Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

A Battle of Two Muslim Women

niqab france spitzer cnn

  • Please log in to reply
80 replies to this topic

#61    Beckys_Mom

Beckys_Mom

    Sarcastic Muppet..!

  • Member
  • 51,193 posts
  • Joined:01 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ireland

  • "I hate pretentious people. I mean, what is the point in applying exorbitantly extensive vocabulary, it is just straightforwardly unnecessary".

Posted 08 June 2012 - 01:48 PM

View Posteight bits, on 08 June 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:



(BM thank you for the likes :) .)

My hand slipped  lol  .......Joking    I did like your posts in here so far...

Posted ImageRAW Berris... Dare you enter?

If there's a heaven...I hope to hell I get there !

#62    spud the mackem

spud the mackem

    Spud the Mackem

  • Member
  • 3,244 posts
  • Joined:28 Oct 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yeo Valley,Darkest Somerset.

  • man who ask for nothing shall never be disappointed

Posted 08 June 2012 - 02:50 PM

When school comes out and all these ladies are standing around in their full black gear,how the hell do the kids know which lady is their mom.??

(1) try your best, ............if that dont work.
(2) try your second best, ........if that dont work
(3) give up you aint gonna win

#63    Beckys_Mom

Beckys_Mom

    Sarcastic Muppet..!

  • Member
  • 51,193 posts
  • Joined:01 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ireland

  • "I hate pretentious people. I mean, what is the point in applying exorbitantly extensive vocabulary, it is just straightforwardly unnecessary".

Posted 08 June 2012 - 03:16 PM

View Postspud the mackem, on 08 June 2012 - 02:50 PM, said:

When school comes out and all these ladies are standing around in their full black gear,how the hell do the kids know which lady is their mom.??

Ha ha  funny..  Or  imagine them in a police line up   lol   Or  ..on a dating show... Guy says .. hmmm I think I will go with... the ..one with the eye twitch   lol...Kidding of course.. :P

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 08 June 2012 - 03:19 PM.

Posted ImageRAW Berris... Dare you enter?

If there's a heaven...I hope to hell I get there !

#64    Yamato

Yamato

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,367 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 June 2012 - 11:26 PM

View Posteight bits, on 08 June 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

Y


I made no attack on the Bill of Rights. The Fourteenth Amendment was a trade-off. The states lost the power to infringe on personal rights, mostly what the federal government couldn't infringe according to the first eight federal amendments, and some things in the original Constituiton as well.

However, the Ninth and especially the Tenth Amendment became, for almost any practical purpose, dead letter. That is, they weren't repealed, but they don't actually much affect the law anymore, either.

To understand dead letter, compare the provisions of state constituions that imposed some religious test on public office holders, for example, Maryland's Declaration of Rights, Article 37, here

http://www.msa.md.go...html/00dec.html

However black the lettering, the part about belief in God has no force. Googlebing Torcaso v. Watkins for details, if you'd like.

That's what dead letter looks like. Now read the Tenth Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Notice that under it, and before the Fourteenth Amendment, the federal government couldn't (and obviously didn't) compel Maryland to refrain from a religious test for public office. Yet, the federal government did just that, in Torcaso, according to the Fourteenth Amendment.

(BM thank you for the likes :) .)
Of course you're attacking the Bill of Rights and denying it doesn't help.    US history is rife with federal intrusion into states' rights; and a singular example of this doesn't nullify amendments in the Bill of Rights.   If all of US history has taught us anything as legal scholars it's that the Constitution is perpetually under assault by Statists who can't understand the limits of federal power, and these assaults will remain so provided we have people willing to throw their arms up in the air and surrender to bad precedent.  Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't defend itself, that's what all that oath taking (and oath breaking) is all about.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#65    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,645 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 09 June 2012 - 12:12 AM

View PostYamato, on 08 June 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

In the US we're not a democracy we're a republic.   I do not live in a society where two wolves and a sheep vote on who to have for dinner.   I do not live in a society where the 51% can impose their will on the minority.  I live in a Constitutional Republic that is purposefully designed to prevent that from ever happening by making the legal process extremely difficult.   I live in a society with a government that makes it extremely difficult for freedoms like the one on the chopping block here to be violated.  I have rights in a society not because of elections or the fact that I have bureaucrats representing me democratically.   I have rights because I'm endowed inalienably.   Nothing you're talking about above confers me any "right".  If you think you get freedoms from government, and that's a dangerous precedent imho.   And it might practically be the case in Australia if that's what Australians believe.   But the reason why we don't get anarchy or chaos in the US is again, because of the Constitution (our rule of law).  

