That little “Satan Sucks” makes that monster truck art.

We were talking about this bill over the weekend with some friends.

Anyone from Michigan knows that the epicenter of conservative wankery emanates from Grand Rapids, Michigan, where the De Vosses live. The Dutch Reform church is a huge political force in the state. And yet, on the way over, we heard this story about Holland, MI (sort of concentrated GR) attempting to pass an anti-discrimination bill to protect LGBT people from getting fired. The article danced around it a bit, not particularly indicating what church the pastor belonged to (I’m guessing a more mainline protestant church), but for the most part, the issue was financial: people in Holland were afraid they would lose business if it got out that they hated the queers to much, and all of that queer-loving money would go up to Saugatuck.

Here’s the language of the bill because it’s important:

THIS SECTION DOES NOT ABRIDGE THE RIGHTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OR UNDER ARTICLE I OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION OF 1963 OF A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE, SCHOOL VOLUNTEER, PUPIL, OR A PUPIL’S 1 PARENT OR GUARDIAN. THIS SECTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT A STATEMENT OF A SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF OR MORAL CONVICTION OF A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE, SCHOOL VOLUNTEER, PUPIL, OR A PUPIL’S PARENT OR GUARDIAN.

So it’s not just kids that are given carte blanche to be little dicks. It’s school employees, volunteers, or even parents and guardians who are allowed to bully their kid because a sincerely held religious belief told them to do it.

The thing is, I’m pretty sure the First Amendment doesn’t cover harassment. We have anti-harassment laws and as far as I know none of them have been overturned because the harasser has a constitutionally-protected right to keep calling you, or keep showing up at your place of work. In fact, anti-harassment laws seem to have a pretty hair trigger on them: If you tell someone to cease and desist calling you and they call you two more times, they can be prosecuted for harassment. I don’t really see how bullying is any different than harassment, whether or not there is a “sincerely held belief” behind it. The guy who harassed me in college had a sincerely held belief that I was a frigid bitch who needed to give him a second chance to prove how wonderful he was.

And frankly, when I talked to the police and they told me “what’s what” about harassment and I warned him, that sincerely held belief evaporated in a heartbeat. Something tells me the Jesus Hate Train would derail pretty quickly if the little shits bullying kids in schools were held criminally liable for it.

This sounds completely revolting, but I bet they’re doing it so that someone expressing a religious objection to being gay isn’t accused of bullying. If, say, a Muslim or Christian student says “my religion says being gay is wrong,” is that *bullying*? Some schools think it is. But it’s not much different from an atheist saying “I think Christian beliefs are total bullshit and lead to all kinds of evil” is a form of bullying. There’s a difference between bullying and simply not agreeing. At least I think so. It really depends if you think you can disapprove of someone’s religious beliefs or lifestyle in a non-harassing way.

If they want an exception for Christians to actually harass gay kids, then yes, that’s the worst thing I’ve heard in a long time.

The Christian right has long been opposed to anti-bullying measures for this reason, Ashley. Since the distinction you raise has been one they’ve been exposed to, I think we have to accept that they support bullying gay kids. I mean, bullies come from somewhere. When I was in high school, I recall adults being surprisingly supportive of it, by both ignoring it when it went on and favoring the kids who were bullies.

The First Amendment as it stands doesn’t defend person-to-person talk at all.  It’s person-to-power protection if offers.  That’s why harassment is a crime because you can’t as a person merely berate and belittle somebody without a justifiable reason and even then there are lines to be drawn.  But this sounds so much like a the majority playing the victim that “Christianity is being attacked!!!!!111eleventyseven!!” and they froth at the mouth that it’s pathetic. 

I don’t think anybody would get too upset if somebody said once “I don’t think being gay is right because I’m a conservative christian” but it’s the vitrol and continuous attacks.  Open dialog isn’t what children are about or what there people want to think about.  They need an enemy and since civil rights are effectively in place to protect blacks to a moderate extent their new target is homosexuality, it’s all an extension of white supremacy as the norm.  They’re not the KKK but they want their perception of monoculture to be the only one out there.

If they want an exception for Christians to actually harass gay kids, then yes, that’s the worst thing I’ve heard in a long time.

The thing is, it’s possible (and I know we are long past the point where we should be extending Republicans the benefit of the doubt) that the intent of this addendum is to prevent frivolous accusations of bullying, such as your example (Hey, that kid said non-believers will go to hell! I’m being bullied!).  But even if that’s the case, the language is so open-ended that it leaves the door open to genuine bullying. (Hey faggot! Leviticus says we should stone your ass! Want me to throw a fucking rock at your head?)

Legislator intent doesn’t count for much when they end up writing blank checks into their legislation.

I’m happy to see my vote for Whitmer back when I lived in Lansing payed off.

@2: I have relatives in the Holland area - that Dutch Reformed Church is seriously fucked up. Kind of amazing how a place like Saugatuck can exist so close to there.

The American Wingnut, like authoritarian-worshiping conservative assholes down through the ages, loves a defined sense of “order”, craves a clear hierarchy, and demands that everything be in its “proper” place.

Bullying is just another weapon in the social-hierarchy’s toolkit, a necessity to keep things in order.  And the Republican Party is all about order.

Fatherless uppity white-trash kid goes to college, makes something of himself, becomes governor of a shithole Southern state, and then gets elected to POTUS?  Go after him with all guns blazing.  Never let up, never pause even for a moment, keep the pressure on until something, anything, is found that can be used to de-legitimize him.  Find the thinnest justification and impeach him, just to demonstrate the Natural Order of Things, which always sees Republicans higher-ranked than Democrats, and which, since the election of Richard Nixon, demands that the Office of the Presidency can only legitimately belong to a Republican — all others being usurpers who must be neutralized at any cost. 

Their demonization of Carter was the alpha-version of what they hauled out on Clinton, who by then got the beta-version.  They got the SCOTUS to give them their guy in 2000, and then the knives were out in 2008 because the Uppity Negro got the Democratic nom, and they haven’t let up on him since.

So of course, it’s only natural that when little Timmy seems a little less assholish than his male schoolmates, maybe a little considerate of others, doesn’t hate girls for being girls, it’s proof he’s queer and must be dealt with to restore the Balance of Nature.  When Margaret thinks she has a right to run for Class President, the Hounds of War must be unleased on her uppity-slutty-bitch ass.  When Robert tells people he’s an atheist, he must be persecuted until he’s forced out because he’s an affront to the existing order, which demands fealty to the Invisible Sky Dude™ or else.

Just as corporal punishment of children by their parents should stay legal, in their eyes, so should bullying.

