I know this is not about Mormons but read in a newspaper that Denmark banned the burka and the first woman was fined for wearing it" Italy and Austria did the same, Europe is not playing around anymore! Wish we could ban the Mormon church and all the missionaries they send out!

They are just wasting 18 months and two years away and for nothing

Good for them.

Time to shave——

jay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Time to shave——


el ~ oh ~ el ~
















el ~ oh ~ el ~ oh ~ el ~ oh ~ el ~ oh ~ el ~

Equality and freedom mean so little to you?

I thought Sasha Baron Cohen solved that problem a few episodes ago...

We should do the same and ban the Mormon church Haha

Again, equality and freedom mean so little to you?

So then in theory you'd be ok with banning dog owners?

dogblogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So then in theory you'd be ok with banning dog
> owners?

Yes, if they're wearing burkas.

Meanwhile in the UK a Conservative politician is being investigated by his party for suggesting that women who wear them look like mail boxes.

Either way, the investigation is absurd.

I firmly believe that a high percentage of UK residents agree with Boris,in the UK you are not allowed into a bank with a safety helmet or hoodie for obvious reasons,the times we are living in can create fear and alarm,I agree that I for one would not wish to be served or indeed serve someone with this type of dress,apparently there is nowhere in the koran that states that women have to dress in such a way.
Underneath that garment could be anyone,terrorist,child molester or some just plain crazy body.

kizzie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Underneath that garment could be
> anyone,terrorist,child molester or some just plain
> crazy body.

Underneath levis and a polo shirt could be anyone -- a terrorist, child molester, or just some plain crazy body.

I guess we should ban levis and polo shirts, too?

Levis and polo shirts do not conceal identity

Levis&Polo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Levis and polo shirts do not conceal identity

The statement I commented on didn't say anything about "concealing identity." It was an expression of irrational fear, and clearly one that had nothing to do with burkas. Which, hopefully, my comment pointed out.

As far as your point, hats and sunglasses conceal identity. Would you like to ban those, too?

(In case you hadn't noticed, I'm pointing out that most of the arguments being used aren't very well thought out, and can apply to all sorts of things besides burkas. Which, personally, makes me think the arguments aren't really about concealing identity or that there might be a child molester under some clothing -- they're about irrational fear and hatred of one particular religious group. And just for the record, I'm not a fan of any religious group, and I think burkas are idiotic, misogynistic tools of oppression for women...which doesn't change how lame the arguments against burkas are)

For me, it's about drawing a line in the sand in support of women. In certain places on this globe, women *must* wear burkas. I think it's okay to say in the western countries, "sorry, not here."

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For me, it's about drawing a line in the sand in
> support of women. In certain places on this globe,
> women *must* wear burkas. I think it's okay to say
> in the western countries, "sorry, not here."

I agree completely.

The thing is, if that's the case, SAY that's the case.
The specious excuses about "concealing identity" and "there might be a bad person under the burka" are just that -- specious. And dishonest.

I fully support a country that simply and honestly says, "We will not allow women to be forced to wear such things in our country. Women are not sex objects that have to hide themselves in order to not arouse men."

The other excuses are dishonest BS.

You know Hie, years ago (the 80's,) I was walking down a NYC street. New York can be brutally cold in the winter. The tall buildings have the affect of channeling the frigid wind as it blows down the long avenues. I was wearing a (then) fashionably long camel-colored coat that came down nearly to my ankles, with the collar turned up. I had on boots, a tam, and a scarf that was wrapped so many times around my head and face that only my eyes were showing. My goal was to expose as little skin to the elements as humanly possible. I flicked my eyes over to a man walking toward me. By dress and appearance he seemed to be middle-eastern and Muslim. As he passed me, he murmured, "Beautiful." I knew he was referring almost entirely to my "modest" dress. I was thinking, buddy, I'm just cold. *sigh*

:)

<sarcasm on>
But...you were hiding your identity! And you could have been a terrorist under all that garb!
<sarcasm off>

Actually, there are two questions, both difficult.

First, if identification is the reason for the burqa ban, will every other form of dress that renders facial recognition impossible also be banned? Will the ban be weather-dependent? Could a woman wear a burqa in Chicago in December when everyone else is bundled up too?

Which leads to the second and more troublesome question: should society ban a sort of garment (intentional) simply because society considers it misogynistic? Put differently, is it within the scope of a woman's personal autonomy to wear clothing that the majority finds offensive?

Again, I don't have answers to these questions.

Well, if I am bundled up, and I walk into a bank or other business, I'm going to expose my face...because I am warm inside and it's what we do in the west out of common politeness according to cultural values.

I think there is a difference between covering up because it's brutally cold, or because it's excessively hot, or to cover one's skin from sun exposure. Exposing one's face is basic to western culture except under extreme and limited circumstances.

I have little patience for religions that declare a woman's body so offensive that it must be covered up to a ridiculous degree. If men don't have to do it, why should we?