US politics have proven to me over time that elections are overrated and bureaucrats are all the same, but the principle found in the best government in the world is worth defending.

Despite your cynicism, you live in one of the worlds freest democracies. I like to think that i live in one even more free.  ANd of course a majority can ,and will, impose its will on a minority. Thats evolved animalistic behaviour observed everywhere in nature.

A democratic govt can only mitigate how severely that is done. No individual in a society has rights other than those conferred by that society. The society is the framework which nurtures and protects both the individual and his/her freedoms. Without the social structures of government; legislatures, courts police etc., no one would have any freedoms other than those they could impose by force, or strength, or organised power such as unions.

You have no "inaliaenable rights", despite your constitution. That constituion is amenable by due process, at the will of enough people across your nation. Over time it has been physically changed and often its original intentions have been varied, as social atitudes and beliefs in the USA  have changed. The constitution, as written and amended, both protects people from a state religion, but also assures all of the right to religious freedom. In brief, "The state" will make no law either establishing or proscribing/restricting the establishment  or worship of ANY religion. In america this has led to conflict over where state and religion merge..

In australia exactly the same words in our constitution have not done this. It has not separated religion and state, but integrated them. So that religion  (any religion including islam buddhist or other) can exist withn state structures and the state can have some control over religious institutions. BAsically we have come down stronger on the state protection of religious liberties, while in america they are circumscribed when they conflict with state institutions. Our parliaments and schools, for example have prayers and even chaplains if that is their wish,  (from all sorts of religions) within them, as do state run hospitals. People can wear any religious clothing or icons anywhere, where it is safe to do so, and this is protected as a right by case law. People cannot be discrimiated at work or at school  because of religous practice or belief, and this is strongly protected by law and govt institutions like the equal opportunity commissioner and ombudsman
In america your real problem is the fundamenatism of much of your religion It divides people Something like creationism cannot be integrated into a science based govt, whether it is islamic fundamtalism or christian. In australia, religion is just another part of peoples lives (or not)  As in america, creationism cant be taught in govt schools for good and obvious reasons but then 25 % of austrlaian children go to private schools However students can be taught  a variety of religious principles and beliefs in govt schools and often are. Yet extremly few austrlaian are  fundamentalis,t while nearly 90% have either a religious or a spiritual component to their beliefs and lives.  And those religious beliefs are varied and diverse.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#66    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,645 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 09 June 2012 - 12:28 AM

View PostYamato, on 08 June 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

I also said that the USA is the best.  Borrowing some eloquence from Sir Winston Churchill, the US government is the worst government except for every other government!   And yet I trust the American people more than the government and that makes me thankful for our Constitution.  I believe that individuals make the difference through civil action like social movements.   We get the best results from individuals not governments or even corporations.  The individual is especially protected in the US and that is something precious enough to defend.  Obviously I'm thrilled to be here but I'd also like to keep it that way.

Ah I see our basic dfference. I dont trust some people as much as I trust my govt. This has increased as i have got older and less capable of self defence by force.

To me my govt does an excellent job of protecting me from the actions of other people, based on their desires wants and needs or beliefs. If that means the govt circumscibes some of my own  beliefs desires wants and needs, then that is a more than fair trade off.

My govt tends to protect me from the excesses of individual behaviour, social movements, political trends and people power. There is a certain irony in this. I studied politics for 3 years at uni.

Austrlaia foces every one to vote. I disagree with this on principle and thus for all my life have never voted. Once i had to pretend to be dead to avoid paying fines for not voting, but because i never registered as a voter when 18, mostly no one ever notices.  The moment voting is voluntary I will vote.

But despite this, i like the way our political system works As an individual I have a freedom probably unparalled inthe world. I can travel all over my country without giving my name to anyone, and as long as i act within the law (or am prepared to accept the consequences of breaking the law) can pretty well live as i please and act as i want .

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#67    Yamato

Yamato

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,367 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 June 2012 - 12:40 AM

View PostMr Walker, on 09 June 2012 - 12:12 AM, said:

Despite your cynicism, you live in one of the worlds freest democracies. I like to think that i live in one even more free.  ANd of course a majority can ,and will, impose its will on a minority. Thats evolved animalistic behaviour observed everywhere in nature.

A democratic govt can only mitigate how severely that is done. No individual in a society has rights other than those conferred by that society. The society is the framework which nurtures and protects both the individual and his/her freedoms. Without the social structures of government; legislatures, courts police etc., no one would have any freedoms other than those they could impose by force, or strength, or organised power such as unions.

