religions (Islam or Christianity), myself…..The Klan to be distinguished from Islam was and is fewer than 10,000 folks, Islam a Billion or so humans? It is far easier to say the Klan represents, than it is to say something as amorphous as “Islam” represents.

Tell me who “represents” Christians? The Pope, the Patriarch of Moscow, the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury? Fred Phelps? Who represents “Islam”? There is no Sunni Pope, no Shi’i Pope, since the end of the Caliphate or the Ottoman Empire their hasn’t been a single Sunni spokesperson…so who speaks for Islam, that we may say Islam is violent?

Do the Taliban represent a threat to the West, not so much, being concerned with Islamo-Fascism in Afghanistan, but Al-Qaida represents a threat, and the the sort of thinking that led to Theo Van Gogh’s murder represents a threat. But I’m not sure that means “Islam” is a threat to the West.

Hoosier Daddy said...

IS Qtub a violent Muslim, yeah probably…was Atta is Bin laden, yes, they are/were…but are they “Islam?”

Well they certainly thought they are.

I suppose the image might be better served if, for example, 20 people don't get butchered halfway across the planet because some obscure dude in Florida burns a book. Or some Dutch guy makes a movie about Islam that gets him murdered on the street. Or some girl gets stoned to death or 100 lashes because she had an extramarital affair. Or death threats are made against cartoonists.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

My recollection of turn of the century America may be a bit rusty but I don't recall much in the way of terrorist activities coming from the folks you labeled above..

You’re correct your history IS rusty…..Fenians, some 1,500 of them invaded Canada in a bid to further Irish Independence, they came from New York State…Sacco and Vanzetti were Anarchists…Anarchists threw dynamite and sparked the Hay Market Riots…..

Jews, as Socialists, and Jews as “mongrels”..Italian Catholics as Anarchists and Organized Crime and mongrels, Irish Catholics as Fenians and mongrels, and supporters of corrupt politicians like Boss Tweed and Mayor Curley were seen as a threat to “good government” in the land.

Lincolntf said...

Okay, what do you think will be the stated motive the next time there is a terror attack in France or aimed at the French/West in general? Maybe Libya. But maybe the veil ban. The Terry Jones-style "personal treatment" may be headed Sarkozy's way.

Joe said...

((The Crypto Jew)

Well they certainly thought they are.

And Eric Rudolf didn’t like abortion and teh gheys, did HE speak for Christians?

…rabid abolitionist John Brown, with several of his sons and followers, murdered 5 supposedly proslavery settlers on May 24, 1856 with broadswords near the Pottawatomie Creek, hacking several of them to pieces…..
“God is my judge, we were justified under the circumstances.” “
Did Brown speak for Christians?

And I might point out that hundreds of millions of Muslims DID NOT RIOT and murder after the Q’uran was burned, too. Do they count as Muslims, yes or no?

Hoosier Daddy said...

You’re correct your history IS rusty…..Fenians, some 1,500 of them invaded Canada in a bid to further Irish Independence

I guess my recollection of Canadian history is equally as rusty.

Hoosier Daddy said...

And I might point out that hundreds of millions of Muslims DID NOT RIOT and murder after the Q’uran was burned, too. Do they count as Muslims, yes or no?

Yes you're right. Allow me to offer my congratulations to those who didn't act like barbarians.

Cedarford said...

Craig - "All the social pressure comes from the Islamist side now, while rich Westerners meekly acquiesce and even celebrate their self-hatred. They provide zero social support for people who actually want to resist the Islamist tide.

Pacifism in the war of ideas is the way to cultural suicide.

And tolerance and MultiKulti are aspects to pacifism in the face of de facto colonialization.

Remember the US was never reticent before the 60s about stamping out aspects of certain religions inamicable to our culture.

