Latvia to ban Islamic veils

[Gothmogs]

Latvians were almost a minority in their country 30 years ago. Currently they make 60% of Latvian population so there is a reason why they might be more protective about their culture than people in Western Europe. If people in Latvia think that current measures are necessary then it is up to them. It's their country.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Sure, but I can still disagree with them. I'm an American so I clearly know what's best for everyone.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Latvians were almost a minority in their country 30 years ago. Currently they make 60% of Latvian population so there is a reason why they might be more protective about their culture than people in Western Europe. If people in Latvia think that current measures are necessary then it is up to them. It's their country.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

But is it right?

[Odisseo]

I'am for it, as a secularist, atheist, i think there should be bans on all religions, it is one sided sure, but they deserve the special attention, the islamists really looked out for backslash, this is nothing, no limbs flying, no subway bombed, just a ban on an horrific "culture" invented a couple of decades ago. Designed to opress women. So be tolerant to something else.

[Herargon]

I'am for it, as a secularist, atheist, i think there should be bans on all religions, it is one sided sure, but they deserve the special attention, the islamists really looked out for backslash, this is nothing, no limbs flying, no subway bombed, just a ban on an horrific "culture" invented a couple of decades ago. Designed to opress women. So be tolerant to something else.

Religions can be tolerant, y'know? Should tolerant yet religious people then be persectued? I would not think that it is a good idea.
Neither would it be a great idea to persecute all atheists or agnostics for supporting one ideology.
Rather, it should be the militant forms of anything, that we need to stop.

[Kubumba Tribe]

I'am for it, as a secularist, atheist, i think there should be bans on all religions, it is one sided sure, but they deserve the special attention, the islamists really looked out for backslash, this is nothing, no limbs flying, no subway bombed, just a ban on an horrific "culture" invented a couple of decades ago. Designed to opress women. So be tolerant to something else.

Why'd you put culture in quote form? It is. And niqab isn't oppressive, it's an option Muslim women can do over hijab. But I doubt that 'Muslim' countries see it that way. I'm Muslim btw.

[Kubumba Tribe]

I'am for it, as a secularist, atheist, i think there should be bans on all religions, it is one sided sure, but they deserve the special attention, the islamists really looked out for backslash, this is nothing, no limbs flying, no subway bombed, just a ban on an horrific "culture" invented a couple of decades ago. Designed to opress women. So be tolerant to something else.

Religions can be tolerant, y'know? Should tolerant yet religious people then be persectued? I would not think that it is a good idea.
Neither would it be a great idea to persecute all atheists or agnostics for supporting one ideology.
Rather, it should be the militant forms of anything, that we need to stop.

That's right.

[Herargon]

I'am for it, as a secularist, atheist, i think there should be bans on all religions, it is one sided sure, but they deserve the special attention, the islamists really looked out for backslash, this is nothing, no limbs flying, no subway bombed, just a ban on an horrific "culture" invented a couple of decades ago. Designed to opress women. So be tolerant to something else.

Why'd you put culture in quote form? It is. And niqab isn't oppressive, it's an option Muslim women can do over hijab. But I doubt that 'Muslim' countries see it that way. I'm Muslim btw.

We already know you're Muslim - you mentioned it before in the thread.

The niqab isn't oppressive, no, but it's frequently endorsed by oppressive regimes, and therefore it needs to be outlawed.
It also plays a role, that due to a niqab, you would be harder to identify. The niqab also isn't - to be very, very honest - very necessary nor useful, yet covers the entire head. A doctor needs to cover his face and head to protect both himself and the patient from infection; that is necessary and useful.
A man bicycling in freezing weather may need to wear a scarp, winter hat, and glasses to prevent himself from getting it cold. Not extremely necessary, but useful. A soldier can be obliged to cover his entire face to prevent terrorists from hunting him down and killing him (like, the terrorists use photos to try to find him). It depends on the context where it's mostly used. All these examples - except a niqab - are either not used often or are necessary and useful. A niqab and a forage cap aren't any of those, and they are often used by respectively extremists or criminals.

To ban islamic veils thus would not be a good idea, but to ban non-useful and non-necessary full-head-covering wear that are used daily by exceptional (that is, in a negative sense) people, is a good idea however.

Edit: also, banning niqabs and burkas does help integrate Muslims into a Western society, since those two things are only weared by ultraorthodox muslims - which in the West are shunned upon. If those are not allowed to wear those niqabs and burkas, then the westerners will be much more inclined to talk and openly live with those muslims. Even if they do not know that they are ultraorthodox, they will at first now assume that 'oh, that seems like a pretty secular Muslim, guess he/she's a type I can talk with, instead of being one of those religious weirdo's. '
Even if they know it already, the westerners will be much more inclined to accept these muslims by then.
It also should be noted, that the Muslims in the west, need to adapt themselves to the West, not the other way around.
In Rome, you do as the Romans do. If you disagree with a few things, though, that's fine - but don't harm others.