It’s all a sickeningly consistent world view…

I noticed the “sincere belief” thing.  You know it will be assumed that people who grew up in Fundamentalist Christian families are sincere, because that’s a real religion, but a kid who decides to leave that behind and become a Wiccan or atheist or Zoroastrian or whatever isn’t “sincere,” just going through a phase.  Because you know people don’t really believe in those things, they’re just looking for attention like spoiled whiny brats.

It basically means that I can probably bully you along established bullying lines without question, so long as I quote the right verses from the Bible, but “reverse” bullying would always be challenged.

If there is any doubt about the intentions of Christianists, read the definition of bullying in the statute.  Anyone who made a measured statement about his belief that homosexual activity is morally inconsistent with his religious views has zero chance of meeting the statutory definition of bullying:

(B) “BULLYING” MEANS ANY WRITTEN, VERBAL, OR PHYSICAL ACT, OR
21 ANY ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION, BY A PUPIL DIRECTED AT 1 OR MORE
22 OTHER PUPILS THAT IS INTENDED OR THAT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD
23 KNOW IS LIKELY TO HARM 1 OR MORE PUPILS EITHER DIRECTLY OR
24 INDIRECTLY BY DOING ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
25   (i) SUBSTANTIALLY INTERFERING WITH EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES, 
26 BENEFITS, OR PROGRAMS OF 1 OR MORE PUPILS.
27   (ii) SUBSTANTIALLY AND ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ABILITY OF A 7
S00412’11 (S-4)        Final Page TAV
1 PUPIL TO PARTICIPATE IN OR BENEFIT FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S OR
2 PUBLIC SCHOOL’S EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES BY PLACING THE
3 PUPIL IN REASONABLE FEAR OF PHYSICAL HARM.
4   (iii) HAVING AN ACTUAL AND SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON A
5 PUPIL’S PHYSICAL OR MENTAL HEALTH OR CAUSING SUBSTANTIAL EMOTIONAL
6 DISTRESS.
7   (iv) CAUSING SUBSTANTIAL DISRUPTION IN, OR SUBSTANTIAL
8 INTERFERENCE WITH, THE ORDERLY OPERATION OF THE SCHOOL.

This sounds completely revolting, but I bet they’re doing it so that someone expressing a religious objection to being gay isn’t accused of bullying. If, say, a Muslim or Christian student says “my religion says being gay is wrong,” is that *bullying*? Some schools think it is. But it’s not much different from an atheist saying “I think Christian beliefs are total bullshit and lead to all kinds of evil” is a form of bullying.

Except that holding Christian beliefs is a behavior choice, and sexual orientation (or race, or gender) is WHO a person IS.

And I agree that some parents encourage and take pride in their kids’ bullying. Sometimes the administrators and teachers even play along or look the other way. I went to high school in Texas, too, and the administration did absolutely nothing about the rampant bullying that went on. (This was in The Woodlands, an upper-class, conservative suburb of Houston.) In fact, it seemed like the teachers and principals even buddied up to the bullies and practically treated the football players and cheerleaders as friends of theirs, always took their side, and ignored everyone else. They played favorites like I’ve never seen before. This clique of kids was evil to a lot of people, but nothing was ever done about it.

“Except that holding Christian beliefs is a behavior choice, and sexual orientation (or race, or gender) is WHO a person IS.”

I can tell you that for kids who are living with and financially dependent on conservative Christian parents, it’s not really a choice.

The Christian right has long been opposed to anti-bullying measures for this reason, Ashley. Since the distinction you raise has been one they’ve been exposed to, I think we have to accept that they support bullying gay kids. I mean, bullies come from somewhere. When I was in high school, I recall adults being surprisingly supportive of it, by both ignoring it when it went on and favoring the kids who were bullies.

Where the rubber meets the road at one school in Michigan was Day of Silence, which the district allowed students to participate in (they’re supposed to not say anything all day in solidarity with gays and lesbians), but didn’t allow kids to where t-shirts with the name and number of the bible verse that bans gayness and shellfish. The district’s explanation is that its policies don’t allow free speech by students in the case of an attack on others, like Leviticus shirts, but that participating in Day of Silence isn’t an attack on anyone.

The local fundies were unable or unwilling to grasp that distinction.

Yeah, this objection that the religious right is putting forward is BS.  Kids can handle “My religion says I can’t do____.”  I never felt bullied by my mormon friends saying “I can’t drink Coke, it’s against my religion.”  They want the right to push their religion on people, which is what “religious freedom” means to them.

Mighty,

I thought all the gay money already went to Saugatuck.

Don’t forget the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, which manufactures a lot of our state’s Chamber of Commerce/libertarian wingnuttery.  Although I give them credit for being willing to criticize Gov. Engler when no one else on the right was willing to.

Bullying is just another weapon in the social-hierarchy’s toolkit, a necessity to keep things in order.  And the Republican Party is all about order.

It’s not “just another” weapon, it’s the pre-eminent weapon. It’s where it all begins. Well, that and beating your children…

I think Reformed Neanderthal’s point at #10 is a big deal.  School boards, state and local governments, lawyers, and others have thought a lot about what bullying means, and they’ve tried to develop some pretty precise language to describe it.  This law wasn’t some pie-in-the-sky statement hoping to make all the kids hold hands and be nice to each other so that no one’s feelings ever got hurt, as it will likely be portrayed on Fox, etc.  It was a now-standard attempt to prevent kids from so thoroughly demeaning or threatening other kids that they can’t learn and grow in school.  Amanda’s interpretation is dead-on: the Republicans wanted an exception that allowed bullying by kids calling themselves Christian.

Thinking more about the statute, the definition of bullying not only requires that the conduct must be objectively bad—i.e., reasonable people would agree—but it must also cause substantial harm to someone.  So this statute doesn’t even protect bullying directed at someone who can take it, so to speak.  It only protects people who are actually harmed by objectively bad conduct.  That is so far away from “they won’t let me be Christian.”

Sour Kraut—it does! And I think Holland wants in on it.

@19: OK, it goes against the teachings of Jesus, but it’s right in line with Jeezus.

Oh, and remember that Mississippi school where they had a secret prom and didn’t invite the disabled kids or the gay kids? That’s another example of adult support for bullying.

It’s a serious post and all, but I just want to take a break and say I love the story of Band Jesus.  He was a zombie before it was cool.

So, if it my sincerely held belief as an atheist that Fundamentalist Christians are idiots and should be regularly beaten, that’s OK for me to that in Michigan?  Cool…

#24 James:

No, because no one could sincerely believe that, as we all know that Fundamentalist Christians are God’s Chosen People and secretly agree with everything they believe. (We just don’t like to say so out loud because we hate Jesus.)

