Christian and Jewish symbols are not included in the Bavarian plans for a ban.
OK so let me get this straight, our "progressive", enlighten Euroweenie friends are selectively banning people from wearing a scarf over their head because it is an "overt" religious symbol, but a jewish yarmulke is O.K. (i guess that must mean the krauts have a little remorse over what they did to the jews in WWII)Christian and Jewish symbols are not included in the Bavarian plans for a ban.
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Very disgusting if these other religious symbols also aren't banned.
Originally posted by: B00ne
I dont really see a problem with that.
A: it will probably land on the desk of the supreme court
B: It is only for teachers (public offices) and nothing else - non muslim teachers also may not appear headmasks or that sort.
C: The headscarf is not really a religeous symbol but rather a symbol of womens oppression. And how do you explain that in turkey (a muslim country) headscarfs are not allowed in public offices, heck not even university STUDENTS are allowed to wear the headscarfs there. Also, a higher percentage of the turkish muslims here more orthodox than there are orthodox muslims in turkey.
That's the problem Fritz....you don't see the problem..and curiously enough, germans didn't see the problem back in the 1940's either. I find it interesting that on the one hand you EU types spout off about how the Turks oppress the Kurds and abuse the Kurd's free speech rights, and because the Turks don't share the EU sensibilities about human rights, they are not fit to be in the EU, and then you turn around and use the Turks as an example of why it's alright for the Germans to oppress an entire class of people based upon religious beliefs.I dont really see a problem with that.
Originally posted by: Czar
heartsurgeon,
there are at least 3 posters in this thread who could be called "EU types", yet you focus on one of them and generalize everyone to that one response
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
That's the problem Fritz....you don't see the problem..and curiously enough, germans didn't see the problem back in the 1940's either. I find it interesting that on the one hand you EU types spout off about how the Turks oppress the Kurds and abuse the Kurd's free speech rights, and because the Turks don't share the EU sensibilities about human rights, they are not fit to be in the EU, and then you turn around and use the Turks as an example of why it's alright for the Germans to oppress an entire class of people based upon religious beliefs.I dont really see a problem with that.
You have no idea how terrible this looks to others.
Blatant discrimination, and racist behavior is how this appears to others.
You don't ban yarmulke's because the political baggage is to great,
but you feel banning other head coverings (whose religious intent is identical).
Time to cut back on the schnapps..it's a very different thing to "bitch" about women being forced to wear burkas by law, versus women choosing to wear burkas if they want to. Your law would presumbly prohibit any women from choosing to wear a head scarf..hardly s subtle distinction..In Afganistan it was ok for u to bitch about the woman having to wear burkas
They don't call it a "hat", and the big difference is you gassed a bunch of those "jwisch guys" a few years ago, and they won't be putting up with that a second time. Apparently your Eurobuddies the French don't feel as inhibited..they plan to ban the "hat" as well. Do you really trust the French?There is a big difference about the hat from the jwisch guys
At least you got that right...didn't one of you countryman state it was "good that the Americans got hit on Sept. 11. Maybe it taught them a lesson." Quote from Time Magazine..i would pretty much have to say she is a Belgian Euroweenie....you got that wrong Czar, we are Euroweenie
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Time to cut back on the schnapps..it's a very different thing to "bitch" about women being forced to wear burkas by law, versus women choosing to wear burkas if they want to. Your law would presumbly prohibit any women from choosing to wear a head scarf..hardly s subtle distinction..In Afganistan it was ok for u to bitch about the woman having to wear burkas
They don't call it a "hat", and the big difference is you gassed a bunch of those "jwisch guys" a few years ago, and they won't be putting up with that a second time. Apparently your Eurobuddies the French don't feel as inhibited..they plan to ban the "hat" as well. Do you really trust the French?There is a big difference about the hat from the jwisch guys
At least you got that right...didn't one of you countryman state it was "good that the Americans got hit on Sept. 11. Maybe it taught them a lesson." Quote from Time Magazine..i would pretty much have to say she is a Belgian Euroweenie....you got that wrong Czar, we are Euroweenie
do Belgians actually trust the Germans?
Freegeeks - i have to disagree with your assessment that "all religious symbols should be banned from public places" - that is authoritarian, and contrary to a free society. I am however heartened that you feel your countryman who lauded the 9/11 attacks against the U.S. was a dumbass.
Originally posted by: freegeeks
and I resent the idea that according to that article in Time Magazine that 90% of the Belgians think that 9/11 was something that the US deserved. Totally FALSE. We were among the first countries to offer help and a SAR team even flew to Iceland on stand-by if the US govt. needed the help. For months Belgian AWAC crews helped to monitor the US skies. We may disagree on certain things but 9/11 was not taken lightly here.
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: freegeeks
and I resent the idea that according to that article in Time Magazine that 90% of the Belgians think that 9/11 was something that the US deserved. Totally FALSE. We were among the first countries to offer help and a SAR team even flew to Iceland on stand-by if the US govt. needed the help. For months Belgian AWAC crews helped to monitor the US skies. We may disagree on certain things but 9/11 was not taken lightly here.
The actions that the government performs doesn't necessarily reflect the beliefs of the people. It might, might not.
For example, Spain supported the US's action on Iraq yet the majority of their population did not approve of such an action.
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Time to cut back on the schnapps..it's a very different thing to "bitch" about women being forced to wear burkas by law, versus women choosing to wear burkas if they want to. Your law would presumbly prohibit any women from choosing to wear a head scarf..hardly s subtle distinction..In Afganistan it was ok for u to bitch about the woman having to wear burkas
Originally posted by: mfs378
You probably wouldn't see this the same way if America had a sizeable and growing population of Muslims who refused to assimilate into the culture. Heck, you already have people asking for a national language, because of Central American immigration.