Latvia to ban Islamic veils

[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.

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

We're stuck with our own dead weight, unfortunately.

[Jochistan]

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.

Not all Europeans accept secularism, my god, Monarchists and Chhristian democrats get off free as a bird. As do quiet Haredis and Hindus that beleive in a caste system (to a reasonable extent). but similarly inclined Muslims...whoa whoa whoa! Slow the fuck down dude!

Look, I hate Muslims that want homosexuals, idolators, adulterers, heretics, sorcerers and apostates to be killed, no exeption, no questions no nothing as much as anyone.
But just wanting the spirituality of the world to be restored through politics is not a valid reason to kick a guy out.

[Communist Xomaniax]

>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.

There is literally no binding legislation that say muslim face veils have to be allowed as long as all other kinds are also banned. Face it dude, international law is against you here. Indeed, the EU has already said the law is legal.

[Herargon]

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.

To be fair, though, the Byzantines indeed were very orthodox in their teachings. To the point that it became part of their end.
Back in the Early Middle Ages, their orthodoxism was common and thus they could afford it to suppress other thinkings. Later on, however, as more states became less strict in their christianity and more inclined towards religious freedom (even if it was just a little bit, it meant much), the Byzantines gradually on became an exception as they remained very strict.
If they were less orthodox, but remained Christian, they could have gotten more support from Christians, and it could have saved them.

It also did not help for the Byzantine Empire, that the Ottoman Empire, and most of Islam in general back them was very progressive for its time, and regarding religious freedom too - to the point that Christians were allowed to practice, as long as they did pay dhimmi tax and not try to convert other Muslims. That was good of the Ottoman Empire to treat them as such.

However, nowadays, the progressivism of the Middle Ages is now considered to be very traditional and fundamentalist, even extremist. Nowadays, it is the other world.

[Jochistan]

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.

Converts go to the closest thing to home?

White converts go to the Balkans or Iran or India. Asian converts go to Malaysia or Indonesia or East Turkestan. Black converts go to some African Muslim country of their choice.

Lol.

Actually, that might be necessary to avoid the far right.

[Herargon]

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.

Not all Europeans accept secularism, my god, Monarchists and Chhristian democrats get off free as a bird. As do quiet Haredis and Hindus that beleive in a caste system (to a reasonable extent). but similarly inclined Muslims...whoa whoa whoa! Slow the fuck down dude!

Look, I hate Muslims that want homosexuals, idolators, adulterers, heretics, sorcerers and apostates to be killed, no exeption, no questions no nothing as much as anyone.
But just wanting the spirituality of the world to be restored through politics is not a valid reason to kick a guy out.

Uh, what does monarchism have to do with secularism?
As long as it's constitutional, and not based upon a divine right or such, I think it's pretty secular.

[Communist Xomaniax]

Then why are you asking for extra rights?

What extra rights?

The right to wear a face mask when no one else gets to.

[Jochistan]

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.

To be fair, though, the Byzantines indeed were very orthodox in their teachings. To the point that it became part of their end.
Back in the Early Middle Ages, their orthodoxism was common and thus they could afford it to suppress other thinkings. Later on, however, as more states became less strict in their christianity and more inclined towards religious freedom (even if it was just a little bit, it meant much), the Byzantines gradually on became an exception as they remained very strict.
If they were less orthodox, but remained Christian, they could have gotten more support from Christians, and it could have saved them.

It also did not help for the Byzantine Empire, that the Ottoman Empire, and most of Islam in general back them was very progressive for its time, and regarding religious freedom too - to the point that Christians were allowed to practice, as long as they did pay dhimmi tax and not try to convert other Muslims. That was good of the Ottoman Empire to treat them as such.

However, nowadays, the progressivism of the Middle Ages is now considered to be very traditional and fundamentalist, even extremist. Nowadays, it is the other world.

I wouldn't say so. The Church was very tolerant at certain periods in Medieval history. And did actually foster higher learning.

Past Cultures being technologically backward and poor and largely utterly, utterly crap is a steryotupe not shown to be entirely accurate by manuscripts from certain periods in European Medieval history.