I agree with both of your points. It is polite in Western society to expose one's face when interacting. I also feel it offensive that religions would instruct women on how much of their bodies to expose.

But does that mean a woman who wants to wear offensive clothing should not be able to do so?

I am struggling with that issue, but I do think it's okay to draw certain lines in defense of western ideals of female dignity and freedom.

That's a hard one. In France, they tried on the idea that in a secular society, wearing anything with religious affiliation could be properly targeted.

I struggle, too. I do not have an answer.

I would, however, that there could well be a constitutional problem with a ban on burqas or any other religious clothing. Europe would be freer to impose cultural limits. But in the US most forms of dress are considered speech, and freedom of religion is also implicated--as too are the personal autonomy precedents on which sexual autonomy and choice are founded.

There is a lot of value in society's making a statement about the status of traditionally oppressed groups. There is also, however, value in respecting the individual's autonomy to do things that anger the majority.

If you’re being held prisoner in Levi’s and a polo shirt, tap out three smiley faces on the keyboard.

Only if they wear jeans and polo shorts around their heads thus obscuring their faces completely.

Have balaclavas been banned in Denmark?

I can see it. In the U.S. we really do not have complete freedom in how we dress anyway, as certain body parts must be covered. Pools have regulations about swimwear, gyms might have their own requirements, and you can't wear a large hat in a theater. What is appropriate dress in say, Saudi Arabia, may not be appropriate in the west.

I think anyone who feels they have to wear a burka is perhaps making a nonverbal statement that either the religion (and sharia law) are pretty important, or they feel pressured into conforming to the expectations of those in their community that do.

Either way I see it as a warning sign because when Islam becomes the predominant influence in a community the laws of the host country are sometimes not regarded, sharia law becomes predominant and conflict and hatred result from clashing cultural values. Religious fanaticism is generally not compatible with secularism.

I hate the burka because it sends the message to all men and women in a society that it’s ok to expect women to dress in that way and to accept second class status regardless of whether or not they’re muslim.
As a feminist who loves her human rights and hates people who would try to deny me those rights, I don’t think it’s a good idea to send that message.

I agree with you. I think it is very demeaning to women, especially western women, to dress in that manner. I'm always suspicious when women are required to cover up more than the men. You don't see men wearing burkas!

Maybe they do
How can you tell when you can only see the eyes and the nose bridge
Some here call them letter boxes as it looks like some weirdo peeking thru an open letter box
Disturbing to those who haven't encountered it before

Immigration is fine if the immigrants have similar values to the host nation. If the host nation is Denmark I would assume they believe in the 10 commandments, no stealing, no killing, no coveting (aka conservative values). Love your neighbor etc, respect those weaker (females). So Immigrants need to believe in these values whether or not they wish to convert to Lutherinism.

But now there is all these new strange people coming who apparently believe in some other values, Those values appear to be: domination of women, controlling women's free expression, ability to interact with friends, having a job, being normal, attacking women at night according to some reports.

Should they ban the burka? Yes... Denmark is for the "Danes" so obviously that is their logical right to expect their guests to respect women's freedoms. If the Muslims don't like it they can go away.

Most Danes identify as Lutheran but are in fact atheist or agnostic. Homosexuality was legalized in the 1930s, and abortion in the early 1970s. Adultery is not a crime. Considering also that Danes do not accept the God-centric commantments, the country rejects about half of the Ten Commandments.

Moreover, Denmark is progressive regarding women's rights. The state and society do NOT believe women are, in your word, the "weaker" sex. Nor do Danes believe that women need any sort of extra protection or "respect" than men.

So if a large number of practicing Lutherans who viewed women in "conservative" terms moved into Copenhagen or Odense, that itself would represent an invasion by an alien and misogynistic horde.

Just something to bear in mind.

In which case the masses would hopefully resist.

It's ironic that people think the influx of Moslems, most of whom do not wear the Burqa, would be more difficult to manage than large-scale immigration by American-style fundamentalists.

It is.

However, I think there’s a sizable group of Americans who are more concerned with the local fundamentalists.

I’m concerned about all of them – but I’m pretty much happy so long as they are each other’s throat and I’m left to do as I please.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most Danes identify as Lutheran but are in fact
> atheist or agnostic. Homosexuality was legalized
> in the 1930s, and abortion in the early 1970s.

All of which brought them (like other Euro states) to the crisis they're at today.


> Moreover, Denmark is progressive regarding women's
> rights. The state and society do NOT believe
> women are, in your word, the "weaker" sex. Nor do
> Danes believe that women need any sort of extra
> protection or "respect" than men.

Then you're in favor of the burka ban? Because the main argument in favor of women wearing a veil or similar covering (from the Islamic perspective) is that this dress code respects women and protects them from the urges of men (both of which are disingenuous, imo.)


> So if a large number of practicing Lutherans who
> viewed women in "conservative" terms moved into
> Copenhagen or Odense, that itself would represent
> an invasion by an alien and misogynistic horde.

