[parmnion]

Originally Posted by angus58

You are aware, I take it, that under sharia law, homosexuality attracts the death penalty?

Furthermore, I don't recall that homosexuals are required to conceal their identity by wearing face enveloping burkhas Religious freedoms should not be allowed to infringe the public's right to safety and security, which is somewhat hampered by the inability to identify a person.

Yet I'm sure you would have been the first one complaining about cctv cameras going up all over the place.

You come across as very intolerant to the muslim faith and religion angus, It's a shame because all your posts are well written. Garbage, but well written!

ps, don't reply because i'm beneath you in intellect.

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by angus58

You are aware, I take it, that under sharia law, homosexuality attracts the death penalty?

Where does Sharia law come into this? Anyhow Sharia law doesn't prescribe the death penalty for homosexuality, but I am aware homosexuality is considered one of the worst of sins in Islam.

I only mentioned Christians to illustrate a point. The Anglican and Catholic church have been the most vocal about their wishes to be exempt from Britain's laws on discrimination (for instance women and gays in the clergy, same-sex marriages, gay adoption etc). What I mean to say is there was never half the amount of fuss over the special considerations made for religious institutions across the board as there is on this single issue regarding Islam and the burkha. Why the sudden emergence of concerned citizens?

Originally Posted by angus58

Furthermore, I don't recall that homosexuals are required to conceal their identity by wearing face enveloping burkhas

If it were up to me, I would far rather be a woman wearing the veil than a homosexual living out a double life or a sham marriage. Both entail concealing oneself up to a point.

Originally Posted by angus58

Religious freedoms should not be allowed to infringe the public's right to safety and security, which is somewhat hampered by the inability to identify a person.

But there are plenty of times where we would compromise our safety and security for our civil rights/liberties. For instance many agree excessive CCTV can amount to a violation of privacy and the idea of introducing ID cards greatly angered the GBP.

[letmein]

Originally Posted by Zippy

If burqas and veils are not a religious requirement then I see no justification for them whatsoever. Theyre clearly all about desexualising females and making them invisible. I don't think that should be acceptable in any free civilised country.

The goverment should send out a strong message that hiding females away like this is just intolerable and actually dehumanises them.

It would not be a free society then. The government has no business getting involved in these institutions. If you don't want to go to one, you're free to not go.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Yet I'm sure you would have been the first one complaining about cctv cameras going up all over the place.

You come across as very intolerant to the muslim faith and religion angus, It's a shame because all your posts are well written. Garbage, but well written!

ps, don't reply because i'm beneath you in intellect.

I have no problem with cctv cameras, they are an absolute necessity in city centres, airports etc. I am not intolerant to any religion, but I am extremely intolerant to a garment that conceals the FACE. It is not being tolerant, but stupid and naive, to find it acceptable for anyone to have the right to walk amongst us unidentifiable - I have still not read one good reason for this to be permitted - religious requirement or NOT.

I have also already explained at great length my objections, as a woman, to being confronted in our western culture with this very visual and obvious sign of the subjugation of women. Muslim women are brainwashed from birth to believe they are inferior to men, so their adult views are not too convincing to me.

Incidentally it is not my fault if you cannot follow an argument

[letmein]

Originally Posted by angus58

I have no problem with cctv cameras, they are an absolute necessity in city centres, airports etc. I am not intolerant to any religion, but I am extremely intolerant to a garment that conceals the FACE. It is not being tolerant, but stupid and naive, to find it acceptable for anyone to have the right to walk amongst us unidentifiable - I have still not read one good reason for this to be permitted - religious requirement or NOT.

I have also already explained at great length my objections, as a woman, to being confronted in our western culture with this very visual and obvious sign of the subjugation of women. Muslim women are brainwashed from birth to believe they are inferior to men, so their adult views are not too convincing to me.

Incidentally it is not my fault if you cannot follow an argument

CCTV cameras are too 1984, and dangerous. A totally Fascist concept.

I agree with you about the face covering thing in public. People should be able to see your face in case you break the law. However, in a public institution, you should be able to wear what is required. Outside, that's a different story.

All religions brainwash youth. That's a fact.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by angus58

I have no problem with cctv cameras, they are an absolute necessity in city centres, airports etc. I am not intolerant to any religion, but I am extremely intolerant to a garment that conceals the FACE. It is not being tolerant, but stupid and naive, to find it acceptable for anyone to have the right to walk amongst us unidentifiable - I have still not read one good reason for this to be permitted - religious requirement or NOT.

I have also already explained at great length my objections, as a woman, to being confronted in our western culture with this very visual and obvious sign of the subjugation of women. Muslim women are brainwashed from birth to believe they are inferior to men, so their adult views are not too convincing to me.

Incidentally it is not my fault if you cannot follow an argument

Oh I can follow an argument easily enough, I tend to just skip over racism though.So you can imagine I was only getting snippets of your ramblings.

[WOMBAI]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Oh I can follow an argument easily enough, I tend to just skip over racism though.So you can imagine I was only getting snippets of your ramblings.

It is pretty obvious you have no sensible argument to put forward - hence the usual, predictable racist accusations! Sigh!

Such a weak, pathetic and unsuccessful attempt at shutting down someone else's opinion!

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

It is pretty obvious you have no sensible argument to put forward - hence the usual, predictable racist accusations! Sigh!

Such a weak, pathetic and unsuccessful attempt at shutting down someone else's opinion!

Hey I say it how I see it alright! k!

[WOMBAI]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Hey I say it how I see it alright! k!

Yeah, yeah! SIGH!!!

[Angus]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

It is pretty obvious you have no sensible argument to put forward - hence the usual, predictable racist accusations! Sigh!

Such a weak, pathetic and unsuccessful attempt at shutting down someone else's opinion!

I couldn't even be arsed to respond to such a pathetic response. Or perhaps the poster is just a sexist misogynist? Who knows? It won't stop me from airing my views for which I, at least, can submit an argument. Playing the race card is the last gambit of someone on a losing argument, but fortunately these days people are no longer intimidated into backing away from serious issues such as this.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by angus58

I couldn't even be arsed to respond to such a pathetic response. Or perhaps the poster is just a sexist misogynist? Who knows? It won't stop me from airing my views for which I, at least, can submit an argument. Playing the race card is the last gambit of someone on a losing argument, but fortunately these days people are no longer intimidated into backing away from serious issues such as this.

You're the only one arguing darling. You wouldn't give a dam if it were male 11 yr olds "forced" into wearing something you think they don't want to. You're nothing more than a hypocrite who selects anything from any topic to back up your standpoint on womens rights.

Who are you to say these children don't want to wear the burkha, you just use that sweeping statement to make your ridiculous claims stand up.