We stamped out religious cannibalism and human sacrifice on Polynesian islands we held. Told native Americans that our laws were supreme over whatever bad religious beliefs they had they needed to end. (And while before our time, had we been confronted with a large population of Aztec religion or totalitarian Incan religion believers, we would have had to exterminate those religions in order for our own culture to exist)
Mormons..we told them abandon polygamy or they couldn't become voting Americans.
Voodoo and santoria - was prohibited by law until recently.
After WWII, we told the Japanese that aspects of Shinto were incompatable with coexistence - they had to eliminate religious militarism and enshrinement of the Superior Yamoto Race worship crap. Which the Japs did.
And if Nazism had become a post-Christian religion as certain National Socialists urged - would the stupid 1st Amendment absolutists have had to let it persist after Germany surrendered?

Going back to Craigs post, Pope Benedict has said one way toleration is crap, that holding up abstract ideals or law about toleration is actually submission to the presently intolerant unless they are prepared to reciprocate.

Crypto Jews facile comparison of Islam to Catholicism, ergo no more of a threat than Catholicism? Wrong. That was more analogous, Protestants and Catholics to a society with just Sunni and Shia there.
Who believed in 98% of the same things and warred over the 2% and - by the 18th Century - all the blood shed in the Wars of Reformation had mostly resolved things save in stunted backwaters like N Ireland.

Unlike the Reformation, the war between Christianity and Islam was never resolved. It is ongoing.

(One reason we have Constitutional oaths, BTW, is they were emplaced to force Catholics to swear a higher loyalty to America than the Pope, back when the Popes had secular ambitions. And the Pollard Oath, emplaced to ensure no more Jews and Christian Zionists would get high security clearances if they openly swore higher loyalty to Israel, was another case of national needs trumping religious belief. Both oaths stand as requirements, and are needed now with the Muslims.)

Synova said...

"The Muslims live in ghettoes because places like France, Germany, Sweden and Britain don’t have vibrant economies that can support them, so instead of working they squat in the ghettoes, and resent the “other.” Muslims squat in ghettoes and don’t integrate because good hearted Progressives and Multi-Culti’s want them to retain their “authentic culture” and to not bow to the “inauthentic” and “culturally Imperialistic” Western Culture they inhabit. In short, the problem in Europe isn’t MUSLIMS, it’s the EUROPEANS!"

I'm sure this is part of it, but my impression is that there is great pressure to assimilate in Europe, it's just an all or nothing proposition. And then, of course, even if someone goes for the "all" part of assimilation, they still aren't *French* so they're still apart. It's not even win-lose, it's lose-lose.

The French were doing this over head scarves some years ago and to an American it was just bizarre. What is so hard about accommodating a head scarf? But it was really important to keep these school girls from having a scarf on their head because scarves were all about oppressing women.

Clearly, any symbol identifying Islam is all about oppressing women. So to present this head scarf thing as "not religious oppression" or not *about* an attack on Islam, is ridiculous.

And now, years later, they're having to double down because the *human* reaction to "you may not wear a crucifix in public" if you've never worn one before in your life is to go out and get one and put it on.

But like all other things that don't work, the answer is to do it more.

Probably the French should just send them all home and start having French babies. Because there is no amount of assimilation that will turn an immigrant "French". You know it's true.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Probably the French should just send them all home and start having French babies. Because there is no amount of assimilation that will turn an immigrant "French".

This can be said for all of Europe. None of these countries have any history or experience with mass immigration, particularly with non-western cultures. We have been an immigrant nation since day one whereas its pretty new for Europe.
We demand assimilation but we're also tolerant of allowing customs too.

One thing that is hurting Islam is while not all Muslims are engage in violent acts, a significant number do which taints the group as a whole. Unfair but that's the rub which is why a burka wearing woman may draw suspicion in the way an Indian women in a traditional sari won't.

William said...

As a general rule one should go to a convent and not a brothel in order to practice chastity. If one wishes to live in a land where Islamic values reign supreme, do not move to France.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Probably the French should just send them all home and start having French babies. Because there is no amount of assimilation that will turn an immigrant "French". You know it's true.

