Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Burqa Versus The Motorcycle Helmet.
145 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Danny, //what about my standards, which I must admit have to be lowered to match some of the posters on AB.//
Why do you feel the need to lower your standards in order to match those who think it’s acceptable for anyone wearing the Muslim uniform to be given preferential treatment? That’s not only devoid of principle - it’s irrational.
Why do you feel the need to lower your standards in order to match those who think it’s acceptable for anyone wearing the Muslim uniform to be given preferential treatment? That’s not only devoid of principle - it’s irrational.
Without denigrating your argument, let’s have a look at it, spathi.
AOG’s article demonstrated that a wearer of a crash helmet is told to remove it before entering a bank whilst the wearer of a religious face mask isn’t. Firstly you tried to defend this by suggesting that “A helmet is defence.. implying some is needed.. a burqua isn't... implying some isn't...”.
Not quite sure what you mean by that. Neither is needed inside the bank.
So then you changed tack: “It's kind of illegal to force someone to take off their clothes when going into a building.. .A helmet though, i mean that's like taking a hat off.”
I pointed out to you that it is neither illegal nor unreasonable to ask someone to show their face in a bank and also gave examples of where people were required “to take off their clothes”.
So now we come to this:
“my point is, even though they're only going for the face covered angle, there is much more to the burqa than that, and to only take that away from it is ignorance.”
And you move towards suggesting that Muslim women cannot uncover their faces without undressing entirely:
“NJ, i'm talking about a full body gown,…”
The requirement being discussed is to uncover the face. If these garments are such that to uncover the face means removing the entire thing then they are even more ridiculous than I imagined. If there is such a requirement (and I am led to believe, though cannot be sure, that there is not) the question arises “how does the wearer eat and drink?” Must they undress entirely to have a glass ow water? I think not.
This question is about the difference in treatment between a person wearing a crash helmet and a one wearing a face mask when entering a bank. You have tried to defend the latter by firstly suggesting the two are unrelated and then by citing practical problems with the face mask that in all probability do not exist. I would suggest that even if they do the women involved need to make arrangements to be able to comply with reasonable requests that everybody else is asked to comply with.
AOG’s article demonstrated that a wearer of a crash helmet is told to remove it before entering a bank whilst the wearer of a religious face mask isn’t. Firstly you tried to defend this by suggesting that “A helmet is defence.. implying some is needed.. a burqua isn't... implying some isn't...”.
Not quite sure what you mean by that. Neither is needed inside the bank.
So then you changed tack: “It's kind of illegal to force someone to take off their clothes when going into a building.. .A helmet though, i mean that's like taking a hat off.”
I pointed out to you that it is neither illegal nor unreasonable to ask someone to show their face in a bank and also gave examples of where people were required “to take off their clothes”.
So now we come to this:
“my point is, even though they're only going for the face covered angle, there is much more to the burqa than that, and to only take that away from it is ignorance.”
And you move towards suggesting that Muslim women cannot uncover their faces without undressing entirely:
“NJ, i'm talking about a full body gown,…”
The requirement being discussed is to uncover the face. If these garments are such that to uncover the face means removing the entire thing then they are even more ridiculous than I imagined. If there is such a requirement (and I am led to believe, though cannot be sure, that there is not) the question arises “how does the wearer eat and drink?” Must they undress entirely to have a glass ow water? I think not.
This question is about the difference in treatment between a person wearing a crash helmet and a one wearing a face mask when entering a bank. You have tried to defend the latter by firstly suggesting the two are unrelated and then by citing practical problems with the face mask that in all probability do not exist. I would suggest that even if they do the women involved need to make arrangements to be able to comply with reasonable requests that everybody else is asked to comply with.
"Neither is needed inside the bank. "
I think a woman's religious gown is needed when ever they are in public.. And i think only they can decide what is needed to keep their dignity and religious practise.
My comments regarding a helmet being defence, is more that applicable. It is its main purpose. The gowns main purpose isn't just to keep a face covered, it's much deeper than that.
I think a woman's religious gown is needed when ever they are in public.. And i think only they can decide what is needed to keep their dignity and religious practise.
My comments regarding a helmet being defence, is more that applicable. It is its main purpose. The gowns main purpose isn't just to keep a face covered, it's much deeper than that.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.