[Herargon]

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.

No. It is not racist to ban non-Europeans. It would be racist to ban people, if it were to ban - say, black, or Aziatic people, from entering the EU. Or to ban white people from entering the EU, or Arabia. That would be racist.

Banning European descendants and Europeans - then we're talking about ethnic discrimination.

[Jochistan]

Not all Europeans accept secularism, my god, Monarchists and Chhristian democrats get off free as a bird. As do quiet Haredis and Hindus that beleive in a caste system (to a reasonable extent). but similarly inclined Muslims...whoa whoa whoa! Slow the fuck down dude!

Look, I hate Muslims that want homosexuals, idolators, adulterers, heretics, sorcerers and apostates to be killed, no exeption, no questions no nothing as much as anyone.
But just wanting the spirituality of the world to be restored through politics is not a valid reason to kick a guy out.

Uh, what does monarchism have to do with secularism?
As long as it's constitutional, and not based upon a divine right or such, I think it's pretty secular.

It's still a source of Traditional and religious promotion. Often by Monarchists. No matter how "secularized" that promotion can be.

[Jochistan]

What extra rights?

The right to wear a face mask when no one else gets to.

No one else gets to wear a mask in public? I'm not exactly a fan of niqabs (and definately not burkhas) but...really?

[Herargon]

Uh, what does monarchism have to do with secularism?
As long as it's constitutional, and not based upon a divine right or such, I think it's pretty secular.

It's still a source of Traditional and religious promotion. Often by Monarchists. No matter how "secularized" that promotion can be.

Tradition and religion can be separated, though. Secularism does not have to be progressive, nor does it have to be conservative/traditional. Progressivism and secularism often go hand in hand, that is true, although not always. You can be secular, but traditional. Or you can be progressive and secular.

[Communist Xomaniax]

The right to wear a face mask when no one else gets to.

No one else gets to wear a mask in public? I'm not exactly a fan of niqabs (and definately not burkhas) but...really?

No one else really gets to conceal their face for security reasons, muslims don't get special priviliges bcause >muh islam.

[Geilinor]

No one else gets to wear a mask in public? I'm not exactly a fan of niqabs (and definately not burkhas) but...really?

No one else really gets to conceal their face for security reasons, muslims don't get special priviliges bcause >muh islam.

Are there any laws in America banning masks in public? It happens on Halloween every year.

[Herargon]

No one else really gets to conceal their face for security reasons, muslims don't get special priviliges bcause >muh islam.

Are there any laws in America banning masks in public? It happens on Halloween every year.

The US police still is allowed to ask you to do the masks off, if necessary, AFAIK.

[Ralkovian Grand Island]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/islamic-muslim-face-veil-niqab-burqa-banned-latvia-despite-being-worn-by-just-three-women-entire-a6993991.html

Latvia has banned women from wearing the Islamic full-face veil in public, despite only three people being known to wear them in the entire country. Authorities say the new legislation is necessary in order to protect Latvian culture and prevent terrorists from smuggling weapons under garments. The move follows a similar ban on full-face veils in public spaces implemented by France in 2011.

So, it seems Latvia, will ban niqabs despite the fact that only three people in the country wear them. Very peculiar. This raises a lot of questions: do these three people even know each other? Are they on some kind of terrorist watchlist? Is this move a result of Islamophobia? But, most importantly, what do you think of this, NSG? Is this justified? Should we ban the niqab? Should we ban Muslims? Or do you think that alienating an extremely small community in your country because of your prejudice is something only mean folks do? Comment below.

Good. Long live potato proliferation. Western culture doesn't need to make room for terrible oppression by ultra-patriarchal societies.

[Jochistan]

It's still a source of Traditional and religious promotion. Often by Monarchists. No matter how "secularized" that promotion can be.

Tradition and religion can be separated, though. Secularism does not have to be progressive, nor does it have to be conservative/traditional. Progressivism and secularism often go hand in hand, that is true, although not always. You can be secular, but traditional. Or you can be progressive and secular.

Well yeah.

But Monarchists and certain other reactionaries often seem to want religion to have some role.