I agree entirely! If your name isn’t Running Eagle (or Running Back) or Bear Claw (or Cheese Danish) or Snake Woman…or Ten Deer …you will NEVER be a REAL American.

I don’t think you meant to go there Synova…a goodly number of Froggischers are NOT “French”…Alsatians, Bergundians, the folks around Nice and Savoy….folks in the Pyrenees, even that famous French Dood Napoleon, who was a Corsican…..

“They’ll” never become French UNTIL the French accept them and there is a life outside the banlieu for them, might be a better way of saying it. And it’s going to take a generation or two. My lot didn’t become mainstream until the 1940’s/50’s….that’s between 20-70 years for “us” become Americans and Americans to accept us, as Americans, except for Cedarford who doesn’t think we’re REALLY Americans….But France has to offer them jobs and then tell them, “THIS is how we do it in France. Like or leave it” Along the way the French will learn a bit about the Maghreb and it’s culture and the Muslims will become a lot more French. ‘Til one day in 20-70 years Ishaak Daud Givenchie can say, proudly, “We French…..”

Hoosier Daddy said...

But France has to offer them jobs and then tell them, “THIS is how we do it in France. Like or leave it”

I'll agree with you that France and Germany at least didn't make any efforts to assimilate their immigrant populations which is probably a large part of thier problems. Then again, the question is whether the Muslim populations are willing to assimilate and see themselves as French or German rather than a Muslim. Its a matter of how they choose to identify and its its the latter, than all the job opportunities in the world won't solve the problem.

The Drill SGT said...

The Klan was FUNDAMENTALLY about oppressing Blacks, is Islam, and if it IS, cannot the same be said of Christianity? I wouldn’t want to compare body counts of the two religions (Islam or Christianity), myself…..

The Christians swore off the convert or die stuff around 1492.

The issue with Islam is that the core belief set was dictated by Allah directly to his Prophet, and is immutable. And the Koran does talk about "convert or die". Muslims are stuck with a 7th century approach.

A.Worthing said...

Joe

> First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred.

Okay, I take it back. Don’t read the case because you are clueless. That doctrine was overturned in smith:

> Whether or not the decisions are that limited, they at least have nothing to do with an across-the-board criminal prohibition on a particular form of conduct. Although, as noted earlier, we have sometimes used the Sherbert test to analyze free exercise challenges to such laws, see United States v. [p885] Lee, supra, 455 U.S. at 257-260; Gillette v. United States, supra, 401 U.S. at 462, we have never applied the test to invalidate one. We conclude today that the sounder approach, and the approach in accord with the vast majority of our precedents, is to hold the test inapplicable to such challenges.

Moving on:

> Is it, seems CENTURIES old to me…please define “Radical islam.”

Well this definition--one that wants to return us to the barbarism of centuries past—seems pretty good to me.

> Because the Klan had a HISTORY of violence. No one claims Islam has that sort of history.

Well, the act didn’t specify that you had to be in the klan. And its interesting how you deploy the “some people claim” and the “no one would claim” arguments. Because some people say wearing a bikini dehumanizes, it is. But certainly some people say that radical islam and indeed islam itself is dangers. You might disagree with them, but you can’t deny that some people say it. And yet suddenly that is no longer persuasive.

The Drill SGT said...

Synova said..Because there is no amount of assimilation that will turn an immigrant "French". You know it's true.

I don't often disgagree with you, but with respect, those Muslims are colonists, not immigrants. They have brought their culture with them to tyhe French beachhead and are expanding it, each generation.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
The Christians swore off the convert or die stuff around 1492.

Really and so what is to explain the ‘fun” to be had with the Aztecs, Inca’s and West African Slaves…all Christianized and brutalized by Christians? That all happened well after 1492…..

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
But certainly some people say that radical islam and indeed islam itself is dangers. You might disagree with them, but you can’t deny that some people say it. And yet suddenly that is no longer persuasive.