Or, if that argument failed: no, because atheists don’t believe in God and therefore don’t have any sincerely held beliefs.

Or if that argument failed: no, because calling people idiots and beating them is hurtful and wrong behavior.

Etc.

I noticed the “sincere belief” thing.  You know it will be assumed that people who grew up in Fundamentalist Christian families are sincere, because that’s a real religion, but a kid who decides to leave that behind and become a Wiccan or atheist or Zoroastrian or whatever isn’t “sincere,” just going through a phase.  Because you know people don’t really believe in those things, they’re just looking for attention like spoiled whiny brats.>>

That means anyone who believes in the Great Pumpkin shouldn’t be bullied, since Linus said he visited the most sincere pumpkin patch.

“Oh, and remember that Mississippi school where they had a secret prom and didn’t invite the disabled kids or the gay kids? That’s another example of adult support for bullying.”

That whole situation was absolutely despicable.

maybe, but despicable =/= rare.

“Sincere belief” is language straight out of fundamentalist Christian circles, where being “sincere” about a belief is counted as way more important than what that belief actually is.

Also, if that truck isn’t a real thing, I’m going to cry.

witless chum @ 14
I’m going to guess that the Leviticus shirts are attacking gays, but when I first read your post, I thought they were poking fun at those who bleat about the bible saying homosexuality is an abomination, while ignoring the bible’s condemnation of shellfish consumption.  Now I see they’re different verse numbers.  If a school allowed Leviticus 18:22 shirts, I would so be wearing a Leviticus 11:11 shirt.

@19: OK, it goes against the teachings of Jesus, but it’s right in line with Jeezus.

Buddy Christ would also disapprove.

Or, if that argument failed: no, because atheists don’t believe in God and therefore don’t have any sincerely held beliefs.

I’m terribly sorry, but “There is no God” is a sincerely held belief.

From which it follows “God Botherers are fucking imbeciles”, “You’re all a bunch of deluded assholes” and “You should fuck off and leave sane people alone” are sincerely held beliefs.  And you wouldn’t be counted as bullying if you expressed them.

Personally, it might be wise for atheists/agnostics to stock up with the Biblical inconsistency lists and arguments against the Great Sky Fairy and be prepared to shotgun them out as “sincerely held religious beliefs” under such an Act.  Fuck it - make the Christianists cry and then use that same Act against them to explain why they can’t stop you.

For some reason, pareidolia produced for me the word “yarmulke” in the last paragraph of the post. Which seems to be something else you can legally bully someone for in Michigan, though I suspect it comes up less often.

“I think Reformed Neanderthal’s point at #10 is a big deal.  School boards, state and local governments, lawyers, and others have thought a lot about what bullying means, and they’ve tried to develop some pretty precise language to describe it.  This law wasn’t some pie-in-the-sky statement hoping to make all the kids hold hands and be nice to each other so that no one’s feelings ever got hurt, as it will likely be portrayed on Fox, etc.  It was a now-standard attempt to prevent kids from so thoroughly demeaning or threatening other kids that they can’t learn and grow in school.”

Exactly.  This statute absolutely does not prohibit a kid from saying, in the classroom (in the context of a relevant discussion) or the lunchroom: “I think that homosexuality is wrong and contrary to the laws of God.”  It just doesn’t.  The exemption is aimed at a strawman, that mythical kid who whines that because people don’t agree with him, he’s a victim.  To my knowledge, that is not a problem.  Kids/parents are not suing schools because other students express different religious beliefs. 

The exemption, however, gives cover to anyone who stops short of physical threats or violence from harassing someone because of their religious beliefs.  For no good reason, other than that conservatives think it’s important that kids be able to harass others who have different beliefs.

The reference to the first amendment also brings in the usual authoritarian insistence that mere words can never constitute bullying (unless of course they’re words critical of the Established Order).

reformed neanderthal: Looking at the text again, I think that your interpretation that bullying has to cause real harm is mistaken, because of the “reasonable person” and likely to cause” language without a requirement to identify particular harmed students. I certainly hope it is, because my recollections of even mild bullying are replete with “that wasn’t really a big deal” and “you shouldn’t let that bother you” and “that didn’t really hurt, you’re just a whiner” and all the other tactics for denying harm and putting the blame for being injured on the frailness of the victim.

I’m terribly sorry, but “There is no God” is a sincerely held belief.

“Nobody really doesn’t believe in God; they all know the Truth and are just faking” is also a sincerely held belief.

And this is all tangential to the original [satirical] point, which is that having a “sincerely held belief,” in practice, would likely only apply to Christians who were antagonizing other people. I would be extremely surprised if anyone extended the same consideration to atheists, particularly if regular beatings were involved, as proposed by the comment I was responding to.* My point was simply that in a reverse situation where gay/atheist/Muslim/etc. kids were bullying Christian kids, the wording of the law would be twisted until it could only be applied in one direction, whatever the actual phrasing or intention. Your idea of shotgunning believers with inconsistencies &c. might work in a world where belief in a particular flavor of Sky Fairy didn’t confer privileged status, but if we lived in such a world, the sincere-belief exception would never have been added to the law in the first place.

*(which I’m pretty sure James wasn’t sincerely endorsing the beating of schoolchildren, either, as far as that goes)

And this is all tangential to the original [satirical] point, which is that having a “sincerely held belief,” in practice, would likely only apply to Christians who were antagonizing other people. I would be extremely surprised if anyone extended the same consideration to atheists,

That’s the beauty of a law - it’s a sword that can cut two ways, even when its writers didn’t intend that result.

I wonder how many Michiganders would leap to the exemption’s defense if a group of Muslim students attacked a Jewish classmate because they sincerely believed that ‘Zionism is evil.’  I can already hear my wingnut officemates insisting THAT’S TOTALLY DIFFERENT WE’RE AT WAR WITH ISLAM 9/11 9/11 SHARIAH LAW…

but if we lived in such a world, the sincere-belief exception would never have been added to the law in the first place.

The people who write any law are not the same as the people who have to enforce it, or teh judiciary who have to rule on its application.

Well, I suppose it also makes it okay to bully Christians if one has a sincerely held religious belief that they suck. Someone should make a funny video.

@Paul.  A stronger form of the statute would have stopped before stating “by doing any of the following.”  That would have punished any conduct that was either intended to harm (sometimes hard to prove) or conduct that a reasonable person would deem likely to cause harm (an objective standard).  Stopping before that clause would have punished bullying without regard to the effect.  But the statute goes on to say that that very same conduct most also cause a substantial effect in one of the enumerated categories.  So the legislature is saying that there also has to be proof of substantial harm in conjunction with proof of reasonably bad or intentional conduct.

