Should countries outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka?

I've been trying to stay out of this because I know I'm going to get clobbered. I also don't like the idea of siding with GIA on absolutely anything since I positively abhor and despise the majority of his opinions.HOWEVER, this topic is basically the same as the topics on Multiculturalism where I'm with the conservatives who argue that a society cannot survive by hosting and tolerating different cultures that challenge the basic principles of that society. You can have all sorts of interesting ethnic color but you can't have actually competing philosophies or the society is going to self-destruct. Which ours is well on the way to doing.SO. As for the burqa it challenges western society in the first place by making it impossible to identify the wearer, as on drivers' licenses. This is innsane and can't help but undermine an essential part of our social order.It also represents a whole ideology that is inimical to western freedoms. The burqa itself, if a woman could wear it in such a way as to allow personal identification, as merely a cultural artifact, I see nothing to object to if she wants to wear it. ABE: But if it represents to her the superiority of Sharia law over American or western law then no, she shouldn't wear it. And I suppose that's often the case. I think France is well within its rights to ban the hijab on the ground that it represents a principle alien to French culture. The majority SHOULD rule, that's part of the American Constitution too, if anybody cares. What's happened is that the rights of minorities, which have to be enforced in many cases, have been allowed to overwhelm the majority where they have no right to do so. /ABE Back to the burqa: AND if she's being coerced by her subculture in ways that violate the concept of western freedom, no, she should be able even to bring legal action against her family or subculture to free her from it. HOWEVER, the problem with Islamic culture is that it has the nasty habit of maiming and murdering its uppity women. THERE's the contradiction with western freedoms, and if we are stuppid enough to ignore all that, ignore their practice of Sharia law, which they DO want to impose on all of us and certainly will if they ever get into a position to do that, then unfortunately we deserve what is coming. As usual I chalk it all up to God's judgment though it really hurts to see us go down under what is nothing more than the dogmas of Political Correctness, which were designed as leftist propaganda to destroy American/western civilization and are well on their way to doing so.Western civilization really was once great. Multiculturalism is part of the PC program to destroy it. Foreigners should be instructed in the principles and laws of OUR society and required to conform to them. Citizenship is sealed with an oath, isn't it? If they wear interesting garb, have interesting foods, have interesting rituals and entertainments that don't challenge the foundations of our society, fine, that's the melting pot. But PC doesn't melt, it tolerates undigested alien and subversive worldviews. You can't tolerate an alien form of government with alien laws and alien principles of human value in our midst, involving the place of women in the family and in society among other things, unless you are dedicated to social and cultural suicide. Which I think the whole PC battalion is.Now clobber me.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