Man now you’re catching on…”some would” claim “islam/bikinis” are bad…just because some would make the claim doesn’t make it true…EXACTLY, so now IF Gloria Steinem and the Hai’a claim bikini’s are bad, may we ban them too? If not, what sets them apart from the Burqua, freely chosen?

Joe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cedarford said...

Crypto Jew is part of his tribes faction that sees Christianity as no better or worse than Islam.
To hear Joe the Crypto Jew, they are morally equivalent and no different historically.

His argument is akin to someone saying to the observation that Jews aren't flying planes into buildings or blowing up people, so they are not the threat to the West that the Islamoids are..."Oh yeah, what about the King David Hotel back in 1948 or the heavy Jewish involvement in the Soviet democides and state terror apparatus.??"

Hoosier Daddy said...

Really and so what is to explain the ‘fun” to be had with the Aztecs, Inca’s and West African Slaves…all Christianized and brutalized by Christians?

The 'fun' would be colonization and exploitation of resources not available at home.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
The 'fun' would be colonization and exploitation of resources not available at home.

Uh yes, but the point was that all the “fun” happened POST-1492 when someone said that the Christians had pretty much given up the convert or die thing…Looks to me like it wasn’t post-1492.

Actually C4 if you read for comprehension, you’d have noted my comment of the REVOLT in Palestine and that I said, arguably, Jews were more violent NOW than in the past….

I DO see a “moral” equivalence between Judaism/Islam/Christianity…in THIS world. Tell me, are Jews guiltless of murder and political mayhem? Well, depends on how you count it and when…certainly Christians and Muslims have killed and killed in the name of Jehovah/Allah….now does Simon Bar Kochba represent Judaism, or John Brown, Christianity or Mohamed Atta, Islam? All three religions cover large swathes of territory and time, and I sure don’t feel comfortable judging “Islam” or “Christianity” to be violent OR peaceful…..

I can be an Agnostic about the violence or peace of any religion that has encompassed billions of souls…I am NOT Agnostic about the One True Religion…I simply express doubts about its operation in this world….and I certainly don’t see a moral equivalence between Hamas/H’izAllah and Eretz Ysrael or the United States for that matter. But when people start talking about Muslims OR Jews, being one thing or another, by virtue of the Supreme Being they worship and bearing in mind the vast range of people who have held both beliefs, yeah I’m going to balk…

Scott M said...

The 'fun' would be colonization and exploitation of resources not available at home.

Yeah. What part of Battle: Los Angeles didn't you understand?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Yeah. What part of Battle: Los Angeles didn't you understand?.

Why the Aliens relied on ONE SINGLE IMPORTANT NODE, the destruction of which would defeat their whole plan? Why they needed Earth’s water? Why, if they needed resources, they just didn’t mine the Asteroid Belt? Why, if the humans were expendable, and you weren’t colonizing the place any way, they just didn’t “lob” 2-3 good sized asteroids onto the planet for an Extinction Level Event? And most importantly, how is that the US Marine Corps gets all the great movie scripts!?

A.Worthing said...

Joe

> Man now you’re catching on

No, Joe, I am pointing out your hypocrisy. You’re the one who thinks we should be ruled by “what some people say,” not me.

> Tell me, are Jews guiltless of murder and political mayhem? Well, depends on how you count it and when

No, “Jews” as a group are not responsible for the actions of one. Duh.

wv: coxest looks almost like coexist.

A.Worthing said...

joe

> Why the Aliens relied on ONE SINGLE IMPORTANT NODE,

actually they had many, all over the globe.

> Why they needed Earth’s water? Why, if they needed resources, they just didn’t mine the Asteroid Belt?

is there alot of water there?

> Why, if the humans were expendable, and you weren’t colonizing the place any way, they just didn’t “lob” 2-3 good sized asteroids onto the planet for an Extinction Level Event?

Well, moving asteroids might have been too difficult. and maybe anything they did would crap it up for their purposes.