THAT’S TOTALLY DIFFERENT WE’RE AT WAR WITH ISLAM 9/11 9/11 SHARIAH LAW…

Well, it is different. That you want your football team to win doesn’t mean you want every football team to win.

And let’s be clear here - I think it’s a rancid piece of shit clause.  I just think it’s a rancid piece of shit with the potential to backfire on the people proposing it.

I don’t think it was ever intended to pass.  I think it’s a sop being thrown to rile up the “The Government is persecuting Christians!” wingnut delusionists.  I can well imagine some mendacious apologist for Republican stupidity coming up with a slimy argument about “denying religious freedom” if the clause is removed - and by “mendacious slimy apologist”, I mean Dana.

” A stronger form of the statute would have stopped before stating “by doing any of the following.””

All of this is to say that the statute is very intentionally designed to only punish objectively bad conduct that actually harms kids - which makes the protests by Christianists so without merit that they must be actually seeking sanction to bully/proselytize the shit out of “other” kids.

#40—I’m not sure you’re reading the statute correctly.  It punishes conduct “THAT IS INTENDED OR THAT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD KNOW IS LIKELY TO HARM 1 OR MORE PUPILS EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY BY DOING ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:” and then it goes on to list the four kinds of intended or likely harm recognized by the statute.  So it actually does what you think it should do.  It doesn’t say it has to cause one of those harms, but that it has to be intended to or a reasonable person must know that it is likely to cause that harm.

@reformed neanderthal:  I see your interpretation, but I think that the parenthesis may go in a different place from where you’re reading them. I see the text from 25 forward as being ways that a reasonable person would know the communication was likely to do harm, rather than harm that had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Then again, the lawyers will be arguing it into insensibility regardless.

That could be.  Either way something’s got to be “substantial,” which shows how silly this move to amend the statute is.

I don’t think it was ever intended to pass.

If you get the language in the bill, one of two things happens: (1) it sinks the bill’s chances of passing, or (2) it guarantees the bill will be thrown out by the high court.

Though I’m not going to jump to the conclusion that the Republican Fundamentalists are thinking that far ahead.

Amanda, you forget that Missouri republicans have celebrated kick a puppy day:

http://www.fox2now.com/news/ktvi-prop-b-overturned-jaco-041411,0,6887091.story

You haven’t even got to the best part yet.  I’d bet that the Republicans will either force the Democrats into a situation where they either have to defeat the bill, or let it pass with the egregious exception.  If it passes, the Republicans get what they want, and it’s done.  If it doesn’t, they get fodder for election campaigns showing how their Democrat opponents defeated a bill aimed at stopping bullying.  They can’t lose unless they actually compromise with the Democrats, and what’s the chance of that?

Comment #37: Sour Kraut on 11/10 at 04:05 PM

I wonder how many Michiganders would leap to the exemption’s defense if a group of Muslim students attacked a Jewish classmate because they sincerely believed that ‘Zionism is evil.’  I can already hear my wingnut officemates insisting THAT’S TOTALLY DIFFERENT WE’RE AT WAR WITH ISLAM 9/11 9/11 SHARIAH LAW…

It’s a standard talking point among the right wing these days that Islam is not a religion at all.  Thus it follows that Islam has no First Amendment protections—much less this anti-bullying law’s religious exemption.

It’s a standard talking point among the right wing these days that Islam is not a religion at all. 

OFFS - can you elucidate on the “logic” involved in THAT monumental stupidity?

Ugh, sacundim do you really have to defend Islam? You do know those people are huge right wingers, right? I dont give a hoot if zealots hate zealots. Islam is the worlds second biggest religion-trust me, they can handle it. I dont really want the two worlds biggest AND worst religions being friends and screwing liberals over right and left together. Also the sharia law thing isnt too far from the truth. In Britain the Muslim fundamentalists have made it so that sharia law has the same enforceability as secular British law. What’s surprising is neither the Left, Right nor the majority of British appreciate it but yet it is still there. In Belgium they are considering opening their sharia law courts to include criminal cases. What CAIR did with sharia law recently in Oklahoma was applauded by many fundamentalist Christian/Muslim organizations while being hated by many secular and liberal Muslims ones. I also dont appreciate your zionism example since many Jews are being harassed by Muslims in Europe. Muslims are a huge component as to the rising anti-semitism there. We all know Christian fundamentalists dont like Islam because they are dueling for demographics. It has nothing to do with secularism, misogyny, homophobia, censorship, violence, ect, ect like it is with liberals. No need to sympathize with people who arent our allies. I only care if liberal Muslims are demonized. Say what you want about the Christians but at least they dont riot over cartoons. Worse and worser.

Paitor: Islam is a cult. It’s followers are brainwashed and therefor do not have the sincere, heartfelt belief that is the defining mark of a true person of faith. Other cults include Wicca (fad cult), Catholicism (satanic cult), Hinduism (cult of Kali, anyone?), Mormonism (compounds and multiple wives!) Ba’hai (never heard of it, must be some new cult) Judaism ( Kabalah = fad cult.  Kabalah/ celebrity trendsetting =Judaism. fad cult/ celebrity trendsetting = cult. Judaism = cult) Transitive cult properties of celebrity fad can also be applied to Buddhism and a number of non-denominational spiritual beliefs.

From what I gather when it comes to the Shariah Law thing, in the US and Britain, it concerns civil law concerning civil disputes by people who entered agreements by those terms, Bean Slap.

Ugh, sacundim do you really have to defend Islam? You do know those people are huge right wingers, right?

The enemy of my enemy is my [temporary] friend.  And you would do well to remember that there are a lot of different Muslim sects out there, and not all of them are raving extremists like the Taliban.  If you ever bothered to look, you can even find some taking up the mantle of gay rights.

In Britain the Muslim fundamentalists have made it so that sharia law has the same enforceability as secular British law.

<u>No, they haven’t.</u>  Sharia law has the same status in Britain as Jewish Beth Din courts.  Criminal matters are well outside their reach, and civil matters can be settled in them only if all the participants agree, otherwise British civil law reigns supreme.  There are even canon law courts for Catholics who don’t trust the secular courts system.  You can, and probably should, argue that many people (especially women) are often pressured into using these religious courts despite the fact they are severely disadvantaged in them, but they’re still willing participants.

As much as I hate the cries of Islamophobia everytime someone criticises the religion, I also despise those who pretend that they’re just criticising Islam by painting all Muslims as extremists and terrorists.

Comment #52: Bean Slap on 11/11 at 12:05 AM

Ugh, sacundim do you really have to defend Islam?

