Latvia to ban Islamic veils

[Kubumba Tribe]

Isn't this about Latvia banning niqab? I'm not saying that cruel and unusual punishment isn't important. It is. But this is about Latvia, we could go make another forum about how Saudi Arabia treats non-Muslims. And niqab is furthering one's faith to Allah in some of my Muslim sister's opinion, so it's totally reasonable.

The thing is, we do accept it if people are religious... but not too radically religious. Furthering a faith in Allah (the Islamic 'God', not 'God' in general), is not something the West desires, because people that further their faith in Allah in the West often become radicalised. And those people -- we do not desire to see those in the West. Those are the people that commit bombings, suicide attacks, et cetera.

I'm all for accepting Muslims into the West, but they have to assimilate completely. Being more secular does fall under that category as well.
If you are in the Middle East and being very religious, fine - as long as there are no radical punishments or strange laws.
But immigrating to the West - and then you have to assimilate completely. That is how we think there. 'In Rome, do as the Romans do'.

Allah's God in all the 3 religions. Anyways, I don't believe in assimilation because that that means throwing your whole life away. Throwing away your food, dance, sometimes religion, etc. Also I won't become secular. I try to be as Muslim as I can and always will try till I go to the Day of judgment. Besides, radicalization ends up in extremism, so it's not furthering faith in Allah (SWT).

[Jochistan]

They can still wear headscarves in a way that is like the. Culture they are in. Headscarves are not uncommon in the Baltic states are they?

[Kriga]

Christianity has existed in the Middle East longer than islam has existed, so the comparison isn't valid.

Yes it is, because the Mid East govs don't really accept Christians.

Wonder why that is. Maybe because Islam pretty much wiped the Christians out of the Holy Land in the first place, during the bloody conquests of the four Caliphs.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Yes it is, because the Mid East govs don't really accept Christians.

There's also a big difference between saying you can't wear the Magical Burlap Sack of Tribalism to cover your face in public and banning all members of a religious minority that predates the nation and its religion.

One is prioritizing national security and crime prevention over muslim feelings, and the other is a human rights violation.

Both are rights violations and you don't deserve to be on this forum typing that prejudice. If you want to be rude to Islam, go to an Islamophobia forum to spread your prejudice

[Communist Xomaniax]

The thing is, we do accept it if people are religious... but not too radically religious. Furthering a faith in Allah (the Islamic 'God', not 'God' in general), is not something the West desires, because people that further their faith in Allah in the West often become radicalised. And those people -- we do not desire to see those in the West. Those are the people that commit bombings, suicide attacks, et cetera.

I'm all for accepting Muslims into the West, but they have to assimilate completely. Being more secular does fall under that category as well.
If you are in the Middle East and being very religious, fine - as long as there are no radical punishments or strange laws.
But immigrating to the West - and then you have to assimilate completely. That is how we think there. 'In Rome, do as the Romans do'.

Allah's God in all the 3 religions. Anyways, I don't believe in assimilation because that that means throwing your whole life away. Throwing away your food, dance, sometimes religion, etc. Also I won't become secular. I try to be as Muslim as I can and always will try till I go to the Day of judgment. Besides, radicalization ends up in extremism, so it's not furthering faith in Allah (SWT).

People with that belief system and a refusal to assimilate into local culture shouldn't be allowed to migrate to the West at all. They can stay in the Middle East, and enjoy the bountiful fruits of unchecked islam and tribalist native culture.

[Tyska]

They should ban all non-Europeans from living there. And the rest of Europe should follow suit. Non-Europeans can only visit the country as tourists for a limited amount of time.

[Kubumba Tribe]

They can still wear headscarves in a way that is like the. Culture they are in. Headscarves are not uncommon in the Baltic states are they?

It doesn't matter whether it's common or uncommon. All religions deserve their rights all across the world.

[Jochistan]

They should ban all non-Europeans from living there. And the rest of Europe should follow suit. Non-Europeans can only visit the country as tourists for a limited amount of time.

Yet more evidence of NSG's leftist bias.

[Kubumba Tribe]

They should ban all non-Europeans from living there. And the rest of Europe should follow suit. Non-Europeans can only visit the country as tourists for a limited amount of time.

That's racist. That also means you're banning European descendants from going too.

[Jochistan]

They can still wear headscarves in a way that is like the. Culture they are in. Headscarves are not uncommon in the Baltic states are they?

It doesn't matter whether it's common or uncommon. All religions deserve their rights all across the world.

Fundamemtalist forms are cancer and need to be crushed.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Allah's God in all the 3 religions. Anyways, I don't believe in assimilation because that that means throwing your whole life away. Throwing away your food, dance, sometimes religion, etc. Also I won't become secular. I try to be as Muslim as I can and always will try till I go to the Day of judgment. Besides, radicalization ends up in extremism, so it's not furthering faith in Allah (SWT).

People with that belief system and a refusal to assimilate into local culture shouldn't be allowed to migrate to the West at all. They can stay in the Middle East, and enjoy the bountiful fruits of unchecked islam and tribalist native culture.