AS I SAID, sometimes minority rights do have to be protected, and that is one example. But that what PC does is put all minorities above the majority and that's a recipe for cultural destruction.Let me expand on that idea. Minorities need to be brought into the majority, that's the point of defending their rights. They've been disenfranchised, they should be given full citizenship with all its rights. But if they want to form their own separate subculture at odds with the majority that is NOT within their rights. [ABE: I don't mean groups can't live separately from the main culture, I just mean they can't form their own little state that's hostile to the main culture's laws and works to destroy them.]Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, the Constitution was not meant to protect subversive subcultures, and the majortity IS to rule. As I just wrote in my previous post, where minorities are disenfranchised they need to be brought into the majority where they can participate with full citizenship rights. Minorities do not have the right to form their own alien subculture which is at odds with the majority and with the laws of the society. You have of course the PC view of minority rights which contains the recipe for the destruction of western civilization. The rights of minorities to be full participants in the society is a tenet of western civilization. The rights of minorities to oppose and seek to undermine the legal and cultural foundations of the majority society is NOT protected by the Constitution, although Political Correctness has so abused the Constitution you think it is, and there are a lot of you so bye bye America."Swearing fealty" has to involve a destructive attitude toward the society they live in tp be prohibited. As long as a group lives under the society's laws without trying to destroy them there isn't a problem. I for instance swear fealty to a God who commands me to pray for the peace of the nation I live in. But Islam is known for its undying commitment to establishing Kalifa all over the planet, which is a commitment to the destruction of any form of society that is not Kalifa, and for doing it by infiltrating societies and working to undermine them when they have the power to do so. They've been vandalizing the city of Marseilles since they became numerous enough to get away with it.Sorry you've bought the PC version of the Constitution. But then you are far from alone. However if you ever wake up you may find that like the situation on the Titanic there may not be room in the lifeboats for you. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You know nothing about Islam and less about the Constitution, which is in fact used as a "cudgel" by the PC forces to destroy America and all of western civilization. Changing it through legal channels is NOT the same thing as claiming its protection while conspiring to bring down a nation by growing your population to the point that you can force others to Sharia law. You have the PC version of the Constitution and have no idea what I'm talking about, do you? I have to be the enemy here, no way I might in fact be right. Oh well. Bye Bye America as I said.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think it's mostly a matter of understanding how the language of protected freedoms was understood in its day and something of the history of PC over the last half century.But you do need to know more about Islam than anybody here seems to know, or take seriously if they've heard it. Back before 9/11 I happened to have read a book by Ramon Bennett, a Christian living in Israel, about Islam's strategies for conquering the world for Allah. I may have written about this book somewhere here. He quotes Muslim leaders all over the Arab world on how they plan to destroy Israel and then take over the rest of the world, and they specifically described the method of growing their population until they have the power to do so. If it seemed worth it I'd go see if I can find the book and quote it but that much effort is hardly ever really worth it here. Oh the guy is a Christian? Forget that then. And they'll go dig up whatever has been said against him and treat THAT as the truth. Etc.Nobody here seems to have a clue about PC. Tanypteryx thinks it refers to being polite about differences or some such. No, it's a concerted propaganda program that took off in the sixties through the Cultural Marxists who had escaped Nazi Germany to come and teach in American Universities a few decades earlier. They were all Jewish and paranoid about anti-Semitism which they assumed was the driving force of all of western civilization including America even if they couldn't see it. So they crafted ideas they knew would destroy American civilization from the inside. Marcuse, Adorno, Horkheimer, and many others. Bill Lind is the name of the guy who did the analysis I first encountered of Political Correctness as originating with the Cultural Marxists. Those guys were Marxists but they'd given up on overt revolution and sought an insidious revolution. There is also reason to trace this back before them to the Jesuit influences on Marx himself, and to a Jesuit who first invented the idea of Social Justice or Socialism or Communism. First you call into question everything about the nation you want to bring down, all its pride in its goodness. Make it out to be nothing but a greed-driven racist murderous evil force in the world, bury all its goodness or reinvent it as evil. Forget about the lives lost by Americans in the service of saving Europe from Hitler. Call America "imperialist." That was one of the strangest pieces of propaganda you heard all the time in the 60s. The British Empire was/is of course attacked as evil in exactly the same way, its benevolent contributions to the nations it occupied buried under mountains of invective, accusations of greed and racism and so on. A small truth is made to overwhelm the bigger truths. Make it so nobody can say anything good about the nation without hearing about how it murdered Indians and witches and Quakers and lynched blacks and so on. You never hear the true story of Thanksgiving any more, the friendship and sharing of food between the Pilgrim settlers and the local Indian tribe. No, that's all been buried. Christians didn't befriend the Indians, they murdered them. But of course if they wanted to save their souls that was an evil in itself.Of course American freedoms ARE good according to PC, as long as we define them according to PC. The real greatness of America is rewritten in PC terms. I hope it can't succeed. I hope Americans still have enough common sense to prevent it, but it isn't looking good.PC constitutionality thinks it's just grand that Sharia law could be imposed on America by the mere growth of the Muslim population. Amazing. Is anybody really thinking? Again, it's in how it was understood back then as compared to the ridiculous destructive interpretations we hear now.Just for an example from that time, here's Samuel Adams on religious freedoms: But of course I'm the fanatic and you have no reason to listen to me or to anyone I quote. I know that only too well by now. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, that was short and sour. Why do I bother?I didn't intend such an implication. I thought it was common sense.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Constitution never intended to grant freedoms to subversive groups. The First Amendment that grants religious freedom never intended to grant that freedom to a religion that seeks ultimately to dominate the nation ruled by the Constitution. abe: I would think this would be obvious since the whole flap was about preventing one denomination from dominating all the others. How we could get from that basic understanding to thinking the Constitution would permit a religion to grow to dominate the nation by any means whatever is beyond me. /abeI answered you that it depends on reading the Constitution as it was originally understood as compared to reading it with the PC understanding that grants freedom to subversive religions. That's the only claim I made, that it depends on how you read it. And I quoted Samuel Adams to show that at least one founder understood the problem of subversive religion. He would have of course as all the early Puritans did, when they disallowed Roman Catholics from positions of political power. Both Roman Catholicism and Islam are subversive religions that seek to take over the world. They knew it back then in the case of the RCC, apparently not so clear about Islam. But we should be clear about Islam now.I don't know what you think I said that this doesn't answer. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't see that it says any such thing. It is supposed to be a rule of law that applies no matter what the population mix is. The point about Islam is that they will throw out the Constitution as soon as they have the power to do so.Not that it is going to matter much by then anyway since Political Correctness has already turned the Constitution on its head.