You have no "inaliaenable rights", despite your constitution. That constituion is amenable by due process, at the will of enough people across your nation. Over time it has been physically changed and often its original intentions have been varied, as social atitudes and beliefs in the USA  have changed. The constitution, as written and amended, both protects people from a state religion, but also assures all of the right to religious freedom. In brief, "The state" will make no law either establishing or proscribing/restricting the establishment  or worship of ANY religion. In america this has led to conflict over where state and religion merge..

In australia exactly the same words in our constitution have not done this. It has not separated religion and state, but integrated them. So that religion  (any religion including islam buddhist or other) can exist withn state structures and the state can have some control over religious institutions. BAsically we have come down stronger on the state protection of religious liberties, while in america they are circumscribed when they conflict with state institutions. Our parliaments and schools, for example have prayers and even chaplains if that is their wish,  (from all sorts of religions) within them, as do state run hospitals. People can wear any religious clothing or icons anywhere, where it is safe to do so, and this is protected as a right by case law. People cannot be discrimiated at work or at school  because of religous practice or belief, and this is strongly protected by law and govt institutions like the equal opportunity commissioner and ombudsman
In america your real problem is the fundamenatism of much of your religion It divides people Something like creationism cannot be integrated into a science based govt, whether it is islamic fundamtalism or christian. In australia, religion is just another part of peoples lives (or not)  As in america, creationism cant be taught in govt schools for good and obvious reasons but then 25 % of austrlaian children go to private schools However students can be taught  a variety of religious principles and beliefs in govt schools and often are. Yet extremly few austrlaian are  fundamentalis,t while nearly 90% have either a religious or a spiritual component to their beliefs and lives.  And those religious beliefs are varied and diverse.
"Animalistic behavior everywhere in nature", that's a great reason why we have the Constitution that we have; that you seem to have a problem with.   Let's not lose another's rule of law while one's engaged in natural philosophy.


Quote

A democratic govt can only mitigate how severely that is done. No individual in a society has rights other than those conferred by that society. The society is the framework which nurtures and protects both the individual and his/her freedoms. Without the social structures of government; legislatures, courts police etc., no one would have any freedoms other than those they could impose by force, or strength, or organised power such as unions.

There is nowhere close to a lack of government or framework or mitigation here.  Looking at the credit card statement, there's way too much of it.   We're probably a good role model for you though if we can get back in the black.   But your statement is too government reliant.  You talk about force and strength and imposition when -- government is force.  I've made many business deals on nothing more than a handshake.  The law's there to protect me if necessary but that force has never been necessary for me yet.


Quote

You have no "inaliaenable rights", despite your constitution.

How dare you sir?  And you speak of my cynicism?

Quote

That constituion is amenable by due process, at the will of enough people across your nation. Over time it has been physically changed and often its original intentions have been varied, as social atitudes and beliefs in the USA  have changed. The constitution, as written and amended, both protects people from a state religion, but also assures all of the right to religious freedom. In brief, "The state" will make no law either establishing or proscribing/restricting the establishment  or worship of ANY religion. In america this has led to conflict over where state and religion merge..
Of course it's amendable and of course it's amended and if you want changes across all of society we expect those bureaucrats to amend it.   If we have to change the definitions of words already in the dictionary and jam them into the Constitution, the best of luck with that.  Conflict over where state and religion merge is a good thing.   That is the spirit of the law at work.   We've handled it just fine over here.  Who are you to complain?

Quote

In america your real problem is the fundamenatism of much of your religion It divides people  Something like creationism cannot be integrated into a science based govt, whether it is islamic fundamtalism or christian. In australia, religion is just another part of peoples lives (or not)  As in america, creationism cant be taught in govt schools for good and obvious reasons but then 25 % of austrlaian children go to private schools However students can be taught  a variety of religious principles and beliefs in govt schools and often are. Yet extremly few austrlaian are  fundamentalis,t while nearly 90% have either a religious or a spiritual component to their beliefs and lives.  And those religious beliefs are varied and diverse.
I don't see the problem with different religious views here.  We've had some embarrassing episodes like the Qu'ran burning debacle and "the Mosque at Ground Zero", but everyone is going to get insulted by someone no matter what religion they are or aren't and neither your government nor my government is going to stop that.   And the embarrassment and all the rabble rousing is important because it catapults religious freedom to center stage where the battle can be met.  But be careful when telling me what my country's problem is when we don't have that problem beyond the pale.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#68    Yamato

Yamato

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,367 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 June 2012 - 12:47 AM

View PostMr Walker, on 09 June 2012 - 12:28 AM, said:

Ah I see our basic dfference. I dont trust some people as much as I trust my govt. This has increased as i have got older and less capable of self defence by force.