[Communist Xomaniax]

Who cares? Muslim migrants don't go to Latvia because a lot of them want a cozy life where the welfare checks flow like rain and the government/police excuse and ignore their misbehaviour. Latvia isn't Germoney so it won't do the first, and its government and citizenry wouldn't tolerate the latter.

Besides, face coverings shouldn't be allowed in public.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Why'd you put culture in quote form? It is. And niqab isn't oppressive, it's an option Muslim women can do over hijab. But I doubt that 'Muslim' countries see it that way. I'm Muslim btw.

We already know you're Muslim - you mentioned it before in the thread.

The niqab isn't oppressive, no, but it's frequently endorsed by oppressive regimes, and therefore it needs to be outlawed.
It also plays a role, that due to a niqab, you would be harder to identify. The niqab also isn't - to be very, very honest - very necessary nor useful, yet covers the entire head. A doctor needs to cover his face and head to protect both himself and the patient from infection; that is necessary and useful.
A man bicycling in freezing weather may need to wear a scarp, winter hat, and glasses to prevent himself from getting it cold. Not extremely necessary, but useful. A soldier can be obliged to cover his entire face to prevent terrorists from hunting him down and killing him (like, the terrorists use photos to try to find him). It depends on the context where it's mostly used. All these examples - except a niqab - are either not used often or are necessary and useful. A niqab and a forage cap aren't any of those, and they are often used by respectively extremists or criminals.

To ban islamic veils thus would not be a good idea, but to ban non-useful and non-necessary full-head-covering wear that are used daily by exceptional (that is, in a negative sense) people, is a good idea however.

It's necessary. If the Muslim women want to further their worship to the Almighty (SWT), then it's the most necessary thing in the world.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Who cares? Muslim migrants don't go to Latvia because a lot of them want a cozy life where the welfare checks flow like rain and the government/police excuse and ignore their misbehaviour. Latvia isn't Germoney so it won't do the first, and its government and citizenry wouldn't tolerate the latter.

Besides, face coverings shouldn't be allowed in public.

Even for religious purposes?

[Teemant]

Who cares? Muslim migrants don't go to Latvia because a lot of them want a cozy life where the welfare checks flow like rain and the government/police excuse and ignore their misbehaviour. Latvia isn't Germoney so it won't do the first, and its government and citizenry wouldn't tolerate the latter.

Besides, face coverings shouldn't be allowed in public.

Even for religious purposes?

Yes. Latvia is a secular country.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Even for religious purposes?

Yes. Latvia is a secular country.

Where religion is popular.

[Herargon]

We already know you're Muslim - you mentioned it before in the thread.

The niqab isn't oppressive, no, but it's frequently endorsed by oppressive regimes, and therefore it needs to be outlawed.
It also plays a role, that due to a niqab, you would be harder to identify. The niqab also isn't - to be very, very honest - very necessary nor useful, yet covers the entire head. A doctor needs to cover his face and head to protect both himself and the patient from infection; that is necessary and useful.
A man bicycling in freezing weather may need to wear a scarp, winter hat, and glasses to prevent himself from getting it cold. Not extremely necessary, but useful. A soldier can be obliged to cover his entire face to prevent terrorists from hunting him down and killing him (like, the terrorists use photos to try to find him). It depends on the context where it's mostly used. All these examples - except a niqab - are either not used often or are necessary and useful. A niqab and a forage cap aren't any of those, and they are often used by respectively extremists or criminals.

To ban islamic veils thus would not be a good idea, but to ban non-useful and non-necessary full-head-covering wear that are used daily by exceptional (that is, in a negative sense) people, is a good idea however.

It's necessary. If the Muslim women want to further their worship to the Almighty (SWT), then it's the most necessary thing in the world.

Please read my edit.
Also, I disagree. Necessary means: without it, you cannot survive or remain alive. The idea of something being necessary doesn't differentiate between religion and non-religion. The more you worship a person, the more extreme it becomes. Worship is fine, but too much and it's not fine, because then you can radicalise, and decide to harm other people. If you do not worship, then that is not a problem - as far as I know there aren't any atheist bombings yet, in contrast to radical religious-based bombings.
Thus, worship = OK, but keep it limited, and private. That is how we perceive things in the west.

[Teemant]

Yes. Latvia is a secular country.

Where religion is popular.

It isn't. Most of the people who claim to be religious in the Baltic countries are barely religious. If you ask how many times they have visited church this year or last year then most of the time answer is 0.

[Herargon]

Yes. Latvia is a secular country.

Where religion is popular.

Secular does not mean a country is atheist or agnostic.
Secular means there is a separation of church and state. It means there is a division between religion and the state.

Countries thus can be secular and irreligious, but also be countries that are secular yet religious.


Also, the Baltic countries are one of the least - if not, least - religious countries in the world. It certainly would be strange to consider religion popular in these countries.