Did I?  Where?  All I did was say that a bunch of right wing folks claim that it’s not a religion, and that therefore, laws that restrict it do not violate freedom of religion.

Comment #51: Phoenician in a time of Romans on 11/10 at 10:03 PM

OFFS - can you elucidate on the “logic” involved in THAT monumental stupidity?

There’s plenty of material out there that expounds it.  Here is Pat Robertson saying Islam is not a religion:

Ladies and gentlemen, we have to recognize that Islam is not a religion. It is a worldwide political movement meant on domination of the world. And it is meant to subjugate all people under Islamic law.

That one doesn’t go into the First Amendment implications of the claim, but here is Herman Cain arguing that mosque bans are constitutional because Islam is not really a religion:

“Let’s go back to the fundamental issue,” Cain said. “Islam is both a religion and a set of laws — Sharia laws. That’s the difference between any one of our traditional religions where it’s just about religious purposes.”

“So, you’re saying that any community, if they want to ban a mosque…” Wallace began.

“Yes, they have the right to do that,” Cain said. “That’s not discriminating based upon their particular religion. There is an aspect of them building that mosque that doesn’t get talked about. And the people in the community know what it is and they’re talking about it.”

How about Lieutenant Governor of Tennessee saying that it’s arguable whether Islam is a religion, and thus whether First Amendment protections of religion apply to it:

“Now, you could even argue whether being a Muslim is actually a religion, or is it a nationality, way of life, cult whatever you want to call it,” Ramsey said. “Now certainly we do protect our religions, but at the same time this is something we are going to have to face.”  [...] “My concern is that far too much of Islam has come to resemble a violent political philosophy more than peace-loving religion,” he said in an email. “It’s time for American Muslims who love this country to publicly renounce violent jihadism and to drum those who seek to do America harm out of their faith community.”

So yeah, the talking point is that Islam is (or “may be”) a “legal system,” or a “political philosophy,” or a “nationality,” or whatever but a religion—and that because of this, the First Amendment need not apply.

More random links:

http://catchkevin.com/islam-not-protected/
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/27211
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/islam-and-the-definition-of-religion.html
http://www.amazon.com/Allah-Dead-Why-Islam-Religion/dp/0578073900
http://www.neontommy.com/news/2011/11/islam-not-religion-gop-candidate-says-email

The irony of their ‘it isn’t a religion’ is that the First Amendment also protects political parties as well.

As a devotee of Y’golonac, it is my religious duty to expose as many beings as possible to Volume 12 of the Revelations of Glaaki, so that they may become a gate through which the Defiler may enter.

I’ll expect the state to protect my deeply held beliefs.

apes!

apes!

Sorry, but “sincerely held beliefs” isn’t secret fundamentalist code, it’s a legal term of art.  Courts have recognized vegetarianism (as well as Islam, Hinduism, Wicca, etc.) as a “sincerely held belief” worthy of legal protection.  (Good luck with Y’golonak, though - courts tend to require convincing evidence of your sincerity.)

The enemy of your enemy is only your “friend” while you think it has a decent chance of defeating your other enemy. If/when that happens, you’ll have to turn on your “friend.” I don’t think it’s a given that Christianity would be weakened if had no major competitors.

Besides, how would Christianity “win” over Islam? By turning Muslims into Christians? Fantastic.

@Comment #62: Chet on 11/11 at 12:58 PM

  Sharia law has the same status in Britain as Jewish Beth Din courts.

Which is not a defense! It’s equally abominable to recognize Jewish law as sharia law. The law simply shouldn’t be in the business of providing the religious with “alternative” courts.

Chet, if you are truly shocked when civil law is altered to fit with local religious beliefs, then you should stay away from the USA, the UK, or really anywhere in the Anglo-Saxon world. That world is a patchwork of local custom, tribalism and religion in an uneasy alliance with universalist principles of secularism. Consider US tax codes, for instance, with their exemptions for religious organizations.

Bottom Line:

It is not in the interest of secularism to become embroiled in the internecine warfare between the global tribes of Muslims, Christians, and the Christians’ little buddies the Jews. Secularism is a universalist principle. The more it becomes identified with one tribe over another, the less appealing it will be on a global scale.

That bit about Jerusalemers running the gays out is some awesome shit, though.

#53 scrumpy,
Well if you’re an atheist they ARE cults. To all of the respective faiths you mentioned except for perhaps buddhism, judaism and hinduism the major fundamentalist religions all view each other as cults. Muslims view Christians as a cult, vice versa, and within these major religions the respective denominations all view each other as cults. I’ve heard evangelical Christians think Catholicism isnt REAL Christianity because they “worship” multiple Gods, ie the saints. But you do have to agree, even for religion and how obnoxious some of their beliefs are the Mormon idea that you get a whole planet with many wives in the afterlife is a bit weird. The Muslim heaven isnt that far from the Mormon one in which in the afterlife Muslims get two wives (women dont get two husbands). Women as rewards for spiritual loyalty, hmmm, pretty sick to me. Very sexually objectifying afterlife. I cant understand why a woman would want to belong to these religions, nonetheless the religions that make it spiritual practice to treat women like shit in their mortal lives as well.

#54 R.T.,
Well, first it concerns me that Muslims arent integrating or liberalizing in these parts of the world where sharia law is given the same status as secular legal law. I read that in Britain the Muslims population is now up from 30% to 40% who would prefer sharia law over secular law (and of course it wasn’t from any right-wing source). Apparently the fourth generation of Muslims in these parts are more fundamentalist than the first generation. Second, the way that civil disputes are carried out aren’t what we would applaud in the liberal spectrum. The sharia judges are all male and they base it off of an unfair system. An example of this is that a man can divorce his wife just by saying “I divorce you” while for a woman she has to go through an entire system of assessments based off of sexist protocols by her conservative male judges. This is especially disconcerting when discussing domestic abuse cases and child custody. There are reasons we have a secular system and this is because we are able to use the best sociological science to be able to handle these cases as well as using a system of modern assessment based on modern values (homosexual rights, secular reasoning, womens rights, humane treatment) in regards to the ultimate conclusion regarding a case. There is no looking to the Bible or Quaran like some Medieval era to reach a logical and just conclusion. Having sharia law courts inhibits women who live in conservative and repressive Muslim circles (think Michelle Duggar but with Muslims) to truly “choose” to use sharia law courts. Many women are coerced (according to many feminist/progressive Muslim organizations) and are not that secure in the world outside traditional and conservative Islam to know her rights. There is also no reason to have sharia law given the same status as secular law. They can still (much like the fundamentalist Baptists who use canon law) use their sharia law courts informally in their religion though they must have to abide by the same laws that apply to everyone and subscribe to modern values regarding women and homosexuality if they choose to use a enforcible judicial system. Many fundamentalist organizations like British Council of Muslims would like to expand the courts to include the more traditional punishments such as hand cutting, though they say this is when Britain becomes more “civilized.” Because of this it is obvious that putting religious courts at the same level as secular systems becomes a slippery slope in which fundamentalists can hijack it and turn it into the more ortthodox and common expressions of sharia law found around the world. I wouldn’t like it if it was canon law courts and I certaintly dont like it with sharia either.