To me my govt does an excellent job of protecting me from the actions of other people, based on their desires wants and needs or beliefs. If that means the govt circumscibes some of my own  beliefs desires wants and needs, then that is a more than fair trade off.

My govt tends to protect me from the excesses of individual behaviour, social movements, political trends and people power. There is a certain irony in this. I studied politics for 3 years at uni.

Austrlaia foces every one to vote. I disagree with this on principle and thus for all my life have never voted. Once i had to pretend to be dead to avoid paying fines for not voting, but because i never registered as a voter when 18, mostly no one ever notices.  The moment voting is voluntary I will vote.

But despite this, i like the way our political system works As an individual I have a freedom probably unparalled inthe world. I can travel all over my country without giving my name to anyone, and as long as i act within the law (or am prepared to accept the consequences of breaking the law) can pretty well live as i please and act as i want .
I would rather tend to the inconveniences of too much liberty than not enough of it.   Government protecting us from social movements sounds comical to me.  Looking back at history, the best results are achieved by individuals.  There's always a bureaucrat to get behind a podium and take credit for something, but it's free groups of individuals who are responsible for the great social change we've had throughout our history.  Oftentimes they have to suffer the force of the government and suffer physically for it.

I agree that on balance Australia has made a respectable place of itself.   Kudos to yours.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#69    Etalis

Etalis

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • "...and who realises that rebels are as mean and power-seeking and greedy as the people or forces they are rebeling against....."

Posted 09 June 2012 - 01:27 AM

CNN, left-wing in nature, would support the burqa and nijab. They quite rudely dismissed the other girl proclaiming the constitution which exists in only the United States gives them a high moral ground in allowing this clothing. Since masks are banned on a wide scale in public as she said, the burqa and nijab are both masks. I could use the constitution to promote child pornography using the same arguments as that man. Devisive propaganda, America isn't the country with the so called solution with the 'muslim problem.' Europe most right wing left wing sect Germany has denounced the demographic decline of the european people is inevitable due to off the roof fertility rates of muslim families and the discourse of christian values. Of course CNN is here talking about the holy grail “constituition." What nonsense.


#70    Yamato

Yamato

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,367 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 June 2012 - 01:45 AM

View PostEtalis, on 09 June 2012 - 01:27 AM, said:

CNN, left-wing in nature, would support the burqa and nijab. They quite rudely dismissed the other girl proclaiming the constitution which exists in only the United States gives them a high moral ground in allowing this clothing. Since masks are banned on a wide scale in public as she said, the burqa and nijab are both masks. I could use the constitution to promote child pornography using the same arguments as that man. Devisive propaganda, America isn't the country with the so called solution with the 'muslim problem.' Europe most right wing left wing sect Germany has denounced the demographic decline of the european people is inevitable due to off the roof fertility rates of muslim families and the discourse of christian values. Of course CNN is here talking about the holy grail “constituition." What nonsense.
The Constitution isn't limited to only one side of the political spectrum.  Don't fall prey to the false left-right paradigm that thinks either end has more legal representation than the other.   As much as CNN is left wing is no reason for anyone else to be.  Relying on punditry to form our opinions is a terrible idea.   I wasn't aware that Eliot Spitzer was the emperor of CNN or the embodiment of what CNN stands for, but if that's true he should really get his job back.  One thing's clear, he moderated the discussion quite well.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#71    hetrodoxly

hetrodoxly

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,954 posts
  • Joined:29 May 2006

Posted 09 June 2012 - 09:13 AM

View PostYamato, on 08 June 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

I have relatives in N. Ireland.  I'm looking at a souvenir they bought me while I was there; a basket full of pretty seashells.  One of my cousins is a lobster fisherman.  I have another cousin in England who owns a bar in Hastings.  We picked blueberries and baked pies, saw Giant's Causeway, braved the rope bridge and even invaded Ireland going to Dublin and beyond, even kissed the Blarney stone.  It rained every day but one.  Loved it anyway.
You mean blackberries.

Thank god i'm an athiest.

Veni, vidi, Vertigo, i came i saw i couldn't get down.
Hetrodoxly.

#72    eight bits

eight bits

    ...