So pretty much practicing Islam is a travesty now in the West. ?

[Czervenika]

They should ban all non-Europeans from living there. And the rest of Europe should follow suit. Non-Europeans can only visit the country as tourists for a limited amount of time.

Yet more evidence of NSG's leftist bias.

Is that sarcasm?

[Kubumba Tribe]

It doesn't matter whether it's common or uncommon. All religions deserve their rights all across the world.

Fundamemtalist forms are cancer and need to be crushed.

I never typed fundamentalism. I typed religious freedom.

[Communist Xomaniax]

There's also a big difference between saying you can't wear the Magical Burlap Sack of Tribalism to cover your face in public and banning all members of a religious minority that predates the nation and its religion.

One is prioritizing national security and crime prevention over muslim feelings, and the other is a human rights violation.

Both are rights violations and you don't deserve to be on this forum typing that prejudice. If you want to be rude to Islam, go to an Islamophobia forum to spread your prejudice

>human rights violation
>prejudice

Lol. Neither the UN, which is nonbinding, or the ECHR, which IS binding, have ever ruled that bans on muslim face coverings are human rights violations. In the case of the ECHR, they've ruled in favor of the bans. Additionally, I want muslims to be treated equally to all other citizens. That means not getting special treatment because >muh islam.

[Kriga]

It doesn't matter whether it's common or uncommon. All religions deserve their rights all across the world.

Fundamemtalist forms are cancer and need to be crushed.

^^ Agree 100%. Fundamentalism of any kind are literal blights upon the world. They need to be crushed because they represent a threat to freedom of expression and speech.

Look no further than the Islamic Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

[Czervenika]

People with that belief system and a refusal to assimilate into local culture shouldn't be allowed to migrate to the West at all. They can stay in the Middle East, and enjoy the bountiful fruits of unchecked islam and tribalist native culture.

Where do you suggest western born Muslims go then? Not all Muslims are Middle Eastern.

[Jochistan]

Yes it is, because the Mid East govs don't really accept Christians.

Wonder why that is. Maybe because Islam pretty much wiped the Christians out of the Holy Land in the first place, during the bloody conquests of the four Caliphs.

Peaceful, innocent, pure Byzantines. :''(

Christians considered heretical by the Byzantines (along with Jews and Mandeans) actually sided with the Caaliphs. And although it definately wasn't perfect, religious pluralism began to be implemented.

I have no idea why you who reject religious pluralism hate the caliphs for being anti pluralistic. But...I guess I'll just leave that for you to sort out I guess.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Both are rights violations and you don't deserve to be on this forum typing that prejudice. If you want to be rude to Islam, go to an Islamophobia forum to spread your prejudice

>human rights violation
>prejudice

Lol. Neither the UN, which is nonbinding, or the ECHR, which IS binding, have ever ruled that bans on muslim face coverings are human rights violations. In the case of the ECHR, they've ruled in favor of the bans. Additionally, I want muslims to be treated equally to all other citizens. That means not getting special treatment because >muh islam.

Niqab isn't special treatment, its faith in God (SWT). And international law says religious freedom, so they broke international law and should be charged.

[Communist Xomaniax]

They can still wear headscarves in a way that is like the. Culture they are in. Headscarves are not uncommon in the Baltic states are they?

It doesn't matter whether it's common or uncommon. All religions deserve their rights all across the world.

Then why are you asking for extra rights?

[Kubumba Tribe]

It doesn't matter whether it's common or uncommon. All religions deserve their rights all across the world.

Then why are you asking for extra rights?

What extra rights?

[Herargon]

The thing is, we do accept it if people are religious... but not too radically religious. Furthering a faith in Allah (the Islamic 'God', not 'God' in general), is not something the West desires, because people that further their faith in Allah in the West often become radicalised. And those people -- we do not desire to see those in the West. Those are the people that commit bombings, suicide attacks, et cetera.

I'm all for accepting Muslims into the West, but they have to assimilate completely. Being more secular does fall under that category as well.
If you are in the Middle East and being very religious, fine - as long as there are no radical punishments or strange laws.
But immigrating to the West - and then you have to assimilate completely. That is how we think there. 'In Rome, do as the Romans do'.

Allah's God in all the 3 religions. Anyways, I don't believe in assimilation because that that means throwing your whole life away. Throwing away your food, dance, sometimes religion, etc. Also I won't become secular. I try to be as Muslim as I can and always will try till I go to the Day of judgment. Besides, radicalization ends up in extremism, so it's not furthering faith in Allah.

Allah, is not God in all the three religions. There are differences in all three religions so large, that Allah is a different God.
Whereas a Jew says 'Adonai' (JHWH is never said), a Christian says 'God', 'Deus', 'Theos', and a Muslim says 'Allah'.

I agree with Communist Xomaniax. If you come to the west, you have to completely assimilate. If you do not want to assimilate, then you aren't allowed in the West. That is the mindset here.

Radicalisation also means: becoming extremist.