Also R.T. theres no reason with civil disputes that they wouldnt be able to simply use the secular system to come to the same conclusions they would via their religion but without pushing theocracy into the legal system. In other words if they child is supposed to go to the father after 6 years of age then she would allow that to happen in the legal contract while her kids under 6 stay with her. Theres no reason to bring in an all-male legal system and medieval era religious quackery to do these things according to their religion. I also think secular humanity is above any religious dogma and would rather keep order, progressive values and a fair system that applies to ALL enforced rather than abandon liberal principles of secularism, feminism and homosexual rights just for some fundamentalist religious expression that has disasterous consequences. Anyways if they dont want to live in a country that is secular they can leave and go live in any number of countries which practice sharia law (and they can take the fundie Christians with them).

@Comment #68: Bean Slap on 11/11 at 02:09 PM

... But you do have to agree, even for religion and how obnoxious some of their beliefs are the Mormon idea that you get a whole planet with many wives in the afterlife is a bit weird. The Muslim heaven isnt that far from the Mormon one in which in the afterlife Muslims get two wives (women dont get two husbands). ...

Maybe. To me, Heaven and Hell are still the weirdest.

On one hand sin is punished in a torture chamber in which souls are made to suffer, forever, in order to provide a deterrent to Earthly sin that we already know doesn’t work. On the other hand, virtue is “rewarded” by being put in a boring choir of people who are singing, forever… a strange attempt to promote Earthly virtue that we already know doesn’t work.

Oh, and why does Satan have to be chained in Hell, while God apparently just feels like being serenaded, eternally, in Heaven? Soooo many friggin’ questions.

#71 atheist,
I dont understand how Islam and Christianity can really think they are that different from what they imagine Satanism to be. So, what is Satanism; homosexual tolerance, non-hypocrisy, womens rights, non-violence, love? If Satan is the opposite of God then isnt Satanism a good thing? Why is it everyone forgets that Muhammed had slaves/sex slaves, stoned women to death and had it off with a 9 year old after keeping her under house arrest for 3 years, or that Abraham and Sara were half-siblings who had a child together which was after Abraham abandoned his first son from his wifes Egyptian servant and left them to die in the woods and that God of the Bible recommended that women be stoned to death for not being virgins on their wedding day? What “love” do they find in these books and in these religious characters? They see what they want to see.

Why does anyone do more than point out Chet is a bigot and shouldn’t be paid attention to?

As a practice, there’s no difference in letting someone agree to their own religious law than letting them agree to contract stipulations.

@Comment #73: Bean Slap on 11/11 at 04:13 PM

#71 atheist,
I dont understand how Islam and Christianity can really think they are that different from what they imagine Satanism to be. So, what is Satanism; homosexual tolerance, non-hypocrisy, womens rights, non-violence, love? If Satan is the opposite of God then isnt Satanism a good thing? Why is it everyone forgets that Muhammed had slaves/sex slaves, stoned women to death and had it off with a 9 year old after keeping her under house arrest for 3 years, or that Abraham and Sara were half-siblings who had a child together which was after Abraham abandoned his first son from his wifes Egyptian servant and left them to die in the woods and that God of the Bible recommended that women be stoned to death for not being virgins on their wedding day? What “love” do they find in these books and in these religious characters?

One thing you do have to remember, when assessing the actions of people in the Bible, is that they existed in the Bronze age. To the extent that the Bible or Koran or Torah can be taken as in any way a historical, or at least sociological document, it is not surprising that folks in it don’t act as Americans do today.

It is easy for the present to disparage the past. It is less easy for the present to let go of itself long enough to understand the past. The important thing is that while the Bible or Koran have value as human documents about morality, they fail as descriptions of reality, or prescriptions for how to live.

Why is it no one points out Crissa is a conservative who abandons womens rights, secularism and homosexual rights to support religious conservatives. There is no evidence you can think of to call Chet a bigot but at least if you dont oppose sharia law we do have evidence you ARE a conservative and a hypocrite. Please dont call yourself a liberal. World net daily forum this is not.

#75 atheist,
Yes documents about human morailty but the Quaran and the Bible are anything but moral.

#63 junk science,
Well in the west anyways Christianity is going down and Christians are more liberalized than your average western Muslim. I think Christianity’s competitor isnt another religion, it’s secular humanity and reason. Who wants to choose between a rock and a hard place when theres a nice mattress off to the side?

#6 junk science,
Well quit candidly I would rather have them following (as a non-Christian) a man who didnt stone women to death, own slaves/sex slaves, have sex with 9 year olds after keeping them locked up for three years under house arrest, recommend beating wives to keep them obedient to their husbands, establish sexist fashion double standards based around seeing women/girls as nothing but sex objects, believe in an afterlife in which the men get two docile wives, or have his female family members wear burqas. I would rather they be Christians of the two religions because at least jesus wasnt an asshat, though I would want them to be a denomination that is more liberal like Episcopalians if they choose to be Christian or a nicer religion something without an archaic repressive religious figure, perhaps someone like Buddha or Durga.

@bean slap #53- It’s fascinating to see you pointing out how cult is an empty term that exists solely to delegitimize various religions much in the same way slut is used to delegitimize women while still using it yourself as a valid criticism against all religion.

#53 scrumby,
What? I said to AN ATHEIST all religions are cults. It’s a question why a person claiming to be liberal like you would defend religion which has caused so much horror and anti-liberalism in the world and features many anti-liberal religious characters (Muhammed, Abraham, God) within their respective religions. Anyways what is the difference between a religion and a cult? I’m only in disagreement with the hypothetical evangelical/muslim/whatever who thinks the “other” religion is a cult because it exposes their hypocrisy. You cant really point at others when your religion isnt that much different. I’m not necessarily in disagreement with the objective claim that many religions are cults or act similarly to them.

@ Bean Slap

Please use line breaks, I find it very tempting to skip poorly formatted text.

As to everything else, it’s irrelevant. The parties beholden to sharia law have to willingly enter an agreement under it’s terms. Complain all you want about people not integrating the way you want them to, but in a free country they have the right not to integrate.