> And most importantly, how is that the US Marine Corps gets all the great movie scripts!?

that's like asking why water is wet. its just the natural order of things.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
No, “Jews” as a group are not responsible for the actions of one. Duh.

But Muslims, ARE? Seems a whole lot of folks like to talk about Muslims this or Islam that…but Jews, Ok, WE’RE exempt from Collective Guilt…thanx.

Conrad Bibby said...

Crypto Joe:

You argue Islam isn't a threat to the West (1:16), but riddle me this: If France becomes majority Muslim in say 30 years, and its society is basically transformed into that of an Iran or Pakistan, with fundamentalists running the show and 14-year-old girls being lashed to death for adultery, how in hell is that not a "threat to the West"? That would be like saying the atom bomb wasn't a threat to Hiroshima. The only way it's not a threat is if you want to redefine "Western Civilization" to include lethal lashings for adulterous teens.

If your point is simply that barabaric practices like stonings, honor killings, etc., aren't actually an "Islamic" phenomenon, but just the excesses of a few extremists who happen to BE Islamic, you're still on very weak ground. Those things (the stoning, etc.) are official state policy in Iran and other Muslim countries. I don't see how you can separate out the religious component when we're talking about a theocracy.

Synova said...

I'm hating blogger.

Joe, short version, if someone was planning to radicalize European Muslims they could not have done a better job at it than to promise that if they only quit being Muslim they could be French.

It takes time to assimilate, assuming that someone is actually allowed to do so, but you have to let people do it in stages. And even then, I don't see it in Europe any more than I could adopt a Native American persona and have any Native American take me seriously. I could never gain entry to a tribe, no matter what I did, and you know it, Joe. They have rules.

Drill SGT, I'm open to the idea that the Muslims in France come from the more extreme traditions, but from anything I've heard I'd have done the same thing if someone told me that my fundy Christianity was oppressive and I had to be Episcopalian instead and what was I fussing about? Didn't they tell me I could be Episcopalian?

People don't moderate in the face of pressure. They adopt bunker mentalities.

They double down on their kids, too, because they perceive a threat to their culture.

Joe said...

((The Crypto Jew)
Why the Aliens relied on ONE SINGLE IMPORTANT NODE,

actually they had many, all over the globe.

But only one at LA and presumably at each invasion site….

Why they needed Earth’s water? Why, if they needed resources, they just didn’t mine the Asteroid Belt?

is there alot of water there?

Yes.

Why, if the humans were expendable, and you weren’t colonizing the place any way, they just didn’t “lob” 2-3 good sized asteroids onto the planet for an Extinction Level Event?

Well, moving asteroids might have been too difficult. and maybe anything they did would crap it up for their purposes.


They can traverse the interstellar vacuum, but can’t find a way to shift 2 asteroids? And what do they care about the climate, after impact, they aren’t staying..it’s like working in Saudi Arabia, you don’t LIVE there so who cares what it’s like? You just work there and will, one day, go home.

Finally, what is up with alien trans-atmospheric vehicles these days? They are blocky, unaerodynamic things! Really good design is good design…it makes sense to streamline things, even if you are the Borg…..

Lincolntf said...

No air, no aerodynamics.

Synova said...

In other words and even shorter.

Freedom is best.

Freedom of speech, religion, conscience and the market, too... well past the point where it starts to be uncomfortable for you because other people are stupid.

Because limiting freedom for a good cause is still tyranny and has predictable results.

Synova said...

"Finally, what is up with alien trans-atmospheric vehicles these days? They are blocky, unaerodynamic things! Really good design is good design…it makes sense to streamline things, even if you are the Borg….."

Inertial compensators means artificial gravity means levitation?

Sufficient energy to make planetfall under power means that streamlining doesn't help enough to matter?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
You argue Islam isn't a threat to the West (1:16), but riddle me this: If France becomes majority Muslim in say 30 years, and its society is basically transformed into that of an Iran or Pakistan, with fundamentalists running the show and 14-year-old girls being lashed to death for adultery, how in hell is that not a "threat to the West"? That would be like saying the atom bomb wasn't a threat to Hiroshima. The only way it's not a threat is if you want to redefine "Western Civilization" to include lethal lashings for adulterous teens.