[Jochistan]

I'am for it, as a secularist, atheist, i think there should be bans on all religions, it is one sided sure, but they deserve the special attention, the islamists really looked out for backslash, this is nothing, no limbs flying, no subway bombed, just a ban on an horrific "culture" invented a couple of decades ago. Designed to opress women. So be tolerant to something else.

A couple of decades ago?

[Kubumba Tribe]

Where religion is popular.

Secular does not mean a country is atheist or agnostic.
Secular means there is a separation of church and state. It means there is a division between religion and the state.

Countries thus can be secular and irreligious, but also be countries that are secular yet religious.


Also, the Baltic countries are one of the least - if not, least - religious countries in the world. It certainly would be strange to consider religion popular in these countries.

Oh ok. But still, you don't suppress someone's religion like that.

[Herargon]

Secular does not mean a country is atheist or agnostic.
Secular means there is a separation of church and state. It means there is a division between religion and the state.

Countries thus can be secular and irreligious, but also be countries that are secular yet religious.


Also, the Baltic countries are one of the least - if not, least - religious countries in the world. It certainly would be strange to consider religion popular in these countries.

Oh ok. But still, you don't suppress someone's religion like that.

.... for real? *sigh*

The only thing I can say, is: take a look at the situation in the Middle East. How free are christians, agnostics, and atheists to believe there, you think? They aren't allowed to bring bibles there, or they get death penalty. There is stoning if you convert to any other religion than Islam, and death penalty as well if you become atheist. Meanwhile in the West, you don't get such punishments. You don't get stoned if you become a christian, buddhist, muslim, or such. You are allowed to bring a Quran, Torah, Bible, avesta, or whatever you want with you, and to read it. I like that liberty that all christians, atheists, muslims, jews, bahai's, hindus, buddhists, sikhs or such have there. And I do not want that liberty to be changed.
Bit easy to say we in the west are oppressing Muslims, then.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Oh ok. But still, you don't suppress someone's religion like that.

.... for real? *sigh*

The only thing I can say, is: take a look at the situation in the Middle East. How free are christians, agnostics, and atheists to believe there, you think? They aren't allowed to bring bibles there, or they get death penalty. There is stoning if you convert to any other religion than Islam, and death penalty as well if you become atheist. Bit easy to say we in the west are oppressing Muslims, then.

I said suppress, not oppress. Besides, the West may not discriminate against us, but they aren't doing too much about the prejudice people has against us.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Also, the Middle East countries aren't practicing Al-Islam right anyways.

[DBJ]

It's more than just a clothing. It's a tool designed to oppress women and remove them from the public sphere. It should be banned everywhere.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

It's more than just a clothing. It's a tool designed to oppression women and remove them from the public sphere. It should be banned everywhere.

Of course it's more than just clothing, but not the way you said it. It's furthering their faith/worship of Allah (SWT).

[Herargon]

.... for real? *sigh*

The only thing I can say, is: take a look at the situation in the Middle East. How free are christians, agnostics, and atheists to believe there, you think? They aren't allowed to bring bibles there, or they get death penalty. There is stoning if you convert to any other religion than Islam, and death penalty as well if you become atheist. Bit easy to say we in the west are oppressing Muslims, then.

I said suppress, not oppress. Besides, the West may not discriminate against us, but they aren't doing too much about the prejudice people has against us.

Suppressing means to forcibly stop or to put an end to something, or to prevent the dissemination of information.
Oppressing means to cause distress and anxiety, but also means to keep someone in subjection and hardship, especially by the unjust exercise of authority.

It's basically the same. Though you're right, that there are some differences, but still...

Also, the Middle East countries aren't practicing Al-Islam right anyways.

There's no such thing as a ''right'' Islam, nor a ''right'' Christianity or ''right'' atheism. It is not a black and white world we live in; moreso, a nuanced world.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I said suppress, not oppress. Besides, the West may not discriminate against us, but they aren't doing too much about the prejudice people has against us.

Suppressing means to forcibly stop or to put an end to something, or to prevent the dissemination of information.
Oppressing means to cause distress and anxiety, but also means to keep someone in subjection and hardship, especially by the unjust exercise of authority.

It's basically the same. Though you're right, that there are some differences, but still...

Also, the Middle East countries aren't practicing Al-Islam right anyways.

There's no such thing as a ''right'' Islam, nor a ''right'' Christianity or ''right'' atheism. It is not a black and white world we live in; moreso, a nuanced world.

Actually, you must do your best to follow the laws of the religion you follow. There's certain laws in Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc. Almost like national laws with a religious twist.

[New Larthinia]

I like how all these people are like "Oh, dude, those pesky Europeans are oppressing the Muslim minorities!". Meanwhile, in the Middle East, if you are literally walking with the Bible on the street, you can get stoned to death. I am pretty sure nobody who was walking with the Quran on the street in Europe was stoned.