Heck, even the thesaurus says so. If you go by 'person who advocates significant, often extreme change', then you'll quickly find 'extremist'.
If being as Muslim as you can means wanting to make Europe islamic, then that is a big change. Advocating to remain extremely much the same also is equal to severe conservatism, and seen as a refusal to change, there in the West. To not wish to change yourself so your neighbours look favorable upon you, and if that is legal to change that way... and then be angry that your neighbours do not like you, is not fine. Then you are causing your own problems.

[Jochistan]

Fundamemtalist forms are cancer and need to be crushed.

^^ Agree 100%. Fundamentalism of any kind are literal blights upon the world. They need to be crushed because they represent a threat to freedom of expression and speech.

Look no further than the Islamic Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Yeah. But not by intervention into their lands as that would cause a vaccuum in a shitstorm.

Just end fundamentalism where you are. But then again. Many Westerners have very low standards on what fundamentalism is. Like wearing hijab or...being as conservative as western conservatives and conservatives from other backgrounds nobody has a problem with.

[Communist Xomaniax]

People with that belief system and a refusal to assimilate into local culture shouldn't be allowed to migrate to the West at all. They can stay in the Middle East, and enjoy the bountiful fruits of unchecked islam and tribalist native culture.

So pretty much practicing Islam is a travesty now in the West. ?

If by "practising islam" you mean "refusing to accept secularization, adopt local culture, and not cover your face", then yes. If they want to get all the benefit of living in Europe with none of the responsibility, and play pretend like they're still in the middle East, then they can fucking stay in the middle east.

[Kriga]

Wonder why that is. Maybe because Islam pretty much wiped the Christians out of the Holy Land in the first place, during the bloody conquests of the four Caliphs.

Peaceful, innocent, pure Byzantines. :''(

Christians considered heretical by the Byzantines (along with Jews and Mandeans) actually sided with the Caaliphs. And although it definately wasn't perfect, religious pluralism began to be implemented.

I have no idea why you who reject religious pluralism hate the caliphs for being anti pluralistic. But...I guess I'll just leave that for you to sort out I guess.

I don't hit pluralism. I never said that. I am simply responding to the fact that the OP was saying that Mid East govs don't accept Christians. I am merely pointing out why, because its true. The Middle East is still relatively blind to religious dogma, whereas the West isn't, hence the reason they accept religious pluralism.

Its an observation. That's all. I am not a supporter of christ or Islam. In fact, i despise any form of spiritual control of the masses. We don't need fables to rule our government. We need a clear separation of church and state, and a reduction of any religious influence on state matters.

[Herargon]

Since I want to emphasise a point, I'll quote it again (but not a third time as that would be spamming). To make clear why banning veils is fine. (Or look at the previous page, as that is where my quote was).

If the West wants to be seen as an example to the world, which by far they aren't, they allow the niqab to stay. And yes I do think that Saudi Arabia should allow more religious freedom.

..... so Saudi Arabia is an example to the world because they allow the niqab to stay. And of course all stoning, lashes, death penalties, et cetera are less important than wearing some veil, even if only for a religious purpose. Is being obliged to wear an islamic veil called religious freedom? No.

If you're obliged to not wear a veil which covers your entire face and is non-necessary, non-useful and non-advised to wear, on the other hand, then that is no problem.
Because then all religions and all atheist, agnostic and -isms get treated equally in equal cases.

That could've happened even without a niqab.

Yes, but then you are identified much faster, and it's much harder for you to flee. A criminal would not want to be identified, and thus we need to make them identifiable by making people that break the law identifiable. Suppose you have thousand people, and that non-necessary, non-useful, non-advised head-covering wear is not forbidden.
Of those thousand people, you could say there are 100 wearers of niqabs, burkas, christian veils, non-specific face covering wear or such.
Now, let's say there are 20 criminals between those thousand people. Those are likely to not want to get identified, thus they wear a face-covering wear.
We do now have: 1000 people, of which 100 are wearers of face-covering wear, of which 20 are criminals.
Thus you have 0/900 people (those who do not wear head-covering wear), and 20/100 criminal people.

If we outlaw the non-necessary, non-useful, non-advised head-covering wear, then you have much less people that will wear a headwear. Obviously, not everyone that still wears it will be a criminal, but the chance now is much higher:

Now you have 1000 people, of which 40 are wearers of niqabs, burkas, christian veils, non-specific head-covering wear, or such.
Of those 1000 people, let's say there are still 20 criminals.
We do now have: 0/960 people (those who do not wear head-covering wear), and 20/40 criminal people.

The criminals don't want to get identified. Surely, they know they will have to flee faster when they are, but they can get around and if they are followed, they can put on non-head covering clothes and nobody will still know their identity. Their head-covering clothes would be known, but that's it. This is contrary to when it's legal to wear such clothes.

That is why a ban would be fine - but not if it is upon islamic veils only. A ban on head-covering wear that is non-useful, non-necessary and non-advised upon, in general, is fine though.
A burka and a niqab as well do fall under that category I mentioned in my second-to-last sentence.