So the people who think Islam isn’t a religion because it’s really a political system… what do they think of Catholicism having its very own country?

R.T.,
Again I dont care if they willingly agree to it or not there is no reason to fuse sharia law with secular legal systems. I dont know how long you’ve been a liberal/feminist but ‘willingly’ should be in quotation marks when you use it. These women often are kept away from understanding their secular rights. Also I dont care if they choose to enter into it or not it is still wrong and should not be encouraged even outside any secular legal system. Much like women in fundamentalist Baptist organizations who “choose” to abide by an unhealthy canon law system that is incredibly patriarchal and homophobic it isn’t right and liberals should intervene. It would be a travesty to make the Baptist canon law into an enforceable legal system that affects families and women’s lives. It would be great if you’d take the secular, liberal and feminist positions on this that is supported by progressive Muslims rather than the conservative fundamentalist Muslim perspective. Otherwise don’t call yourself a liberal; at best you’re just a moderate conservative. Don’t be upset when Christians vote their religion into office, want canon law courts, practice the quiverfull movement, act radical and un-integrated, push for radicalism within Christianity and expect people to take you seriously. You are simply confused, you arent anti-homophobia, anti-theocracy, anti-misogyny, anti-fundamentalist, you are simply an anti-Christian bigot. Your last sentence was a complete hypocritical front. So you think it’s okay to be homophobic, misogynistic, violent, radical, ect? Then why the hell are you even a liberal? Christian Right aren’t integrated but yet you kvetch about it all the time. So let me get this straight; it’s wrong when Christians are homophes and misogynists and anti-secular but when Muslims are its A-O.K. and dandy? Canon law is wrong but sharia law is okay (which BTW when it was applied in NJ a rape and domestic abuse survivor was not given justice which is behind all the bans going up in states and as a liberal I support it)? Yes, especially when deliberately immigrating to a country, especially an indigenous culture you have the obligation to integrate. This is simple logic. I can’t believe you would support such arrogancy and disrespect to cultures. Would you say the same to an American traveling to Europe, South America or Asia? Should we be able to all live under different laws? We have secular legal systems in place for order and because based off of secular reasoning this is what’s best. You are talking about domestic abuse and child custody here and the courts are inherently sexist, homophobic and base their conclusions off of a archaic holy book which could mean any interpretation they see fit.  That’s not a good mix. Please grow a brain

I dont get it catfood so two wrongs make a right? God this is so stupid. Liberals are starting to become as simpish as conservatives and nearly as unworldy. Like we all didnt know that?

Also Islam has many of its own countries as well. I mean, just look at Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or Iran. How about they both suck.

Oh and btw R.T. if they dont integrate and liberalize people have the right not to like them.

#56 sacundim,
What I’m saying is ‘who cares?’ Who cares if Christians say that? Muslims say that about Christians, Christians say that about Hindus, Hindus say that about Christians, Muslims say that about Jews, Christians say that about Buddhists, ect, ect. But since only two of the religions I wrote about above are real substantial problems for liberals it’s like if the Nazis fought the KKK. I don’t care. I don’t like either of them and I don’t care if the two bicker and tear at each other. That’s why I wondered why you care so much about petty things petty people say about petty people. Why do I care other than to point out that it’s hypocritical of Christians to say that about Muslims without looking at themselves first.

@ Bean Slap

I’m not a liberal, and I have more leftist reasons for thinking that it’s wrong for a government to define the cultures of the people of the society it exists to serve. (Oh don’t get me wrong I’ve got limits on what I consider permissible, but you aren’t worth the essays you obviously want me to write for you.)

It would be a travesty to make the Baptist canon law into an enforceable legal system

I tend to think many of the rules at various workplaces I have been at are pretty silly, but they’re in the contract. The government is at liberty to determine which contracts it is willing to enforce, but people have wide latitude to choose what contracts they want to participate in, and the option of mediating certain disputes under a set of pre-defined terms is one of the freedoms we have.

Plenty of churches have a separate divorce procedure over and above what the civil authorities require. One can simply choose to leave the church and not deal with it at all if you wish, but part of freedom of religion is choosing which set of structures you want to bound yourself by.

@Comment #85: Bean Slap on 11/12 at 12:12 AM

Also Islam has many of its own countries as well. I mean, just look at Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or Iran. How about they both suck.

This statement does not impress or convince. Why not learn something about the nations in question? Then, at least, you could insult them better.

http://www.juancole.com/

#80 Bean slap: Because saying all religions are cults is about as pointed and enlightening as saying all cheating wives are sluts. You’re trying to invalidate religion using the silly term religions use to invalidate each other thus buying into their world view.

@ Chet

Don’t confuse pointing out facts with support of the subject. (This goes for Bean Slap as well)

Why do they have that right?

They have that right because the government doesn’t (and shouldn’t) force its people to act and live a particular way, (within some limits, like not killing) and so people can choose to live their lives in a way that is different and doesn’t conform to what is considered to be the “normal” culture. Laws that do restrict people living their lives in certain ways, say laws that target LGBT people, are unjust and should be done away with.

To restrict culture and society to some ideal through government edict and punishment would be oppressive to all peoples of the subcultures within a nation and stagnate the natural growth of culture and society through human interaction.

And to target just one subculture would be sheer oppression.

Why do they have that right?

Have you ever heard the expression, “It’s a free country.” ?

@Comment #94: Chet on 11/12 at 01:24 PM

Why should we believe that private arbitration should work out any better for disadvantaged Muslim women than it has for the American consumer? You’re telling me you really don’t see any privilege or power disparity when a Muslim man and woman meet for arbitration in a system that believes she’s only worth 2/3rds of a man?

Its more important to be liberal than it is to be “respectful” - i.e. insensate to - Islam.

Chet, these are all good points, but I feel you’re missing the forest for the trees. The trees in this case represent the illiberal nature of private religious courts. But it takes place in a context of internecine war between the global tribes of “Islam” and “The West”. To the extent that secularism allows itself to become a weapon of “The West” to be used against “Islam”, secularism does long-term damage to itself.

Bean Slap, you should probably put a fucking sock in it about accusing other people of being conservatives until you get over your weird brand of authoritarianism that leads you to consistently be unable to tell the difference between whether or not something is a good idea for somebody to personally choose to engage in, and whether or not all the force and power of a national government should be employed to ban them from doing it.