The US Government sponsored “The Correlates of War” Project in the 1950’s and 1960’s…it was a failed Quantoid Project to see IF ‘cultural variables” could be used to explain zones of conflict. One correlate of internal and external violence was whether or not the place was CATHOLIC….

Let me turn that on you Synova, IF France becomes CATHOLIC, cannot it not be said that France is a threat to its neighbors? Catholic nations tend to be squabbly ill-bred neighbors, either invading everyone or collapsing into Civil War….

What you mean to ask is, IF France were to become a majority Muslim nation, akin to Pakistan….all that assumes that France WILL be majority Muslim, after all wealth tends to blunt fertility, and ASSUMING Muslim birth rates 30 years from now on the basis of CURRENT fertility is a bad assumption…fertility rates have fallen WORLDWIDE, to include the Developing World….Secondly you assume that a Muslim France MUST be like Pakistan? What if it’s more like Turkey? Or what if it’s more like the US, where ones SECT isn’t the basis for ones Public Policy? What IF they are Westernized Muslims, in short?

Simply talking about a “Muslim” France in 2050 is making the same sort of silly assumptions that the Correlates Project found….which was that Catholic nations tend to be violent, but is that a result of Catholicism or other factors….facile, bare-foot empiricism can be misleading.

Conrad Bibby said...

@ Crypto Joe:

Another thing: While it may be true that only a fraction of Muslims are actively waging violent war against infidels, that's at least somewhat irrelevant to this discussion, which is all about what the West can and should do (if anything) about the threat of Muslim extremism. Let's say there are a billion Muslims worldwide. If the nature of Islam is such that about one-tenth of one percent of its adherents are actual or petential jihadists, that's a million people. Now, I think it is empirically obvious that however small the percentage of Muslims who are "holy-warriors," it is a much LARGER percentage than you will find among Christians or Jews (or Hindus, etc.) So if one in a thousand Muslims is a Islamic jihadist, perhaps one in a million Christian (if that many) could be characterized as the Christian equivalent of a jihadist.

You mentioned John Brown, and he may have been a Christian, but his killing spree was more specifically part of a plot to free slaves. It wasn't a case of his waging war against Jews, atheists, Muslims, etc. (without checking, I'm pretty sure all of his victims were other Christians).

As a practical matter, it doesn't take a immense number of jihadists to wreak havoc on a free and open society, as we saw on 9/11. So, even if "most" Muslims are peaceful and tolerant of non-believers, and are essentially willing to live in accordance with the social and legal norms of a Western state, that hardly ensures that Islam isn't a threat.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
No air, no aerodynamics.

The landing vessels operate in-atmosphere….

Sufficient energy to make planetfall under power means that streamlining doesn't help enough to matter?

True, BUT if I have a finite amount of energy to employ and we all do, IF I make an aerodynamic vessel I don’t have to waste energy on slow reentry, I can use it for WEAPONS! Why compromise the sacred triad of “armour” firepower, and mobility? By wasting energy on mobility they have less energy available for fire power or armour/shields? Or for a given amount of resources we can make MORE streamlined TAV’s making for a larger invasion force, making it harder for the primitives to defeat us!

I have become a hard sci-fi geek, I guess.

Scott M said...

"Finally, what is up with alien trans-atmospheric vehicles these days? They are blocky, unaerodynamic things! Really good design is good design…it makes sense to streamline things, even if you are the Borg….."

If you want to see something right out of the damned sci-fi movies, you need to see the new fighter currently going through catapult testing with the Navy. It's "supposed" to be an Air Force jet, but I think we're going back to the Phantom in terms of one-military-one-bird thinking. In any case, just say the word and I'll forward some pics to you. Quite stunning...along with the three carrier battlegroup sailing in formation (rarely, very rarely, happens these days).