  • Member
  • 5,994 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2007

Posted 09 June 2012 - 02:04 PM

Quote

Of course you're attacking the Bill of Rights and denying it doesn't help.
Good try, but fibbing about me is a waste of time. I made no attack on the Bill of Rights. The American people chucked part of it long before either of us was born.

More than 600,000 war-related deaths occurred in the civil war, a third of them American lives cut short by other Americans' violence, most of the rest from camp diseases. When the slaughter was over, the American people decided this would never happen again. To help ensure that, the People and their elected representatives removed ultimate responsibility for the most basic civil, political and personal rights from the states and gave it to the federal government. This gutted the Tenth Amendment, and cut the Ninth off from its only practical effect.

There is no "libertarian" issue here. Ending the Tenth Amendment's "protection" demonstrably expanded some Americans' rights, like allowing atheists to become state officials in Maryland.

Even if this change didn't improve things, it is what happened, and it is the way things actually are. Stop making up things about me because you don't approve of how our grandfathers' granfathers reacted to a protracted orgy of political violence, and undid something their grandfathers thought was a swell idea.

Posted Image

#73    Yamato

Yamato

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,367 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 June 2012 - 04:20 PM

View Posteight bits, on 09 June 2012 - 02:04 PM, said:

Good try, but fibbing about me is a waste of time. I made no attack on the Bill of Rights. The American people chucked part of it long before either of us was born.

More than 600,000 war-related deaths occurred in the civil war, a third of them American lives cut short by other Americans' violence, most of the rest from camp diseases. When the slaughter was over, the American people decided this would never happen again. To help ensure that, the People and their elected representatives removed ultimate responsibility for the most basic civil, political and personal rights from the states and gave it to the federal government. This gutted the Tenth Amendment, and cut the Ninth off from its only practical effect.

There is no "libertarian" issue here. Ending the Tenth Amendment's "protection" demonstrably expanded some Americans' rights, like allowing atheists to become state officials in Maryland.

Even if this change didn't improve things, it is what happened, and it is the way things actually are. Stop making up things about me because you don't approve of how our grandfathers' granfathers reacted to a protracted orgy of political violence, and undid something their grandfathers thought was a swell idea.
Spewing about the obsolescence of the Bill of Rights that makes you anything but libertarian also qualifies as an attack on the Constitution to me.  What qualifies as an attack to you incidentally?   You've fallen into a deranged assault on the Bill of Rights.  No, the American people didn't chuck part of it.   What liberal rag are you getting your information from?   Libertarians don't want one-size-fits-all legislation from Washington DC.  Stringent federal control of our "equality" isn't desirable because it doesn't make us equal and it lowers our standard of living to boot.   You drive too far down that statist road and you wind up with all kinds of big bad government that no real libertarian wants to pay for.   You wind up coddling people wanting equal pay and you get a minimum wage law.   Congratulations.  That's "how it works" too and like many other things and how they work, it's nothing libertarians are interested in getting for their money.

You've been very sadly misinformed.  Equal Protection or Due Process and States Rights are not mutually exclusive; don't confuse yourself with that liberal nonsense.   Nobody has the right to abridge anyone else's right, that is a Constitutional principle and states are certainly no exception to this just law.   But to misinterpret that so badly to suggest that the 10th Amendment is dead shows you have a very weak understanding of the theoretically infinite field that is the state's to govern.

How the 14th applies to this case study is to prevent any state in the union from banning the niqab.   That is the Constitutional position whether you catapult your propaganda about the 10th amendment or not.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#74    eight bits

eight bits

    ...

  • Member
  • 5,994 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2007

Posted 09 June 2012 - 05:25 PM

Quote

Spewing about the obsolescence of the Bill of Rights
Once again, misreprsenting my position won't improve yours. Fortunately, I see by this that I can save a few paragraphs of unprofitable reading,

Quote

How the 14th applies to this case study is to prevent any state in the union from banning the niqab.

Congratulations, you have now finally caught up with what I have posted all along.

Quote

Both women in your video were located in the United States. Either one can wear whatever they like here. One of the women aspires to change the American law. She'll probably be able to get laws that say that drivers licence photos must be unveiled and that veiled women must cooperate with TSA agents at airports. Walking down the street in America? Not a chance.

Quote

As I stated, the specific issue is consttutionally settled in the US ... She may get some of what she wants, but she will have to settle for reasonable time, place and manner regulations, and no more than that. That's what I discussed.

Quote

  In America, freedom of religious expression prevents the government from  forbidding the costume from being worn in public.

Those were from my posts 3, 38 and 45 in this thread.

