[PublicAnimalNo9]

sandorski sandorski:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

sandorski sandorski:

The person should be required to identify themselves, when it is necessary(taking an oath would certainly meet that condition). However, outside of someone verifying that persons identity, to require people to then violate their Religious practice during the Ceremony is antithetical to Religious Freedom.

The niqab is not, repeat NOT, a religious garment.
It's a cultural symbol of oppression.

It is to those who wear it.

$1:

Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy, previous dean of Cairo's Al-Azhar University, called full-face veiling a custom that has nothing to do with the Islamic faith. "The niqab is a cultural tradition and has nothing to do with Islam."

$1:

In October 2009, the Muslim Canadian Congress called for a ban on the burqa and niqab (though not the hijab), saying that they have "no basis in Islam". Spokesperson Farzana Hassan cited public safety issues, such as identity concealment, as well as gender equality, stating that wearing the burqa and niqab is "a practice that marginalizes women."

[sandorski]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

sandorski sandorski:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

The niqab is not, repeat NOT, a religious garment.
It's a cultural symbol of oppression.

It is to those who wear it.

$1:

Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy, previous dean of Cairo's Al-Azhar University, called full-face veiling a custom that has nothing to do with the Islamic faith. "The niqab is a cultural tradition and has nothing to do with Islam."

$1:

In October 2009, the Muslim Canadian Congress called for a ban on the burqa and niqab (though not the hijab), saying that they have "no basis in Islam". Spokesperson Farzana Hassan cited public safety issues, such as identity concealment, as well as gender equality, stating that wearing the burqa and niqab is "a practice that marginalizes women."

That's fine, but what you are arguing here is essentially that the Pope's pronouncement applies to all Christians. Islam isn't as fractured as Christianity, but clearly it has some divergent groups. Some of those groups include having full face covering of Women.

That practice sucks, but it is a Religious practice. If Religious Freedom is valued, the practice needs to be allowed.

[andyt]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

andyt andyt:

wrong road to go down, start ruling about what is and what isn't religious - by non-Muslim judges yet.

The Muslim Council of Canada stated at least two years ago when this shit first started becoming an issue here that the niqab is NOT a religious garment, it is a cultural more.

So they are the determinant of what's what in Islam? They used to be known as Cair can - let FD rave on to you about that. There is no central religious authority in Islam.

I believe judges in Canada have accepted the niqab as a religious requirement. Hence all the agony about whether to allow it in certain cases or not. Otherwise it would just be dismissed.

Personally I think it's ridiculous to have judges opine about genuine vs fake religious beliefs, but as that's how we seem to do it in this country, looks like your belief the veil is not religious is trumped by the judiciary.

[andyt]

sandorski sandorski:

andyt andyt:

wrong road to go down, start ruling about what is and what isn't religious - by non-Muslim judges yet. Koran says women should be covered, some interpret it as covering the face as well. That should be up to them. What we need to get away from is allowing religious exemptions of any kind to trump rules that apply to everybody else. If those rules make sense for one segment of the population, they make sense for all. So no face covering when establishing identity is required or for security reasons. No head covering trumps safety gear. Everybody has their pic, showing their face on docs like licenses. No special parking exemptions because your religion tells you you can't drive on certain days. And so on. Cut the bullshit already, make Canada secular, be religious on your own time. Now we have the scandal of ICBC not accepting a spaghetti strainer as legitimate religious headgear, but strips of cloth or beanies, no problem. Rediculous. Either everybody takes off their head covering, or nobody does. Woo woo, guy in the sky wants me to keep a lid on my head, must have an exemption. The Canucks want me to wear one of their stupid hats - no exemption for you - seems to me the latter is closer to religion for many Canadians.

A Secular Government is fine, but a Secular Society should not be imposed on the Citizenry. I don't want to live in a Dictatorship, even if that means my fellow Citizens choose to believe in ridiculous things.

Let them believe and act all those beliefs all they want. It's when they want to act on them that the problem starts. If unmasked faces are required, require them of all. If safety headgear is required, require it of all. Equality under the law.

[raydan]

Well, since only women have to wear the niqab, that's sexual discrimination... and that trumps religious freedom every time.

[andyt]

sandorski sandorski:

That's fine, but what you are arguing here is essentially that the Pope's pronouncement applies to all Christians. Islam isn't as fractured as Christianity, but clearly it has some divergent groups. Some of those groups include having full face covering of Women.

That practice sucks, but it is a Religious practice. If Religious Freedom is valued, the practice needs to be allowed.

Islam is far more fractured, as it has no central authority like the pope.

[andyt]

raydan raydan:

Well, since only women have to wear the niqab, that's sexual discrimination... and that trumps religious freedom every time.

So we should stop circumcision too? Force catholics to allow women priests? Looks like nothing trumps religion.

[sandorski]

andyt andyt:

sandorski sandorski:

That's fine, but what you are arguing here is essentially that the Pope's pronouncement applies to all Christians. Islam isn't as fractured as Christianity, but clearly it has some divergent groups. Some of those groups include having full face covering of Women.

That practice sucks, but it is a Religious practice. If Religious Freedom is valued, the practice needs to be allowed.

Islam is far more fractured, as it has no central authority like the pope.

Sorta, each Mosque is rather Independent. However, the divergence isn't near as dramatic as you see with Christian Denominations.

[andyt]

Very dramatic. Far more killings over sectarian differences than you get with Christians these days - the've mostly got it out of their system in the last 500 years. The Irish are just slow learners, is all.

[raydan]

andyt andyt:

raydan raydan:

Well, since only women have to wear the niqab, that's sexual discrimination... and that trumps religious freedom every time.

So we should stop circumcision too? Force catholics to allow women priests? Looks like nothing trumps religion.

I agree to both of those... but if nothing trumps religion, then Sharia law is a given. We'll be stoning women because they were raped and cutting the heads of the blasphemous in short order.

[ShepherdsDog]

At first glance, the differences between the two main divisions of Islam seem rather trivial....who should head the Caliphate, his buddy(the Sunnis) or his cousin/son in law(the Shi'a camp). However, when you look closer, you see the myriad of divisions with some real pronounced differences. Christianity fractured along some fairly major interpretations. It repressed some pretty major deviations earlier, ranging from the divinity of Christ, religious authority coming from the Pope or the Bible, the Holy Spirit coming from the Father or the Son and the Father and whether trinitarianism is monotheistic.

[andyt]

raydan raydan:

andyt andyt:

raydan raydan:

Well, since only women have to wear the niqab, that's sexual discrimination... and that trumps religious freedom every time.

So we should stop circumcision too? Force catholics to allow women priests? Looks like nothing trumps religion.

I agree to both of those... but if nothing trumps religion, then Sharia law is a given. We'll be stoning women because they were raped and cutting the heads of the blasphemous in short order.

It's why I'm adamant about a strictly secular state - apply (and enforce, you feel me France?) the same rules to everybody in public life. And no, that doesn't mean you can stone women in private.