My only real bitch about B:LA, as I went in for popcorn movie, not 2001:SO, is that these aliens knew about missiles, had them, and yet seemed woefully unequipped to defend against them.

Joe said...

The Crypto Jew)
So, even if "most" Muslims are peaceful and tolerant of non-believers, and are essentially willing to live in accordance with the social and legal norms of a Western state, that hardly ensures that Islam isn't a threat..

Actually it does logically….UNLESS you’re willing to be tarred by a minority of whatever group YOU ARE…if 99.9% of all Muslims are peaceful, non-jihadis, THEN yes, Islam is peaceful…UNLESS you want me to say all white people are crooks because less than 1%-2% commit crimes.

I’d prefer less caterwauling from the likes of CAIR about Muslim backlash and anti-Muslim hate crimes, almost non-existent, and a WHOLE lot more Muslims going on TV saying, Bin Laden is SCUM and EVIL.” But I don’t think “islam” is violent, no more than I think Christianity is violent…..

A.Worthing said...

Joe

> But Muslims, ARE?

No, and i didn't say that. you say you aren't liberal, but you assume the worst of me like one.

Synova said...

Joe, I really don't know what point you're trying to make with me.

I deplore France's lack of even the concept of religious freedom.

and...

I think that the offer of assimilation is a lie. France wants to think of itself as multi-culti accepting but really is extremely protective of whatever it means to be "French".

It's got nothing to do with if I think that Muslims are a threat or not or if I think that it would be bad for France to become a different place. Indeed, stasis is death as well.

But I'm not talking about what *I* want, other than religious freedom, I'm talking about what I believe people in France want, which is a French place to stay French... which is why their offer of assimilation doesn't convince me.

They should have babies, but they don't.

So screw 'em. People who don't reproduce signed their own death warrant already.

Conrad Bibby said...

@ Cryptic Joe:

So your prescription for France would be, go ahead, let Islam sweep over your country, and suffocate native culture, and everything will be fine because the Islamic Nation of France MAY BE more like Turkey than Iran? That's just obtuse, frankly. A Westerm country that is facing the prospect of being overrun by Muslims is clearly at a much greater risk of becoming a barbaric terror-state than a country facing the prospect of a Christian or Catholic revival. If you can't see that, there's clearly something amiss in your understanding of peoples and cultures. Hint: Not all cultures or belief systems or societies are equally compatible with Western values. Yes, you may find isolated examples of individual Christians who were more barbaric than individual Muslims, but you can't conclude from that there is no difference between these two religions in terms of their commitment to peace, human rights, etc.

Lincolntf said...

Solar sails, the only way to fly...

Kirk Parker said...

Hoosier,

"One thing that is hurting Islam is while not all Muslims are engage in violent acts, a significant number do which taints the group as a whole."

IMO, the real problem here isn't so much the whole-group-gets-tainted aspect, as it is the fact that too may groups that are (unjustifiably) considered to speak for the "Muslim community" (CAIR, I'm looking at you here...) have a completely counterproductive reaction. Perhaps they do say that Bin Laden et al aren't genuine Muslims, just like I might say the Fred Phelps is no true Christian... BUT ... most of their talk is reserved for whining at Americans for insulting Islam, rather than denouncing AlQ for insulting Islam.

"Unfair but that's the rub which is why a burka wearing woman may draw suspicion in the way an Indian women in a traditional sari won't."

I can think of a much better reason why the sari-clad don't draw suspicion...

Conrad Bibby said...