So, don't be coy. Where we disagree is not about American law, but that American opinion is irrelevant to the people of France defining what their rights are. The French have every right to regulate public behavior in their own country, both legally and morally. No impersonally valid liberty issue or concern arises from any choice they have made. .

There is nothing morally superior about the American choices compared with the French ones.  And the bottom-line importance of the Fourteenth Amendment is that if the Civil War hadn't been fought, then the states could, although the federal government could not, ban or closely regulate the public wearing of the niqab, if the people of a state so wished, just as France did.

American legal tolerance of the niqab, then, looks a lot more like a side-effect of historical happenstance than a conscious choice. Indeed, that I have no remedy, none at all, against the Jesus salesman knocking at my door is also a side-effect, not any principle of liberty in action.

On that point, the French are ahead of the Americans. They made their choice of rights and embraced secularism in as many words, consciously, and not as a side-effect of another of their political inventions (like slavery) blowing up in their faces.

Posted Image

#75    Yamato

Yamato

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,367 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 June 2012 - 06:32 PM

View Posteight bits, on 09 June 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

Once again, misreprsenting my position won't improve yours. Fortunately, I see by this that I can save a few paragraphs of unprofitable reading,



Congratulations, you have now finally caught up with what I have posted all along.







Those were from my posts 3, 38 and 45 in this thread.

So, don't be coy. Where we disagree is not about American law, but that American opinion is irrelevant to the people of France defining what their rights are. The French have every right to regulate public behavior in their own country, both legally and morally. No impersonally valid liberty issue or concern arises from any choice they have made. .

There is nothing morally superior about the American choices compared with the French ones.  And the bottom-line importance of the Fourteenth Amendment is that if the Civil War hadn't been fought, then the states could, although the federal government could not, ban or closely regulate the public wearing of the niqab, if the people of a state so wished, just as France did.

American legal tolerance of the niqab, then, looks a lot more like a side-effect of historical happenstance than a conscious choice. Indeed, that I have no remedy, none at all, against the Jesus salesman knocking at my door is also a side-effect, not any principle of liberty in action.

On that point, the French are ahead of the Americans. They made their choice of rights and embraced secularism in as many words, consciously, and not as a side-effect of another of their political inventions (like slavery) blowing up in their faces.
It's impossible to misrepresent "The American people chucked part of the Bill of Rights" unless I didn't immediately recognize that as an inherently anti-Constitutional position.   So then, the Constitution confers with my position on this issue, tangents about the 10th or whatever else notwithstanding.  I don't know if the reason you showed up was to point that out, but if so, you had a long-winded way of getting around to agreeing with me.  Likewise to my position conferring with the Constitution, the 14th confers with the Bill of Rights.

It's attitudes like yours that make these ridiculous misstatements that cause the lack of respect for the Constitution we have in this country (always in the form of "let's pretend it doesn't exist") and the results we get are the federal government trampling over people just for obeying the wrong law in the wrong state.  This has everything to do with liberty, and denying that it does is another thing a libertarian would never get caught doing.   If you can't see peoples' rights being abridged by federal power in this country you're not paying attention.  But if some precedent law that let atheists run for office (that we both agree is good), plus some violent grandfathers who needed a war to solve social problems no other western power needed are all that's needed to determine your tangential position here (if that's the case) you haven't thought it out very well because there's a lot more at stake than you seem to think.

Contrasting French law is no issue with me as I've already had to repeat.   The framework for this debate was made crystal clear by Spitzer in the video.  Please review the debate again, consider the questions that he's asking as the same questions that I'm asking, and under the exact same context.   I find his framework for this debate utterly defensible so flail away, if you can.  If you have a problem with any of the substance of the video, bring it to my attention immediately but tangentially ranting about the 10th or the Civil War or how great France is doesn't even matter to the bottom line here.  You're not even coming close to breaching the rule of law here (are you American?), and it was laughable to hear you try to assert that the 14th killed the 10th.


Quote

And the bottom-line importance of the Fourteenth Amendment is that if the Civil War hadn't been fought, then the states could, although the federal government could not, ban or closely regulate the public wearing of the niqab, if the people of a state so wished

The 14th Amendment makes my position correct on this issue, thanks again for reminding me.  And what a great crystal ball you have there, presuming you know all the changes the lack of a Civil War would have had on our history.  

And while you're strangely worried about the Jesus salesman, you're sure sounding like the Jesus salesman in the room.   Rick Santorum was claiming he's a libertarian too, how unsurprising is that?



"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users