Maybe, except that Danish Lutherans in Denmark wouldn't be nearly as alien as Muslims from another part of the world entirely with completely different traditions and language. However much modern Danes might reject a conservative type of their religion they would still recognize it as growing out of their culture and would be familiar with the arguments it makes, having dealt with the issue for centuries.

It's also a very unrealistic example since there probably aren't enough arch-traditionalist Danes left to "invade" their own country.

xxxMMooo Writes that:


1) The legalization of homosexuality and abortion decades ago "brought" the Danes "to the crisis they're at today."

LW asks: What crisis is Denmark facing today?

And how did the legalization of homosexuality in 1933 and abortion in lead to it?



---------------------

2) LW must be in favor of the burqa ban because Moslems say it is to "respect" and "protect" women.

LW replies: The vast majority of Moslems don't use the burqa, so you are mischaracterizing the religion.

More germanely, my point was that Danes treat women as equal to men. That has nothing to do with what "Moslems" think or do.

Moslem views of clothing don't tell you anything about Danish views, and neither tell you about mine.



-----------------

3) Danes would find an invasion of "arch-conservative" Danish Lutherans closer to their own culture than Moslems from another part of the world.

LW: I wasn't referring to an invasion of "arch-concervative" Danish Lutherans. I was imagining something like the Lutheran invasions of Denmark in 1864, 1914, and 1940. None of those went well despite the fact that the Germans were Lutherans who spoke a very similar language.

Also, you seem overestimate the problem of Islam in Denmark. Moslems comprise just 5% of the population and most of those have been there for decades and are westernized. Conversely, if one makes the false assumption that ALL of the Moslem women who come from burqa-countries (Afghanistan and Pakistan) wear that garment, the total is just 20,000 people. That is a maximum estimate.

Are there Danish people who resent Islam? Yes. But the last "major" demonstration against the religion took place in 2015, when 200 people took to the streets.

Hardly a crowd the size one might see at uh, I dunno, a Trump inauguration.



------------------------

So what is the Danish crisis that you think is occurring? And why does it stem from women's rights?

I'm sad for any women who must wear one.

good for Denmark. there should be no shame for showing the body. islam teaches shame and that's why covering the body is advocated. Oh dear, does this philosophy sound familiar of a non Islamic religious cult?

I’m for it too, also for security reasons.
I remember when we lived near DC, they had a lot of Muslims living there. Most of the woman just wore a headscarf and modest clothing.
I saw one woman in the mall with her husband and she had the blue robe and burka; you only saw her eyes peeping out. It looked very warm( and spooky)
A lot of people can wear them then, who aren’t Muslim, committing crimes , using it to cover their faces.

I think it all has to do with facial recognition technology. Burkas just won’t work in modern society.

Gangsters do also I think but they live in Denmark and must respect the laws and people there and here, where I live there are alot of Somalis and Syrians, Iraqis and the burka does not look comfortable at all! I saw a seven year old girl wearing a burka! I would hate to wear that



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2018 09:48PM by Crazy horse.

Poor thing, can’t even breathe probably, especially in the Summer heat

I don't have issues with the women wearing a head scarf, if they choose, but I don't think businesses should have to deal with people whose faces are covered.

Insensitive? Not these days. Call it "cautious."

I say, good for Denmark for taking a stand. I agree with Catnip; this is being cautious, not insensitive. I was surprised that any woman would kowtow to wearing this, until I remembered that there are women who go along with the dictates of polygamy, up to this day.

There are all sorts of misogynistic garments worn by religious American women. Some of the women are under duress, a lot are not.

On the one hand, prevents women from getting enough vitamin D, with possible linked consequences of non-absorbed calcium leading to osteomalacia, rickets, osteoporosis, cardiovascular diseases, type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, breast cancer, and birth defects.Bad.

And discourages exercise and sports, leading to obesity (which it makes easy to conceal) and consequent high blood pressure, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, joint inflammation, breathing problems, and sleep apnea. Bad.

On the other hand, reduces the incidence of skin cancer. Good.

Hmm...toss up? (What's wrong with this line of argument?)

I dunno. . .

Maybe that your list of considerations doesn't include the woman's personal preferences?

Or I could simply point out that some people apparently don't think a woman should be consulted when deciding what clothing she should wear.

Do you choose your own clothing, Cheryl, or seek others' permission first?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/13/2018 07:21PM by Lot's Wife.

Thank you for granting me that right. I will sleep better knowing I have your blessing.

>>On the other hand, reduces the incidence of skin cancer. Good.

There is this marvelous invention called, "sunscreen"! I slather it on every day and I am good to go. I have generally upped my game from SPF 30 to SPF 50 for daily use. I aim for lily-white skin but am satisfied with a *very* light tan. And I will put on a long-sleeved T-shirt and lightweight pants as needed (perhaps for sailing or hiking.)

Isn't modern life grand? :)

Gona be cold when they go skying