@ Cryptic:

For some reason, you seem to want to debate whether or not it can be fairly said that Islam is not a peaceful religion. I certainly don't think Islam is peaceful COMPARED TO OTHER RELIGIONS. But more to my point, who cares? The issue isn't whether Islam is "peaceful," it's whether the rise of Islam as a competing culture within Western democracies justifies measures like France's ban on the veil. It doesn't matter for purposes of that discussion whether 99% of Muslims now living in France are non-violent. France still faces existential threat to its culture, institutions, and way of life if the country allows itself to become Islamic because of the threat that Islamic fundamentalism will take hold, as it did in Iran, for example. Even "Westernized" Muslim countries like Egypt and Turkey have become more fundamentalist over the years, so these are no longer bastions of human and civil rights, or gender equality, if they ever were.

To suggest that Islam isn't a threat to Western Civilization makes no sense at all. I suppose it could be true if Islam were forever confined to traditionally Islamic countries. However, we are specifically talking about the spread of Islam into Western countries. Islam ISN'T Western Civilization. Therefore, to the extent Islam threatens to become the dominant religion and social identity of a Western country, that's a threat to Western civilization. Obviously, if this happened everywhere in the world, such that all nations were Islamic, Western Civilization would cease to exist. Perhaps then it would occur to you that Islam indeed constituted a threat.

You seem to acknowledge that Europe is becoming increasingly Islamic, yet you don't want to acknowledge that this is a threat to Western Civilization. I truly cannot understand where you're coming from, and I'm afraid you've exhausted my patience in waiting for a compelling explanation.

Cedarford said...

I believe people in France want, which is a French place to stay French... which is why their offer of assimilation doesn't convince me.

They should have babies, but they don't.

So screw 'em. People who don't reproduce signed their own death warrant already
=====================

There were 1.2 billion people on the planet in 1900. There are 7 billion now. If out of control breeding persists and the 3rd worlders are free to dump their surplus in any 1st world country..analysts say as long as they can dump and colonize and war doesn't breal out - the end point is a peak of 28 billion with the 1st World converted to 3rd world cultures. Then natural or man-made collapse.

The ray of hope was that much of the world stabilized their population, so maybe their standard of living and ecosystems could thrive without becoming giant Haitis or 70 million people perched on a Bengali mud plain with no where to go.

Synova's argument is that if Open Borders are some god-given or Constitutional Right or the "need for cheap workers to jump into countries to cheapen wages to maximize ruling elite profits" is unalterable - then countries with stabilized native populations must learn to breed like Muslims or welfare mammies or rats to "survive" the 3rd world demographic onslaught they are FORCED by morals and law to take in.

That seems to be a recipe for a Malthusian world in which principles like democracy and documents like the Constitution have to be tossed on the scrapheap for survival on a planet of 25-28 billion, equally spread out across "meaningless and obsolete national Borders".

virgil xenophon said...

The problem is NOT "radical" Islamists, but ISLAM itself EXACTLY because of its very fundamental tenets."Moderate" Muslims are "moderate" only to the extent they eschew Islams' basic texts in order to enjoy the fruits of modernism much in the same way American "Cafeteria Catholics" consider themselves good and devout Catholics despite rejecting most of Catholicism's basic beliefs by picking and choosing the ones most convenient to observe. (As one conservative pre-Vatican II Catholic friend of mine in N.O used to say to such people: "Congratulations--you're now a Protestant!")

And Sharia law is the central administrative skeleton around which the "Religion" of Islam is administered. It is THE essential transmission vehicle for the cultural values of Islam and at the very core of the religion--which is in functional reality nothing more than a political ideology masquerading under cover of religious trappings. Sharia itself is the thin edge--the camel's nose under Western Civilization's tent--that gradually will be used to leverage the entire religion into a central place in Western societies. Anyone who thinks "Islam" qua "Islam" is compatible with Western Civilization is, imo, suicidaly naive.

Phil 3:14 said...

Well this post and yesterday's has certainly explained to me why libertarians are skeptical of those on the Left AND the Right when it comes to preserving civil liberties.

Strelnikov said...

Of course it is anti-muslim. As it should be.

Norris said...

I believe at least a couple of Southern states still have laws on the books outlawing the wearing of hoods that cover the face... such as a white hood.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 202   Newer› Newest»