[Communist Xomaniax]

No one else really gets to conceal their face for security reasons, muslims don't get special priviliges bcause >muh islam.

Are there any laws in America banning masks in public? It happens on Halloween every year.

Anti-mask laws are pretty common in the US, yes. Most businesses also won't let you in unless your face is exposed as well.

[Czervenika]

Tradition and religion can be separated, though. Secularism does not have to be progressive, nor does it have to be conservative/traditional. Progressivism and secularism often go hand in hand, that is true, although not always. You can be secular, but traditional. Or you can be progressive and secular.

Well yeah.

But Monarchists and certain other reactionaries often seem to want religion to have some role.

I have noticed that. It's one of the reasons I'm against monarchism. I have nothing against religion, but please for the love of God keep it out of government affairs.

[Herargon]

Tradition and religion can be separated, though. Secularism does not have to be progressive, nor does it have to be conservative/traditional. Progressivism and secularism often go hand in hand, that is true, although not always. You can be secular, but traditional. Or you can be progressive and secular.

Well yeah.

But Monarchists and certain other reactionaries often seem to want religion to have some role.

Disagreed. I'm slightly a monarchist but I'm a secularist, and do reject absolute monarchies. Constitutional monarchies combined with a democracy do form no problems for me though, and so are republics no problem if they are democratic. It's just that I like constitutional monarchies in a democratic country a bit more.


Buut now I'm going off thread, so... /my comment stops there

[Kubumba Tribe]

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

We're stuck with our own dead weight, unfortunately.

So 'm dead weight? Look, if you want to spread your Islamophobic hateful speech, start a forum called "Islamophobia" or something like that. I also read your other posts and you need to leave or be more respectful to other religions. Niqab isn't something only Muslim women are allowed to wear. Non-Muslim women can wear it too (don't know why, but they can). Start up a forum called "Islamophobia", where it's ok to call Muslims dead weight and to call the modesty of niqab a burlap sack.

[Kubumba Tribe]

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

No. It is not racist to ban non-Europeans. It would be racist to ban people, if it were to ban - say, black, or Aziatic people, from entering the EU. Or to ban white people from entering the EU, or Arabia. That would be racist.

Banning European descendants and Europeans - then we're talking about ethnic discrimination.

'black' people and Asians are non-Europeans, so it is racist.

[Kubumba Tribe]

We're stuck with our own dead weight, unfortunately.

So 'm dead weight? Look, if you want to spread your Islamophobic hateful speech, start a forum called "Islamophobia" or something like that. I also read your other posts and you need to leave or be more respectful to other religions. Niqab isn't something only Muslim women are allowed to wear. Non-Muslim women can wear it too (don't know why, but they can). Start up a forum called "Islamophobia", where it's ok to call Muslims dead weight and to call the modesty of niqab a burlap sack.

You can also take that so-called 'assimilation' that is really eradication and prevention of multiculturalism there too.

[Jochistan]

We're stuck with our own dead weight, unfortunately.

So 'm dead weight? Look, if you want to spread your Islamophobic hateful speech, start a forum called "Islamophobia" or something like that. I also read your other posts and you need to leave or be more respectful to other religions. Niqab isn't something only Muslim women are allowed to wear. Non-Muslim women can wear it too (don't know why, but they can). Start up a forum called "Islamophobia", where it's ok to call Muslims dead weight and to call the modesty of niqab a burlap sack.

To be completely fair, it's not "Islamophobic" to disapprove of the niqab and burkha.

[Herargon]

No. It is not racist to ban non-Europeans. It would be racist to ban people, if it were to ban - say, black, or Aziatic people, from entering the EU. Or to ban white people from entering the EU, or Arabia. That would be racist.

Banning European descendants and Europeans - then we're talking about ethnic discrimination.

'black' people and Asians are non-Europeans, so it is racist.

You can be an Asiatic or a black person from heritage, but have an European ethnicity.
Ethnicity is related to culture, whilst being black or Asiatic-appearing is related to race.

I have to clarify though, that I am against racism. That I will not accept; racism nor discrimination of any major kind is to be allowed in the 21th century.