I still remember your rant about how we’re all sekrit conservatives and Bad Feminists because a lot of us don’t believe that all the force and power of the French national government should be employed to legally forbid women from wearing face veils because face veils are impractical clothing, and that you called us hypocrites for “approving” of face veils when we “disapprove” of high heels, like anyone anywhere in the Western world has been trying to make wearing high heels illegal at the national level. (And, as someone who almost never wears high heels anymore because they are a pain in the ass and impractical and I hate them, if anyone tried to ban wearing high heels in public, I’d be the first person to start wearing six-inch spiky Lady Gaga stilettos all day every day.)

I mean… do you think that second-wave feminism worked to in any way liberate women because roving gangs of feminists continually ambushed suburban housewives and forcibly served them with divorce papers and took away their children? Do you think that would have been either a productive or a morally defensible tactic?

Because liberals don’t.

In Britain the Muslim fundamentalists have made it so that sharia law has the same enforceability as secular British law.

Ha ha ha.  Not even slightly.  And anyone who thinks so has not the slightest idea of how English law works.  For a start, there is no such thing as “British law”, there is English (and Welsh) law, and there is Scottish law, which is different in structure and content.

An example of this is that a man can divorce his wife just by saying “I divorce you” while for a woman she has to go through an entire system of assessments based off of sexist protocols by her conservative male judges. This is especially disconcerting when discussing domestic abuse cases and child custody.

And this is a perfect example of you not knowing what you are talking about.  Two people who have agreed to subject their relationship to a sharia court that has been put together by some other people might consider themselves divorced religiously, but they absolutely would not be considered divorced under the actual law of the land.  The religious “divorce” wouldn’t count for financial support or child custody either.

“Liberalism” is under zero threat from fundamentalist Islam and constant existential threat from fundamentalist Christianity.  This is for the obvious reason that fundie Christians riddle our power structure, while fundie Muslims are almost entirely excluded.

So why devote energy toward fundie Islam and away from fundie Christianity, if “liberalism” is your goal?  Well, one could have a nonrational animus and be spending a lot of energy on retroactively justifying it…

#97 atheist,
OMG thats a joke! So youre saying that we allow special allowances for Muslims that we dont any other religion just to not ruffle some fundamentalists feathers? Youre saying we allow theocracy so they dont “feel” Islam is not compatible with the West? Do you know how full of BS that is? Youre catering to the fundamentalists. Also, if they want theocracy, misogyny, homophobia, censorship, ect then they ARENT compatible with the west. Many other cultures including Muslim ones have laws restricting sharia law. This isnt just the West that believes in secularism and it’s what progressive Muslims want. Do you really think all of Islam is fundamentalists? It is just like Evangelical, Mormon or Baptist Christianity where most are conservative douches but there are a few progressive groups who dont use their religion to push regressive and oppressive ideologies. I mean where do you even get such a hostile view of the west anyways nonetheless to end up catering to some paranoid Teabagger-like Islamist warped view of the “evils” (homosexual tolerance, womens rights, secularism, free speech) of the West?Simple asinine-especially coming from an atheist. Youre trying to make fundamentalist Islamists feel at home, awwwww how stupidly cute.

Also atheist religious courts are illiberal, patriarchal and homophobic religious courts are even more illiberal and making these enforcable via secular law makes it even more illiberal. I mean are you under the impression that they are progressive courts with modern ideas about women, socity and homosexuals?

Also atheist religious courts are illiberal, patriarchal and homophobic religious courts are even more illiberal and making these enforcable via secular law makes it even more illiberal. I mean are you under the impression that they are progressive courts with modern ideas about women, society and homosexuals?

On the French veil law: There are some people who believe forcing women to cover their breasts is sexist and restrictive, and advocate for changing the law so that women can go shirtless anywhere men can. What they’re NOT doing is trying to FORCE women to bare their breasts in public if they’d rather leave their tops on. Substitute “face” for “breasts” and you should see why BANNING veils is as offensive as mandating them.

Oh, good, Bean Slap took over another thread. I guess I’ll have to come back in about five years when s/he grows up.

Except I don’t need to see your breasts to verify your identity. I do need to see your face for that. Do I need to verify your identity? That’s the position you need to be grappling with.

Fundamentally the question is whether one has the right to appear in public in a disguise. The French have apparently determined that, no, French people have no such right. If you believe that they do, then fine - what’s the compelling secular justification for allowing people to conceal their identity in the public sphere?

It’s not all that difficult a grapple. Kind of like wrestling my little sister, except this argument isn’t a danger to bite. I don’t think you need to verify my identity, Chet. I think I should be able to walk around wearing a gorilla mask, if I so choose, for no reason but because the FSM told me to.

I think it’s incumbent upon the people who want the government to force people to not conceal their identity in public to come up with a pretty good reason for that.

I’m not aware of any great difficulty caused anyone in the U.S. because some fairly small percentage of Muslim women chose (or even “chose”) to veil themselves to the extent they aren’t recognizable. The people around Dearborn (who include a lot of Arab Christians, I’m not clear if any of them rock the veil or not?) mostly wear headscarves, is my impression. If we start getting a bunch of veil-wearing bank robberies, maybe we can talk. But until then, their right to do as they please as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else should be assumed.

Kind of depends on where you live, doesn’t it?

Nope!  G’night.

maximus,
Yes, it does. In Europe fundamentalist Muslims activate for sharia law courts, blasphemy laws, segregated swimming areas, attempts at segregating schools, their “westboros” style fundamentalist groups (as opposed to the FOF ones) are growing, rising rates of anti-semitism, strongly oppose homosexuality and homosexual marriage and they got schools in certain parts of Europe to stop studying the Holocaust to coordinate itself with Holocaust denialism that is taught in Mosques (the group that pushed this was later found to have terrorist ties), among other things. In the U.S. Muslims were the largest voting bloc for Bush in his first election. Polls and studies indicate they are certaintly conservative and in many cases even more conservative than fundamentalist/average Christians, especially in Europe where Christians tend to be much more liberal. I mean, at least Michelle Duggar isnt in a burqa. They are one of the largest religions in the world, along with Christianity and also the most conservative and deserved to be called out on and opposed. Just look at what a small group of Muslim rioters did to Paris or the large riots over cartoons that spread around the world and put Europe and free speech in a vulnerable light. If these were Christians you’d be all over the place chastizing the behavior. Being small nationally doesnt exclude them from big influence. Christians and Muslims often align politically and work together to oppose liberal reforms at the U.N. and elsewhere. A few scrolls up and you can see the link showing the Christians and Muslims coming together to unite over political similarities. Quit being such a tokenist punditus, you betray liberal principles to pander to fundamentalists and you silence the progressives within Islam who are trying to moderate it.

junk science,
Please do go away for five years….or forever.

that’s typically a predicate to criminality and there’s no legitimate purpose for doing so.

Religious beliefs are a legitimate purpose for this and not a prelude to criminality.