Where did I claim to argue from the Constitution anyway? I answered some things others said about the Constitution, I never claimed it on behalf of my own argument that I recall. Then when pressed I said what I'd been saying all along: It's how you READ the Constitution whether it supports subversive sects or not. It doesn't say anything specific about the situation but Political Correctness claims the Constitution supports it and I say it does not. My argument has to do with the spirit of the Constitution: since preventing one denomination from dominating others is its spirit, arguing that it supports religions that aim to dominate the whole world can't possibly be Constitutional. You can't be paying attention to the argument to demand that I give Constitutional support for this when I've never claimed it beyond what I just said.Of course you aren't "going there" because you are ignorant of the truth. The early Americans at least knew that about the RCC and what I quoted from Samuel Adams makes it explicit.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

*groan*

Is that "dominionism?" Your links go to an American Express ad.Whatever it is, it isn't Christianity, which wants us to be separate from the world, in it but not of it, engaged with it, serving it as salt and light, offering people salvation, but not ruling.In fact it was the worldly ambitions that Christians can be prone to just as anyone is, that was I think Madison's main argument against a state church. It's what happened to Roman Catholicism after all, worldly ambition piled on worldly ambition once Constantine used the power of the Roman Empire for the Bishop of Rome, until they were ordering around kings and emperors. And these days not quite as aggressively but still doing the same as the Pope goes around telling nations what to do.We WILL rule the Kingdom when it finally comes, but not this world.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Let me make it clearer: The RCC and Islam are quite happy to kill people in order to secure their rulership, when they are in a position to do so.Serving in Congress is just participating in the society, which is in fact something we are to do as salt and light. I thought we were talking about RULING THE WORLD> That's not the Chrisitian agenda.And are those sites about dominionism?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Good morning, Ringo, I hope you are enjoying your time at the library computer. How's the weather in Saskatchewan? It's uncommonly warm here today, in fact I think it's a first in my experience for the Nevada Day parade, which is going to happen later this morning. The parade usually has the honor -- or misfortune -- of marking the beginning of the cold weather here. Do they serve coffee at the library too? I couldn't work at the computer in the mornings without it.My groan was perhaps a bit uncommunicative. Sometimes there are no words, you can only sit there blinking and groaning. I was talking about the rule of law and you said I was wrong and gave an example of the rule of law to contradict me. The Bill of Rights is also law. But beyond that I'd already given my opinion about exactly WHAT "individual rights" are protected and you just responded as if I'd said nothing about that.Oh well. The Nevada Day parade is going to get a sunny warm day for maybe the first time ever as far as I know. I guess that's a bad thing if it's caused by global warming, but maybe it's a good thing if it's just one of those cyclical things and means we're going to have a wet El Nino winter as predicted, which would be nice after years of drought.Happy happy.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Constitution itself affirms majority rule. The following quote attributed to Jefferson states how majority rule and minority rights reasonably work together: I've been saying that Political Correctness has a false idea of the extent of minority rights, to the point that they disenfranchise the majority.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's all you got out of that? Sheesh.Political Correctness twists the meaning of equality and freedom and minority rights. It's destructive tyrannical political propaganda. It's all in that Jefferson quote if you can manage not to gloss over its plain meaning.