Should countries outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka?

Blue JayThey can make all the statements they want. I did every time I paid a ticket.I put two good links just above. Have a listen if you like. They are pertinent.Regards
DL

Dr AdequateWimpy Gods don't last long.This needs to follow your quote.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUo1TTDZCWcRegards
DL

Can you think of anyone you've missed?

Well one can split Marxism into separate groups such as Stalinism, Maoism etc., and there may be some groups I'm unfamiliar with of course, but I have to say no to the question as posed.We're talking about ideologies that have the ambition to rule the world, right? and think killing and in some cases torturing anyone who objects is a reasonable way to achieve their ambition, right? I'd say I've covered the range here.

Hi, GIA. What are you talking about? Is this all you have to say?Edited by Blue Jay, : No reason given.

Indeed it is:

quote:

---

All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.

---

It says directly that THOUGH the will of the majority prevails, it is a SACRED principle that the minority possesses equal rights. Jefferson does NOT agree with you. No. It is a bad thing to treat people unequally. It is also a bad thing to say one thing and do another. BUT it is a good thing to profess belief in equality. The bad part of political correctness is not the saying, it's the lack of doing.

The difference is that it's YOU abusing the few. And you not only want the right to abuse women yourself; you also want to implicate ALL Canadians in your abuse by institutionalizing it.It's far, far better for us to approach the abuse of women in a constructive way instead of adding to the problem like you want to do.

Ooh, I can thing of someone you've missed. Does this ring any bells? Here's another clue: he was a theocrat who ruled over the city of Geneva with an iron fist, and he wrote that in defense of burning a man alive.Now I know you've heard of him ...Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Calvin had ONE heretic put to death and the rest of Protestantism thinks he was wrong, and he had no ambition to rule the world. If that's the best you can do, clearly I've covered all the examples.

You think he thought Geneva was enough? I'd say it was too much. (Note the bit about his enemies being put to death.)But in what sense do Protestants not want to rule the world? (Apart from calling it "being salt and light"? Tomayto, tomahto.) If all you mean is that very few of them want to be sole ruler of the world, you could say that of the adherents of any religion.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You didn't provide the source of that quote which is a pretty jaundiced attack on Calvin.Amazing you'd compare Calvin to the RCC which murdered fifty million or more over a six hundred year period, or Islam whose murders are uncounted and maybe uncountable nas far as I know, or the Russian revolution or Stalin or Mao whose murders exceed by far any of the religious murders, as do Nazism's so many millions in half a decade or so. You have to go out of your way to find your Protestant examples, and keep in mind that the Reformers were fresh from Catholicism too, some of whose bad habits took time to purge.Funny how liberals exert themselves against Biblical Protestantism above all. And do you know why? Because it's the truth and none of the others are.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Was any of it untrue? Yeah, when you put it like that, it seems so unfair on Calvin. He just burned *one* guy to death, and everyone's so critical of him. Well, apart from the millions of people who proudly call themselves Calvinists. Right. When I'm looking for loathsome Protestants I have to scrape the bottom of the barrel and come up with minor figures such as Luther and Calvin, the fathers of Protestantism. Ah yes, of course, that's what was wrong with Calvin, he was too darn Catholic. Well one reason is because round here you guys are the source of most of the dumb shit. I mean, yeah, Catholics believe in transubstantiation, but they don't try to get it taught in chemistry class.Another reason is that they're arguing with you. If there was a fanatical Muslim round here, I'd laugh at his opinions too. But what we have, in fact, is a diehard Calvinist, a representative of a religion which is equally loathsome and ridiculous, and one which you parade before us on a regular basis. Which bit is the truth? The bit about how we should burn Unitarians as heretics, or the bit about the talking snake?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

ringoEvery law of the land is permission and compulsion to abouse a sub-section of society.All should be as benevolent as the law against men forcing their daughters and wives to dress as they say.Would you let your wife force you to wear something?Why do you think we should let other men force their will on free Canadians?Regards
DL

That's what I'm asking you: Why should we allow you to forbid a woman from wearing the hijab, niqab or burka if she wants to?

Then the taxes you and I pay for security by facial recognition technology misses her and you and I do not do our civic duty towards these women.Plus signs of slavery should not be allowed in a free nation.The benefits outweigh the negatives by a long shot and that is what guides all good aw.Regards
DL